Post

Conversation

peepeepoopoo
@DeepDishEnjoyer
if this actually happened (huge if, postal service is like the oldest government service) this is one of those things that would be a good for the majority of the country and absolutely terrible for the rural areas that voted for him, right? lol
Quote
New York Post
@nypost
Trump eyeing privatizing US Postal Service: report trib.al/NueRMvB
Image
778.2K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Thomas
@ChasseurTitres
Love the false binary that's been the de facto reasoning since as long as I can remember: 1. Rural folk not not getting mail 2. Throwing away billions a year
26K
Marcus Kaufman
@KellogCreek
I may be wrong, but I think “Privatizing” means running the service as a for-profit business. Not eliminating the service altogether. If correct, this would mean we could still receive daily mail at our homes — urban and rural alike — just not from the USPS of yore.
12K
peepeepoopoo
@DeepDishEnjoyer
Not claiming that people wouldn't have service in rural areas, Marcus, just that they wouldn't be effectively subsidized by urban areas anymore (as currently there is a mandate for price equality in all locations)
11K
Frogo
@Dubflip
No. “Can’t we just assume they will implement this terribly and ruin things?” No, you can’t
25K
peepeepoopoo
@DeepDishEnjoyer
What? This has nothing to do with that. There is no profit motive to have the same pricing in hard to service rural areas as in urban areas. Right now rural areas are getting subsidized since this is a government agency.
24K
Bill Walker
@BWalkerTTAGGG
Americans really don't read, do they? Germany: Privatized in 1995 with Deutsche Post DHL being one of the most notable examples. Netherlands: Privatized in 1989, with the postal service now known as PostNL. Austria: Privatized in the early 2000s. Japan: Began privatization in
Show more
16K
peepeepoopoo
@DeepDishEnjoyer
i would expect privatized version of the usps would operate similarly but offer slightly cheaper prices on urban mail and much much more expensive prices on rural mail
17K
Irrational Actor
@Irrationalactor
Honestly I don't think it would be good for urban customers in the long term either. Any service requiring that much capital investment and infrastructure and depending so heavily on economies of scale will trend toward monopoly, probably settling on duopoly.
9.8K
cldbrwszn
@cldbrwszn
Privatizing it would be unconstitutional lol. Anyway it's profitable and provides a decent service and good jobs so idk why he thinks this would be a good idea.
11K
Quantіan
@quantian1
It would be so sick to disenfranchise rural voters by ending mail in ballots, let’s gooooooo
8K
Bill Karr (e/grad) ✨🔭🐢
@billardkarr
he wasn’t primarily elected by rural voters though. his win was the result of major shifts in urban areas this time around. but yes it would be bad for rural areas
306
cephalopod
@macrocephalopod
FWIW when they privatised the Royal Mail in the UK, it came with a bunch of constraints like “you can’t charge more to deliver to rural areas” so there is precedent for it continuing to support basically the same service it does now even if privatised
1.6K
Gok
@Gok
"privatization" could mean many things but in most cases yeah magacountry would get worse mail service, which they deserve
2.5K
Ryan Boodram 🇬🇾🥥🌴
@ryanbdrm
It’ll probably be a worst of both world’s scenario where they’re “privatized” but with restrictive service mandates that result in it being impossible to be profitable and/or incredibly expensive. Quality of service will degrade as they try to cut costs (the only option) and
Show more
716
Eric Stein
@preston2420
Stamp to Austin, TX ..$.55. Stamp to Andrews, TX $3.25.. normalized cost reflective of actual expense, not big cities subsidizing rural areas.
259
MoreTheMan
@RealMoreTheMan
Ad
I noticed something during the elections. Many look to politicians as if they’re our saviors, letting hope rise or fall based on who’s in the White House. Yes, policies and ideologies matter, and our country is truly remarkable. But even so, it pales next to our eternal home. If
Show more
2.8M
R. Shag
@RickShag
If it would be good at all, it would be good for urban areas. Rural areas would see their costs skyrocket, and it would be much harder for them to get supplies, drugs, bills, ballots, etc
2K
H
@TwentyInchD
It'd be bad overall, but rural areas would be disproportionately affected
276
Andy
@LAW9960
There's a middle ground. Keep the post office only in rural America and privatize it in Metropolitan areas
7
Memo Fifí 🌐🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱🇬🇾🗽🛰⛩🚄🛫🍔 🍱🌮🥑🐯
@gsanchez1982
They’re gonna require private operators to deliver to rural areas and create a slush funds to giveaway taxpayer money to private companies. And the result will be about the same as when the government gave billions to install broadband in rural areas. That is to say the companies
Show more
710
nel
@McNEL608
i don’t think it would be good for anyone. shipping companies operate on an extremely tight margin, so there’s not much competition, and the post office delivers pretty good service, while quite obviously operating at a loss and being subsidized. higher shipping costs all around
37
Jerry T
@JerryTurin
In 2024, I don't really see a reason why not. Slap a few regulations around it. Good to go.
236
Argo
@theg0ldenfleece
I don’t get this - why are people obsessed with privatizing this institution? “Well it runs at a loss so…” Isn’t that the point of a public institution? Providing an essential service that is subsidized with tax dollars. I fail to see why it needs to be private.
6K
Simeon
@blackhullpirate
Now what if, and stay with me here, they were to private the postal service, then subsidize it with 1/10th of the USPS annual budget to ensure equitable deliveries to those rural areas you mentioned? That would be $7,950,000,000 for equivalent (arguably better) parcel deliveries,
Show more
Image
142
Blue Collar Executive
@A_Sober_Drunk
It would be no different for rural people... They have to go pick their mail up at a post office already. No delivery in deep rural areas but UPS and FedEx deliver there.
87
Fire
@Sayin_It_Now
The US Postmaster General said there will be no USPS mail delivery to any address more than 50 miles from a postal hub. That happens to be about 70% of my States residents. Privatize it if that happens. I’ll need to drive 63 one way so let’s make it efficient again.
177
Todd Roy
@TheToddRoy
I’m still mad they did away with the telegraph. It was a key institution to bridging the country and ushering in nationwide communications! and to just replace it with something “modern” and “efficient” is not the America I love!!!
377
Diogenes
@____Diogenes___
It’s all fun and games until your tweets violate your private mail TOS and you can’t get anything delivered to your house anymore.
14
P Breit 🇺🇸
@pbreit
Why would it be bad for rural areas? There would be some coverage requirements and price caps.
25
Richard K
@RichardK4
Just make maintaining service *permanently* a contractual requirement and then include a clause where they forfeit the entire orgamization and all of its assets back to the government if they don't. And then the vampire capital investors will steer clear.
30
AzBeto
@AzBeto1997
It can be done in a manner that doesn’t abandoned the rural areas. People just need to have an IQ above room temperature to figure it out.
16
darkprometheus112
@darkprometheus1
Not really. Majority of postal service right now is spam/junk mail OR mail from the gov. Amazon used to use it however they have slowly moved to a process that's more like UPS or FedEx for Amazon products. 3rd parties on Amazon still use USPS though.
35
Yossarian's Locker
@YossarianLocker
Why is there this persistent theory that people have some government protected right to live where there’s no industry or there are frequent natural disasters or where they grew up but now it’s expensive? You communists live in some weird fantasy where history is destiny and
Show more
103
Austrian Trader
@austriantrader9
Hi, rural person here. The only thing the post office brings me is junk mail and political flyers. It can promptly fuck and die. You know how much junk mail I’ve gotten from FedEx and UPS? Zero.
15
Alex Z
@AZinCLE
I don't really see how it would be good for anyone other than large UPS and Fedex shareholders.
1.2K
The Tusken Senator
@arobill3
It’s just going to make it more expensive for everyone who uses it, and extra expensive for those in rural areas. People mad it “runs at a loss”, if you want it to make money it’s either cuts to service, to workers, or increase price, probably all of the above.
5
BADGRAPHIX
@badgraphix
What's even the point in privatizing the USPS? We already have several large private postal services that accomplish whatever gain you would have gotten out of doing so.
743
NY Mike
@mike_NY_3800
The current postal service setup as a gov't corporation only dates back to the 1970s. Before that, the Post Office Department had a cabinet secretary that reported to the president.
19
Adam McCue
@mccue
Yes. I don’t think people understand the consequences of privatization, they just equate it with efficiency without realizing where that efficiency comes from.
1.2K
alex 🙈
@chud_meridian
it's like the most popular government function, he'd need 60 votes in the senate, his own guy he installed as head of usps is against it, just don't know how this happens
432
NewEngland Progressive
@mwood730
Let's not forget that one of the reason it's so cost-inefficient is because it's the only business in the country that is legally required to pre-fund its pensions.
30
Andy Marquis 🐆🍓🍉🇺🇸
@amarquis32
It could be crippling for rural areas. In many of them, UPS and FedEx simply deliver to the post office because it’s not cost effective to deliver in those places. Imagine not being able to shop online at all?
12
Jake Conner
@jake_jmc20985
Knowing Republicans, they would privatize the profitable portions, leaving only the rural areas to continue to be subsidized
362
FirstNameBunchofNumbers
@bunchofnumbers_
Wouldn’t even be good for the majority. Turns out paying for that 15% department store mark-up on what used to be a run-at-a-loss government service would be a crippling clamp on commerce.
5
Grand Master Dab™
@matt_pxtingalo
Town of 1000 people here. This would literally uplift my community and the surrounding ones as many people in rural area live completely different lives financially. A lot of “make do til it’s physically impossible”
11
Dean
@Tier1Diabetic
It’s going to be a fun dance for Constitutional Originalist Conservatives to try to get around this, but I have faith that their morals are easily bent by their bank accounts’ hunger
Image
4
Dirk the Sandman 🇵🇸
@TheRealDSandman
That and it will make amazon big money. They have an enormous fleet of dedicated delivery vehicles and distribution sites. I bet they might even get into shipping proper, where prime members can get a discount on mailing things to other people.
Matthew
@armystig
No this would be terrible for everyone. This will result in less and worse service for higher cost as well. All while some hedge fund guy loots it for everything of value for more yacht money.
17
wahoowave
@wahoowave
Savings would be de minimis with across the board price inflation and service reduction. You also have “jobs of the largest employer of veterans now at risk,” and “what do we do about the world class law enforcement arm of the service,” etc. but yeah huge rural job killer
18
Karl Runser
@KarlRunser
It would be bad for the vast majority of the country. Hell — even if it’s only bad for rural areas, that’s bad for the country.
51
Peter
@dietbrisk
Fun facts from the Office of Inspector General: USPS is not funded by taxpayers, yet as a public service it is required by law to deliver 6 days/week and service rural locations. Fun facts from Wiki: USPS is one of the few agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution
909
Count of Negroni
@GIGACHURCH
It wouldn't even be good for the majority! It is a benefit to me as an urban resident to be able to reach people in rural areas, and for that I'm happy to pay the small tax bill for the USPS.
130
☀️Balex☀️
@AlexBoBalex1701
Yes. Us people who live in poorer communities and are poor would suffer so much. I can barely get my shit now without a flight
3
Boaty McBoatface
@DollarCoffeeMan
I was under the impression that the postal service was actually doing fine financially until some changes were introduced during I think the Bush Jr admin
1.2K
Aoi
@BunBlueAoi
it would be bad for literally everyone. All this does is add a profit tax to the price of service. Where before they charged what they needed to continue operation, now they need to generate revenue for shareholders - cutbacks on staff, delivery days/locations etc incoming.
15
Dr. Dreidel
@Superjew75
When they realize how much cheaper shipping things is just because USPS is required to go to every mailbox and is used by many companies for last mile delivery it will be too late.
35
The Party of Helicopters Fan Club Pres 🧙🏼‍♂️
@crocken
nothing good would happen, no private company would take on the money-loss things, so regular mail service would basically end except for some edge-cases, i'm sure a predatory company would take on senior citizen's mail from the government for example.
109
Wadjet 𓂀
@wadjet37
This would not be good for anyone. It would inevitably result in massive price increases, worse service, and worse labor conditions across the board, just like all privatization
41
Mister Fizz
@MisterFizz
It would be bad for everyone, but it would be disproportionately bad for rural and remote areas. Eventually, parts of the country would simply be considered too unprofitable to deliver to, meaning people in those areas would need to pay a lot more to get things delivered.
31
Owlz
@Owlz1865
No it wouldn't like not in the slightest not for a single person Reason being is because the Post office sets standards, shipping would get way more expensive for everyone
6
Fabrice
@rvfabrice
The US having state owned airports and postal company while those are privatized in Europe is always a shock to me
36
drue
@drue43
This would be terrible for everyone except the Wall Street folks that would swoop in to loot the postal service
370
Emmett Fuchs
@fuchs_emmett
No. In the Internet and digital age, very little *needs* to be delivered by the USPS, and I'd wager that very few people need physical delivery more than one time a week. Contradict me: name something you received by USPS in the last month that you could *only* get that way.
18
Tbh1234
@timreward10101
I would expect it to be more like a scam because all required communication from the government goes through the USPS like IRS letters or social security information. So instead of paying $0.50 from the federal government to USPS, we'd be paying a private company. $17 a letter
46