5 ms·
Sure, but then when something goes severely wrong, you wind up thinking of things to better fund USPS. This logic could be applied to literally anything, so yo
by Goronmon 1y ago
Sure, but then when something goes severely wrong, you wind up thinking of things to better fund USPS.
This logic could be applied to literally anything, so your argument is effectively that the government should never fund anything.
If there is a war, cancer/disease research is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't fund cancer/disease research.
If suddenly a famine strikes, war is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't fund the military.
If a sudden deadly disease arises, funding for food security/research is going to be less important, so the government shouldn't be funding any of that as well.
- robertlagrant 1y agoYou're straw-manning their argument to be much more all or nothing than it is. Definitely if there's a total war economy, there's going to be less money for other things, even if that thing is "keeping future inflation in the single digits".
- potato3732842 1y agoExactly. Nobody expects the welfare office to be self sufficient, what are they gonna do, charge all the recipients? But a mail and parcel service, something that the private sector does profitably, shouldn't be deeply in the red though a little from time to time is probably fine.
- fragmede 1y agoOn the other hand though, if the private parcel service had to fund 40 years of pensions instead of giving out 401k's, and were obligated to serve unprofitable routes, they'd be deeply in the red. It's not a remotely level playing field, so it's no wonder the government parcel service is having problems.
- potato3732842 1y agoI wouldn't consider the USPS to be deeply in the red when compared with other government operations.
- fragmede 1y agodeeply in the red is your phrase, not mine
- robertlagrant 1y ago> It's not a remotely level playing field What's causing the unlevel playing field?
- fragmede 1y agoVarious acts of Congress that force them to take on a huge amount of debt and force them to run unprofitable routes. A private company has no such requirements.
- robertlagrant 1y agoOh yes, true, the Post Office in the UK has the same burden. I more meant the pensions.
- HWR_14 1y agoIt costs 15x as much to use a private sector mail service as the USPS.
- robertlagrant 1y agoI can imagine it would cost a bit more, because corporation tax, and you probably can't afford to run a year where you lose $8.8bn[0]. Although I thought USPS had an enforced monopoly on US mail, so how did you do the comparison with private sector mail? [0] https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-usps-reports-fiscal-year-2019-results.htm https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-...
- HWR_14 1y agoI looked up the cost to FedEx an envelope to somewhere in the US. Looks like $10 is about standard (unless you want to go too far or too rural). The USPS will send an envelope anywhere for $0.74. 10/0.74 = 13.5x The USPS has a monopoly on traditional delivery to a mailbox. So FedEx walks all the way to the door which makes it not "traditional delivery"
- giancarlostoro 1y ago> The USPS has a monopoly on traditional delivery to a mailbox. So FedEx walks all the way to the door which makes it not "traditional delivery" Sometimes I find Amazon packages in my mailbox, though I know sometimes amazon will use USPS, so could just be them.