NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the United States Postal Serive be privatized? It may've been useful as a government function when it was first established, but now we have plenty of independent mail carriers who can do the job. So, should it be privatized?

The USPS remains both cheap and reliable. The private package companies are generally reliable, but not cheap.

Should the United States Postal Serive be privatized? It may've been useful as a government function when it was first established, but now we have plenty of independent mail carriers who can do the job. So, should it be privatized?


And you know, I'd just rather let the government do somethings, not the private industry. They might look through it, but so might a private agency, and I'd rather not get the spam (excuse me, content directed messaging) from them.

It would take a constitutional amendment (as the constitution clearly says the feds should provide a post office) to change that, not something I think should be taken lightly.

The USPS remains both cheap and reliable. The private package companies are generally reliable, but not cheap.Exactly. I guarantee you that a private company would never be able to make it sending a letter across the country for thirty seven cents, while simultaneously providing carriers with a living wage. My father in law has been a postal worker for almost thirty years, so perhaps I'm a bit biased on this, but my answer to the original thread question is not only no, but hell no.

1. Does the USPS receive government subsidies? Are its employees paid with tax money? If so, then we can't really say that it's cheaper because we're not seeing the full cost. If not, then what makes it any different from a private corporation?

2. How many things that get sent through the mail these days really need to be?

It would take a constitutional amendment (as the constitution clearly says the feds should provide a post office) to change that, not something I think should be taken lightly.

Hmmhmmm, sure it would, when it comes to something as simple as a post-office they need an amendment; but when it has to do with confiring war-powers on the president, or having a standing army for longer than 2 years they don't have to.... oh yeah, sure....

1. Does the USPS receive government subsidies? Are its employees paid with tax money? If so, then we can't really say that it's cheaper because we're not seeing the full cost. If not, then what makes it any different from a private corporation?It's a strange sort of situation. They pay their own way through postal rates, but can't raise them when unilaterally, so there are years when they can't meet their budget and have to be subsidized by Congress. It's always a one-time appropriation, though, and then postal rates are raised to cover the difference. This is all coming from memory, though, so if anyone wants to challenge it with a link to a non-partisan website, I'd welcome it.

2. How many things that get sent through the mail these days really need to be?
Why does it matter? In my opinion, the government run postal service is a net good--we get excellent service for a very low price and a significant number of people have good paying jobs as a result.

1. Does the USPS receive government subsidies? Are its employees paid with tax money? If so, then we can't really say that it's cheaper because we're not seeing the full cost. If not, then what makes it any different from a private corporation?

No and no. The only Post Office official paid with government money is the Postmaster General. In fact, the federal government *owes* money to the post office, which it previously borrowed.

The current post office is different from a private corporation in that it does certain things that are not cost effective - like delivering to rural routes on a daily basis. If you would like to continue receiving mail at home without huge fees, you should be glad you have the post office.

Why does it matter? In my opinion, the government run postal service is a net good--we get excellent service for a very low price and a significant number of people have good paying jobs as a result.
Well, you see, I'm a libertarian. I'm also a Linux-user. I like to see systems broken down into small components that do one thing efficiently and nothing else. My firewall doesn't check my e-mail. My government doesn't deliver packages.

Well, you see, I'm a libertarian. I'm also a Linux-user. I like to see systems broken down into small components that do one thing efficiently and nothing else. My firewall doesn't check my e-mail. My government doesn't deliver packages.

Which do you want, true efficiency or mail delivered to every citizen's home should they want it - as per the constitution?

No and no. The only Post Office official paid with government money is the Postmaster General. In fact, the federal government *owes* money to the post office, which it previously borrowed.

The current post office is different from a private corporation in that it does certain things that are not cost effective - like delivering to rural routes on a daily basis. If you would like to continue receiving mail at home without huge fees, you should be glad you have the post office.

plus the post office does governmental things that if it were an utterly private entity would have to be done by some other govt office that in most towns just doesnt exist now.

i got my passport through the local post office. the postmaster certified my identity.

the draft registration forms are available at the post office.

there are some other things but they dont come to my mind.

The problem with allowing competitors to operate mailing services is that it would actually increase the cost to consumers. This is the opposite of most industries, but the reason for it is the huge network involved in the postal service. Any company that wanted to operate a rival to the USPS would need to set up stores all across the country, as well as purchase huge numbers of trucks, vans, planes, etc. The result would be that the same number of consumers were paying for two collossal infrastructural networks instead of one. Hence, a public postal service is cheaper. Counterintuitive, I know, and it is possible that the USPS is so hopelessly inefficient that the efficiency gained by competition would offset the costs of maintaining the networks, but I think this is highly unlikely.

Hell no ... the coffee at the post office (the stuff they give postal employees) is the finest coffee in the world! If it were privatized, I'd have to go to *shudder* Starbucks.

The problem with allowing competitors to operate mailing services is that it would actually increase the cost to consumers. This is the opposite of most industries, but the reason for it is the huge network involved in the postal service. Any company that wanted to operate a rival to the USPS would need to set up stores all across the country, as well as purchase huge numbers of trucks, vans, planes, etc. The result would be that the same number of consumers were paying for two collossal infrastructural networks instead of one. Hence, a public postal service is cheaper. Counterintuitive, I know, and it is possible that the USPS is so hopelessly inefficient that the efficiency gained by competition would offset the costs of maintaining the networks, but I think this is highly unlikely.
You're absolutely right. Any company that tried to compete with the postal service would drown in a sea of red ink and if they survived, would take years to actually compete. Rural services would be cut in a heartbeat and postal rates would go through the roof.

Anyone from Europe want to clue us in how much it costs to send a letter across a single country, much less across a continent?

Well, you see, I'm a libertarian. I'm also a Linux-user. I like to see systems broken down into small components that do one thing efficiently and nothing else. My firewall doesn't check my e-mail. My government doesn't deliver packages.
Card-carrying member here myself. But I'd have to disagree, at least on one level. I don't use the post office at all for any business documents (FedEx does the job without a hitch 99% of the time). And if you notice, the USPS is always playing catch up with them (They pick up packages from your home, now so do we!). It's been obvious for years who's leading the race there.
But, as was stated before, there's a genuine need for many of the services the USPS provides that wouldn't be available elsewhere at the moment in many areas.
Once an USPS alternative catches up, and provides more affordable services for the masses, the USPS would become obsolete.
I'm kinda glad it's there for now. I wouldn't want to pay curent FedEx prices just to mail off my monthly bills.

Well, I would keep it since it's one of the few government institutions that turns a profit. 3 billion last year! The government is extremely wasteful most of the time, so it's nice to have at least one thing that can offset costs.

Well, I would keep it since it's one of the few government institutions that turns a profit. 3 billion last year! The government is extremely wasteful most of the time, so it's nice to have at least one thing that can offset costs.
A government institution that made money? I thought that was as likely as seeing GWB riding a unicorn to Camp David on Fox.
If that's the case, then there are obviously far more destructive departments that need to go, and this should rate very low on the priorities list. Maybe that's why it's not specifically discussed much in Libertarian circles.

A government institution that made money? I thought that was as likely as seeing GWB riding a unicorn to Camp David on Fox.
If that's the case, then there are obviously far more destructive departments that need to go, and this should rate very low on the priorities list. Maybe that's why it's not specifically discussed much in Libertarian circles.
If NASA even got small royalties from the technology they developed and spearheaded over the last 40 years, they'd be well in the black too. Private companies not only got paid for manufacturing their rockets, but they got to keep the technology as well.

If NASA even got small royalties from the technology they developed and spearheaded over the last 40 years, they'd be well in the black too. Private companies not only got paid for manufacturing their rockets, but they got to keep the technology as well.

There's private corps all around Cape Canaveral here in FL. In a way, NASA is already largely privatized (they'd have to be considering how many cuts they've received since Challenger). Lockeed Martin, Boeing and many others have establishments almost NASA's size... and they're everywhere.
This sounds like a good point, but I'm unclear on where you were going with it, so I don't know where to go from here.

The real question is, why hasn't it been privatized yet? And privatize NASA too.

Privatize education.

Get rid of the Dept of Energy.

AMTRAK?? Let it go...that's a waste of $$

There's private corps all around Cape Canaveral here in FL. In a way, NASA is already largely privatized (they'd have to be considering how many cuts they've received since Challenger). Lockeed Martin, Boeing and many others have establishments almost NASA's size... and they're everywhere.
This sounds like a good point, but I'm unclear on where you were going with it, so I don't know where to go from here.I was just playing off the point that the Post Office is actually profitable and your surprise at that. Just merely pointing out that if NASA had been compensated for the technological breakthroughs they pushed through, they'd be the biggest moneymaker in the government. Instead, private companies reaped the benefits.

I'll have to say "no" as privatization is generally a bad thing.

I was just playing off the point that the Post Office is actually profitable and your surprise at that. Just merely pointing out that if NASA had been compensated for the technological breakthroughs they pushed through, they'd be the biggest moneymaker in the government. Instead, private companies reaped the benefits.
The same is true for the public universities that do medical research.

Anyone from Europe want to clue us in how much it costs to send a letter across a single country, much less across a continent?
60 cent in first class to anywhere in EU. (in euros, in Finland)

52 cent in Spain if I remember correctly.

Exactly. I guarantee you that a private company would never be able to make it sending a letter across the country for thirty seven cents, while simultaneously providing carriers with a living wage. My father in law has been a postal worker for almost thirty years, so perhaps I'm a bit biased on this, but my answer to the original thread question is not only no, but hell no.

It's not making it across the country for $.37.

Taxes subsidize the post office. You're already paying more for it. Just not always using it.

It's not making it across the country for $.37.

Taxes subsidize the post office. You're already paying more for it. Just not always using it.
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Taxes do not subsidize the Postal Service--they pay their own way and then some. Of course, if you can disprove that, I'd like to see it.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Taxes do not subsidize the Postal Service--they pay their own way and then some. Of course, if you can disprove that, I'd like to see it.

You're right. I was looking at pre-1970 data. Sorry!

It's not making it across the country for $.37.

Taxes subsidize the post office. You're already paying more for it. Just not always using it.

Wrong. Tax money does not in any way go to the post office (unless you count the salary of the postmaster general - *one person*)

EDIT: Ok, someone else already said it =)