3 ms·

Some data to consider while thinking about privatizing the post office, population densities: US - 87/sq mi Germany - 603/sq mi UK

Some data to consider while thinking about privatizing the post office, population densities: US - 87/sq mi Germany - 603/sq mi UK - 725/sq mi Japan - 862/sq mi Singapore - 20,446/sq mi

bhupy 6y ago
Is there some population density threshold where corporate governance stops working? Does a pricing system and private enterprise break down in sparsely populated markets? Clearly things seemed to work when going from 20,000/sq mi to 862/sq mi (2 orders of magnitude). Is the argument that there’s a magical breaking point somewhere between 603 to 87/sq mi?
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Yes? When it comes to delivering first-class mail for cheap, I assume there’s a minimum population density that allows for such a thing to be done cheaply (similar to now) and profitably. The US has nearly an order of magnitude lower population density than Germany, I’d bet there’s a threshold somewhere in that range where it wouldn’t be possible to deliver a mail anywhere in the US by a private company for similar rates that everyone currently enjoys now. My whole argument is that the utility of keeping the USPS as it sits now with equitable pricing outweighs any potential efficiency or profit gained by private actors. If you disagree, that’s fine. I’ll disagree with your position that we should privatize the USPS, it will fuck over rural people to the benefit of ... who now? Are you heavily weighed down by purchasing .55 cent stamps? Because market rate first class mail would fuck over poor rural people pretty hard for almost no gain. The utility outweighs any efficiency or profit gains offered by private companies. Not every damn thing needs to be privatized, some things are better left as government entities because the benefit to the public is greater than any profit motive. Letter delivery is one of those things.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > When it comes to delivering first-class mail for cheap, I assume there’s a minimum population density that allows for such a thing to be done cheaply (similar to now) and profitably. This is a bold assumption that needs backing, because it would suggest that Germans or Britons would be paying 2 orders of magnitude more on sending paper mail than Singaporeans. It also presupposes that private corporations must absolutely turn a profit on every piece of mail that they deliver to every destination, but that’s not how most enterprises work — there can be sustainable loss leaders. It also presupposes that we ought to subsidize rural paper mail delivery rather than charge the true price, which is also debatable. > I’d bet there’s a threshold somewhere in that range where it wouldn’t be possible to deliver a mail anywhere in the US by a private company for similar rates that everyone currently enjoys now. “I’d bet there’s a threshold”, how do you know that the US isn’t above that threshold? > equitable pricing This is also debatable, because the USPS is essentially charging higher rates in denser markets to offset the subsidized rates in sparser markets, which imposes a regressive price increase on poor urban USPS customers. Higher prices mean nothing to rich people. If there’s some social utility to having rural (and not urban) Americans enjoy subsidized first class mail, then why not just subsidize it directly through taxes as opposed to selective price increases, which can be regressive and un-equitable? > Not every damn thing needs to be privatized, some things are better left as government entities because the benefit to the public is greater than any profit motive. Letter delivery is one of those things. Is food one of those things? How about clothing and shelter? The profit motive is just an incentive for private entities to provide goods & services. The strongest argument in favor of the profit motive is that resource allocation is superior among private entities relative to government central planning. There are obviously exceptions, like externalities, but those don’t really apply here. And even if we did decide that there’s a public benefit to providing subsidized mail to rural areas, that’s an excellent argument in favor of keeping a taxpayer subsidized USPS, but not a sufficient one in favor of maintaining its monopoly on paper mail. Especially considering that private corporations already deliver packages to low density rural areas alongside USPS just fine.
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      > This is a bold assumption that needs backing, because it would suggest that Germans or Britons would be paying 2 orders of magnitude more on sending paper mail than Singaporeans. It also presupposes that private corporations must absolutely turn a profit on every piece of mail that they deliver to every destination, but that’s not how most enterprises work — there can be sustainable loss leaders. It also presupposes that we ought to subsidize rural paper mail delivery rather than charge the true price, which is also debatable. No, it’s not. Singapore and the US are both an order of magnitude outside the range of the other 3 countries. I would imagine delivery is cheaper and/or more profitable in Singapore, considering it’s a densely urbanized city-state comprised of multi-tenant housing. Germany, UK, and Japan are all roughly similar in density, and I bet it costs a bit more to mail a letter in Germany than Japan. I also bet it’s profitable in that population density range. It clearly is, since they’re operating private companies! The US is also vastly larger than any of the referenced countries, and has some huge areas with extremely low density. The population density of all of the land area of the US excluding the Northeast region has a population density of 50/sq mi or less (excluding islands). The US has unique geographical and size challenges that none of the countries listed that have privatized their post offices have. Clothing, food, and housing haven’t been strictly government provided services ever. This is not a good analogy or argument, sorry. Also, 55 cents is a not a regressive pricing scheme against the urban poor. 55 cents to mail a letter isn’t going to inconvenience anyone. You’re getting disingenuous here, I’m going to disengage. One last thing, USPS ends up doing last mile delivery for a lot of rural address UPS and Fedex packages. You’re not arguing in good faith, I’m done.

Some data to consider while thinking about privatizing the post office, population densities: US - 87/sq mi Germany - 603/sq mi UK - 725/sq mi Japan - 862/sq mi Singapore - 20,446/sq mi

bhupy 6y ago

Is there some population density threshold where corporate governance stops working? Does a pricing system and private enterprise break down in sparsely populated markets? Clearly things seemed to work when going from 20,000/sq mi to 862/sq mi (2 orders of magnitude). Is the argument that there’s a magical breaking point somewhere between 603 to 87/sq mi?

quickthrowman 6y ago
Yes? When it comes to delivering first-class mail for cheap, I assume there’s a minimum population density that allows for such a thing to be done cheaply (similar to now) and profitably. The US has nearly an order of magnitude lower population density than Germany, I’d bet there’s a threshold somewhere in that range where it wouldn’t be possible to deliver a mail anywhere in the US by a private company for similar rates that everyone currently enjoys now. My whole argument is that the utility of keeping the USPS as it sits now with equitable pricing outweighs any potential efficiency or profit gained by private actors. If you disagree, that’s fine. I’ll disagree with your position that we should privatize the USPS, it will fuck over rural people to the benefit of ... who now? Are you heavily weighed down by purchasing .55 cent stamps? Because market rate first class mail would fuck over poor rural people pretty hard for almost no gain. The utility outweighs any efficiency or profit gains offered by private companies. Not every damn thing needs to be privatized, some things are better left as government entities because the benefit to the public is greater than any profit motive. Letter delivery is one of those things.
- bhupy 6y ago
  > When it comes to delivering first-class mail for cheap, I assume there’s a minimum population density that allows for such a thing to be done cheaply (similar to now) and profitably. This is a bold assumption that needs backing, because it would suggest that Germans or Britons would be paying 2 orders of magnitude more on sending paper mail than Singaporeans. It also presupposes that private corporations must absolutely turn a profit on every piece of mail that they deliver to every destination, but that’s not how most enterprises work — there can be sustainable loss leaders. It also presupposes that we ought to subsidize rural paper mail delivery rather than charge the true price, which is also debatable. > I’d bet there’s a threshold somewhere in that range where it wouldn’t be possible to deliver a mail anywhere in the US by a private company for similar rates that everyone currently enjoys now. “I’d bet there’s a threshold”, how do you know that the US isn’t above that threshold? > equitable pricing This is also debatable, because the USPS is essentially charging higher rates in denser markets to offset the subsidized rates in sparser markets, which imposes a regressive price increase on poor urban USPS customers. Higher prices mean nothing to rich people. If there’s some social utility to having rural (and not urban) Americans enjoy subsidized first class mail, then why not just subsidize it directly through taxes as opposed to selective price increases, which can be regressive and un-equitable? > Not every damn thing needs to be privatized, some things are better left as government entities because the benefit to the public is greater than any profit motive. Letter delivery is one of those things. Is food one of those things? How about clothing and shelter? The profit motive is just an incentive for private entities to provide goods & services. The strongest argument in favor of the profit motive is that resource allocation is superior among private entities relative to government central planning. There are obviously exceptions, like externalities, but those don’t really apply here. And even if we did decide that there’s a public benefit to providing subsidized mail to rural areas, that’s an excellent argument in favor of keeping a taxpayer subsidized USPS, but not a sufficient one in favor of maintaining its monopoly on paper mail. Especially considering that private corporations already deliver packages to low density rural areas alongside USPS just fine.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    > This is a bold assumption that needs backing, because it would suggest that Germans or Britons would be paying 2 orders of magnitude more on sending paper mail than Singaporeans. It also presupposes that private corporations must absolutely turn a profit on every piece of mail that they deliver to every destination, but that’s not how most enterprises work — there can be sustainable loss leaders. It also presupposes that we ought to subsidize rural paper mail delivery rather than charge the true price, which is also debatable. No, it’s not. Singapore and the US are both an order of magnitude outside the range of the other 3 countries. I would imagine delivery is cheaper and/or more profitable in Singapore, considering it’s a densely urbanized city-state comprised of multi-tenant housing. Germany, UK, and Japan are all roughly similar in density, and I bet it costs a bit more to mail a letter in Germany than Japan. I also bet it’s profitable in that population density range. It clearly is, since they’re operating private companies! The US is also vastly larger than any of the referenced countries, and has some huge areas with extremely low density. The population density of all of the land area of the US excluding the Northeast region has a population density of 50/sq mi or less (excluding islands). The US has unique geographical and size challenges that none of the countries listed that have privatized their post offices have. Clothing, food, and housing haven’t been strictly government provided services ever. This is not a good analogy or argument, sorry. Also, 55 cents is a not a regressive pricing scheme against the urban poor. 55 cents to mail a letter isn’t going to inconvenience anyone. You’re getting disingenuous here, I’m going to disengage. One last thing, USPS ends up doing last mile delivery for a lot of rural address UPS and Fedex packages. You’re not arguing in good faith, I’m done.