Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
nonethewiser | on: USPS now offers official ZIP Code boundary polygons
>USPS is in a strange boat where a lot of people insist that it must be profitable, much like UPS or Fedex

This isn't really accurate. USPS had a break even (not profitability) legal mandate since 1970-2006. They would adjust prices each year to hit break even. And that's what happened - they roughly broke even each year.

After a 2006 with broad bipartisan support, the UPS was able to make a profit (not just break even) but a price cap was added (to be reviewed every 10 years). They couldn't raise costs beyond inflation. A stamp to send to anywhere in the USA - anywhere (Alaska, Guam, etc.) - currently costs 82 cent. The postal union is against this, usps management is against this, and business mailers are for it. Dont you love all the ads USPS delivers you?

They have not been break even since 2007. They currently lose about $9B/year with $2.7BM being controllable and the rest largely being pensions, retiree health plans, and workers comp charges. Their core business (mail) has been declining for 20 years and no end is in sight. In 2020 they loosened the cap a bit (allowing USPS to raise prices). Business mailers tried to sue them but lost.

So this attitude that they should just lose a bunch of money and be backstopped by the taxpayer, when mail is less critical than ever, is an recent idea and is aligned with business mailer lobbying interests. It seems obvious to me that they should just go back to the break even mandate.

hammock | parent | next
>The postal union is against this, usps management is against this, and business mailers are for it

I was confused by this until I realized you are missing some logical steps in your (accurate) argument.

The 2006 law took away the safety net (ie the ability to charge whatever is needed to break even).

The “you can now make a profit” rule actually made it HARDER since it came with a price cap.

It told the USPS: You can keep any profits you make, but you cannot raise prices above the rate of inflation to get them.

This forced the USPS to absorb rising costs through internal efficiency rather than passing the bill to mailers

nonethewiser | root | parent | next
Yes, thats exactly right. The ability to profit was granted and they were kneecapped by the price cap. They haven't profited since the legislation and immediately started incurring large losses. That's all in my comment already.

By no means was I implying that the ability to profit means they did profit. Im just stating what the law was.

loading story #50435634
mattmcknight | root | parent
Yes, it's the price cap which is the issue.
not2b | parent | next
In 2006 a law was passed requiring the USPS to fund pensions far in advance, a requirement no other business had, which instantly put them deep in the red. This wasn't fixed until 2022. But it was just this phony accounting that messed them up, more than the other factors you mention.
loading story #50435314
wallst07 | root | parent | next
>a requirement no other business

True, but isn't this because everyone knows that USPS is a dying business already?

loading story #50435148
mepiethree | parent | next
It would be great to raise prices on spam business mailers without raising prices on normal people
loading story #50440371
loading story #50434953
komali2 | parent
> So this attitude that they should just lose a bunch of money and be backstopped by the taxpayer, when mail is less critical than ever, is an entirely new idea and is aligned with business mailer lobbying interests.

Not when combined with the idea that spam mail senders should be legislated out of legality.

loading story #50435331