US economy thread (2 Viewers)

[Sparky Polastri]

There are several comments over in the Federal Employee topic about Elon Musk offering a $5000 check to Americans from the savings he claims DOGE will make for them. And a couple of the responses there were on the lines of "I expect some of my tax money back from all this".

So is it more important to cut costs and balance the budget?
Or is it more important to personally get back some of the money the government supposedly "saved"?
The hard part is, plenty of people support both those things.

It's important not to dump excess lumps of cash into the economy when inflation is a concern. We are currently living with the results of the last time they chose to do it.

 

[djmich]

There are several comments over in the Federal Employee topic about Elon Musk offering a $5000 check to Americans from the savings he claims DOGE will make for them. And a couple of the responses there were on the lines of "I expect some of my tax money back from all this".

So is it more important to cut costs and balance the budget?
Or is it more important to personally get back some of the money the government supposedly "saved"?
The hard part is, plenty of people support both those things.

It's important not to dump excess lumps of cash into the economy when inflation is a concern. We are currently living with the results of the last time they chose to do it.

The answer is to complex, with too many moving parts to simply answer. But I'd like to see three principles followed.

Some of it is shared back to taxpayers...this is more strategic than fiscal. I think its good that people see some of the benefits if you want them to support it.
As much as necessary goes towards offsetting the demand impacts of cutting the government, or raising tariffs etc. Target a soft landing.
The rest goes to closing the deficit.

 

[Instinctive]

I took a major haircut early last decade to pursue a new career and needed to accept positions at this salary level to get where I am now, there's absolutely no way we could pull off in 2025 what we did ~10 years ago. Even in a low COLA area like here, I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family on < ~$120K / yr anymore.

Even adjusting for inflation, I think housing and insurance costs would make the same decision today absolutely financially untenable for us.

If real net incomes have risen, or at worst stayed flat, for the bottom half of Americans…I’m curious as to what the primary driver of the disconnect is.

He named the two most often cited. If lucky enough to be healthy and find low cost housing you can save.

Yes, but I’d assume those are included in inflation numbers and therefore real wages?

I just did the calculation on our home, and it has averaged about 4.1% a year over our ownership, which doesn't sound huge but when you compound that over 20+ years vs. a nominal inflation of 2.3% or so it makes a big difference.

Health insurance takes a bite even if you're healthy. For a family plan my monthly contribution when I started out was $25. Now it's over $800, and that's just for the insurance and doesn't included copays and out of pocket costs.

State, municipal, and local tax rates have also gone up over 30% in that time.

We also put aside what money we could for the kids college educations, which I presumably don't need to tell anyone here about that cost trajectory.

The only things that really come to mind that have notably gotten cheaper over that time period are electronics and air travel. Cars seem about neutral to me if you don't need the trendy models.

We got our house as a foreclosure post housing crash for $85K. When we were getting ready to sell in 2019 a real estate friend of ours said to target $130K. Before we were ready to move, covid happened, then the market went sideways. By the time we were ready to re-consider a move, we realized we only have 5 people in this house for 3 more years, and decided we want to start saving for a 2nd house, so we're staying put. But if we were to take it to market? That same friend said we'd easily get way north of $200K now.

Our house has increased in value > 60% in just 5 years.

My situation almost identical. Bought for $85k in 2003. Now around 250k.

bought for 230k in 2014. zillow estimates value now 420k. that's in Oklahoma. just crazy.

Bought our house three years ago. According to Zillow it is now worth 50% more. I hope that is true and this is not another bubble about to burst. This is great for homeowners but scary for people now looking to buy. We were in our previous house for seven years and sold it for almost 90% more than we paid originally. This is the best way to built wealth, but you have to be able to get in the game to win the game.

We are in a similar spot. The crazy part is the gap from our (admittedly great) home to a bigger one in the best school district(s). It's either move well outside the city or pay what feels like an impossible amount to get a bigger house as our kids will grow.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

There are several comments over in the Federal Employee topic about Elon Musk offering a $5000 check to Americans from the savings he claims DOGE will make for them. And a couple of the responses there were on the lines of "I expect some of my tax money back from all this".

So is it more important to cut costs and balance the budget?
Or is it more important to personally get back some of the money the government supposedly "saved"?
The hard part is, plenty of people support both those things.

It's important not to dump excess lumps of cash into the economy when inflation is a concern. We are currently living with the results of the last time they chose to do it.

The answer is to complex, with too many moving parts to simply answer. But I'd like to see three principles followed.

Some of it is shared back to taxpayers...this is more strategic than fiscal. I think its good that people see some of the benefits if you want them to support it.
As much as necessary goes towards offsetting the demand impacts of cutting the government, or raising tariffs etc. Target a soft landing.
The rest goes to closing the deficit.

This really isn't all that complex. MOST of this is pure political theater. We've already shown that the "savings" they are claiming they are going to get is pretty close to "rounding error" levels of significance when it comes to the $30T+ debt we have. It gets infinitesimally smaller if inflation wanders out of control again which is what will happen if we dump unnecessary amounts of cash back into the economy. If they decide to give some small amount back to the people that doesn't match the whirlwind they are claiming, they become the punchline of yet another joke.

 

[Stoneworker]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. More than a 10% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 10%+ improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

 

[Sleestak]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. A 30% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 30% improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

Isn't that an 11% expansion? 300,000 / 2,700,000? Not 30%. Or did I miss something?

2015-now US population has grown by 6%, fwiw.

 

[Stoneworker]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. A 30% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 30% improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

Isn't that an 11% expansion? 300,000 / 2,700,000? Not 30%. Or did I miss something?

You are correct. Pre-coffee bad math. Thanks.

Similar point still holds, what justifies the expansion while running a deficit and after so many years running at a static employment level?

 

[Stoneworker]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. A 30% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 30% improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

Isn't that an 11% expansion? 300,000 / 2,700,000? Not 30%. Or did I miss something?

2015-now US population has grown by 6%, fwiw.

Ok. But we were at 2.85 million in mid-2022 and 3.0+ million now. So 150K in two years?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

 

[Stoneworker]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

 

[Sleestak]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. A 30% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 30% improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

Isn't that an 11% expansion? 300,000 / 2,700,000? Not 30%. Or did I miss something?

You are correct. Pre-coffee bad math. Thanks.

Similar point still holds, what justifies the expansion while running a deficit and after so many years running at a static employment level?

Lolz. I know what you mean.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

 

[Stoneworker]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

 

[Nugget]

I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

As are are most people willing to accept some mild excess.

But the U.S. has added approx. 300,000K more fed employees since 2015 after running the gov't with roughly 2.7 million workers for 15 years from 2000-2015. A 30% expansion

Can anyone honestly say we've seen a 30% improvement in gov't services in the past 10 years?

FRED database: Historical Fed workers

Isn't that an 11% expansion? 300,000 / 2,700,000? Not 30%. Or did I miss something?

2015-now US population has grown by 6%, fwiw.

Ok. But we were at 2.85 million in mid-2022 and 3.0+ million now. So 150K in two years?

I’d guess the VA is a big piece of that.

 

[guru_007]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

 

[djmich]

There are several comments over in the Federal Employee topic about Elon Musk offering a $5000 check to Americans from the savings he claims DOGE will make for them. And a couple of the responses there were on the lines of "I expect some of my tax money back from all this".

So is it more important to cut costs and balance the budget?
Or is it more important to personally get back some of the money the government supposedly "saved"?
The hard part is, plenty of people support both those things.

It's important not to dump excess lumps of cash into the economy when inflation is a concern. We are currently living with the results of the last time they chose to do it.

The answer is to complex, with too many moving parts to simply answer. But I'd like to see three principles followed.

Some of it is shared back to taxpayers...this is more strategic than fiscal. I think its good that people see some of the benefits if you want them to support it.
As much as necessary goes towards offsetting the demand impacts of cutting the government, or raising tariffs etc. Target a soft landing.
The rest goes to closing the deficit.

This really isn't all that complex. MOST of this is pure political theater. We've already shown that the "savings" they are claiming they are going to get is pretty close to "rounding error" levels of significance when it comes to the $30T+ debt we have. It gets infinitesimally smaller if inflation wanders out of control again which is what will happen if we dump unnecessary amounts of cash back into the economy. If they decide to give some small amount back to the people that doesn't match the whirlwind they are claiming, they become the punchline of yet another joke.

OK Sparky, you got it figured out.

 

[Stoneworker]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

Because the 14K-member Space Force was not created out of thin air but transfers from other military/agencies

 

[FarFromHome]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

Because the 14K-member Space Force was not created out of thin air but transfers from other military/agencies

Yep. I was attached as a civilian police officer to an Air Force unit assigned to the Maui Space Surveillance Complex. It happened quickly. One day we were Air Force. The next day we were Space Force. Only difference i noticed was everyone was wearing Star Trek patches. Ha ha

 

[fantasy stud]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

Being a teacher, I'd love to hear your views on education.

 

[Instinctive]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

FWIW they mostly just assigned USAF people and moved them over.

 

[Stoneworker]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

Because the 14K-member Space Force was not created out of thin air but transfers from other military/agencies

Yep. I was attached as a civilian police officer to an Air Force unit assigned to the Maui Space Surveillance Complex. It happened quickly. One day we were Air Force. The next day we were Space Force. Only difference i noticed was everyone was wearing Star Trek patches. Ha ha

I had a short TDY at Hickam from Asia back in the day. Always envied you guys (in a good way).

 

[guru_007]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

Being a teacher, I'd love to hear your views on education.

I believe there is another thread dedicated to it entirely. I stayed away from it as I'm very passionate about our education system. I know there are a lot of teachers on this board, and my mother, sister and bil are all teachers. A number of my very good friends from hs and college are teachers. My wife dedicated a number of years at our local elementary teaching computer programming and although my children are all done with school, we still give yearly to our local schools. Schools are super important to me for the continued success for our country.

 

[Desert_Power]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

Because the 14K-member Space Force was not created out of thin air but transfers from other military/agencies

Yep. I was attached as a civilian police officer to an Air Force unit assigned to the Maui Space Surveillance Complex. It happened quickly. One day we were Air Force. The next day we were Space Force. Only difference i noticed was everyone was wearing Star Trek patches. Ha ha

That's funny and doesn't sound like a bad gig!

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

FWIW they mostly just assigned USAF people and moved them over.

Ok, thanks. The way it's worded on those sites is that people were moved then those vacated positions were filled. We are saying that didn't happen? I honestly don't know.

 

[Sand]

And a couple of the responses there were on the lines of "I expect some of my tax money back from all this".

I don't expect money back from this stuff, but when I see the DoE spend 400k to rent an MLB stadium I do want to throw some folks in jail. I personally would consider this theft. This **** is beyond the pale. 70% of our 4th graders don't read at grade level. The hubris here.

Not to mention that we paid and are paying dearly for the influx of cash into the system since COVID. Dearly. Inflation is sticky and it's teetering on the edge. If anything we need to be in quantitative tightening, not shooting out cash mode. Any recovered cash should be retired. Anything not spent in the huge spending bills lately should be legislated out of existence. Shut. It. Down.

 

[Sand]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

Because the 14K-member Space Force was not created out of thin air but transfers from other military/agencies

Strategically creating this agency was a great move. The public guffaws at this were and are utterly wrong.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

 

[djmich]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

 

[Instinctive]

Isn't "Space Force" like 20K people by itself?

It's been around since at least 1982 and many would argue since the 50's

Sorry, guess I don't get the joke?

On par with your original point.

What does the Space Force having 14K employees (9.4K military) have to do with the U.S. economy?

You guys were talking about the increase in federal workforce. I think adding 20K people to a new military agency is an example of that no?

FWIW they mostly just assigned USAF people and moved them over.

Ok, thanks. The way it's worded on those sites is that people were moved then those vacated positions were filled. We are saying that didn't happen? I honestly don't know.

Just from friends and family who are in the USAF and USAF, many of the roles existed already and they just finalized USAF.

Which is still a part of DAF anyway.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

Maybe this is my lack of understanding of the shipping business, but this seems like a particularly poor example.

The whole point of the USPS and a major part of the reason that it runs less efficiently is because it is designed under the notion that everyone should be able to get mail, while private companies like UPS/Fedex are not, and hence save tons of money by simply cutting people out that aren't profitable.

In rural/remote areas, UPS/Fedex often choose not to service those customers because they're not profitable, and USPS picks up the tab via smartpost and operates those unprofitable routes FOR ups/fedex so those people can get their packages. This has the double effect of saving UPS/Fedex money by not servicing those routes, while simultaneously costing the USPS money because they are operating those unprofitable customers for Fedex/UPS on top of their own, doubling down on the appearance of inefficiency.

More of the same with weather. Fedex/UPS/etc try to avoid weather delays, but they are still pretty common out where we live with lots of snow. Obviously via capitalism and their competition with each other, they want to avoid them, but they are only limited by what the other is willing to push through. If both UPS and Fedex have weather delays, the market will just bear it. But USPS will much more commonly push through no matter the weather even if it costs them money against their profitability because the USPS was founded on the notion that everyone should be reliably able to get mail/packages, whereas private companies were not.

There is a lot more to it as well. USPS is prevented from surge pricing in demand dates like holidays. USPS is limited in the amount they can raise rates. They're limited in a lot of ways intentionally to keep mail available and affordable to everyone. That keeps the rest of the market in line too as it somewhat limits how much UPS/Fedex can raise rates as there is always an affordable competitor. Without that I would imagine we'd be paying a lot more for shipping/mail right now.

And of course, traditional letter mail is simply FAR less profitable than packages, so companies like UPS and Fedex simply avoid that space other than with business customers who are willing to pay a lot more for it.

 

[djmich]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

Maybe this is my lack of understanding of the shipping business, but this seems like a particularly poor example.

The whole point of the USPS and a major part of the reason that it runs less efficiently is because it is designed under the notion that everyone should be able to get mail, while private companies like UPS/Fedex are not, and hence save tons of money by simply cutting people out that aren't profitable.

In rural/remote areas, UPS/Fedex often choose not to service those customers because they're not profitable, and USPS picks up the tab via smartpost and operates those unprofitable routes FOR ups/fedex so those people can get their packages. This has the double effect of saving UPS/Fedex money by not servicing those routes, while simultaneously costing the USPS money because they are operating those unprofitable customers for Fedex/UPS on top of their own, doubling down on the appearance of inefficiency.

More of the same with weather. Fedex/UPS/etc try to avoid weather delays, but they are still pretty common out where we live with lots of snow. Obviously via capitalism and their competition with each other, they want to avoid them, but they are only limited by what the other is willing to push through. If both UPS and Fedex have weather delays, the market will just bear it. But USPS will much more commonly push through no matter the weather even if it costs them money against their profitability because the USPS was founded on the notion that everyone should be reliably able to get mail/packages, whereas private companies were not.

The US is a lot different place than it was when Ben Franklin was appointed the first Postmaster General. Obviously encouraging growth across the country, much of which was remote, was a strategic objective then. Email and other electronic forms of communication didn't exist, making physical mail vital.

I think a few hundred years later it would be good to re-establish what the objectives are, in my view providing this service is no longer strategically important, and so I don't think providing it at an operating loss, while the country operates at a deficit, makes sense. I don't want to subsidize the unibomber getting birthday cards in the remote northwest. Thats no longer, in my view, strategically important for the country. And if someone wants to do that, they can pay for it. Do we need snail mail 6 days a week?

 

[urbanhack]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

Why does it need to be profitable? Shouldn't it just break even?

 

[djmich]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

I feel for people that have lost their jobs. But at the same time, I also bet that there was a ton of redundancy and mis-management because people that have government jobs just don't give af. They are on their payscales and do what they have to do to earn their check. But if these organizations were better managed, I feel that there would be much better service throughout government organizations.

It's like a story I heard about an ex-pat living in Russia in the 80's. He said that while everything worked, it worked like crap. And he wasn't sure if it was because the workers didn't care, or else they didn't have something better to compare against.

One of the things that makes the U.S. successful is competition and the innovation it brings along. The US government has no competition.

I too want ALL citizens to have access to basic human rights, but that isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now. We can continue to bury our heads in the sand and think it will get better or we'll try to innovate. How many times do you drive down a road and see a construction crew with 20 people standing around and 3 or 4 working? That's suboptimal.
I will not get into education at all, but I would love love love improvements in our education system.
And medical care, come on. If you don't have money, you don't get very good care. Everyone knows this.

We shouldn't cut waste is counterintuitive and one of the reasons our national debt is over 120% of our GDP.
Something needs to be done. This is a start.

You want the USPS to operate profitably?

Sorry, nitpicking a good post. But it stood out.

Do you think the DoD should turn a profit?

Yes, I want to USPS to operate profitably.

No, I don't think of the DoD the same as the USPS. I'm not sure who competes with the DoD? Does the DoD charge citizens for services directly?

Why does it need to be profitable? Shouldn't it just break even?

I'm not even sure the government should be in the business of providing this service. But lets say it does still make some sense for various reasons, then yes I'm not concerned about the amount of profit, just that it doesn't operate at a loss.

 

[guru_007]

@FreeBaGeL I certainly don't want to derail this thread in regard to the USPS, however a few things
The rural route system of the USPS is actually put out to bid, and this is about the only thing the USPS does that I agree with. To make things work efficiently you need to think outside the box.
And UPS and FedEx certainly will deliver to these customers, at a cost. That cost should be passed along in some manner to the customer. If you want it more efficiently done, the rural customer can have a box in town with delivery. That would save everyone money.
And you are nitpicking on a very, very, VERY small percentage of the deliveries made the USPS/FedEx/UPS et al on a daily basis. Perhaps another private company could figure out a drone system to make this work even more profitably in the future.
And all carriers are effected by weather delays. NFW does the USPS go by the old adage, by rain or snow, or wtf they used to say. Postal delivery is very often suspended by weather.

 

[Desert_Power]

I think it is good that USPS serves rural areas. America still has a lot of them/people that live there. Can't let them fall too far behind.

USPS service is pretty bad though. We get mail late/delayed all the time. Which is obnoxious for my card buying.

 

[Gatorade]

I took a major haircut early last decade to pursue a new career and needed to accept positions at this salary level to get where I am now, there's absolutely no way we could pull off in 2025 what we did ~10 years ago. Even in a low COLA area like here, I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family on < ~$120K / yr anymore.

Even adjusting for inflation, I think housing and insurance costs would make the same decision today absolutely financially untenable for us.

If real net incomes have risen, or at worst stayed flat, for the bottom half of Americans…I’m curious as to what the primary driver of the disconnect is.

He named the two most often cited. If lucky enough to be healthy and find low cost housing you can save.

Yes, but I’d assume those are included in inflation numbers and therefore real wages?

I just did the calculation on our home, and it has averaged about 4.1% a year over our ownership, which doesn't sound huge but when you compound that over 20+ years vs. a nominal inflation of 2.3% or so it makes a big difference.

Health insurance takes a bite even if you're healthy. For a family plan my monthly contribution when I started out was $25. Now it's over $800, and that's just for the insurance and doesn't included copays and out of pocket costs.

State, municipal, and local tax rates have also gone up over 30% in that time.

We also put aside what money we could for the kids college educations, which I presumably don't need to tell anyone here about that cost trajectory.

The only things that really come to mind that have notably gotten cheaper over that time period are electronics and air travel. Cars seem about neutral to me if you don't need the trendy models.

We got our house as a foreclosure post housing crash for $85K. When we were getting ready to sell in 2019 a real estate friend of ours said to target $130K. Before we were ready to move, covid happened, then the market went sideways. By the time we were ready to re-consider a move, we realized we only have 5 people in this house for 3 more years, and decided we want to start saving for a 2nd house, so we're staying put. But if we were to take it to market? That same friend said we'd easily get way north of $200K now.

Our house has increased in value > 60% in just 5 years.

My situation almost identical. Bought for $85k in 2003. Now around 250k.

bought for 230k in 2014. zillow estimates value now 420k. that's in Oklahoma. just crazy.

Bought our house three years ago. According to Zillow it is now worth 50% more. I hope that is true and this is not another bubble about to burst. This is great for homeowners but scary for people now looking to buy. We were in our previous house for seven years and sold it for almost 90% more than we paid originally. This is the best way to built wealth, but you have to be able to get in the game to win the game.

We are in a similar spot. The crazy part is the gap from our (admittedly great) home to a bigger one in the best school district(s). It's either move well outside the city or pay what feels like an impossible amount to get a bigger house as our kids will grow.

Not to mention the Much higher taxes and insurance. Luckily this year they dropped the tax rate here, so taxes were close to the same. Insurance however went up 40%.

 

[Gatorade]

I think it is good that USPS serves rural areas. America still has a lot of them/people that live there. Can't let them fall too far behind.

USPS service is pretty bad though. We get mail late/delayed all the time. Which is obnoxious for my card buying.

Not in a rural area, but during the recent snow, USPS did not delivery, but FedEx and Amazon did.

 

[uwillbsoon]

Aside from the upheaval of so many government workers and their lives, what I think is being lost is that I don't need/want my government to be run like a business, maximizing profit and/or minimizing loss.

I need/want our government to provide service to its citizens. Provide quality infrastructure, education, medical care, protection for the vulnerable , and basically ensure that ALL citizens have access to basic human rights. Not just those with money.

When we start losing sight of that just to make sure we cut out waste, a lot of people get hurt. And that's not what our government should be about. I'm willing to accept some excess expenditures to make sure those services aren't lost.

I get what you're saying here, but I strongly disagree with you on some points.

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

Maybe this is my lack of understanding of the shipping business, but this seems like a particularly poor example.

The whole point of the USPS and a major part of the reason that it runs less efficiently is because it is designed under the notion that everyone should be able to get mail, while private companies like UPS/Fedex are not, and hence save tons of money by simply cutting people out that aren't profitable.

In rural/remote areas, UPS/Fedex often choose not to service those customers because they're not profitable, and USPS picks up the tab via smartpost and operates those unprofitable routes FOR ups/fedex so those people can get their packages. This has the double effect of saving UPS/Fedex money by not servicing those routes, while simultaneously costing the USPS money because they are operating those unprofitable customers for Fedex/UPS on top of their own, doubling down on the appearance of inefficiency.

More of the same with weather. Fedex/UPS/etc try to avoid weather delays, but they are still pretty common out where we live with lots of snow. Obviously via capitalism and their competition with each other, they want to avoid them, but they are only limited by what the other is willing to push through. If both UPS and Fedex have weather delays, the market will just bear it. But USPS will much more commonly push through no matter the weather even if it costs them money against their profitability because the USPS was founded on the notion that everyone should be reliably able to get mail/packages, whereas private companies were not.

There is a lot more to it as well. USPS is prevented from surge pricing in demand dates like holidays. USPS is limited in the amount they can raise rates. They're limited in a lot of ways intentionally to keep mail available and affordable to everyone. That keeps the rest of the market in line too as it somewhat limits how much UPS/Fedex can raise rates as there is always an affordable competitor. Without that I would imagine we'd be paying a lot more for shipping/mail right now.

And of course, traditional letter mail is simply FAR less profitable than packages, so companies like UPS and Fedex simply avoid that space other than with business customers who are willing to pay a lot more for it.

Yeah, the USPS was also forced to fund retiree benefits for 75 years - the only organization in the country forced to do so - by Congress.

Them losing money was by design thanks to a well funded lobbying effort that didn't want the competition.

I believe that's been recently corrected. And admittedly they've been operating at a loss since (minus the first year when they had a huge windfall).

They were profitable in the four years before that law was enacted. And unprofitable thereafter.

It's more complicated than it appears.

 

[Desert_Power]

I think it is good that USPS serves rural areas. America still has a lot of them/people that live there. Can't let them fall too far behind.

USPS service is pretty bad though. We get mail late/delayed all the time. Which is obnoxious for my card buying.

Not in a rural area, but during the recent snow, USPS did not delivery, but FedEx and Amazon did.

We just got the last of some snow up here!

 

[Instinctive]

I took a major haircut early last decade to pursue a new career and needed to accept positions at this salary level to get where I am now, there's absolutely no way we could pull off in 2025 what we did ~10 years ago. Even in a low COLA area like here, I couldn't imagine trying to raise a family on < ~$120K / yr anymore.

Even adjusting for inflation, I think housing and insurance costs would make the same decision today absolutely financially untenable for us.

If real net incomes have risen, or at worst stayed flat, for the bottom half of Americans…I’m curious as to what the primary driver of the disconnect is.

He named the two most often cited. If lucky enough to be healthy and find low cost housing you can save.

Yes, but I’d assume those are included in inflation numbers and therefore real wages?

I just did the calculation on our home, and it has averaged about 4.1% a year over our ownership, which doesn't sound huge but when you compound that over 20+ years vs. a nominal inflation of 2.3% or so it makes a big difference.

Health insurance takes a bite even if you're healthy. For a family plan my monthly contribution when I started out was $25. Now it's over $800, and that's just for the insurance and doesn't included copays and out of pocket costs.

State, municipal, and local tax rates have also gone up over 30% in that time.

We also put aside what money we could for the kids college educations, which I presumably don't need to tell anyone here about that cost trajectory.

The only things that really come to mind that have notably gotten cheaper over that time period are electronics and air travel. Cars seem about neutral to me if you don't need the trendy models.

We got our house as a foreclosure post housing crash for $85K. When we were getting ready to sell in 2019 a real estate friend of ours said to target $130K. Before we were ready to move, covid happened, then the market went sideways. By the time we were ready to re-consider a move, we realized we only have 5 people in this house for 3 more years, and decided we want to start saving for a 2nd house, so we're staying put. But if we were to take it to market? That same friend said we'd easily get way north of $200K now.

Our house has increased in value > 60% in just 5 years.

My situation almost identical. Bought for $85k in 2003. Now around 250k.

bought for 230k in 2014. zillow estimates value now 420k. that's in Oklahoma. just crazy.

Bought our house three years ago. According to Zillow it is now worth 50% more. I hope that is true and this is not another bubble about to burst. This is great for homeowners but scary for people now looking to buy. We were in our previous house for seven years and sold it for almost 90% more than we paid originally. This is the best way to built wealth, but you have to be able to get in the game to win the game.

We are in a similar spot. The crazy part is the gap from our (admittedly great) home to a bigger one in the best school district(s). It's either move well outside the city or pay what feels like an impossible amount to get a bigger house as our kids will grow.

Not to mention the Much higher taxes and insurance. Luckily this year they dropped the tax rate here, so taxes were close to the same. Insurance however went up 40%.

Yeah I mean my wife and I are looking at houses since we had our second. And it feels like we couldn't even buy our house now. And we make plenty. It just feels unattainable in the city (which maybe get over it and move out to the suburbs but that has other costs!)

We're talking like our house alone the mortgage would jump from like 3500 to like 7000. Like 12k for what we want.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

@FreeBaGeL I certainly don't want to derail this thread in regard to the USPS, however a few things
The rural route system of the USPS is actually put out to bid, and this is about the only thing the USPS does that I agree with. To make things work efficiently you need to think outside the box.
And UPS and FedEx certainly will deliver to these customers, at a cost. That cost should be passed along in some manner to the customer. If you want it more efficiently done, the rural customer can have a box in town with delivery. That would save everyone money.
And you are nitpicking on a very, very, VERY small percentage of the deliveries made the USPS/FedEx/UPS et al on a daily basis. Perhaps another private company could figure out a drone system to make this work even more profitably in the future.
And all carriers are effected by weather delays. NFW does the USPS go by the old adage, by rain or snow, or wtf they used to say. Postal delivery is very often suspended by weather.

It may be a smaller percentage of deliveries but the effect on net revenue is outsized and I think larger than you are assuming. Because not only does avoiding those routes save UPS/Fedex money while costing USPS money just by operating those routes for their own customers, but when USPS picks up those customers from UPS/Fedex it is essentially double or even triple dipping in terms of the effect on net revenue and appearance of financial inefficiency.

UPS/Fedex still take those customers and accept their payment, then they deliver the profitable part of the route, and then turn over the customer to USPS when they get to the unprofitable part of the route. So it simultaneously makes UPS/Fedex money while losing USPS money. USPS not only loses money on their own rural customers, but they lose money on Fedex's rural customers too, while Fedex makes money on those same customers. Otherwise those people just get cut out either in total or in practice (IE so expensive it's not feasible).

It probably makes up by far the biggest difference in the gulf of profitablilty between the two. Far from all of it, of course.

And again, there is the other huge difference being the simple fact that USPS is forced to operate in the letters space which is far worse for profitability than shipping packages.

Obviously there is far more to it than that for sure, but if affordable letters and rural delivery are two of the things people like the USPS for, that alone makes up for a very large portion of the difference and would certainly be the first two things to go away. Mail is partially privatized in the UK and a stamp costs 130% more than it does here. Fully privatized in Denmark a stamp is 500% more than here. And those countries are 1/40th the physical size of the US so obviously much cheaper in real costs for them to deliver that letter.

 

[djmich]

I honestly think I probably require less than a dozen pieces of physical mail per year. The rest is either waste (it should be too expensive to be worth sending, I don't need a 2lb product book from Ikea) or luxury (the luxury recipients should fund it). I'm not going to define the answer, but I think it entails thinking about traditional mail untraditionally.

I'd imagine the downstream environmental impacts of how we accommodate the need for physical mail is very impactful.

 

[Desert_Power]

I'd imagine the downstream environmental impacts of how we accommodate the need for physical mail is very impactful.

Good point. The majority of the mail we get is junk.

 

[RCon]

I do want government services to be more efficient. And I'll give a few anecdotes. The USPS, is getting it's shorts handed to it by private organizations who are able to operate much more efficiently and much more profitably. And while the USPS will state it's not a government agency, let's see who paid for all of their land, buildings, equipment. Who else is able to deliver to a PO Box or US mail? It's a government created and backed monopoly and as such operates terribly. If we privatized mail we would see much better service and probably at much better pricing.

This seems like an unfair comparison. The private companies don't provide the same service as USPS. Specifically, USPS goes to every residence every day to pick up outgoing mail. UPS/FedEx/DHL don't do that. You could argue that USPS shouldn't do that either, but that's not the same as arguing that they aren't performing the current services efficiently.

 

[djmich]

I'd imagine the downstream environmental impacts of how we accommodate the need for physical mail is very impactful.

Good point. The majority of the mail we get is junk.

Right. Even take my bank statement. Its not junk, but its unnecessary to send physically. But by subsidizing mail, we don't give enough incentive to the bank, or me, to go electronic. That costs taxpayers unnecessarily, as well as the environment.

 

[RCon]

I think a few hundred years later it would be good to re-establish what the objectives are, in my view providing this service is no longer strategically important, and so I don't think providing it at an operating loss, while the country operates at a deficit, makes sense. I don't want to subsidize the unibomber getting birthday cards in the remote northwest. Thats no longer, in my view, strategically important for the country. And if someone wants to do that, they can pay for it. Do we need snail mail 6 days a week?

This makes sense. Evaluate the objectives and determine what USPS should be going forward. But don't criticize USPS by comparing their apples to FedEx's oranges.

 

[Nugget]

I'd imagine the downstream environmental impacts of how we accommodate the need for physical mail is very impactful.

Good point. The majority of the mail we get is junk.

Right. Even take my bank statement. Its not junk, but its unnecessary to send physically. But by subsidizing mail, we don't give enough incentive to the bank, or me, to go electronic. That costs taxpayers unnecessarily, as well as the environment.

I'm in. I bank and file my taxes electronically. Let's do voting as well.

 

[the moops]

If the government is willing to truly commit to get high speed internet into every corner of rural America then I would be fine with ridding ourselves of daily mail pickup and delivery

 

[djmich]

I'd imagine the downstream environmental impacts of how we accommodate the need for physical mail is very impactful.

Good point. The majority of the mail we get is junk.

Right. Even take my bank statement. Its not junk, but its unnecessary to send physically. But by subsidizing mail, we don't give enough incentive to the bank, or me, to go electronic. That costs taxpayers unnecessarily, as well as the environment.

I'm in. I bank and file my taxes electronically. Let's do voting as well.

You just had to stick voting in there, didn't ya.