Hacker News Reader

Comment by curiousgeorgio | Hacker News Reader

> The USPS is a crucial part of the US infrastructure.

Mail delivery and shipping are crucial, not the USPS. There are plenty of other private companies that can and do show the ability to do what the USPS does - only more efficiently (and without consistently losing money). At this point in history, there's no need for us to continue supporting the tax-subsidized[1] money pit that is the USPS.

Yet another piece of evidence that private industry is more effective than government-funded programs.

[1] Make no mistake - the USPS might be able to claim they don't receive tax money for operations (technically), but the laws and other perks protecting their monopoly status have a real-world cost, and the net effect is no different from that of a tax.

edit: Ok, it looks like many people disagree. If that's the case, explain yourself instead of simply hitting the downvote button.

View on HN

> Mail delivery and shipping are crucial, not the USPS. There are plenty of other private companies that can and do show the ability to do what the USPS does - only more efficiently

This is a completely false statement. Private shipping companies do not do what USPS does, and in fact private shipping companies often partly use USPS. See for example FedEx SmartPost [1].

Private shipping companies have the exact same problem that all private companies have: they only have the incentive for profit. That means that people that are not profitable will receive no service from them. For private shipping companies, that means people in rural areas will either be completely unable to get mail, or will need to pay ridiculous prices for mail (think >$20 for a letter).

The only reason Amazon and other online retailers offer free shipping in the entire US is because USPS is mandated by law to subsidize shipping to expensive rural areas. No other private shipping company can or will do this because it goes entirely against the motive of profit.

If USPS is out of the picture that means people in rural areas will not be able to receive mail anymore or will need to pay ridiculous rates for delivery and mail. The benefit of that is that people in cities might pay a few cents less on postage. Emphasis on might. The more likely reality is that shipping costs will go up for everyone and the profits made by only servicing people in cities will be privatized. A great win for the CEO of FedEx, but a loss for all other citizens of the US.

[1] https://www.reveelgroup.com/fedex-smartpost/

“The Postal Service receives NO tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.” https://facts.usps.com/top-facts/

The PS also relies on having a legal monopoly on the delivery of first class mail.

What private companies are delivering mail to rural areas in the middle of Montana? And how much do you think they charge to deliver a single letter to someone an hour away? (Answers: No one - they contract the work to the USPS, and at least $10 per letter)

But why do we need to deliver paper letters?

As ezrast says below, the real goal is a "reliable communications network", which I agree with wholeheartedly. In the 18th century, that was spelled "Post Offices and Post Roads". They couldn't have anticipated email. Must we interpret the Constitution's requirement so literally?

Maybe "post offices and post roads" could mean "internet service". We're seeing public school taught over the internet today, due to COVID-19, so I think it's fair to call the internet an essential service. That's how I receive 99% of my communications. Does even rural Montana really find it more valuable to send pieces of paper than internet packets?

Let's stop printing 100 million advertisements every day just to drive them across the country and throw them away somewhere else. Instead, let's use the office to provide internet access to everyone. I think that would be exactly in line with the spirit of the Constitution.

Perhaps $10 dollars a letter is what it should cost in rural Montana; why is subsidizing a lifestyle choice the post offices business?

Because a reliable communications network is a public good, and cutting off millions of poor Americans from critical services is a despicable way of remediating whatever vague injustices the USPS is perceived to be committing against taxpayers.

If you want to give welfare to poor Americans give them welfare and let them pay the true price of their goods. I bet most of them would choose to keep the money and have postal service once a week, or every 2 weeks if they could keep the cash savings.

There's no reason we have to choose between those things. Network utility scales with connectivity. It doesn't make sense to optimize for profit when doing so triggers a race to the bottom for service all over the fringes of the network.

USPS lost $9 billion in 2019[1], so roughly $30 per American. Anyone who pays even one bill per month via mail would pay at least 4x that much at current private rates. I'm not inclined to believe privatization would bring those rates down much for rural areas.

Sure, if we assume we've implemented UBI and eradicated poverty or something then those prices aren't a big deal. But even then, what have we gained by privatizing? Private industries that provides critical services are either massively subsidized (agriculture, transportation - indirectly via roads) or massively unpopular and frequently monopolistic (telecommunications, health insurance). Even if a talented CEO could squeeze a few percentage points of efficiency out of this industry, it would come at the cost of misaligning incentives in perpetuity, and the government would still be responsible for keeping the industry afloat whenever the economy goes bad.

Or we could let them charge a few extra cents for postage, let them operate 5 days/week instead of 6, charge the wealthiest Americans a couple extra tax dollars each, and keep consistent service available at dirt-cheap prices for everyone everywhere.

[1] https://about.usps.com/what/financials/annual-reports/fy2019...

Exactly. Why would anyone be opposed to once a week delivery if it meant balancing the budget?

It's illegal for private companies to deliver letters.

1. The USPS receives no tax subsidization.

2. The USPS is the only organization in US History that was mandated by Congress to fully fund its pension for 75 years into the future (i.e. potentially for employees that are _yet to be BORN_).

Details like that are what make the USPS a ripe target.

#2 is not true about funding for employees not yet born. The law unfairly requires the USPS to save money for its accrued future promised benefits, especially healthcare benefits.

However, the problem isn’t that the USPS is required to recognize the cost of these benefits, the problem is no other governments are required to. There’s a reason only taxpayer funded entities offer retiree healthcare benefits, and that’s because it’s a ludicrously costly benefit to give if you don’t have the power to tax.

The same applies to defined benefit pensions. If anything, all other entities promising defined benefit and retiree healthcare benefits should be subject to the same laws. Maybe then, politicians and current taxpayers wouldn’t be able to steal from future taxpayers for today’s labor costs.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/is-usps-losing-money-because-...

No one else does what the USPS does. No one else does daily rural mail delivery. The USPS is also not tax subsidized.

The USPS has legally enforced monopolies on various forms of mail delivery:

https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/privat...

> No one else does what the USPS does

They certainly could if it weren't for laws preventing them from delivering to people's mailboxes.

What are the laws preventing UPS from delivering to extremely rural areas?

> What are the laws preventing UPS from delivering to extremely rural areas?

Apparently it's literally illegal for anyone but USPS to put something in your mailbox https://blog.oup.com/2017/07/mailboxes-us-mail/.

That’s not what I asked but okay. Also the reference is what looks to be on some persons blog post.

> That’s not what I asked but okay.

You asked what laws stopped them delivering mail to rural locations. You can't deliver mail anywhere, rural or otherwise, if you can't use the mailbox when you get there. That's the law you were asking about.

> Also the reference is what looks to be on some persons blog post.

Yes the blog explains the context around the law. Is this one better if you want to appeal to authority https://about.usps.com/news/state-releases/tx/2010/tx_2010_0...?

Economics.

We still need someone to do it.

Most definitely, which is why we mandate USPS to do it, even if at a loss. They are not a business, they are a transportation utility.

The same laws I described, along with pricing. While the laws don't directly prohibit private delivery to those areas, they greatly reduce the economic incentive to do so by (1) prohibiting delivery to regular mailboxes and, (2) allowing USPS to charge such low rates so as to lose money on every delivery (no one can compete with that).

It’s a critical service. No one should be allowed to profit off of critical services.

Is there an argument to be made that a privatized version could run better? Not unless it gets to leverage people’s need of their mail next to its own greedy need for profit.

Something tells me for-profit companies will not be as generous to those less fortunate than us.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2002/07/08/02-1690...

To add to the ongoing list, the USPS is the only delivery service that cannot open up your mail/packages without a warrant.

The USPS has been secretly recording to and from information and handing it over to feds for decades.

Seems unsubstantiated. Proof? Would love to learn more here.

It's not some secretive process.[1]

[1] https://informeddelivery.usps.com/box/pages/intro/start.acti...

I meant more about the "secretive" part. The phrasing made it sound like it was more than just collecting and passing on the to/from data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-ma...

Yes, it is.

I live in rural America. If we relied on for-profit, I imagine I would have to drive to the closest pick-up location (40 minutes), as I have to do right now for my UPS/FedEx packages.

That seems fair, unless you want to pay more. Why should someone be subsidizing your housing choice?

I guess the same can be said for roads, water, electricity, and any other utility. And it also points out that the one thing that is for-profit is completely unavailable in any modern form out here - internet and phone. Our options for internet are dial-up (35/mo, no download/upload cap as if that matters) or satellite (75/mo, 15gb up/down cap monthly). Phone has copper home phone options at 60/mo. Cell doesn't work.

Not everyone can live in cities, is my only argument for you. My work, and the work of those I serve, relies on my existing in a rural area. Food comes from somewhere. I know it sounds hand wavy and dismissive, but that's the truth for me, and my area.

Without some amount of cooperation and working together, who would want to live out here where there is nothing? Then who grows the food?

That's great, so bear the actual cost of your lifestyle and let the price ripple through the system. Maybe food needs to cost a tiny bit more.

Would you be for a grocery store tax that kept groceries the same price everywhere? Irregardless of shipping and land costs?

It costs a lot to run internet connectivity all over the place, if the town wanted to pay to run the cables it could, or a non-profit could, there's a wide variety of solutions. My guess is that it's just not worth the cost/maintenance for the few people that need it vs the other options. Internet may need to cost 1k per month if only a few people are using it and the cables need to be run a long distance.

Proper prices are the only way we can proper figure out how to allocate resources. If we stopped subsidizing remote farmland, maybe farmland near cities would be more viable.

>That's great, so bear the actual cost of your lifestyle and let the price ripple through the system.

I don't set the prices of the commodities I sell. Those are set at a national/international level and make their way to the local grain elevator. For that to happen, it would, essentially, be a tax on your food to subsidize me living here to make the food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com