5 ms·

Except, of course, that the USPS is categorically not a business, and no fundamental barrier exists to direct funding from the federal government, as with many

Except, of course, that the USPS is categorically not a business, and no fundamental barrier exists to direct funding from the federal government, as with many other federal services. It has historically been expected to self-finance, and doing so may appeal to some sense of prudence, but that does not need to be the case if the externalities of doing so exceeds the income generated.

HenryBemis 5y ago
I can be running around my block waving at people. Someone may be paying me $16bn per year to do this. The fact that this is a "$16bn effort" doesn't make it useful. Also consider that if this is a "$16bn effort" the loss is multiple of that. Think of the advertisers (and their clients money), the effort to discard/recycle this garbage etc. The loss for humanity is greater than $16bn. Is this 'type of business' is to be eliminated, then USPS will drop the respective fraction of their use-less resources (staff, trucks, sorting machines, etc.).
- tclancy 5y ago
  I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting the delivery of paper mail in the US is an idea whose time has passed? There are both generations of people who would disagree with you and people in different circumstances that would as well.
  - tene 5y ago
    Given that they mention "$16bn" repeatedly, it seems pretty clear to me that their comments are regarding marketing mail specifically, not the full set of services USPS provides. I feel quite comfortable saying that there has been zero value to myself, or any other human, in delivering marketing mail to my home. I never look at it, I never read it, it just goes straight into my recycling as soon as I identify that a letter I've received is not from someone I have a legitimate personal or business relationship with. I have never made any purchase as a result of receiving an advertisement delivered to my home by USPS.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    I think there's still a need for it, but it seems to me that if I got paper mail once a week that would be good enough (senders can still opt for "express" service for anything really time-sensitive). Most bills sent by mail have ~30 day payment due date, so getting them once a week would still be more than adequate. You could cut delivery staff and vehicle needs by close to 4/5 this way (keeping some capacity for the express letters).
    - oceanghost 5y ago
      The mail was delivered twice a day in most places until April 1950 when cuts made this impossible. This is to say-- there have been changes made to the delivery frequency historically and there will be again most likely. I like the USPS, but there is something odd about taking a piece of mail and dumping it directly into the shredder. You'd be surprised how many junk-mails contain a thick plastic card that can't be shredded-- I assume its to force you to open it. It has gotten to the point with all of my communication technologies-- I dread phone calls, I dread text and instant messages. I dread mail of any type-- it's always bad news.
  - HenryBemis 5y ago
    I believe that the focus/point made of a 'parent' was about bulk (spam) paper advertisements arriving at our homes, not ALL snail mail. Perhaps I should have clearly stated it in my message.
- bottled_poe 5y ago
  You are making the incorrect assumption that the remaining services would as profitable. The point is this $16b subsidises unprofitable (but expected) services which USPS offers. If they can’t depend on this income source, the subsidy needs to come from somewhere else (I.e. federal budget).
  - uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 5y ago
    Google and USPS both on that ad money eh
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    The question then is: 1. If the money did come from the federal budget. 2. And the practice was stopped -> Would society benefit by MORE than the money spent?
yummypaint 5y ago
People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution. In that sense it's a more authentic government institution than even the federal reserve which came later. The spirit in which it was created and the discussions surrounding it at the time also make it clear that the framers would be appaled by attacks on both the postal system and net neutrality that have become commonplace. Forcing a public institution to be self-supporting is a classic strategy to destroy that institution. To funnel tax money away from public transit, just cripple the system by raising fares in the name of profitability while giving tax breaks to automakers. To kill the postal system, set it up to fail with malicious metrics, and make sure companies like Amazon don't have to pay for the externalities they create. Just as a road is more valuable than the tolls it generates, uniformly accessible secure communication is a general force multiplier for any country. If some people have to pay more than others for the same service, much of that advantage is lost.
- philwelch 5y ago
  > People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution. No—the constitution authorizes Congress “to establish post offices and post roads”. It does not obligate them to do so any more than it obligates them to declare war or hire pirates, to name two other clauses of the exact same section.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I believe you read the pirate bit wrong > To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    - sio8ohPi 5y ago
      No, right below that: "[congress shall have the power] to declare War, *grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal*, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "
      - 5y ago

HenryBemis 5y ago

I can be running around my block waving at people. Someone may be paying me $16bn per year to do this. The fact that this is a "$16bn effort" doesn't make it useful. Also consider that if this is a "$16bn effort" the loss is multiple of that. Think of the advertisers (and their clients money), the effort to discard/recycle this garbage etc. The loss for humanity is greater than $16bn. Is this 'type of business' is to be eliminated, then USPS will drop the respective fraction of their use-less resources (staff, trucks, sorting machines, etc.).

tclancy 5y ago
I have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting the delivery of paper mail in the US is an idea whose time has passed? There are both generations of people who would disagree with you and people in different circumstances that would as well.
- tene 5y ago
  Given that they mention "$16bn" repeatedly, it seems pretty clear to me that their comments are regarding marketing mail specifically, not the full set of services USPS provides. I feel quite comfortable saying that there has been zero value to myself, or any other human, in delivering marketing mail to my home. I never look at it, I never read it, it just goes straight into my recycling as soon as I identify that a letter I've received is not from someone I have a legitimate personal or business relationship with. I have never made any purchase as a result of receiving an advertisement delivered to my home by USPS.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  I think there's still a need for it, but it seems to me that if I got paper mail once a week that would be good enough (senders can still opt for "express" service for anything really time-sensitive). Most bills sent by mail have ~30 day payment due date, so getting them once a week would still be more than adequate. You could cut delivery staff and vehicle needs by close to 4/5 this way (keeping some capacity for the express letters).
  - oceanghost 5y ago
    The mail was delivered twice a day in most places until April 1950 when cuts made this impossible. This is to say-- there have been changes made to the delivery frequency historically and there will be again most likely. I like the USPS, but there is something odd about taking a piece of mail and dumping it directly into the shredder. You'd be surprised how many junk-mails contain a thick plastic card that can't be shredded-- I assume its to force you to open it. It has gotten to the point with all of my communication technologies-- I dread phone calls, I dread text and instant messages. I dread mail of any type-- it's always bad news.
- HenryBemis 5y ago
  I believe that the focus/point made of a 'parent' was about bulk (spam) paper advertisements arriving at our homes, not ALL snail mail. Perhaps I should have clearly stated it in my message.
bottled_poe 5y ago
You are making the incorrect assumption that the remaining services would as profitable. The point is this $16b subsidises unprofitable (but expected) services which USPS offers. If they can’t depend on this income source, the subsidy needs to come from somewhere else (I.e. federal budget).
- uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 5y ago
  Google and USPS both on that ad money eh
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  The question then is: 1. If the money did come from the federal budget. 2. And the practice was stopped -> Would society benefit by MORE than the money spent?

yummypaint 5y ago

People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution. In that sense it's a more authentic government institution than even the federal reserve which came later. The spirit in which it was created and the discussions surrounding it at the time also make it clear that the framers would be appaled by attacks on both the postal system and net neutrality that have become commonplace. Forcing a public institution to be self-supporting is a classic strategy to destroy that institution. To funnel tax money away from public transit, just cripple the system by raising fares in the name of profitability while giving tax breaks to automakers. To kill the postal system, set it up to fail with malicious metrics, and make sure companies like Amazon don't have to pay for the externalities they create. Just as a road is more valuable than the tolls it generates, uniformly accessible secure communication is a general force multiplier for any country. If some people have to pay more than others for the same service, much of that advantage is lost.

philwelch 5y ago
> People also forget that the postal system was created explicitly by the constitution. No—the constitution authorizes Congress “to establish post offices and post roads”. It does not obligate them to do so any more than it obligates them to declare war or hire pirates, to name two other clauses of the exact same section.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I believe you read the pirate bit wrong > To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
  - sio8ohPi 5y ago
    No, right below that: "[congress shall have the power] to declare War, *grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal*, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; "
    - 5y ago