Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why don't they just charge more to deliver to those areas?

Because they aren’t allowed to, because it is considered a public service that should be equally available to all.

> If i live on a mountain top why should I expect people to haul shit to me for free?

Not for free. You pay taxes. And you should expect it because it’s what USPS does.

Now sure, there can be a whole debate about whether or not it should be the way it is, but that’s not what you asked. As per your original post:

> Unless they offer a better service than private industry, they will be a money sink.

It is a better service and it’s a money sink by design: it’s a public service that is funded by taxes. If they didn’t have insane pension obligations they’d be in a much better state financially, but they’ve been kept in a stranglehold over that for many years now:

https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume

>Now sure, there can be a whole debate about whether or not it should be the way it is, but that’s not what you asked.

I literally used the word "should" in the portion of my post that you quoted, but I see you were a little eager for electronic head pats.

There is no reason, in principle, why USPS can't eat up enough of the UPS/FedEx/Amazon market-share to at least stay afloat as a business without having to resort to the business tactics that people are most concerned about. (poor working conditions, anti-competitive behavior, etc.) But they aren't. They are chronically under-performing, and to me that is evidence in of itself that they are not serving their stated purpose right now.

What’s the rush? With so many people concerned about the election, if all of this is actually about the business viability of the service, surely it can’t hurt to make sure they’re fully resourced for the next few months so that no one will be in a position to say that USPS being shredded was a component of electoral fraud.

The post is a call to action to "save the USPS." I'm saying it's not at all worth it to throw good money after bad money while the entire rest of the world is imploding.

It seems like it would be a lot easier to convince people to take that point seriously by funding the post office until after the election and having the discussion then.

Funding USPS for the rest of the calendar year is, in relative terms, not that expensive -- so, I would find your argument a lot more credible if you were willing to have the discussion about privatizing it in the new year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com