Mail delivery slowdown: USPS to slow delivery starting October 1 | Hacker News Reader

Mail delivery slowdown: USPS to slow delivery starting October 1

cbsnews.com

28 pointselsewhen43 comments

Intentionally slow it down even MORE than it already is ? Christ we need better leadership at all levels that actually care about serving the people.

I don’t understand why the stooge with conflicts of interest[0] that the former president put in charge in an attempt to subvert and hamstring the biggest vote-by-mail election ever is still the postmaster general.

Shouldn’t the new administration have replaced him with someone competent?

[0] https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/experts-agre...

Here’s a petition to sign:

https://www.change.org/p/save-the-usps

The thing is, they do serve the people - all of them, even the ones in prudhoe bay, alaska.

Meanwhile amazon uses its own service for the most easily reached addresses, UPS for most other addresses, and grinds down the USPS serving the exceptional/hard addresses (which might not be cost effective for USPS).

In other news, “70% of the U.S. population now lives within 100 miles of an Amazon Air airport.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/04/map-of-amazon-air-locations-...

Time to disband the post service.

Let it be done by a private organization, for lower rates and faster arrival times.

Guess what most private organizations actually contract last mile to the postal service, because it is not profitable to do deliver in heavily rural areas. The postal service is a public good.

That many organizations contract the USPS to make deliveres for them does not make it a public good. Many organizations contract out payroll or lawn care as well, because they can't profitably do it themselves as well as another business that can do it more cost effectively.

A public good is by definition one that is non-excludable and non-rival.

* non-rival means that if one person uses the good, it does not prevent another user from using it. An example would be someone listening to a radio broadcast does not prevent someone else from doing that. The USPS is not a non-rival good because as more people use the USPS, it requires more resources to deliver the mail. Mail delivery is a rival good.

* non-excludable means that you cannot prevent someone from using the good. An example of this would be a park without a fence around it, or the air you breathe, or a road without a toll, or the view of a beautiful mountain. The USPS is most definately excludable, as if you don't have the postage stamp the mail is not delivered.

Of course the above fall along a spectrum. It might be feasible to encrypt the broadcast, making it an excludable good. It might not be economically feasible to prevent someone from using the road or enjoying a scenic view.

So whether something is a public good depends as much on technology and cost effictiveness as anything else, it's not a characteristic of the good in isolation of the economy.

Thus the invention of encryption made the airwaves a rival good and set off a renaissance of broadcast products from Satellite TV and Internet to pay-per-view broadcasts, something that was not possible when the technology didn't allow broadcasts to be excludable.

But in our current world, with the technology of postage stamps well understood, it's clear that the USPS is not a public good.

It totally is. Fact is anti government interests have paid Congress to hobble the Post Office to encourage your point of view.

Corruption, bribes, deliberate mismanagement and debt all have impacted the Post Office to make private carriers look better.

It started with the Bush Administration and has gone on for decades.

No matter how good it might be for the general public, USPS doesn’t meet the definition of a “public good” as long as they require stamps and put more mailmen in trucks every year.

The classic example is a lighthouse. It serves an unlimited number of sailors, but it’s hard to make them pay for it, which is a rationale for using tax money to build one and ignore the free rider problem.

The Post has no free rider problems, and runs on postage.

The service is the public good, and operating it where all are served equally (remember everyone can receive a package at no cost to them) is in the public interest.

No private entity can, or even has a plan to do the same at anywhere close to the low cost and quality of service.

A public good isn’t paid for by users. That’s part of how economists define that term, and why they make theories about how and when someone else ought to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)

See above. I am not making an entirely economic argument.

My explaining basic definitions of words is not a "point of view", it's a basic fact. The meanings of words should not offend you. The definition of "public good" has no more to do with the Bush administration than the definition of "celsius" has to do with the Carter administration.

The term "public good" is a term from economics and has a specific economic meaning. It's not a term like "demand" that was in circulation by non-economists and was given a specialist meaning, so there can be confusion by people who use "demand" in a non-specialist way. "public good" is term coined by economists, so if you are going to use it, you need to understand it.

The word "good" here is meant as an object value (e.g. "goods and services") not as as moral claim. And the term "public" here does not mean "the public benefits from the good", but that the public as a whole cannot be prevented from benefiting from the good. Obviously the public benefits from all goods, otherwise they wouldn't be demanded by the public and they wouldn't have a positive price. But that is not what we are talking about here.

You can learn about what public goods are in this article: https://sites.bu.edu/manove-ec101/files/2017/11/WikipediaPub...

Anyone can receive a package.

Seems good enough to qualify for me.

The point is that "public good" has a narrow technical definition, and mail delivery isn't one.

Note that there are other economics terms that do apply in favor of supporting the USPS. For example, last mile letter delivery is a natural monopoly.

I do not care.

I am not making an entirely economic argument.

Fact is, the Post Office is in the Constitution and it must be run by the Federal Government. The basic premise behind all of that is we are better able to exercise our freedom with it, and self governance than without and that is also the basis for the authority government has.

It was deemed necessary we have a Post Office as part of all that to actually work and be to our benefit.

Say what you want. Public good has clear use outside technical economic theory.

Disingenuous.

The companies they talk about are shipping companies.

If your dentist contracts out landscaping, well of course they do. If your landscaping company contracts out landscaping to another company then it damn well does matter.

The current private carrier letter rate is over an order of magnitude higher than the post office. And no, they're not going to make it up on volume. The post office is a public service, and naive attempts to run it like a business are responsible for its current state.

Worse, it totally delivered positive revenue to the Treasury, until the Bush Administration reforms changed its rate structure amd required insane future benefits be prepaid an excessively long time in advance.

You mean the same standard private corporations are required to do to prevent a repeat of “oh lol Bethlehem Steel underfunded your pension, you’re on your own now”?

To be fair, an honest bill would have switched the pension from defined benefit to defined contribution, like everywhere else that is forced to fully account for pensions.

This too.

That would work too, but even those with defined benefit plans are required to fund them at the present discounted rate, just as the postal service was. It's not an absurd condition, though I am happy to accept there's room for reasonable disagreement on the exact timetable for coming into compliance.

So am I, and the big harm done here was the Bush Admin rate table reforms. Basically, the Post carries a ton of big publishing and other package traffic at a near loss, or flat out loss, with increases in letter rates and small scale package traffic intended to make up the difference.

It didn't.

What's absurd is that this accounting has been turned into a political talking point with useful idiots asserting the organization is broken because it's not turning a profit. Meanwhile the Department of War spends trillions every year and yet nobody compares it to an insolvent business, seemingly because the spending benefits those who define the popular talking points.

Which would be a fine point to argue, “let’s take this back to a pure service model funded out of taxes”; but at some point they decided to make it self funding with some monopoly privileges (hence the gaudy signs they put up about not taking tax money) and as long as we’re going to stick with that decision, then yes, they need to recognize pension liabilities as liabilities and prefund them like any other corporation.

As a libertarian, I'd be 100% in favor of removing the prohibition on private parties competing with the USPS in exchange for the postal service being overtly subsidized.

But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.

As one who leans left, I agree with you.

>But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.

The post runs on postage, not taxes. It should run on postage, and should be able to expand its services

And in that model it should be funding its deferred compensation and recognizing such on the books as a liability. It wasn’t before.

That burden could have been met at a far less aggressive initial cost. It is not like a private company where high level people make sure and pay themselves no matter what...

Secondly, had the original rate structure been left in place, the Post would have met that burden with ease.

It has proven hard to do that and offer near giveaway services to big publishing and others contracting to cover gaps in service.

Yes, if you're allowed to let employee compensation go unfunded, you can show a profit.

No, that is not what I said.

If you are allowed to charge rates appropriate to employee compensation, inclusive, then none of it is a problem.

The rate structure, prior to the Bush Administration reforms, would have been more than up to the task, and by the way, would have reduced margins for private entities looking to profit more than they should reasonably by depending on the Post Office...

Previously, they were allowed to leave pensions unfunded and just pay it out of future revenue, like Bethlehem Steel. Now they have to fund it like a private corporation would. Now the accounting books are correct.

Indeed. The key Point here though is the post office was set up to fail by the rate changes.

The greater point is the management failures and abuse has are all about promoting private interests, not about running the post office as intended and necessary. And we the people suffer for all of that because we're seeing a great thing he created unnecessarily so that others can profit out of hand.

No? If the pensions etc liabilities weren’t on their books, they were already insolvent, they just didn’t recognize it. Forcing the funding just prevented a future rude awakening to this fact.

They were no where near insolvent.

And, again pay attention: The pre pay requirement was no problem given the existing rate structure.

Combining that pre pay with a forced too low, giveaway to big publishing and contract delivery, rate schedule caused the problem.

And, it could all be fixed right now too. Just let the Post adjust the rates and they will be fine, and that adjustment will still be well below what the private carriers can manage, and it will still serve everyone while taking great care of its people.

They were forced by Congress to adopt a rate structure setup to fail, to create the conversation you are trying to have about it today. Doing that was unnecessary.

I checked back and can't believe you sill debated this point.

If they weren't insolvent, then filling the gap wouldn't have been a burden! You can't have it both ways -- scream bloody murder that were hobbled by this requirement, but then also insist that they had the means to satisfy this requirement.

You're right that maybe with a new rate structure they would have become solvent, but "solvency" is a "right now" question, not a "hypothetical post-restructure" question. Lots of orgs could become solvent if they could shuck off or restructure debt, but they still get called insolvent.

Please understand the Post Office is flat out awesome. Private entities cannot compete realistically.

And the reason for that is the Post Office exists as infrastructure to connect us all and enable economic growth, as well as serve as an important pillar of democracy.

The PO serves everyone mor or less equally. Some are at a serious loss, others are at a nice margin.

The PO runs off postage too.

So why does it look so bad?

The Bush Administration started it with rate adjustments and a requirement to prepay benefits so far in advance that at the time of the legislation there were people not even born yet, who would work for the PO and see their bennies paid for well in advance.

Since then, it has been death by 100 cuts, with the most notable event being the destruction of mail sorting machines during the last Administration.

Congress has control over the Post Office and has acted for private carriers looking to grow and own more of mail delivery. But, they have a problem with serving everyone as well as the PO does, and generally don't.

The Post Office handles the last mile more under contract, and at damn near giveaway rates too.

Had Congress acted on our behalf as citizens who benefit from a robust Post Office, we would not be having this discussion.

The interests who want everything privatized pretty much hate the Post Office because it represents an exemplary example of government service working as it should and it all runs on postage. The people who need it, fund it.

The "lower rates" and "faster arrival times" look appealing now because several decades of artificially hobbling the PO has done damage to the point we are today.

All the debt, service problems, delays, were caused by bad actors hobbling the PO to favor private interests.

It is not that those services are better.

And in specific niches, sure! There is room for FedEx and friends.

We need them to handle cases the PO may not handle well.

But we also need the PO to do the majority of delivery and equal service too.

Getting rid of the PO will actually raise prices and reduce or eliminate service for many who depend on it.

I have a friend that is a retired vp at FedEx. I once asked him what he thought of the US Post Office. His opinion was that they are amazing at what they do and the scale they do it at and that there is no way FedEx could get close to their level of ubiquitous service at the prices they charge.

I've heard similar takes. And my own is right in line with what he said.

This is one scenario where I think greed is hurting the American people. There's plenty of room for a robust post office and lots of niche private services that can make their owners tons of money.

A lot of this is ideological, if you ask me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com