9 ms·

I mean, that's certainly one way to make sure you can't vote by mail! But is this not a case of an underfunded agency, that is trying to do its best in a bad t

I mean, that's certainly one way to make sure you can't vote by mail! But is this not a case of an underfunded agency, that is trying to do its best in a bad time, with no money, and trying to placate those who shout loudest? I'd wager that packages (not just Amazon) make up a lot more post than actual letters nowadays - I know I rarely have any post (although UK) as everything is online - but if people aren't getting their next/same day delivery on time, then they kick off and shout about it - which isn't going to please Amazon, and the USPS don't/can't lose that contract

eru 6y ago
Why do postal services even need to be handled by an agency? It's just a normal service like any other. Normal companies do that just fine. As evidenced in lots of history and in other countries around the globe.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  Sometimes it's okay to recognize something is a social good. Large swathes of the rural population of the US would be underserved/overcharged (in regards to current levels) for similar levels of service.
  - eru 6y ago
    Is that because there's cross-subsidy from non-rural folks or because you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? Also, even if we accept that the government doing mail delivery is good, why does it need to be a federal agency? Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do? But I guess you don't have subsidiarity in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping.
      - eru 6y ago
        > It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. > If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping. Why? They could still subscribe to common standards. Just like different paper mills still produce standard sized paper. Similar for international shipping. Though individual bargaining might be an advantage, too.
        avianlyric 6y ago
        > To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost certainly subsidise the construction of roads they may never need to use, and the US doesn’t pull toll gates on their roads to makes sure they’re charging higher prices for services that cost more. Any American (or indeed anyone in the US) can use any road for free, as much as they want, for only the cost of their taxes. Assuming they even paid any.
        eru 6y ago
        Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.
        6y ago
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > Is that because there's cross-subsidy from non-rural folks This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities. > you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death. > Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do? No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: whenever some state either mismanages their postal service or simply can't keep it afloat, we'll be at the cutting block again. Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. The "decentralization" here just necessitates more communication overhead, potentially different laws requiring re-sorting, and a bunch of other potential headaches.
      - eru 6y ago
        > This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities. OK. Seems a bit inefficient and arbitrary. I can sort-of get behind transfers from rich people to poor people. That's fine. But why subsidies people for being hillbillies? > Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death. Sounds like a good thing? > No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: Yes, that's a benefit. > Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. You would obviously allow the state level agencies to compete out-of-state.
        ianleeclark 6y ago
        > Sounds like a good thing? Ahh, okay. Anything to save you a cent regardless of the immiseration it spreads. Good luck.
        eru 6y ago
        I'm ok with transfers from rich folks to poor folks. But why punish people for living in areas that are easier to service by mail? (Ie why make them cross subsidize the hill billies?)
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      > because you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? What makes you think USPS is inefficient? If it wasn’t for the ludicrous pension constraints applied to them of funding all pensions out to 2056 upfront, a requirement that no other federal agency or private company has. USPS would be returning almost a billion dollars of profit every year. I would call that pretty good going for a public service.
      - eru 6y ago
        The USPS has a legal monopoly and has its obligations guaranteed by the government. So take their profits with a grain of salt. (You could auction of the monopoly to see how much it is worth. Though in reality, you would be better off just to abolish it.)
        avianlyric 6y ago
        Excuse my ignorance, but what legal monopoly does USPS have? I was under the impression that any company is allowed to carry mail in the US.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Only usps can carry first class mail, or “letters”.
        eru 6y ago
        Google or Bing help a lot. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Criticism_of_the_universal_service_requirement_and_the_postal_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#C...
        nkurz 6y ago
        Surprising though it may seem, with some limited exceptions, it's illegal for a private party to deliver a letter to another private party without paying the US Postal Service. The term to search for is "Private Express Statutes": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes. This article (titled "Universal Service and the Postal Monopoly: A Brief History") goes into more depth: https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-service-and-postal-monopoly-history.pdf https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-se...
    - JackFr 6y ago
      > why does it need to be a federal agency? Cause it’s constitutionally mandated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
      - eru 6y ago
        Yes. But not the question becomes, why would it be a good idea to have such a clause in a constitution? Edit: I just had a look. The clause only seems to talk about the power, not the obligation to run a postal service. In fact, 'An early controversy was whether Congress had the power to actually build post roads and post offices, or merely designate which lands and roads were to be used for this purpose, [...]'.
        Nasrudith 6y ago
        Regardless of if it was a good idea they would need a large margin in order to pass the ammendment and given the rural statea it would be DOA from them alone, even those who might support it likely wouldn't consider it an important issue. There are / way more important questions left unresolved in the constitution's text. I am all for at least planning a set od constitutional modernization proposals and mass vote while dreading what sorts of messed up things they would try to put in there and get passed. Especially if logical viability was a requirement.
        eru 6y ago
        I don't think you'd need to change the constitution. As far as I can tell the constitution only gives congress the power to interfere in mail, it doesn't impose an obligation to do so. > Section 8 > 1: The Congress shall have Power To [...] To establish Post Offices and post Roads; Similar to how the same section gives Congress the right to borrow or to impose tariffs and excise duties, but I don't think anyone would construe that as an obligation to borrow or a ban on free trading. I don't think there was any constitutional crisis when the national debt reached 0 during the Andrew Jackson administration?
    - Olreich 6y ago
      Yeah, it is spending a little more for those rural customers due to additional distance traveled. However, the have been using flat-rate shipping within the US for a long time, so they know the price they need to maintain. Postage is still 55 cents for most letters in the US, which doesn’t seem particularly bad. UK has ~80 cents a stamp as the cheapest I found. Germany was praised elsewhere in the thread and has stamps at ~90 cents a letter. So yeah, based on how cheap it is to send mail in the US, and the fact that USPS would be profitable venture if they weren’t screwed over by horrible laws (pension prefunding, etc.), the USPS is very efficient and shouldn’t be parceled out to states.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Cheap food is a social good. It would be catastrophic if food prices were high. Private enterprise handles food just fine despite substantial logistic challenges. In Australia we had a stern-faced inquiry into why the prices of milk were so low; it was hilarious to watch politicians trying to complain without suggesting anything so radical as raising prices. The second part of your post is a fine argument and I'm not complaining about that, but "it's okay to recognize something is a social good" is not fine. It is likely everybody in this thread thinks a cheap, great logistic system is desirable. No impugning of motives, thank you very much.
    - __alexs 6y ago
      > Private enterprise handles food just fine This is not the case in the US where millions of people don't have convenient access to food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
      - eru 6y ago
        Well, then take a more reasonable country like Germany. They have a private food supply without food deserts.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        ShroudedNight 6y ago
        Population density: 240 per Km2 (Germany) vs 40.015/km2 (Contiguous U.S.) While there are no doubt significant benefits for the U.S. to attain looking at models for how other countries handle the distributive logistics of various industries, I would argue that the vastly different population densities of the two nations should be assumed to be material, unless and until robust arguments with strong evidence show otherwise.
      - swebs 6y ago
        >According to research conducted by Tulane University in 2009, 2.3 million Americans lived more than one mile away from a super market and did not own a car. 0.7 percent of the population isn't too bad.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  I can't speak for other countries, but the US Postal Service has a mandate to provide mail services to every single resident in the US - "Universal Service". You can see some info on that here: https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/usps-uso-executive-summary.txt https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/usps-uso-exe... Essentially, a private company has the option to not provide certain services to you or even decline to serve you at your address entirely. The USPS does not. In many cases a carrier like UPS or FedEx hands things off to the USPS to do last-mile delivery in an area their delivery network doesn't cover, because the USPS is already built out to handle it. Normal companies cannot do this "just fine" because it's a money-losing proposition. That's why the postal service has to be an agency instead of a for-profit company traded on stock exchanges, it is necessary to have universal service even if the country loses money doing it. Essential things like vote-by-mail, mail-order pharmacies, etc become impossible without it.
  - eru 6y ago
    Does your argument also apply to the provision of food?
    - kevingadd 6y ago
      Food is a different matter in many ways that don't make it a good point of comparison with the USPS. For example: Many foods and ingredients can be stocked up on intermittently - say, once a week - and will last for a good amount of time in the fridge or freezer. So you can take a trip to a grocery store or other distribution facility a few times a month, even if it's far from you. You can also pretty safely and legally have a friend pick up groceries for you if you don't have a car or are unable to leave the house, but having someone go deal with your mail would be considerably more difficult (for legal reasons and otherwise). Lots of mail is time sensitive - even if that ballot you're being mailed won't melt in the distribution center like a neglected package of chocolates would, there's a fixed deadline for you to fill out the ballot and a fixed deadline for it to make it to the processing facility. If delivery of that ballot - or the pick-up and return delivery - is delayed, it's worthless. As such, daily mail delivery is essential in many ways even if people don't receive mail every day. Incidentally, we've had widespread issues with ballot delivery and postmarking in the last year or so, so it's a real problem and not a hypothetical. On that note, the government has to send mail to every citizen multiple times a year, they're going to have to pay private mailing services for it anyway... How much taxpayer money is actually being saved by privatizing it?
- bmitc 6y ago
  > It's just a normal service like any other. Normal companies do that just fine. No, they don't. Like others have mentioned USPS delivers to anyone in the extended U.S. with sane prices. They also provide sane international shipping prices. USPS also provides other services like free shipping materials and free pickup. Hiding these and the other services they provide behind companies who only care about the bottom line would hurt people who couldn't afford the services or simply have services they're used to dropped.
  - eru 6y ago
    If you want to help people, it's more efficient to use a program that's financed by progressive taxes and targeted at the poor and needy. Instead of a hodge-podge that's financed by city dwellers who need to send a lot of letters, and assists people who chose to live in the middle of nowhere even if they are filthy rich. Yes, charging more to people who cause more costs would be exactly the point. (The poor people could use the targeted help I talked about to afford the higher price. Or they could use that help to buy something they need more than sending letters. Like food or nice clothing for an interview etc. Or whatever they fancy.)
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      There’s a wonderful irony in your suggestion. The current one-price-to-anywhere postal system originated because it is/was cheaper to provide a single flat price, than to compute a bespoke price for every letter dependant on its destination. Most original postal systems (and I’m primarily thinking of Royal Mail) started by charging depending on distance a letter would travel. I’m not sure your system of progressive taxes and rebates, and the needed administrative infrastructure would be cheaper than operating a flat price system. Especially in a country like the US which doesn’t have a large well developed welfare system that already performs these types of assessments.
      - eru 6y ago
        The US already has progressive income taxes and a welfare system. About postal sytems, the first was probably the private London Penny Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post As the name implies, sending letters cost a penny flat.

eru 6y ago

Why do postal services even need to be handled by an agency? It's just a normal service like any other. Normal companies do that just fine. As evidenced in lots of history and in other countries around the globe.

ianleeclark 6y ago
Sometimes it's okay to recognize something is a social good. Large swathes of the rural population of the US would be underserved/overcharged (in regards to current levels) for similar levels of service.
- eru 6y ago
  Is that because there's cross-subsidy from non-rural folks or because you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? Also, even if we accept that the government doing mail delivery is good, why does it need to be a federal agency? Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do? But I guess you don't have subsidiarity in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping.
    - eru 6y ago
      > It's less a matter of efficiency and more a matter of whether service would exist at all. If serving small rural communities isn't profitable, why would a company like UPS or FedEx choose to do it? You'd need to compel them with regulation, they aren't charities. To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. > If each state did postal service piecemeal you'd have all sorts of nightmare state-specific pricing, size regulations, delivery schedules, etc. Nobody would benefit from that. Each state would also have to bargain individually with foreign nations about international shipping. Why? They could still subscribe to common standards. Just like different paper mills still produce standard sized paper. Similar for international shipping. Though individual bargaining might be an advantage, too.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        > To an extent, companies would charge higher prices for performing services that cost more. Out of interest what’s your opinion on roads? City dwellers almost certainly subsidise the construction of roads they may never need to use, and the US doesn’t pull toll gates on their roads to makes sure they’re charging higher prices for services that cost more. Any American (or indeed anyone in the US) can use any road for free, as much as they want, for only the cost of their taxes. Assuming they even paid any.
        eru 6y ago
        Same as for postal service. Privatize the roads as well. Especially with modern technology for collecting tolls, privatised roads are more feasible than ever. In practice, I would expect roads to be financed by a mixture of pay-for-use and local businesses. Even without privatized roads, it can be useful to charge road users. Here in Singapore we have Electronic Road Pricing in some parts of the city to keep congestion down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing It works very well. Jams are almost unheard of. London has a watered down copy of our system.
        6y ago
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > Is that because there's cross-subsidy from non-rural folks This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities. > you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death. > Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do? No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: whenever some state either mismanages their postal service or simply can't keep it afloat, we'll be at the cutting block again. Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. The "decentralization" here just necessitates more communication overhead, potentially different laws requiring re-sorting, and a bunch of other potential headaches.
    - eru 6y ago
      > This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities. OK. Seems a bit inefficient and arbitrary. I can sort-of get behind transfers from rich people to poor people. That's fine. But why subsidies people for being hillbillies? > Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death. Sounds like a good thing? > No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: Yes, that's a benefit. > Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. You would obviously allow the state level agencies to compete out-of-state.
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > Sounds like a good thing? Ahh, okay. Anything to save you a cent regardless of the immiseration it spreads. Good luck.
        eru 6y ago
        I'm ok with transfers from rich folks to poor folks. But why punish people for living in areas that are easier to service by mail? (Ie why make them cross subsidize the hill billies?)
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > because you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be? What makes you think USPS is inefficient? If it wasn’t for the ludicrous pension constraints applied to them of funding all pensions out to 2056 upfront, a requirement that no other federal agency or private company has. USPS would be returning almost a billion dollars of profit every year. I would call that pretty good going for a public service.
    - eru 6y ago
      The USPS has a legal monopoly and has its obligations guaranteed by the government. So take their profits with a grain of salt. (You could auction of the monopoly to see how much it is worth. Though in reality, you would be better off just to abolish it.)
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        Excuse my ignorance, but what legal monopoly does USPS have? I was under the impression that any company is allowed to carry mail in the US.
        amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Only usps can carry first class mail, or “letters”.
        eru 6y ago
        Google or Bing help a lot. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Criticism_of_the_universal_service_requirement_and_the_postal_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#C...
        nkurz 6y ago
        Surprising though it may seem, with some limited exceptions, it's illegal for a private party to deliver a letter to another private party without paying the US Postal Service. The term to search for is "Private Express Statutes": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes. This article (titled "Universal Service and the Postal Monopoly: A Brief History") goes into more depth: https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-service-and-postal-monopoly-history.pdf https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/universal-se...
  - JackFr 6y ago
    > why does it need to be a federal agency? Cause it’s constitutionally mandated. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause
    - eru 6y ago
      Yes. But not the question becomes, why would it be a good idea to have such a clause in a constitution? Edit: I just had a look. The clause only seems to talk about the power, not the obligation to run a postal service. In fact, 'An early controversy was whether Congress had the power to actually build post roads and post offices, or merely designate which lands and roads were to be used for this purpose, [...]'.
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        Regardless of if it was a good idea they would need a large margin in order to pass the ammendment and given the rural statea it would be DOA from them alone, even those who might support it likely wouldn't consider it an important issue. There are / way more important questions left unresolved in the constitution's text. I am all for at least planning a set od constitutional modernization proposals and mass vote while dreading what sorts of messed up things they would try to put in there and get passed. Especially if logical viability was a requirement.
        eru 6y ago
        I don't think you'd need to change the constitution. As far as I can tell the constitution only gives congress the power to interfere in mail, it doesn't impose an obligation to do so. > Section 8 > 1: The Congress shall have Power To [...] To establish Post Offices and post Roads; Similar to how the same section gives Congress the right to borrow or to impose tariffs and excise duties, but I don't think anyone would construe that as an obligation to borrow or a ban on free trading. I don't think there was any constitutional crisis when the national debt reached 0 during the Andrew Jackson administration?
  - Olreich 6y ago
    Yeah, it is spending a little more for those rural customers due to additional distance traveled. However, the have been using flat-rate shipping within the US for a long time, so they know the price they need to maintain. Postage is still 55 cents for most letters in the US, which doesn’t seem particularly bad. UK has ~80 cents a stamp as the cheapest I found. Germany was praised elsewhere in the thread and has stamps at ~90 cents a letter. So yeah, based on how cheap it is to send mail in the US, and the fact that USPS would be profitable venture if they weren’t screwed over by horrible laws (pension prefunding, etc.), the USPS is very efficient and shouldn’t be parceled out to states.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Cheap food is a social good. It would be catastrophic if food prices were high. Private enterprise handles food just fine despite substantial logistic challenges. In Australia we had a stern-faced inquiry into why the prices of milk were so low; it was hilarious to watch politicians trying to complain without suggesting anything so radical as raising prices. The second part of your post is a fine argument and I'm not complaining about that, but "it's okay to recognize something is a social good" is not fine. It is likely everybody in this thread thinks a cheap, great logistic system is desirable. No impugning of motives, thank you very much.
  - __alexs 6y ago
    > Private enterprise handles food just fine This is not the case in the US where millions of people don't have convenient access to food. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
    - eru 6y ago
      Well, then take a more reasonable country like Germany. They have a private food supply without food deserts.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - ShroudedNight 6y ago
        Population density: 240 per Km2 (Germany) vs 40.015/km2 (Contiguous U.S.) While there are no doubt significant benefits for the U.S. to attain looking at models for how other countries handle the distributive logistics of various industries, I would argue that the vastly different population densities of the two nations should be assumed to be material, unless and until robust arguments with strong evidence show otherwise.
    - swebs 6y ago
      >According to research conducted by Tulane University in 2009, 2.3 million Americans lived more than one mile away from a super market and did not own a car. 0.7 percent of the population isn't too bad.
kevingadd 6y ago
I can't speak for other countries, but the US Postal Service has a mandate to provide mail services to every single resident in the US - "Universal Service". You can see some info on that here: https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/usps-uso-executive-summary.txt https://about.usps.com/universal-postal-service/usps-uso-exe... Essentially, a private company has the option to not provide certain services to you or even decline to serve you at your address entirely. The USPS does not. In many cases a carrier like UPS or FedEx hands things off to the USPS to do last-mile delivery in an area their delivery network doesn't cover, because the USPS is already built out to handle it. Normal companies cannot do this "just fine" because it's a money-losing proposition. That's why the postal service has to be an agency instead of a for-profit company traded on stock exchanges, it is necessary to have universal service even if the country loses money doing it. Essential things like vote-by-mail, mail-order pharmacies, etc become impossible without it.
- eru 6y ago
  Does your argument also apply to the provision of food?
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    Food is a different matter in many ways that don't make it a good point of comparison with the USPS. For example: Many foods and ingredients can be stocked up on intermittently - say, once a week - and will last for a good amount of time in the fridge or freezer. So you can take a trip to a grocery store or other distribution facility a few times a month, even if it's far from you. You can also pretty safely and legally have a friend pick up groceries for you if you don't have a car or are unable to leave the house, but having someone go deal with your mail would be considerably more difficult (for legal reasons and otherwise). Lots of mail is time sensitive - even if that ballot you're being mailed won't melt in the distribution center like a neglected package of chocolates would, there's a fixed deadline for you to fill out the ballot and a fixed deadline for it to make it to the processing facility. If delivery of that ballot - or the pick-up and return delivery - is delayed, it's worthless. As such, daily mail delivery is essential in many ways even if people don't receive mail every day. Incidentally, we've had widespread issues with ballot delivery and postmarking in the last year or so, so it's a real problem and not a hypothetical. On that note, the government has to send mail to every citizen multiple times a year, they're going to have to pay private mailing services for it anyway... How much taxpayer money is actually being saved by privatizing it?
bmitc 6y ago
> It's just a normal service like any other. Normal companies do that just fine. No, they don't. Like others have mentioned USPS delivers to anyone in the extended U.S. with sane prices. They also provide sane international shipping prices. USPS also provides other services like free shipping materials and free pickup. Hiding these and the other services they provide behind companies who only care about the bottom line would hurt people who couldn't afford the services or simply have services they're used to dropped.
- eru 6y ago
  If you want to help people, it's more efficient to use a program that's financed by progressive taxes and targeted at the poor and needy. Instead of a hodge-podge that's financed by city dwellers who need to send a lot of letters, and assists people who chose to live in the middle of nowhere even if they are filthy rich. Yes, charging more to people who cause more costs would be exactly the point. (The poor people could use the targeted help I talked about to afford the higher price. Or they could use that help to buy something they need more than sending letters. Like food or nice clothing for an interview etc. Or whatever they fancy.)
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    There’s a wonderful irony in your suggestion. The current one-price-to-anywhere postal system originated because it is/was cheaper to provide a single flat price, than to compute a bespoke price for every letter dependant on its destination. Most original postal systems (and I’m primarily thinking of Royal Mail) started by charging depending on distance a letter would travel. I’m not sure your system of progressive taxes and rebates, and the needed administrative infrastructure would be cheaper than operating a flat price system. Especially in a country like the US which doesn’t have a large well developed welfare system that already performs these types of assessments.
    - eru 6y ago
      The US already has progressive income taxes and a welfare system. About postal sytems, the first was probably the private London Penny Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Penny_Post As the name implies, sending letters cost a penny flat.