> Is that because there's cross-subsidy from non-rural folks
This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities.
> you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be?
Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death.
> Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do?
No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: whenever some state either mismanages their postal service or simply can't keep it afloat, we'll be at the cutting block again. Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. The "decentralization" here just necessitates more communication overhead, potentially different laws requiring re-sorting, and a bunch of other potential headaches.
> This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities.
OK. Seems a bit inefficient and arbitrary.
I can sort-of get behind transfers from rich people to poor people. That's fine. But why subsidies people for being hillbillies?
> Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death.
Sounds like a good thing?
> No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier:
Yes, that's a benefit.
> Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network.
You would obviously allow the state level agencies to compete out-of-state.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to determine if you're arguing in good faith or not. The message right before this you stated that you're perfectly fine with privatizing pensions, cutting union contracts, etc, but now you claim you care about not punishing people. Furthermore, you claim to be against wealth transfers upwards, but this privatization would do exactly that.
You need to sit down and actually think about the policy results of what you're advocating for because you seem entirely confused.
Just handle postal services like eg Germany. They privatised Deutsche Post and abolished the monopoly. Other European countries did similar. Germany is hardly the land of unbridled capitalism. But even they saw the light.
In general the European policies are far from perfect, but they show that the American arguments for nationalised mail are bogus.
> The message right before this you stated that you're perfectly fine with privatizing pensions, cutting union contracts, etc, but now you claim you care about not punishing people. Furthermore, you claim to be against wealth transfers upwards, but this privatization would do exactly that.
What makes you think so? I'm for a level playing field. Government employees should get the same options for pensions as the rest of the population. The best option to help workers is a vibrant job market. Unions mostly just protect the insiders, like union functionaries are just in general people who already have a job.
This is how a lot of subsidies work in the US. City-dwellers subsidize rural communities.
> you think USPS is more efficient than a private sector alternative would be?
Likely any cost savings non-rural people would see is at the cost of pensions, employee benefits, or other potential stones-to-be-bled. If USPS is privatized, these things will be strangled to death.
> Wouldn't this more logically be something for the states to do?
No, I don't think so. This is just a backdoor to make privatization easier: whenever some state either mismanages their postal service or simply can't keep it afloat, we'll be at the cutting block again. Furthermore, there's obvious potential efficiencies an interstate mail network has compared to a state-level mail network. The "decentralization" here just necessitates more communication overhead, potentially different laws requiring re-sorting, and a bunch of other potential headaches.