4 ms·

FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything, very nearly. If it weren't for the univer

FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything, very nearly. If it weren't for the universal service requirement, the USPS could operate like the private companies. But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live. You do the math on that universal service vs. choosing the profit maximization thing. Talking about the post office's losses without citing that context is disingenuous. Also, from having worked at a mailing house, I can tell the author doesn't understand much about how the post office actually routes mail.

colins_pride 17y ago
FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything That is an awesome insight, it really cuts through all of the noise. If it weren't for the universal service requirement .. But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live. This part I question .. shouldn't people who live in expensive to serve places and/or people who want to send mail to those places pay for the costs that they're imposing on the system?
- sachinag 17y ago
  There's a long-standing tradition that communication between any two of a country's citizens is important to protect as it is a public good. Postmaster General was a cabinet position for many years because of this. The desire to impose market pricing on market costs for everything is unsettling to me.
  - colins_pride 17y ago
    Utilities are public goods, and people pay proportional to the cost they impose on the system. And the economics work out well, not because there is a conscious effort to impose markets on people, but instead because incentives are aligned.
    - aardvarkious 17y ago
      With utilities, you pay based on how much you use, not on how difficult it is to get them to you. So, for example, if you live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, it is more expensive to give you power than if you live in the city (you need dedicated infrastructure to get the power to you, and chances are you are further away from the power plant which means more power gets lost in transmission). Yet you pay the same per kw/h as if you lived in the city. Where you start paying more is if you use more power. (at least, this is the case where I live. Sorry if it is different in the US) Postage works exactly the same way. No matter how expensive it is to get a package to you, you pay a fixed rate for it. However, you also pay proportional to the cost you impose on the system is that you pay per package.
      - colins_pride 17y ago
        Rates vary - substantially - by reigion depending on sources of power and transmission costs. If you live in an area with hydroelectric power, you pay much lower rates, for example. If you live a rural area, you have to pay for the connections. Perhaps utilities were a bad choice of example on my part because of this usage confusion.
      - anamax 17y ago
        > With utilities, you pay based on how much you use, not on how difficult it is to get them to you. Actually, you do pay for untilities based on how expensive it is to get to you. The local power folks won't run a line to whereever you happen to be "for free". They'll charge you, the developer, someone. If you're a long way from "enough" capacity, the cost can be significant. That's why some folks aren't on the untilities grid.
  - Herring 17y ago
    Did you read the article, or have you been paying attention? Communication between citizens has changed a little over the years. Ignoring the market doesn't make costs & benefits disappear. In fact the author argues that's what got them into this fix.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    This is very true. We should protect communication between citizens. I'd personally rather that we do this through protection of Internet communications. People don't send letters anymore, they send email (or tweets, or whatever). I'd be happy if the money that is going to keep the postal service subsidized instead went into subsidizing universal internet access.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Postal communication between citizens is a classical private good. It is both rivalrous (my letter takes up space in the mail carrier's bag which your letter can not occupy) and excludible (if you don't pay, they don't deliver). A public good is not just a good you want the government to provide, the term actually has a meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
    - sachinag 17y ago
      You're only looking at it from the shipper's perspective, not the receiver's. The postman is a romantic figure because of the recipient, not the sender. And, frankly, the idea that my letter excludes your letter from the carrier's mailbag is laughable. No, they cannot fit in the same physical space, but there's room for more than one letter in the bag/carrier/truck.
      - bokonist 17y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        Carrying letters is rivalrous. As more people send letters, the bag will fill up and more mail carriers will be needed. Compare this to a real public good, e.g. national defense. National defense is non-rivalrous because me enjoying living in a non-communist country does not hinder you enjoying the same thing. As for the postman being a romantic figure, not sure how that fits into the question of whether mail delivery is a public good or not.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Government control of the post office was more about controlling the flow of information. Recently I was reading a biography of Ben Franklin, and the reason the Postmaster position was so important back then was that you could use it to control the newspapers that went out. "Bradford was the postmaster of Philadelphia, and he used that post to deny Franklin the right, at least officially, to send his Gazzette through the mail" - http://books.google.com/books?id=L64OOJGaCKIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ben+franklin+american+life#PPA115,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=L64OOJGaCKIC&printsec=f... ( search for "postmaster" )
  - maxharris 17y ago
    > There's a long-standing tradition You are attempting to rely on a well-known logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition...
  - maxharris 17y ago
    What is your opinion on "urban sprawl"? What effect do universal service subsidies and other public works (such as highways) have on the rate of expansion of settlements?
rsheridan6 17y ago
>FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything, very nearly. Yes, they actually send unprofitable packages through the USPS.
jerf 17y ago
Your argument is basically that universal service is "nice". Yes, I know you wouldn't phrase it that way, but it is what it boils down to. The counterargument is the simple fact that as the system is working and structured now, we can't afford it. An awful lot of the problem with the way we've been responding to this economic crisis is the way that people have been acting as if we can just wish for nice things that we can't afford, and somehow it'll all just work out. Car companies may be losing money by the billions, but it sure would be nice if they made a profit, so let's wish a few more billion at them to lose, rather than making the hard decisions. It sure would be nice if the postal system could make money without making the hard decisions, so let's wish a few more billion at them. At some point, you have to make the hard decisions. People spit at the word "profit" because of the various (mostly stupid) negative connotations given to it, but remember that no matter how socialist or even communist you may be, SOMETHING has to make a profit! Whether it's a profit in money or a profit in credits or a profit in sweet, sweet love, something has to generate more value than the effort you put into it, or you have no money or credits or love to subsidize your other desires with. Now, if you make the right hard decisions, we can probably keep universal service. The article has several constructive suggestions. But some hard decisions will have to be made. (And for all the exciting rhetoric from the Obama administration about making hard decisions, I can't hardly name one actually hard decision he's made, rather than wishing more taxpayer money at things that make no money.) Individually, maybe we could afford a postal service that loses billions, but against an economy where everything is having trouble, we probably need to go to a model where the post office at least breaks even... and if that means losing something "nice", well, so be it.
gojomo 17y ago
Talking about the post office's losses without citing that context [universal service] is disingenuous. The article devotes much discussion to the Universal Service Obligation; its origin, rationale, effects, and ways it can be updated without generating the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of losses the USPS is now racking up. Did you read the article? But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live. Should the rest of the country pay tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for your convenience, if they don't share your preference?

colins_pride 17y ago

FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything That is an awesome insight, it really cuts through all of the noise. If it weren't for the universal service requirement .. But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live. This part I question .. shouldn't people who live in expensive to serve places and/or people who want to send mail to those places pay for the costs that they're imposing on the system?

sachinag 17y ago
There's a long-standing tradition that communication between any two of a country's citizens is important to protect as it is a public good. Postmaster General was a cabinet position for many years because of this. The desire to impose market pricing on market costs for everything is unsettling to me.
- colins_pride 17y ago
  Utilities are public goods, and people pay proportional to the cost they impose on the system. And the economics work out well, not because there is a conscious effort to impose markets on people, but instead because incentives are aligned.
  - aardvarkious 17y ago
    With utilities, you pay based on how much you use, not on how difficult it is to get them to you. So, for example, if you live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, it is more expensive to give you power than if you live in the city (you need dedicated infrastructure to get the power to you, and chances are you are further away from the power plant which means more power gets lost in transmission). Yet you pay the same per kw/h as if you lived in the city. Where you start paying more is if you use more power. (at least, this is the case where I live. Sorry if it is different in the US) Postage works exactly the same way. No matter how expensive it is to get a package to you, you pay a fixed rate for it. However, you also pay proportional to the cost you impose on the system is that you pay per package.
    - colins_pride 17y ago
      Rates vary - substantially - by reigion depending on sources of power and transmission costs. If you live in an area with hydroelectric power, you pay much lower rates, for example. If you live a rural area, you have to pay for the connections. Perhaps utilities were a bad choice of example on my part because of this usage confusion.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > With utilities, you pay based on how much you use, not on how difficult it is to get them to you. Actually, you do pay for untilities based on how expensive it is to get to you. The local power folks won't run a line to whereever you happen to be "for free". They'll charge you, the developer, someone. If you're a long way from "enough" capacity, the cost can be significant. That's why some folks aren't on the untilities grid.
- Herring 17y ago
  Did you read the article, or have you been paying attention? Communication between citizens has changed a little over the years. Ignoring the market doesn't make costs & benefits disappear. In fact the author argues that's what got them into this fix.
- joeyo 17y ago
  This is very true. We should protect communication between citizens. I'd personally rather that we do this through protection of Internet communications. People don't send letters anymore, they send email (or tweets, or whatever). I'd be happy if the money that is going to keep the postal service subsidized instead went into subsidizing universal internet access.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Postal communication between citizens is a classical private good. It is both rivalrous (my letter takes up space in the mail carrier's bag which your letter can not occupy) and excludible (if you don't pay, they don't deliver). A public good is not just a good you want the government to provide, the term actually has a meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
  - sachinag 17y ago
    You're only looking at it from the shipper's perspective, not the receiver's. The postman is a romantic figure because of the recipient, not the sender. And, frankly, the idea that my letter excludes your letter from the carrier's mailbag is laughable. No, they cannot fit in the same physical space, but there's room for more than one letter in the bag/carrier/truck.
    - bokonist 17y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Carrying letters is rivalrous. As more people send letters, the bag will fill up and more mail carriers will be needed. Compare this to a real public good, e.g. national defense. National defense is non-rivalrous because me enjoying living in a non-communist country does not hinder you enjoying the same thing. As for the postman being a romantic figure, not sure how that fits into the question of whether mail delivery is a public good or not.
- bokonist 17y ago
  Government control of the post office was more about controlling the flow of information. Recently I was reading a biography of Ben Franklin, and the reason the Postmaster position was so important back then was that you could use it to control the newspapers that went out. "Bradford was the postmaster of Philadelphia, and he used that post to deny Franklin the right, at least officially, to send his Gazzette through the mail" - http://books.google.com/books?id=L64OOJGaCKIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ben+franklin+american+life#PPA115,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=L64OOJGaCKIC&printsec=f... ( search for "postmaster" )
- maxharris 17y ago
  > There's a long-standing tradition You are attempting to rely on a well-known logical fallacy. See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition...
- maxharris 17y ago
  What is your opinion on "urban sprawl"? What effect do universal service subsidies and other public works (such as highways) have on the rate of expansion of settlements?

rsheridan6 17y ago

>FedEx and UPS take the most profitable business from the USPS, while the post office serves everywhere and everything, very nearly. Yes, they actually send unprofitable packages through the USPS.

jerf 17y ago

Your argument is basically that universal service is "nice". Yes, I know you wouldn't phrase it that way, but it is what it boils down to. The counterargument is the simple fact that as the system is working and structured now, we can't afford it. An awful lot of the problem with the way we've been responding to this economic crisis is the way that people have been acting as if we can just wish for nice things that we can't afford, and somehow it'll all just work out. Car companies may be losing money by the billions, but it sure would be nice if they made a profit, so let's wish a few more billion at them to lose, rather than making the hard decisions. It sure would be nice if the postal system could make money without making the hard decisions, so let's wish a few more billion at them. At some point, you have to make the hard decisions. People spit at the word "profit" because of the various (mostly stupid) negative connotations given to it, but remember that no matter how socialist or even communist you may be, SOMETHING has to make a profit! Whether it's a profit in money or a profit in credits or a profit in sweet, sweet love, something has to generate more value than the effort you put into it, or you have no money or credits or love to subsidize your other desires with. Now, if you make the right hard decisions, we can probably keep universal service. The article has several constructive suggestions. But some hard decisions will have to be made. (And for all the exciting rhetoric from the Obama administration about making hard decisions, I can't hardly name one actually hard decision he's made, rather than wishing more taxpayer money at things that make no money.) Individually, maybe we could afford a postal service that loses billions, but against an economy where everything is having trouble, we probably need to go to a model where the post office at least breaks even... and if that means losing something "nice", well, so be it.

gojomo 17y ago

Talking about the post office's losses without citing that context [universal service] is disingenuous. The article devotes much discussion to the Universal Service Obligation; its origin, rationale, effects, and ways it can be updated without generating the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars of losses the USPS is now racking up. Did you read the article? But personally, I like getting my mail no matter where I live. Should the rest of the country pay tens to hundreds of billions of dollars for your convenience, if they don't share your preference?