Comments on: Postal Service Killing Small Publications?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:41:02 +0000

As someone that is fairly aware of USPS mail-movement processes, the trade-off between the pitfalls of giving a company (which they basically are as they have not been subsidized by the US government since 1982) a monopoly on a class of mail versus requiring that class of mail to be able to reach all people within the country at a set rate is interesting. I can certainly attest that the movement of mail to Hawaii and Alaska (both of which have to be handled by plane even for the cheaper classes of mail for the obvious reason for Hawaii and for the fact that there just aren't dependable roads connecting many parts of Alaska to each other), as well as to the rural parts of the continental US are not even in the ballpark of profitable. Don't forget the overseas military mail and mail to US territories. More mail that doesn't get close to being profitable. Of course, this is offset by the fact that this mail is relatively a drop in the bucket compared to larger volume areas such as cities and suburbs.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:19:56 +0000

I remember when The Nation took perverse pride in never making a profit.

I'm pretty sure they still don't. But they still need to make money in order to pay salaries and whatnot.

By: cfoster

cfoster — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:55:52 +0000

The Nation’s president, Teresa Stack, says, mailing out copies to paying subscribers is still largely how small magazines make money.

I remember when The Nation took perverse pride in never making a profit.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:50:21 +0000

So it may well be a necessary subsidy, unless we don't want people to live in remote areas.

The question is to whom should the subsidy be paid? If mail subsidies are to be doled out, I'd rather see that they were distributed to individuals rather than companies and on the basis of need rather than wholesale.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:42:57 +0000

but mightn't a good place to start in reforming the USPS rate structure be dumping the USPS's monopoly?

That's my natural inclination as well. My understanding -- and it's admittedly quite cursory and perhaps outdated as well -- is that regular mail service is essentially a loss leader. The USPS lost its monopoly on parcels years back and is now forced to deliver birthday cards to remote outposts in Alaska and Montana which it would decidedly prefer not to do. My guess is that UPS and FedEx wouldn't rush to fill that void, either. So it may well be a necessary subsidy, unless we don't want people to live in remote areas.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:00:22 +0000

It's hard to know where to start in discussing the “oughta be's” of the USPS. Who should subsidize what and why?

My info may be dated but I seem to recall that First Class mail subsidizes Third Class or, said another way, the letters that you send are subsidizing the catalogs that fill your mail box most of which you're not particularly interested in.

Should poor people in urban areas be subsidizing prosperous people in rural areas?

Once somebody has become accustomed to rent-seeking I guess we shouldn't be surprised that they feel injured when the days at the trough come to a close but mightn't a good place to start in reforming the USPS rate structure be dumping the USPS's monopoly?