8 ms·

Internal USPS Documents Outline Plans to Hobble Mail Sorting

58 points by laurex 6y ago

cycomanic 6y ago
Even if this is not about the elections it is straight out of the "how to privatise public services" playbook. Gut and underfund public services, once people start getting annoyed, point to the service and say "the government can't run services well, private companies are much more efficient." open the market for private corporations, that often don't have to fulfil the same requirements (e.g. deliveries in rural areas...). The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services.
- non-entity 6y ago
  In regards to privatization, I can't speak on FedEx, but I'll take the postal service anyday compared to fucking UPS.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Oddly enough I’m the exact opposite here. I’m pretty down on the whole vote by mail thing, just because I cannot trust the local USPS to get things delivered in a timely manner. We’re talking tens of lost/damaged/late items where I’ve had a grand total of one lost and one damaged UPS package in the same 10 years or so. (I was a former heavy eBayer) It’s gotta be regional, because I’ve heard stories like yours about all of the carriers. Problem is there doesn’t seem to be a way for a mere mortal to effect change if your local couriers all suck.
    - legerdemain 6y ago
      How much does it cost to send a letter using UPS?
      - ac29 6y ago
        Legally, you cant send a letter via UPS (only USPS is authorized). You can however send documents via express/expedited services, and its pretty pricey - think tens of dollars for a single sheet of paper.
- bhupy 6y ago
  I mean, "government can't run services well" is probably overly simplistic and incorrect. But what if we replaced it with the following: "an extremely politicized government can't run services well". Is that a controversial statement? And if it isn't, doesn't that suggest that you don't want an extremely polarized/politicized government running extremely critical infrastructure? > The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services. This is fairly simplistic, as we know that not to be the case for the vast majority of private services we use today. Yes, there exists conditions where this is true (monopolies), but it's true less often than the above statement that "politicized government can't run services well".
  - Hokusai 6y ago
    > The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services. > This is fairly simplistic It is a simple view that summarizes really well what happens when public services are privatized. There is more nuance to it, but the main effects are "de-investment", "increase in price", "reduction of service". > "politicized government can't run services well". I understand your statement as "a polarizing/corrupt government" as I guess that all governments are politicized, it is in their job title.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > It is a simple view that summarizes really well what happens when public services are privatized. There is more nuance to it, but the main effects are "de-investment", "increase in price", "reduction of service". It's simplistic because "increase in price" and "reduction of service" have not been observed to happen in private sector services today. If you look at the vast majority of goods & services across the board, prices have decreased over time, and service has improved dramatically. This is because the pricing system and competition act as a downward pressure on price and an upward pressure on service quality. This is obviously not always the case (eg. monopolies), but it is the case for the vast majority of goods & services. Food, clothing, transportation, information technology, electronics, appliances — have all gotten cheaper over time (even relative to inflation), have seen an increase in investment over time, and an increase in quality over time. Another concrete example: NASA's planned SLS moon mission is a bit of a disaster — way over budget and way behind schedule. Because the boosters aren't reusable, each launch is expected to cost $1B (with a B) dollars — EACH launch! Meanwhile SpaceX's target cost-per-launch is $50M. Central planning almost never yields the optimum allocation of resources (there are certainly exceptions), whereas the decentralized pricing system almost always does (there are certainly exceptions). While it's simplistic to say that "government doesn't run services well", it's just as simplistic to suggest that "privatization results in price increases and service decreases". > I understand your statement as "a polarizing/corrupt government" as I guess that all governments are politicized, it is in their job title. Correct, which suggests that "government can't run services well" will always be true, for as long as governments are polarized/corrupt. Democracy doesn't yield the best results when you're participating in that democracy with people who violently disagree with you. Governments can be good at running things if everyone agrees on how it should be run, and even then there's no guarantee because central planning usually doesn't yield optimum resource allocation, due to the economic calculation problem.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  And the federal government is supposed to bear the brunt of expense for these few state voting initiatives? Edit: Besides, the USPS is almost effectively a privatized organization, with their requirement to operate within a balanced budget.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    With a guaranteed monopoly. Just speaking from a purely capitalist point of view, these don’t lend themselves well to quality service. Is there any particular reason a law couldn’t be passed that just abolished the monopoly, giving private enterprise a try, but leaves everything else unchanged? (Let’s fix the stupid pension mandate while we’re at it)
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      Abolishing the monopoly on the post is a bit like the government "abolishing the monopoly" on national defense. It's a Constitutionally-required service the government must provide. The risk of privatizing it may very well be too high to justify the dollar savings. For example, the post has a mandate to deliver successfully (somehow) to every location people live in the country. What will private enterprise do if that's not revenue-positive?
      - Rebelgecko 6y ago
        Just because the Constitution says that Congress is allowed to create a post office doesn't mean they're required to. Enumerated powers aren't mandatory
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Sure. Congress isn't required to provide for the national defense. It's a short-lived government that fails to do so, however.
        Rebelgecko 6y ago
fillskills 6y ago
How are there no protests about this? Why are people not scared of the threat to democracy? Sure I am drawing a line from hobbling USPS to democracy, but it seems like a very clear one. Sorry for bringing something political in nature to HN. Before this I would never think of it. But all tech progress relies on a sound democracy.
- romecntfa11 6y ago
  No one believes Rome can fall
- charwalker 6y ago
  Most are mis or uninformed on the impact this will have or simply support the current administration regardless. Trump has held about 40% approval even under impeachment.

58 points by laurex 6y ago

Even if this is not about the elections it is straight out of the "how to privatise public services" playbook. Gut and underfund public services, once people start getting annoyed, point to the service and say "the government can't run services well, private companies are much more efficient." open the market for private corporations, that often don't have to fulfil the same requirements (e.g. deliveries in rural areas...). The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services.

non-entity 6y ago
In regards to privatization, I can't speak on FedEx, but I'll take the postal service anyday compared to fucking UPS.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  Oddly enough I’m the exact opposite here. I’m pretty down on the whole vote by mail thing, just because I cannot trust the local USPS to get things delivered in a timely manner. We’re talking tens of lost/damaged/late items where I’ve had a grand total of one lost and one damaged UPS package in the same 10 years or so. (I was a former heavy eBayer) It’s gotta be regional, because I’ve heard stories like yours about all of the carriers. Problem is there doesn’t seem to be a way for a mere mortal to effect change if your local couriers all suck.
  - legerdemain 6y ago
    How much does it cost to send a letter using UPS?
    - ac29 6y ago
      Legally, you cant send a letter via UPS (only USPS is authorized). You can however send documents via express/expedited services, and its pretty pricey - think tens of dollars for a single sheet of paper.
bhupy 6y ago
I mean, "government can't run services well" is probably overly simplistic and incorrect. But what if we replaced it with the following: "an extremely politicized government can't run services well". Is that a controversial statement? And if it isn't, doesn't that suggest that you don't want an extremely polarized/politicized government running extremely critical infrastructure? > The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services. This is fairly simplistic, as we know that not to be the case for the vast majority of private services we use today. Yes, there exists conditions where this is true (monopolies), but it's true less often than the above statement that "politicized government can't run services well".
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > The private corporations will quickly increase prices while reducing services. > This is fairly simplistic It is a simple view that summarizes really well what happens when public services are privatized. There is more nuance to it, but the main effects are "de-investment", "increase in price", "reduction of service". > "politicized government can't run services well". I understand your statement as "a polarizing/corrupt government" as I guess that all governments are politicized, it is in their job title.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    > It is a simple view that summarizes really well what happens when public services are privatized. There is more nuance to it, but the main effects are "de-investment", "increase in price", "reduction of service". It's simplistic because "increase in price" and "reduction of service" have not been observed to happen in private sector services today. If you look at the vast majority of goods & services across the board, prices have decreased over time, and service has improved dramatically. This is because the pricing system and competition act as a downward pressure on price and an upward pressure on service quality. This is obviously not always the case (eg. monopolies), but it is the case for the vast majority of goods & services. Food, clothing, transportation, information technology, electronics, appliances — have all gotten cheaper over time (even relative to inflation), have seen an increase in investment over time, and an increase in quality over time. Another concrete example: NASA's planned SLS moon mission is a bit of a disaster — way over budget and way behind schedule. Because the boosters aren't reusable, each launch is expected to cost $1B (with a B) dollars — EACH launch! Meanwhile SpaceX's target cost-per-launch is $50M. Central planning almost never yields the optimum allocation of resources (there are certainly exceptions), whereas the decentralized pricing system almost always does (there are certainly exceptions). While it's simplistic to say that "government doesn't run services well", it's just as simplistic to suggest that "privatization results in price increases and service decreases". > I understand your statement as "a polarizing/corrupt government" as I guess that all governments are politicized, it is in their job title. Correct, which suggests that "government can't run services well" will always be true, for as long as governments are polarized/corrupt. Democracy doesn't yield the best results when you're participating in that democracy with people who violently disagree with you. Governments can be good at running things if everyone agrees on how it should be run, and even then there's no guarantee because central planning usually doesn't yield optimum resource allocation, due to the economic calculation problem.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
And the federal government is supposed to bear the brunt of expense for these few state voting initiatives? Edit: Besides, the USPS is almost effectively a privatized organization, with their requirement to operate within a balanced budget.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  With a guaranteed monopoly. Just speaking from a purely capitalist point of view, these don’t lend themselves well to quality service. Is there any particular reason a law couldn’t be passed that just abolished the monopoly, giving private enterprise a try, but leaves everything else unchanged? (Let’s fix the stupid pension mandate while we’re at it)
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Abolishing the monopoly on the post is a bit like the government "abolishing the monopoly" on national defense. It's a Constitutionally-required service the government must provide. The risk of privatizing it may very well be too high to justify the dollar savings. For example, the post has a mandate to deliver successfully (somehow) to every location people live in the country. What will private enterprise do if that's not revenue-positive?
    - Rebelgecko 6y ago
      Just because the Constitution says that Congress is allowed to create a post office doesn't mean they're required to. Enumerated powers aren't mandatory
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Sure. Congress isn't required to provide for the national defense. It's a short-lived government that fails to do so, however.
        Rebelgecko 6y ago

fillskills 6y ago

How are there no protests about this? Why are people not scared of the threat to democracy? Sure I am drawing a line from hobbling USPS to democracy, but it seems like a very clear one. Sorry for bringing something political in nature to HN. Before this I would never think of it. But all tech progress relies on a sound democracy.

romecntfa11 6y ago
No one believes Rome can fall
charwalker 6y ago
Most are mis or uninformed on the impact this will have or simply support the current administration regardless. Trump has held about 40% approval even under impeachment.