4 ms·

The nation should subsidize package delivery to remote locations? I'm sure there is a good reason why, but I can't think of an example. I can only hope their

The nation should subsidize package delivery to remote locations? I'm sure there is a good reason why, but I can't think of an example. I can only hope their lack of profit motivation will make them stop taking money from bulk mailers.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Because there are people doing things out there that are valuable to us, but we don't pay them enough to do those things that they could dream of paying the full cost of mail delivery.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Higher costs, higher prices, it works out. But the USPS has plenty of other reasons to exist.
- manquer 4y ago
  Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ? We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it , Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got. Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them ? Government subsidy always creates inefficiencies and is slow to adapt to change . It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ? What is the fair value? We want them doing whatever they're doing, but we don't want to face the actual cost. So we subsidize the services they need/want, so that they will be willing/able to live there and do those things. > We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it It connected my village and the rural corridors on either side of Santa Fe. > Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got. Everyone I know out here who uses Starlink says it is getting visibly worse as more people use it. > If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them I thought COVID made it very clear that the market doesn't price based on the level of actual need, but rather on the desires of those with the most control over resources. > It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them. Clearly, you don't live in a rural area with a substantial drive to local retail. Living without any effective policing is a tradeoff many of us are willing to make, but a return to the pre-Sears days for shopping will empty the hinterlands out in an instant. There are arguments you could make in favor of this outcome, but then be honest and say that's the outcome you're aiming for.
  - psychlops 4y ago
    > Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? It is better for the market to decide. Otherwise you will have some small percentage of people who have excellent reasons why their particular area should receive a disproportionate amount of money.
scarface74 4y ago
Yeah, who needs farmers. Food is so overrated.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Also loggers, quarrymen, miners, hunters, fishermen... Naw, clearly the world is a metropolis measured in tens of square miles large with fiber internet, supermarkets that spawn stuff on shelves, and electricity dyed green.
  - manquer 4y ago
    wouldn’t the market pay the actual value for all the essential things you mentioned if subsidy is not there and rural cost of living goes up significantly? Instead of of subsidizing, we would merely pay for what we consume isn’t that a better deal ? Both you and the farmer get to choose how the money is being spent ?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      No, Farming is heavily subsidized worldwide. If the US stopped subsidizing farming unilaterally, it would decimate (for the pedants yes I know decimate means decline by 10%) US farming. Are you saying that we should depend on other countries for food? You think our chip dependency leaves us vulnerable…
      - manquer 4y ago
        Today we are exporting Alfa Alfa as feedstock to global markets from our drought stricken southwest. The subsidies we are providing has encouraged farming in desserts and is destroying precious water we have . Is depending on another nation so bad compared to that ? Besides There are other ways to protect industry without subsidies- put a tariff on imports for example . A tariff would not protect exports however just local consumption, farming subsidies are designed to dump are unsustainably grown produce in global markets not protect the local Industry.
    - deleted 4y ago
Clubber 4y ago
>I can only hope their lack of profit motivation will make them stop taking money from bulk mailers. If your objective is to lessen your bulk mail, the FTC recommends this service. I've done it and my bulk mail is significantly less. It takes a few months to notice a difference. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

Because there are people doing things out there that are valuable to us, but we don't pay them enough to do those things that they could dream of paying the full cost of mail delivery.

hot_gril 4y ago
Higher costs, higher prices, it works out. But the USPS has plenty of other reasons to exist.
manquer 4y ago
Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ? We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it , Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got. Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them ? Government subsidy always creates inefficiencies and is slow to adapt to change . It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Shouldn’t we be instead paying them the fair value of their labor rather than this and let them choose how to spend that money ? What is the fair value? We want them doing whatever they're doing, but we don't want to face the actual cost. So we subsidize the services they need/want, so that they will be willing/able to live there and do those things. > We tried subsidizing rural broadband for last 3 decades with 100s of billions of dollars with little to show for it It connected my village and the rural corridors on either side of Santa Fe. > Starlink on the other hand is able to solve it with purely commercial enterprise not withstanding the small rural subsidy they got. Everyone I know out here who uses Starlink says it is getting visibly worse as more people use it. > If the market does not value the important things rural economy produces and is absolutely important then they either start valuing them correctly and pay for it or we can stop producing them I thought COVID made it very clear that the market doesn't price based on the level of actual need, but rather on the desires of those with the most control over resources. > It is acceptable trade off in some areas like defense, police, healthcare, insurance, or foundational research where for profit enterprise is not viable but package delivery is hardly one of them. Clearly, you don't live in a rural area with a substantial drive to local retail. Living without any effective policing is a tradeoff many of us are willing to make, but a return to the pre-Sears days for shopping will empty the hinterlands out in an instant. There are arguments you could make in favor of this outcome, but then be honest and say that's the outcome you're aiming for.
- psychlops 4y ago
  > Maybe it is better for the market to decide ? It is better for the market to decide. Otherwise you will have some small percentage of people who have excellent reasons why their particular area should receive a disproportionate amount of money.

scarface74 4y ago

Yeah, who needs farmers. Food is so overrated.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Also loggers, quarrymen, miners, hunters, fishermen... Naw, clearly the world is a metropolis measured in tens of square miles large with fiber internet, supermarkets that spawn stuff on shelves, and electricity dyed green.
- manquer 4y ago
  wouldn’t the market pay the actual value for all the essential things you mentioned if subsidy is not there and rural cost of living goes up significantly? Instead of of subsidizing, we would merely pay for what we consume isn’t that a better deal ? Both you and the farmer get to choose how the money is being spent ?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    No, Farming is heavily subsidized worldwide. If the US stopped subsidizing farming unilaterally, it would decimate (for the pedants yes I know decimate means decline by 10%) US farming. Are you saying that we should depend on other countries for food? You think our chip dependency leaves us vulnerable…
    - manquer 4y ago
      Today we are exporting Alfa Alfa as feedstock to global markets from our drought stricken southwest. The subsidies we are providing has encouraged farming in desserts and is destroying precious water we have . Is depending on another nation so bad compared to that ? Besides There are other ways to protect industry without subsidies- put a tariff on imports for example . A tariff would not protect exports however just local consumption, farming subsidies are designed to dump are unsustainably grown produce in global markets not protect the local Industry.
  - deleted 4y ago

Clubber 4y ago

>I can only hope their lack of profit motivation will make them stop taking money from bulk mailers. If your objective is to lessen your bulk mail, the FTC recommends this service. I've done it and my bulk mail is significantly less. It takes a few months to notice a difference. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-stop-junk-mail