5 ms·

The US post office gets a lot of crap thrown at it when in reality it is quite well run. They're totally bootstrapped (stamp sales pay for everything) and take

The US post office gets a lot of crap thrown at it when in reality it is quite well run. They're totally bootstrapped (stamp sales pay for everything) and take no money from taxes. They service every household in the country, rain or shine. They've scaled from nothing to hundreds of millions of customers and survived hundreds of years. They move millions and millions of physical goods across the entire country in days. If this were a startup or private company we would be in awe of their track record.

nickff 5y ago
This isn't quite true; the USPS was formed in 1971, out of the United States Post Office Department.[1] It didn't '[scale] from nothing'. The USPS also enjoys a monopoly on mailbox deliveries, as well as price protections, in the form of a floor imposed on potential competitors. This doesn't seem particularly admirable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act
- claudiulodro 5y ago
  However, on the flip side, they are not really allowed to shut down unprofitable service areas in the middle of nowhere and are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - flutas 5y ago
    > are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations Because other companies can simply cut the benefits, USPS cannot. The best explainer I've seen is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/?sh=2d451e447f5d https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... > ALL companies are required to fund any pension promises they make to their employees. (...) NONE of them are permitted to take a “pay as you go” approach but must contribute to a pension fund an amount equivalent to what a worker has accrued that year in benefit promises, regardless of how far into the future that worker will be retiring, and must make up for any shortfalls due to asset losses or other reasons. The USPS and private sector companies use the same general actuarial principles to do so, though there are differences in assumptions, particulars of the calculations, etc. > What is distinctive about the USPS is that, a a result of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), they are also required to pre-fund their retiree medical promises. However, what is also distinctive is that any private-sector company may simply cancel its retiree medical benefits at any time; the funding requirement for the USPS exists because only an act of Congress would enable them to cut these benefits. > However, even here, again, all companies which promise retiree medical benefits must account for them in their financial reporting even if they don’t prefund. As well as this line when discussing the USPS Fairness Act, which would eliminate the pre-funding requirement. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the... [PDF Warning] > passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  In exchange for that monopoly they have a universal delivery mandate. Amazon pays them $3 to essentially tape a $10 bill to parcels and deliver them to rural communities. It’s a vital service like mass transit or roads.
- rhinoceraptor 5y ago
  They also have a number of competitive disadvantages, they have to pre-fund their pension plans, as well as the fact that they are required to service remote addresses that private companies don't, since they aren't profitable. And that's not even touching on the point that looking at the postal service as a private business is completely asinine. No one looks at the military or schools as a private business that needs to make a profit.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  The USPS probably would not survive in its current form in a free marketplace, where competitors could obtain equal access to mailbox deliveries. If they did survive, the service would become a pale imitation of its current offerings, because there would be an exodus of customers eager to try a viable alternative. Anecdotally, I would be among the first in line to dump them, just as I would choose to dump every government monopoly if I had such a choice (e.g. fire, police, etc.). You know, the way things were back when citizens had a modicum of actual freedom, rather than the constant gaslighting that attempts to redefine our modern cultural slavery as "freedom". Everything the government touches turns to the worst possible kind of shit.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
anonu 5y ago
I also think they are important for national security. If you ever needed to roll out a vaccine quickly - the USPS would be the first bit of infrastructure you would leverage.
- rmk 5y ago
  Was that the case in this pandemic? And how is it different from pressing private companies into service via the Defense Production Act?
  - anonu 5y ago
    > Was that the case in this pandemic? Not really. Vaccines were deployed via centralized health centers. > pressing private companies into service I am talking about a distribution network. Lets go back to that time in March 2020 when the US started realizing COVID was a real thing and everyone went into lockdown. Imagine the next time, where we are able to mass manufacture a vaccine pill within the matter 1-2 weeks. Having the USPS distribution system could be invaluable here. We certainly wouldn't be in our third year of COVID-related disruptions as we are now.
rmk 5y ago
"They have scaled from nothing to hundreds of millions of customers and survived hundreds of years." Okay, this is not particularly novel, and the implied comparison to scaling digital services is flawed. "If this were a startup or private company we would be in awe of their track record." Again, if a startup operated like USPS they would fold real quick. The USPS has continuously received public money to remain in operation. They are not innovative. The only area where they are expanding is in parcel delivery, and they often turn it over to other partners to do the last-mile pickup and delivery. However, startups can aspire to the ubiquity of USPS. In many towns, the Post Office is the only happening place and fosters community, and occupies an important place in the hearts of people who rely on it in a big way. Many private logistics providers such as UPS and FedEx do not serve these areas because it's uneconomical for them, and the Post Office is the only logistics provider. For this reason, the USPS deserves taxpayer support.
- Rayhem 5y ago
  > They are not innovative. I really, really don't want to see the post office innovate on the timescales of startups. IMO "more reliable" > "more features" for this kind of work. I don't want someone thinking of how to put (more) ads on my mail, I just want my mail.

nickff 5y ago

This isn't quite true; the USPS was formed in 1971, out of the United States Post Office Department.[1] It didn't '[scale] from nothing'. The USPS also enjoys a monopoly on mailbox deliveries, as well as price protections, in the form of a floor imposed on potential competitors. This doesn't seem particularly admirable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act

claudiulodro 5y ago
However, on the flip side, they are not really allowed to shut down unprofitable service areas in the middle of nowhere and are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- flutas 5y ago
  > are required to pre-fund retiree benefits to a greater extent than other organizations Because other companies can simply cut the benefits, USPS cannot. The best explainer I've seen is here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/?sh=2d451e447f5d https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p... > ALL companies are required to fund any pension promises they make to their employees. (...) NONE of them are permitted to take a “pay as you go” approach but must contribute to a pension fund an amount equivalent to what a worker has accrued that year in benefit promises, regardless of how far into the future that worker will be retiring, and must make up for any shortfalls due to asset losses or other reasons. The USPS and private sector companies use the same general actuarial principles to do so, though there are differences in assumptions, particulars of the calculations, etc. > What is distinctive about the USPS is that, a a result of the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), they are also required to pre-fund their retiree medical promises. However, what is also distinctive is that any private-sector company may simply cancel its retiree medical benefits at any time; the funding requirement for the USPS exists because only an act of Congress would enable them to cut these benefits. > However, even here, again, all companies which promise retiree medical benefits must account for them in their financial reporting even if they don’t prefund. As well as this line when discussing the USPS Fairness Act, which would eliminate the pre-funding requirement. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the... [PDF Warning] > passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position.
Spooky23 5y ago
In exchange for that monopoly they have a universal delivery mandate. Amazon pays them $3 to essentially tape a $10 bill to parcels and deliver them to rural communities. It’s a vital service like mass transit or roads.
rhinoceraptor 5y ago
They also have a number of competitive disadvantages, they have to pre-fund their pension plans, as well as the fact that they are required to service remote addresses that private companies don't, since they aren't profitable. And that's not even touching on the point that looking at the postal service as a private business is completely asinine. No one looks at the military or schools as a private business that needs to make a profit.
voakbasda 5y ago
The USPS probably would not survive in its current form in a free marketplace, where competitors could obtain equal access to mailbox deliveries. If they did survive, the service would become a pale imitation of its current offerings, because there would be an exodus of customers eager to try a viable alternative. Anecdotally, I would be among the first in line to dump them, just as I would choose to dump every government monopoly if I had such a choice (e.g. fire, police, etc.). You know, the way things were back when citizens had a modicum of actual freedom, rather than the constant gaslighting that attempts to redefine our modern cultural slavery as "freedom". Everything the government touches turns to the worst possible kind of shit.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

anonu 5y ago

I also think they are important for national security. If you ever needed to roll out a vaccine quickly - the USPS would be the first bit of infrastructure you would leverage.

rmk 5y ago
Was that the case in this pandemic? And how is it different from pressing private companies into service via the Defense Production Act?
- anonu 5y ago
  > Was that the case in this pandemic? Not really. Vaccines were deployed via centralized health centers. > pressing private companies into service I am talking about a distribution network. Lets go back to that time in March 2020 when the US started realizing COVID was a real thing and everyone went into lockdown. Imagine the next time, where we are able to mass manufacture a vaccine pill within the matter 1-2 weeks. Having the USPS distribution system could be invaluable here. We certainly wouldn't be in our third year of COVID-related disruptions as we are now.

rmk 5y ago

"They have scaled from nothing to hundreds of millions of customers and survived hundreds of years." Okay, this is not particularly novel, and the implied comparison to scaling digital services is flawed. "If this were a startup or private company we would be in awe of their track record." Again, if a startup operated like USPS they would fold real quick. The USPS has continuously received public money to remain in operation. They are not innovative. The only area where they are expanding is in parcel delivery, and they often turn it over to other partners to do the last-mile pickup and delivery. However, startups can aspire to the ubiquity of USPS. In many towns, the Post Office is the only happening place and fosters community, and occupies an important place in the hearts of people who rely on it in a big way. Many private logistics providers such as UPS and FedEx do not serve these areas because it's uneconomical for them, and the Post Office is the only logistics provider. For this reason, the USPS deserves taxpayer support.

Rayhem 5y ago
> They are not innovative. I really, really don't want to see the post office innovate on the timescales of startups. IMO "more reliable" > "more features" for this kind of work. I don't want someone thinking of how to put (more) ads on my mail, I just want my mail.