Comment by twblalock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by twblalock | Hacker News Reader

The article appeals to the USPS's historic role connecting rural communities and employing African Americans at a time when many business would not. Fine. But we don't live in the past, we live in the present. I don't want to keep the USPS around because of the social impact it had a century ago.

The article also talks about the USPS's role supporting e-commerce businesses. I don't buy it. E-commerce businesses use a number of other delivery services, and I don't buy the idea that they would fold if the USPS went away. The USPS is just one of many options for them. The majority of the stuff I buy online is delivered by UPS and FedEx, and Amazon drivers.

There is substantial demand for delivery services, so much so that multiple for-profit companies including UPS and FedEx are able to survive without government help. If the USPS is having trouble thriving in that environment, it must be doing something wrong.

I'd like to see an argument for saving the USPS that does not depend on nostalgia.

> Why is it that multiple delivery companies are able to survive on their own in the free market, yet the USPS cannot?

USPS operates with many government mandates that don't apply to private companies.

Some of the financial woes are actually inflicted by the government. For example, the government mandated that the USPS pre-fund retiree health benefits well into the future, in a way that no rational private company would ever consider. This alone has contributed significantly to their cash flow problems:

They even provide a convenient chart of how their profit/loss looks without the pre-funding requirement, at least up through 2010: https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/...

> USPS operates with many government mandates that don't apply to private companies.

Then let's remove those mandates before asking the taxpayers to pump more money into a failing system. The system won't magically fix itself. If we allow it to continue to demand more and more money, there won't be any incentive to fix the underlying problems.

We could have a very similar conversation about the pension obligations of Ford or General Motors, but I doubt people would be as enthusiastic about bailing them out as they are about the USPS.

> I'd like to see an argument for saving the USPS that does not depend on nostalgia.

It's relied upon by millions of people to deliver ballots in an election being held in a pandemic less than three months in the future. How about we disassemble it in a non-partisan way a little later?

We need ballots delivered, but I don't see why the USPS is the only option for delivering them. Why does it have to be the USPS? There are plenty of other companies that are very good at delivering mail.

It’s a federal crime to tamper with USPS mail. If UPS or FedEx decide not to deliver your parcel you may be entitled to a partial refund.

Obviously if state governments made a deal with UPS or FedEx to deliver ballots they would include some stipulations about delivering them.

Besides, the law is no guarantee. The USPS loses plenty of packages. You have no real recourse. What are you going to do, take them to small claims court? Make the government count your ballot anyway (assuming they believe you)? Good luck with that. Such guarantees mean nothing the real world.

Be that as it may, it makes no sense to replace a public service with a rent seeking operation. Improve the public service, don’t give up and part it out.

Paper mail? Voting? Seriously you think that isn't providing value?

Paper mail and mail-in ballots could easily be handled by any of the other deliver companies that operate in the United States. We are talking about moving paper documents from one place to another. Why is it that UPS and FedEx make a profit doing that, while the USPS cannot?

I mean a large reason USPS isn't profitable is that they have been forced to pay pensions in full ahead of time..

Regardless, having voting go through private companies isn't good enough. They aren't bound by the Constitution the same way USPS is.

Have you ever tried to mail a letter with UPS or FedEx?

These are not comparable entities.

I have done it several times. It was no problem at all. I prefer using them for important documents. Why would you think it would be any worse than the USPS?

Mailing a letter with USPS means putting it in my mailbox. Comparing the in-office experience is disingenuous.

Yes? Its an even better experience because there's rarely a line and the clerk is usually polite.

Mailing a letter with USPS means putting it in my mailbox. Comparing the in-office experience is disingenuous.

for one thing, USPS serves last-mile rural customers that UPS and FedEx do not find profitable. If you send a package to one of those places, FedEx/UPS will ship your package to the nearest town and then just _put it in the mail_

I think the argument is that mail is an essential service (e.g. for voting) that the government has a mandate to provide to communities that the private sector would not bother to service because it would not be profitable for them to do so.

What do you suppose would cost more: bailing out the failing business model of the USPS for decades to come, or just having state governments contract with another delivery company to deliver ballots during election years?

The USPS serves the more remote addresses that those private alternatives will not choose to lose money on. They contract out to USPS for those deliveries.

I highly doubt a private mail corp would get the job done. Consider healthcare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com