[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I tried looking for source information that tells how much the USPS receives in subsidies, but it is a very difficult search. That CAGW article says, "Still, given this extraordinary leeway, armed with $1 billion a year in taxpayer-backed subsidies, endowed with carte blanche treatment by U.S. Postal Service's Board of Governors and the Postal Rate Commission, and backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayers, it still can't make any money!" Maybe they mean tax breaks, maybe they don't.[/font]

It's my understanding that the USPS has operated fairly independently for about 20 years now. I believe they do receive certain subsidies from time to time (they ask for them anyway), for purposes of security and the like, but I'm not sure the actual money they receive is any different from the money that private industries receive to fulfill various requirements, or just to prop up failing industries.

There are not going to be unprofitable sectors unless some people aren't willing to pay a higher price for postage in rural areas. People in urban areas must pay a higher price for home rent and ownership. That doesn't mean that real estate should be managed by the government.

The way it usually, or at least should usually work, is that certain services are considered essential to the public--things like energy, telephone and mail service, fire and police protection, and primary education--and because they're considered essential services, the government regulates and/or controls those industries so that the costs are spread out in order to provide services to all sectors.

I'll agree that, in some cases, certain segments of society get unfair special treatment. But as a society, we have decided that it is in our better interests to maintain some level of service across the board, so that poor hillbillies can get their bills just like the rest of us, people in poor urban areas get police protection and the phone service to summon it, and things like that. The same principle that applies to regularized rates for postal service applies, at least in part, to federal school funding, telephone service, gas and electric service, roads, law enforcement, etc.

I'd argue that, among those services, the US postal service fulfills its mandate more effectively than most, and with one of the smallest burdens to the consumer. In terms of direct taxpayer funding, again, I'm fairly sure it's pretty much independent.

I don't know, because I haven't seen the website for disgruntled Walmart employees. I am not sure there is one. You don't hear of Walmart employees going postal, do you?

There are numerous websites for disgruntled WalMart employees, actually. I think Walmartsucks.com is one of the big ones. Also try Customerssuck.com for general disgruntled service employees.

And the disgruntled USPS employee profile is at least somewhat media-fed. There are disgrunted employees in all kinds of industries, and some minority of them get violent from time to time. Remember that the postal service is a very large employer. How often has that really happened? I haven't heard a disgruntled mailman story in quite a while, really. It's really amazing how the media can make something appear to be a big burgeoning trend if they feel like it, just by selectively reporting things that fit into certain categories. I swear, sometimes I think they just do it because they already have those little title cards ready to go for stories about pit bull attacks, disgruntled mailmen, and kiddie porn rings.

That was another of my beefs with that article: They seemed to be relying pretty heavily on anecdote. Of course there are stories about rogue mailmen stealing, burning, and losing mail, but what percentage of operations are like that, and why? From my personal experience, it seems to be a localized phenomenon.

Yeah, let's not talk about that.

Thank you.