12 ms·

Time to disband the post service. Let it be done by a private organization, for lower rates and faster arrival times.

Something1234 5y ago
Guess what most private organizations actually contract last mile to the postal service, because it is not profitable to do deliver in heavily rural areas. The postal service is a public good.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  That many organizations contract the USPS to make deliveres for them does not make it a public good. Many organizations contract out payroll or lawn care as well, because they can't profitably do it themselves as well as another business that can do it more cost effectively. A public good is by definition one that is non-excludable and non-rival. * non-rival means that if one person uses the good, it does not prevent another user from using it. An example would be someone listening to a radio broadcast does not prevent someone else from doing that. The USPS is not a non-rival good because as more people use the USPS, it requires more resources to deliver the mail. Mail delivery is a rival good. * non-excludable means that you cannot prevent someone from using the good. An example of this would be a park without a fence around it, or the air you breathe, or a road without a toll, or the view of a beautiful mountain. The USPS is most definately excludable, as if you don't have the postage stamp the mail is not delivered. Of course the above fall along a spectrum. It might be feasible to encrypt the broadcast, making it an excludable good. It might not be economically feasible to prevent someone from using the road or enjoying a scenic view. So whether something is a public good depends as much on technology and cost effictiveness as anything else, it's not a characteristic of the good in isolation of the economy. Thus the invention of encryption made the airwaves a rival good and set off a renaissance of broadcast products from Satellite TV and Internet to pay-per-view broadcasts, something that was not possible when the technology didn't allow broadcasts to be excludable. But in our current world, with the technology of postage stamps well understood, it's clear that the USPS is not a public good.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    It totally is. Fact is anti government interests have paid Congress to hobble the Post Office to encourage your point of view. Corruption, bribes, deliberate mismanagement and debt all have impacted the Post Office to make private carriers look better. It started with the Bush Administration and has gone on for decades.
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      No matter how good it might be for the general public, USPS doesn’t meet the definition of a “public good” as long as they require stamps and put more mailmen in trucks every year. The classic example is a lighthouse. It serves an unlimited number of sailors, but it’s hard to make them pay for it, which is a rationale for using tax money to build one and ignore the free rider problem.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        The Post has no free rider problems, and runs on postage. The service is the public good, and operating it where all are served equally (remember everyone can receive a package at no cost to them) is in the public interest. No private entity can, or even has a plan to do the same at anywhere close to the low cost and quality of service.
        erik_seaberg 5y ago
        A public good isn’t paid for by users. That’s part of how economists define that term, and why they make theories about how and when someone else ought to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
        ddingus 5y ago
        See above. I am not making an entirely economic argument.
    - 5y ago
mindslight 5y ago
The current private carrier letter rate is over an order of magnitude higher than the post office. And no, they're not going to make it up on volume. The post office is a public service, and naive attempts to run it like a business are responsible for its current state.
- ddingus 5y ago
  Worse, it totally delivered positive revenue to the Treasury, until the Bush Administration reforms changed its rate structure amd required insane future benefits be prepaid an excessively long time in advance.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    You mean the same standard private corporations are required to do to prevent a repeat of “oh lol Bethlehem Steel underfunded your pension, you’re on your own now”?
    - mindslight 5y ago
      To be fair, an honest bill would have switched the pension from defined benefit to defined contribution, like everywhere else that is forced to fully account for pensions.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        This too.
      - SilasX 5y ago
        That would work too, but even those with defined benefit plans are required to fund them at the present discounted rate, just as the postal service was. It's not an absurd condition, though I am happy to accept there's room for reasonable disagreement on the exact timetable for coming into compliance.
        5y ago
ddingus 5y ago
Please understand the Post Office is flat out awesome. Private entities cannot compete realistically. And the reason for that is the Post Office exists as infrastructure to connect us all and enable economic growth, as well as serve as an important pillar of democracy. The PO serves everyone mor or less equally. Some are at a serious loss, others are at a nice margin. The PO runs off postage too. So why does it look so bad? The Bush Administration started it with rate adjustments and a requirement to prepay benefits so far in advance that at the time of the legislation there were people not even born yet, who would work for the PO and see their bennies paid for well in advance. Since then, it has been death by 100 cuts, with the most notable event being the destruction of mail sorting machines during the last Administration. Congress has control over the Post Office and has acted for private carriers looking to grow and own more of mail delivery. But, they have a problem with serving everyone as well as the PO does, and generally don't. The Post Office handles the last mile more under contract, and at damn near giveaway rates too. Had Congress acted on our behalf as citizens who benefit from a robust Post Office, we would not be having this discussion. The interests who want everything privatized pretty much hate the Post Office because it represents an exemplary example of government service working as it should and it all runs on postage. The people who need it, fund it. The "lower rates" and "faster arrival times" look appealing now because several decades of artificially hobbling the PO has done damage to the point we are today. All the debt, service problems, delays, were caused by bad actors hobbling the PO to favor private interests. It is not that those services are better. And in specific niches, sure! There is room for FedEx and friends. We need them to handle cases the PO may not handle well. But we also need the PO to do the majority of delivery and equal service too. Getting rid of the PO will actually raise prices and reduce or eliminate service for many who depend on it.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I have a friend that is a retired vp at FedEx. I once asked him what he thought of the US Post Office. His opinion was that they are amazing at what they do and the scale they do it at and that there is no way FedEx could get close to their level of ubiquitous service at the prices they charge.
  - 5y ago

Guess what most private organizations actually contract last mile to the postal service, because it is not profitable to do deliver in heavily rural areas. The postal service is a public good.

rsj_hn 5y ago
That many organizations contract the USPS to make deliveres for them does not make it a public good. Many organizations contract out payroll or lawn care as well, because they can't profitably do it themselves as well as another business that can do it more cost effectively. A public good is by definition one that is non-excludable and non-rival. * non-rival means that if one person uses the good, it does not prevent another user from using it. An example would be someone listening to a radio broadcast does not prevent someone else from doing that. The USPS is not a non-rival good because as more people use the USPS, it requires more resources to deliver the mail. Mail delivery is a rival good. * non-excludable means that you cannot prevent someone from using the good. An example of this would be a park without a fence around it, or the air you breathe, or a road without a toll, or the view of a beautiful mountain. The USPS is most definately excludable, as if you don't have the postage stamp the mail is not delivered. Of course the above fall along a spectrum. It might be feasible to encrypt the broadcast, making it an excludable good. It might not be economically feasible to prevent someone from using the road or enjoying a scenic view. So whether something is a public good depends as much on technology and cost effictiveness as anything else, it's not a characteristic of the good in isolation of the economy. Thus the invention of encryption made the airwaves a rival good and set off a renaissance of broadcast products from Satellite TV and Internet to pay-per-view broadcasts, something that was not possible when the technology didn't allow broadcasts to be excludable. But in our current world, with the technology of postage stamps well understood, it's clear that the USPS is not a public good.
- ddingus 5y ago
  It totally is. Fact is anti government interests have paid Congress to hobble the Post Office to encourage your point of view. Corruption, bribes, deliberate mismanagement and debt all have impacted the Post Office to make private carriers look better. It started with the Bush Administration and has gone on for decades.
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    No matter how good it might be for the general public, USPS doesn’t meet the definition of a “public good” as long as they require stamps and put more mailmen in trucks every year. The classic example is a lighthouse. It serves an unlimited number of sailors, but it’s hard to make them pay for it, which is a rationale for using tax money to build one and ignore the free rider problem.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      The Post has no free rider problems, and runs on postage. The service is the public good, and operating it where all are served equally (remember everyone can receive a package at no cost to them) is in the public interest. No private entity can, or even has a plan to do the same at anywhere close to the low cost and quality of service.
      - erik_seaberg 5y ago
        A public good isn’t paid for by users. That’s part of how economists define that term, and why they make theories about how and when someone else ought to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
        ddingus 5y ago
        See above. I am not making an entirely economic argument.
  - 5y ago

mindslight 5y ago

The current private carrier letter rate is over an order of magnitude higher than the post office. And no, they're not going to make it up on volume. The post office is a public service, and naive attempts to run it like a business are responsible for its current state.

ddingus 5y ago
Worse, it totally delivered positive revenue to the Treasury, until the Bush Administration reforms changed its rate structure amd required insane future benefits be prepaid an excessively long time in advance.
- SilasX 5y ago
  You mean the same standard private corporations are required to do to prevent a repeat of “oh lol Bethlehem Steel underfunded your pension, you’re on your own now”?
  - mindslight 5y ago
    To be fair, an honest bill would have switched the pension from defined benefit to defined contribution, like everywhere else that is forced to fully account for pensions.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      This too.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      That would work too, but even those with defined benefit plans are required to fund them at the present discounted rate, just as the postal service was. It's not an absurd condition, though I am happy to accept there's room for reasonable disagreement on the exact timetable for coming into compliance.
      - 5y ago

ddingus 5y ago

Please understand the Post Office is flat out awesome. Private entities cannot compete realistically. And the reason for that is the Post Office exists as infrastructure to connect us all and enable economic growth, as well as serve as an important pillar of democracy. The PO serves everyone mor or less equally. Some are at a serious loss, others are at a nice margin. The PO runs off postage too. So why does it look so bad? The Bush Administration started it with rate adjustments and a requirement to prepay benefits so far in advance that at the time of the legislation there were people not even born yet, who would work for the PO and see their bennies paid for well in advance. Since then, it has been death by 100 cuts, with the most notable event being the destruction of mail sorting machines during the last Administration. Congress has control over the Post Office and has acted for private carriers looking to grow and own more of mail delivery. But, they have a problem with serving everyone as well as the PO does, and generally don't. The Post Office handles the last mile more under contract, and at damn near giveaway rates too. Had Congress acted on our behalf as citizens who benefit from a robust Post Office, we would not be having this discussion. The interests who want everything privatized pretty much hate the Post Office because it represents an exemplary example of government service working as it should and it all runs on postage. The people who need it, fund it. The "lower rates" and "faster arrival times" look appealing now because several decades of artificially hobbling the PO has done damage to the point we are today. All the debt, service problems, delays, were caused by bad actors hobbling the PO to favor private interests. It is not that those services are better. And in specific niches, sure! There is room for FedEx and friends. We need them to handle cases the PO may not handle well. But we also need the PO to do the majority of delivery and equal service too. Getting rid of the PO will actually raise prices and reduce or eliminate service for many who depend on it.

jjeaff 5y ago
I have a friend that is a retired vp at FedEx. I once asked him what he thought of the US Post Office. His opinion was that they are amazing at what they do and the scale they do it at and that there is no way FedEx could get close to their level of ubiquitous service at the prices they charge.
- 5y ago