3 ms·

Right, and that exposes the reality that the USPS is at best, a state run subsidization scheme for rural mail delivery. But if that's the case, why subsidize it

by bhupy 6y ago

Right, and that exposes the reality that the USPS is at best, a state run subsidization scheme for rural mail delivery. But if that's the case, why subsidize it indirectly through selectively inflated prices, which regressively hurt poor people in urban markets)? Sounds like if the problem is that rural mail is socially important, we ought to subsidize it directly.

ip26 6y ago
The USPS is entirely self-funded and they're still trying to kill it. Good luck getting appropriations for it.
- djur 6y ago
  Right. The problem with the USPS is that it's both been exposed to "market competition" and also has legal obligations that its competitors do not have. The cost of those legal obligations now far outstrips the value of their statutory monopolies.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Which legal obligations that it's competitors don't have? If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. I think it's more accurate to say that PAEA removed an artificial advantage that USPS had. OTOH, FedEx responded to MAP-21 and similar pension funding laws by getting rid of their pension fund which I suppose isn't something USPS can do as easily. On the third hand, UPS is still able to afford pensions for union employees.
    - Avshalom 6y ago
      USPS is required to serve every one every where. FedEx/UPS punt their shit to the USPS when it comes to rural america.
      - Rebelgecko 6y ago
        It's not particularly rural, but it's the opposite case where my parents live. UPS, FedEx, and various courier services will typically deliver right to their house. However USPS doesn't deliver mail to their address. They have to pick it up themselves from the nearest post office
    - Discombulator 6y ago
      > If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. It seems that most observers agree that this is not the case, so it is unclear how you came to the exact opposite understanding. E.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congress-not-amazon-messed-up-the-u-s-postal-service https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congre... mentions > The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make.
    - ip26 6y ago
      To be clear, the pre-funding obligation doesn't mean USPS must gradually fund the pension obligations for an employee as that employee works for them, as would be common in private enterprise. Instead the USPS is basically required to set aside the entire pension obligation, at the date of hire. No one else has to set aside millions of dollars the same day they hire someone.

by bhupy 6y ago

ip26 6y ago

The USPS is entirely self-funded and they're still trying to kill it. Good luck getting appropriations for it.

djur 6y ago
Right. The problem with the USPS is that it's both been exposed to "market competition" and also has legal obligations that its competitors do not have. The cost of those legal obligations now far outstrips the value of their statutory monopolies.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Which legal obligations that it's competitors don't have? If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. I think it's more accurate to say that PAEA removed an artificial advantage that USPS had. OTOH, FedEx responded to MAP-21 and similar pension funding laws by getting rid of their pension fund which I suppose isn't something USPS can do as easily. On the third hand, UPS is still able to afford pensions for union employees.
  - Avshalom 6y ago
    USPS is required to serve every one every where. FedEx/UPS punt their shit to the USPS when it comes to rural america.
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      It's not particularly rural, but it's the opposite case where my parents live. UPS, FedEx, and various courier services will typically deliver right to their house. However USPS doesn't deliver mail to their address. They have to pick it up themselves from the nearest post office
  - Discombulator 6y ago
    > If you're talking about the requirement to pre-fund their pension fund, my understanding is that UPS and FedEx (and all private corporations) were already required to do so. It seems that most observers agree that this is not the case, so it is unclear how you came to the exact opposite understanding. E.g. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congress-not-amazon-messed-up-the-u-s-postal-service https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-04-04/congre... mentions > The law requires the Postal Service, which receives no taxpayer subsidies, to prefund its retirees' health benefits up to the year 2056. This is a $5 billion per year cost; it is a requirement that no other entity, private or public, has to make.
  - ip26 6y ago
    To be clear, the pre-funding obligation doesn't mean USPS must gradually fund the pension obligations for an employee as that employee works for them, as would be common in private enterprise. Instead the USPS is basically required to set aside the entire pension obligation, at the date of hire. No one else has to set aside millions of dollars the same day they hire someone.