4 ms·

USPS has maintained a substantial deficit for some time. It is, therefore, subsidized by taxpayers. The USPS lost US$ 15.9 billion in 2012, and its revenue

by mh- 13y ago

USPS has maintained a substantial deficit for some time. It is, therefore, subsidized by taxpayers. The USPS lost US$ 15.9 billion in 2012, and its revenue was US$ 65.2 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ubernostrum 13y ago
And this leads down the rabbit hole into the argument about Congress forcing USPS to advance-fund its pensions in a way no other government agency is required to, and which many argue is A) the source of practically all of the deficit, and B) was a deliberate move by members of Congress who wanted the USPS to become money-losing so as to make a stronger case for privatizing it.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  Which, when you think about it, makes no sense at all. If running a postal service that reaches all of the country is a money losing proposition, that's a terrible reason to privatize it, if you think it's in the national benefit to have a postal service.
  - dsl 13y ago
    FedEx and UPS put lots of money behind forcing the USPS to pre-fund union pensions. The goal was to both weaken the postal service, which was trying to move into "fast" shipments (1-2 day vs. the usual week+), and demonstrate that unions were bad for businesses in the delivery industry.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - hnam 13y ago
      The American Postal Workers Union is against the law that requires USPS to pre-fund pensions. http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-015-prcletter-paea_report-110202.htm http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-015-prcletter-paea_r...
      - eggnet 13y ago
        I don't see how this is relevant.
        hnam 13y ago
        He said: "The goal was to both weaken the postal service, which was trying to move into "fast" shipments (1-2 day vs. the usual week+), and demonstrate that unions were bad for businesses in the delivery industry." I am pointing out that the unions hate the law because they see how terrible it is.
        dsl 13y ago
        The unions opinion doesn't matter. The only thing people know about the situation or will remember is "the union took all the money."
        eggnet 13y ago
        Of course it is terrible for the unions. It exposes the true cost of pensions which will weaken their position in future negotiations. It is in the union's best interest to hide the cost of the pensions for as long as possible, with the likely result of taxpayers funding pensions.
  - ubernostrum 13y ago
    Generally the allegation is that there are two groups who want the post office privatized: 1. Hard-line libertarians who argue that, since a post office is neither a national defense nor a means of enforcing contracts, it is beyond the scope of government and thus doomed to fail so long as it is run by government, and 2. Private entities who compete with the post office on package delivery, and would like to see that competition reduced by demonstrating how much more "efficient" (i.e., profitable) they are than a government-run delivery service.
  - criley2 13y ago
    >If running a postal service that reaches all of the country is a money losing proposition, that's a terrible reason to privatize it, if you think it's in the national benefit to have a postal service. Your analysis assumes the public implementation is equivalent with a private one. The reality is that without the enforced monopoly of the USPS and the Congress to protect it, a private business would be profitable. They'd also charge more to achieve it. But that's Capitalism, and by all means mail is most likely artificially priced far below what the market would naturally support.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Both true, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out what (I think) is the bigger point -- UPS and FedEx couldn't deliver a package to every doorstep for flat price of a stamp. This wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd raise prices across the board, but for some residences, it would almost certainly require more than $0.42 (or whatever it is now) to deliver to. My uncle owns over 2,000 mountainy acres in an extremely rural area. Mail to his house takes his postman literally a half an hour out of his way, through treacherous (but paved, sort of) roads, and which is impossible to deliver to in a snow storm. Still, it only takes the cost of a single stamp for me to send him a letter. Him being a nice guy though, has an arrangement with the local post office (or maybe just the postman, I don't know how official or allowed it is) where they suspend junk mail until something legit comes in so that they don't have to make erroneous trips except for when he actually has a package. If he happens to be in town and hasn't received mail, he'll swing by the post office and pick his mail up there.
  - eggnet 13y ago
    I think it is reasonably clear that anyone advocating privatizing mail is going to have to address the issue of the cost of delivery, either by some kind of subsidization by the government (not necessarily federal.. for example it could be done at the county level to promote people living there) or allowing companies to charge appropriately.
dmckeon 13y ago
For OP: here's a commercial source, but read the disclaimers and ToS: http://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/ http://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/ For all, background info on the USPS budget/deficit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-f... http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-872T http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-872T Imagine for a moment working for a company that had had been in business for 220+ years, had policy and procedure manuals that reflected every year of the history, had thousands of physical locations, delivered to millions of locations many times per week, and had 535 people on the board of directors (in the sense of trying to micro-manage whatever they felt like sticking their oar into.) I find it somewhat amazing that the USPS can still deliver mail across the country for less than 50 cents, let alone all the other stuff they can handle - ever been shipped a hive of bees by mail? It's in the Domestic Mail Manual, under Bees http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/601.htm http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/601.htm
- x0054 13y ago
  I am amazed at the OP! Just search google for zip code database. The first result is the link from parent post that gives you a free list of all zip codes, and primary cities they are associated with, plus a ton of other data. How on earth did this even get to a freedom of information request? And how did this end up on the front page of HN?

by mh- 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ubernostrum 13y ago

And this leads down the rabbit hole into the argument about Congress forcing USPS to advance-fund its pensions in a way no other government agency is required to, and which many argue is A) the source of practically all of the deficit, and B) was a deliberate move by members of Congress who wanted the USPS to become money-losing so as to make a stronger case for privatizing it.

jrochkind1 13y ago
Which, when you think about it, makes no sense at all. If running a postal service that reaches all of the country is a money losing proposition, that's a terrible reason to privatize it, if you think it's in the national benefit to have a postal service.
- dsl 13y ago
  FedEx and UPS put lots of money behind forcing the USPS to pre-fund union pensions. The goal was to both weaken the postal service, which was trying to move into "fast" shipments (1-2 day vs. the usual week+), and demonstrate that unions were bad for businesses in the delivery industry.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnam 13y ago
    The American Postal Workers Union is against the law that requires USPS to pre-fund pensions. http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-015-prcletter-paea_report-110202.htm http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-015-prcletter-paea_r...
    - eggnet 13y ago
      I don't see how this is relevant.
      - hnam 13y ago
        He said: "The goal was to both weaken the postal service, which was trying to move into "fast" shipments (1-2 day vs. the usual week+), and demonstrate that unions were bad for businesses in the delivery industry." I am pointing out that the unions hate the law because they see how terrible it is.
        dsl 13y ago
        The unions opinion doesn't matter. The only thing people know about the situation or will remember is "the union took all the money."
        eggnet 13y ago
        Of course it is terrible for the unions. It exposes the true cost of pensions which will weaken their position in future negotiations. It is in the union's best interest to hide the cost of the pensions for as long as possible, with the likely result of taxpayers funding pensions.
- ubernostrum 13y ago
  Generally the allegation is that there are two groups who want the post office privatized: 1. Hard-line libertarians who argue that, since a post office is neither a national defense nor a means of enforcing contracts, it is beyond the scope of government and thus doomed to fail so long as it is run by government, and 2. Private entities who compete with the post office on package delivery, and would like to see that competition reduced by demonstrating how much more "efficient" (i.e., profitable) they are than a government-run delivery service.
- criley2 13y ago
  >If running a postal service that reaches all of the country is a money losing proposition, that's a terrible reason to privatize it, if you think it's in the national benefit to have a postal service. Your analysis assumes the public implementation is equivalent with a private one. The reality is that without the enforced monopoly of the USPS and the Congress to protect it, a private business would be profitable. They'd also charge more to achieve it. But that's Capitalism, and by all means mail is most likely artificially priced far below what the market would naturally support.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Both true, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out what (I think) is the bigger point -- UPS and FedEx couldn't deliver a package to every doorstep for flat price of a stamp. This wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd raise prices across the board, but for some residences, it would almost certainly require more than $0.42 (or whatever it is now) to deliver to. My uncle owns over 2,000 mountainy acres in an extremely rural area. Mail to his house takes his postman literally a half an hour out of his way, through treacherous (but paved, sort of) roads, and which is impossible to deliver to in a snow storm. Still, it only takes the cost of a single stamp for me to send him a letter. Him being a nice guy though, has an arrangement with the local post office (or maybe just the postman, I don't know how official or allowed it is) where they suspend junk mail until something legit comes in so that they don't have to make erroneous trips except for when he actually has a package. If he happens to be in town and hasn't received mail, he'll swing by the post office and pick his mail up there.
- eggnet 13y ago
  I think it is reasonably clear that anyone advocating privatizing mail is going to have to address the issue of the cost of delivery, either by some kind of subsidization by the government (not necessarily federal.. for example it could be done at the county level to promote people living there) or allowing companies to charge appropriately.

dmckeon 13y ago

For OP: here's a commercial source, but read the disclaimers and ToS: http://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/ http://www.unitedstateszipcodes.org/ For all, background info on the USPS budget/deficit: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-for-the-post-office.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/nocera-its-d-day-f... http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-872T http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-872T Imagine for a moment working for a company that had had been in business for 220+ years, had policy and procedure manuals that reflected every year of the history, had thousands of physical locations, delivered to millions of locations many times per week, and had 535 people on the board of directors (in the sense of trying to micro-manage whatever they felt like sticking their oar into.) I find it somewhat amazing that the USPS can still deliver mail across the country for less than 50 cents, let alone all the other stuff they can handle - ever been shipped a hive of bees by mail? It's in the Domestic Mail Manual, under Bees http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/601.htm http://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/601.htm

x0054 13y ago
I am amazed at the OP! Just search google for zip code database. The first result is the link from parent post that gives you a free list of all zip codes, and primary cities they are associated with, plus a ton of other data. How on earth did this even get to a freedom of information request? And how did this end up on the front page of HN?