upvote
>The economy operates most efficiently when things cost what they should or as close as possible.

When things cost as close as possible to their MARGINAL cost. The marginal cost of mailing a letter is very low, almost certainly closer to $0 than $0.83, especially if you accept letter carriers have to run their route every day regardless.

The problem of course is the USPS has enormous fixed costs, including I would argue the pensions (honestly not sure how they would be accounted for in a GAAP sense, I'm absolutely not an accountant)

Federal funding has long distinguished between the two for other things like transit. You're only allowed to use federal funds for capital expenses, not operational expenses. USPS getting a taxpayer subsidy for their fixed costs doesn't seem that nuts.

reply
This is how it works in Denmark. A letter costs 23DKK ($3.44) within this small country. A fast letter is 36DKK ($5.39).

I think I've received two letters in the last year. I haven't received any individual junk mail letters.

The letter volume last year was 90M for 6M people, so about 15 each. I assume elderly people and others who have opted out of receiving government and business mail digitally drive that number up.

(Someone still delivers a bundle of leaflets from local businesses all together every month or so, and a local newspaper, but I don't think it's the postal service. Every home gets the same bundle.)

reply
What a.... limited, I guess, viewpoint.

I personally get a massive benefit from USPS being cheap, despite the fact that I send no mail. It provides a massive low-cost physical delivery network across the country, with service to every address. This is a benefit to me because it makes business and personal communication simple and reliable. If I need it personally, it's there. If I don't, I still rely on thousands of parties who do.

Your position is like claiming the interstate system is useless because you don't have a car, ignoring how all those goods your life relies on actually get to you.

reply
Parent poster is exactly the kind of person who argues that using tax dollars for school is wrong because they, personally, do not have kids. Because they can't realize that they indirectly benefit from it.
reply
John Green: "So let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools, even though I don't personally have a kid in school: It's because I don't like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people."
reply
This would be a good argument if school actually made people smart. It doesn't.
reply
Do you really think that the average intelligence/education level would be higher if we just didn't have schools?

Maybe you're an autodidact like many other engineers, and maybe you would have done better without schooling. Such people are a minority.

Like many, I think you're confusing "the school system is flawed" (it is) with "school bad."

reply
Not a great argument to make considering that most western countries are seeing their PISA scores drop off a cliff recently.

If the schools in a given country were pumping out geniuses year after year then maybe you would have a point.

reply
I agree. There are problems with the school system(s). Therefore, the concept of schooling is bad. We should just not have schools!
reply
Your comment works great in a vacuum with no other inputs, but it doesn't hold up.

The unintended consequence of this is all the junk mail that makes regular mail a horrible experience to interact with.

Raise the prices , remove the spam.

reply