logoalt Hacker News

ks2048 • today at 8:45 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

Probably because of the silly idea of quasi-privatization,

> But, beginning in the 1970s, the Postal Service largely stopped receiving any taxpayer money for ongoing operations. Postal operations are instead funded by sales to you, the postal customer. Now it depends almost entirely on sales to keep the lights on.

https://www.uspsoig.gov/focus-areas/did-you-know/postal-serv...


Replies

JoshTriplett • today at 9:02 PM

> Postal operations are instead funded by sales to you, the postal customer. Now it depends almost entirely on sales to keep the lights on.

If you ever wonder why you get so much postal spam, this is why. The USPS is mostly funded by advertising. They could, for instance, stop the practice of accepting "deliver this junk to every mailbox in this region"...but then they'd go bankrupt.

➕ show 1 reply
xp84 • today at 8:59 PM

Yeah, it is definitely one of the most tortured organizations I know of. Congress as usual wants a ton of conflicting things:

1. Mandate universal delivery of letters regardless of distance or remoteness, even out in some wilderness region of Alaska, guarantee everyone the right to get a letter for the same stamp price as to deliver a letter from one office in the Chrysler Building to another one.

2. Have USPS not get taxpayer funds for anything

3. Impose arbitrary price controls on postage based on Congressional vibes

4. Have postal employees still be federal employees and qualify for cushy benefits and retirement (I assume this is there because their unions would strike if it was taken away)

5. Micromanage how that retirement plan is funded

6. Give USPS special privileges like the one being discussed... or like the basic monopoly on 'delivering non-urgent letters' that bars UPS from delivering mail into your mailbox.

If all the above sound extremely confused, that's because the USPS has been the object of political meddling for at least 5-6 decades, so it still shows the fingerprints of many ideologically-conflicting schemes and agendas all at once.

➕ show 2 replies