4 ms·

Would you expand on why you believe this to be true? I don't think it's wise to focus only on money without considering other factors; however, when looking at

Would you expand on why you believe this to be true? I don't think it's wise to focus only on money without considering other factors; however, when looking at decisions like this that don't make sense on the surface, especially when political factors are in play, money is very often going to be a driving factor.

oh_sigh 5y ago
If you have a surface level understanding of a problem and don't understand the proposed solution, then the best path forward is to dig a little deeper and understand the problem better, or just move on with your life and accept that you can't know everything about every field. Deciding that your surface level understanding of the problem coupled with some general concepts (ie money is often a driving factor), is enough to make a confident pronouncement on the issue is exactly self-inflicted thought suppression.
- haswell 5y ago
  I was not suggesting one use "follow the money" as a default. I was reacting to the parent comment that dismissed the idea entirely without explaining why.
Uehreka 5y ago
Part of the problem is that people say “I’m telling you someone’s making a buck, just follow the money”, then they don’t actually follow the money. For many people, it’s enough to just say that catchphrase and not even bother looking into it. The argument wins itself. Another part of the problem is that when I do see people follow the money, they often come up with something like “the deputy undersecretary of the USPS’s brother used to work for Ford (as a mechanic at a dealership when they were in college)!” And then they treat that fact as if it overrules all the complicated forces that go into this kind of organizational decision-making. So no, following the money is not a bad idea on paper. But in practice it’s often very sloppy, to the point that it’s frequently annoying when trying to have meaningful debate about policy issues.
- voldemort1968 5y ago
  > it’s enough to just say that catchphrase and not even bother looking into it. The argument wins itself. And that is why it's thought suppression.
- haswell 5y ago
  To clarify my parent comment, I'm not advocating for blindly resorting to "follow the money", and I acknowledged that. But your response is actually substantive and delves into some of the pitfalls of this kind of thinking, which was missing from the GP, and really what I was asking for.
SllX 5y ago
> when looking at decisions like this that don't make sense on the surface The USPS is ordering a fleet of trucks to operate in all of the United States of America from the Arctic Circle to Hawaii and the Florida Keys. They can’t just order EVs, they have to order the infrastructure to charge them and they need mechanics that can service them, and the trucks have to be able to operate anywhere the USPS deploys them. Maybe that’s an argument for a mixed fleet, and there’s certainly room for criticism in any large government expenditure and of USPS itself, but it does not on the surface make no sense given that we still depend on USPS to deliver Mail to a service area that per Congressional mandate includes every address in America. Personally I think a mid-generation partial upgrade of the fleet to EVs would give USPS time to work out kinks, charging infrastructure and mechanic concerns without sacrificing the reliability of their service ahead of the generation after this one is probably the way to go.
- haswell 5y ago
  These are all great points, and certainly highlight some of the challenges in rolling out EVs. But at a time when the climate crisis is as severe as it is today, "it's too hard" can't be an excuse. I'd still argue that this decision doesn't make sense in the context of the global problems we face today, even if they make some sort of tactical sense in the short term. The rollout doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, and the article acknowledges that some EV's will be purchased. Humorously enough, the primary reason cited by the USPS for the decision: $$$ (I realize that's not what the GP was implying)
  - SllX 5y ago
    It’s not an excuse: it’s a practical reason to not do a thing given finite resources. Somebody has to design the trucks, somebody has to manufacture them, someone has to service them, and somebody has to build the stuff that will charge them in a place the USPS can guarantee the availability of space for and security for their trucks, which practically means USPS or at least USPS adjacent property. The climate is changing is not a legitimate reason to over-spend, or worse: over-spend, over-promise and under-deliver. Anything they build today is bound to be safer and pollute less than their current fleet, so why hold up replacing the fleet when what they need from an EV practically doesn’t exist outside of exactly Tesla’s supercharge network?

oh_sigh 5y ago

If you have a surface level understanding of a problem and don't understand the proposed solution, then the best path forward is to dig a little deeper and understand the problem better, or just move on with your life and accept that you can't know everything about every field. Deciding that your surface level understanding of the problem coupled with some general concepts (ie money is often a driving factor), is enough to make a confident pronouncement on the issue is exactly self-inflicted thought suppression.

haswell 5y ago
I was not suggesting one use "follow the money" as a default. I was reacting to the parent comment that dismissed the idea entirely without explaining why.

Uehreka 5y ago

Part of the problem is that people say “I’m telling you someone’s making a buck, just follow the money”, then they don’t actually follow the money. For many people, it’s enough to just say that catchphrase and not even bother looking into it. The argument wins itself. Another part of the problem is that when I do see people follow the money, they often come up with something like “the deputy undersecretary of the USPS’s brother used to work for Ford (as a mechanic at a dealership when they were in college)!” And then they treat that fact as if it overrules all the complicated forces that go into this kind of organizational decision-making. So no, following the money is not a bad idea on paper. But in practice it’s often very sloppy, to the point that it’s frequently annoying when trying to have meaningful debate about policy issues.

voldemort1968 5y ago
> it’s enough to just say that catchphrase and not even bother looking into it. The argument wins itself. And that is why it's thought suppression.
haswell 5y ago
To clarify my parent comment, I'm not advocating for blindly resorting to "follow the money", and I acknowledged that. But your response is actually substantive and delves into some of the pitfalls of this kind of thinking, which was missing from the GP, and really what I was asking for.

SllX 5y ago

> when looking at decisions like this that don't make sense on the surface The USPS is ordering a fleet of trucks to operate in all of the United States of America from the Arctic Circle to Hawaii and the Florida Keys. They can’t just order EVs, they have to order the infrastructure to charge them and they need mechanics that can service them, and the trucks have to be able to operate anywhere the USPS deploys them. Maybe that’s an argument for a mixed fleet, and there’s certainly room for criticism in any large government expenditure and of USPS itself, but it does not on the surface make no sense given that we still depend on USPS to deliver Mail to a service area that per Congressional mandate includes every address in America. Personally I think a mid-generation partial upgrade of the fleet to EVs would give USPS time to work out kinks, charging infrastructure and mechanic concerns without sacrificing the reliability of their service ahead of the generation after this one is probably the way to go.

haswell 5y ago
These are all great points, and certainly highlight some of the challenges in rolling out EVs. But at a time when the climate crisis is as severe as it is today, "it's too hard" can't be an excuse. I'd still argue that this decision doesn't make sense in the context of the global problems we face today, even if they make some sort of tactical sense in the short term. The rollout doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, and the article acknowledges that some EV's will be purchased. Humorously enough, the primary reason cited by the USPS for the decision: $$$ (I realize that's not what the GP was implying)
- SllX 5y ago
  It’s not an excuse: it’s a practical reason to not do a thing given finite resources. Somebody has to design the trucks, somebody has to manufacture them, someone has to service them, and somebody has to build the stuff that will charge them in a place the USPS can guarantee the availability of space for and security for their trucks, which practically means USPS or at least USPS adjacent property. The climate is changing is not a legitimate reason to over-spend, or worse: over-spend, over-promise and under-deliver. Anything they build today is bound to be safer and pollute less than their current fleet, so why hold up replacing the fleet when what they need from an EV practically doesn’t exist outside of exactly Tesla’s supercharge network?