3 ms·

> 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 mai

> 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.

bhupy 6y ago
> 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! And on what basis are you betting that an operating private company in America can’t achieve the similar pricing outcomes? Is it pure conjecture? > Also, 55 cents is not a regressive pricing scheme against the urban poor Sure, and if that’s your argument, then why can’t a private corporation charge the same and maintain a national parcel mail network if it wanted to? There are loads of industries (airlines, payments, ridesharing) where margins are razor thin, but because of high revenues, there is plenty of incentive to serve remote areas. > One last thing, USPS ends up doing last mile delivery for a lot of UPS and FedEx packages While that’s true, this services represents the minority of UPS and FedEx’s total footprint. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon still directly deliver the majority of their packages, even to remote addresses.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  > And on what basis are you betting that an operating private company in America can’t achieve the similar pricing outcomes? Is it pure conjecture? Yes, pure conjecture based on the population density data. It’s conjecture on your part to assume it can be done profitably so I guess we’re at an impasse here. > Sure, and if that’s your argument, then why can’t a private corporation charge the same and maintain a national parcel mail network if it wanted to? There are loads of industries (airlines, payments, ridesharing) where margins are razor thin, but because of high revenues, there is plenty of incentive to serve remote areas. Two facts support my conjecture that the service of a privatized USPS would not include all current users or heavily impact them via price hikes: We haven’t even wired last-mile high speed internet to everyone, and we don’t have true nationwide cell coverage. What makes you think private mail will be any different? > While that’s true, this services represents the minority of UPS and FedEx’s total footprint. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon still directly deliver the majority of their packages, even to remote addresses. At least some of this is subcontracted out to other regional companies, I have a friend that works for a company that has a contract to deliver Fedex packages. It’s functionally the same thing as the USPS doing it, just privatized. I have nothing against parcel delivery being handled by private companies. I just wish we could all view the mail as a public good that benefits people and is worth keeping around. I feel first-class letters should be treated as something all people should have access to at a cheap flat rate no matter where they live in the US. I also feel that is unlikely to continue if the post office is privatized. We could instead focus on improving the existing system we have to benefit us all.

bhupy 6y ago

> 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! And on what basis are you betting that an operating private company in America can’t achieve the similar pricing outcomes? Is it pure conjecture? > Also, 55 cents is not a regressive pricing scheme against the urban poor Sure, and if that’s your argument, then why can’t a private corporation charge the same and maintain a national parcel mail network if it wanted to? There are loads of industries (airlines, payments, ridesharing) where margins are razor thin, but because of high revenues, there is plenty of incentive to serve remote areas. > One last thing, USPS ends up doing last mile delivery for a lot of UPS and FedEx packages While that’s true, this services represents the minority of UPS and FedEx’s total footprint. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon still directly deliver the majority of their packages, even to remote addresses.

quickthrowman 6y ago
> And on what basis are you betting that an operating private company in America can’t achieve the similar pricing outcomes? Is it pure conjecture? Yes, pure conjecture based on the population density data. It’s conjecture on your part to assume it can be done profitably so I guess we’re at an impasse here. > Sure, and if that’s your argument, then why can’t a private corporation charge the same and maintain a national parcel mail network if it wanted to? There are loads of industries (airlines, payments, ridesharing) where margins are razor thin, but because of high revenues, there is plenty of incentive to serve remote areas. Two facts support my conjecture that the service of a privatized USPS would not include all current users or heavily impact them via price hikes: We haven’t even wired last-mile high speed internet to everyone, and we don’t have true nationwide cell coverage. What makes you think private mail will be any different? > While that’s true, this services represents the minority of UPS and FedEx’s total footprint. UPS/FedEx/DHL/Amazon still directly deliver the majority of their packages, even to remote addresses. At least some of this is subcontracted out to other regional companies, I have a friend that works for a company that has a contract to deliver Fedex packages. It’s functionally the same thing as the USPS doing it, just privatized. I have nothing against parcel delivery being handled by private companies. I just wish we could all view the mail as a public good that benefits people and is worth keeping around. I feel first-class letters should be treated as something all people should have access to at a cheap flat rate no matter where they live in the US. I also feel that is unlikely to continue if the post office is privatized. We could instead focus on improving the existing system we have to benefit us all.