From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.general
Subject: Re: Americans taxed less, complain more
Date: 17 Aug 92 13:44:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21374@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug13.143529.21671@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> Yes.  They also taught about situations (like widely distributed
>> systems) where 'economies of scale' don't necessarily apply.  Get back
>> to me when you know how to do something than knee-jerk responses about
>> what free market competition and economies of scale do.
> 
>But the Postal Service is CENTRALIZED.  Very large centers sort mail
>into postal zones.  This mail is then sent out to smaller and smaller
>offices.  This what the ZIP Code(tm) is all about.  I won't tell you
>want "ZIP" means, but it doesn't mean "Fast".  It is an acronym.

No, the Postal Service is not 'centralized'.  If that were the case,
all mail would go to some mega-center in Kansas City or something.  It
is 'regionalized' on both a large and small scale.  As for this
'surprising' knowledge that ZIP is an acronym, so what?  You have a
point? 

>It is a scatter-gather like system.  Mail moves from smaller branches
>to larger ones then back out to the smaller ones.  Mail for New Jersey
>is not sorted at the Bluebonnet station.

Once again, you have a point?  What you have described is a
distributed system, not a 'centralized' one.

>> Yeah, except you assume that you started with excess capacity.  Bad
>> assumption.  That's also not how 'economies of scale' work.  They
>> don't rely (in those situations where they apply) on already having
>> excess capacity.
> 
>That's quite correct, in general, and quite incorrect in this specific
>case.  The USPS =has= surplus capacity at this point in time.  The USPS
>has had surplus capacity for the last 20 or 30 years.

This is generally called 'planning', unless one is John Haugh III and
disagrees with the Post Office.

>> Gee, what kind of machine can DELIVER mail?  That's what letter
>> carriers do, right?
> 
>There is more to DELIVERING mail than walking up and down the street.

Once again, you have a point?  In case you haven't figured it out,
much of the rest of 'delivering' mail IS automated.  Or did you think
they went to standardized envelope sizes with charges for
'non-standard' envelopes just for the hell of it?

>> >It has to do with the letter carriers union which refuses to give up jobs
>> >as automation attempts to replace people with machines. 
>> 
>> Gee, that's odd, since there have been repeated reductions in the
>> number of workers at the post offices as branches are consolidated,
>> etc.  Enough so that they feel they can now lay off 30,000 MANAGERS
>> (you know, managers, the folks who manage the workers -- except there
>> aren't as many workers to manage, so they need less management?).
> 
>No, there are still just as many workers (all 750,000 or so ...).  In fact,
>there are even more than that as the USPS relies heavily on non-employees
>that are hired as "contractors".  We get our mail from a "non-employee"
>that drives a car that isn't a mail truck.

Sources and the number of 'workers' (as opposed to managers) per piece
of mail moved might be meaningful.  Otherwise, an increasing load with
the same number of people is effectively a 'reduction'.

>> And no commercial business could provide us with the mail service we
>> get, either.  Being a 'protected monopoly' in order to prevent 'cream
>> skimming' by commercial enterprises has nothing to do with cost
>> growth, either.  

>Bullshit.  All you have to do is define the rules properly.  Start with

>	"No company may engage in the private delivery of mail unless
>	 it agrees to accept all mail to and from all destinations for
>	 a common amount."

Congratulations, you just put everyone out of the letter business.

>"Cream skimming" is a bogus argument.  UPS, FedEx, etc. all provide
>service to rural areas.  And they all do it for the same rate as to any
>other address in the US.  When I FedEx my parent's something in Folsom
>(actually, 5 miles outside of Folsom, population 450), I don't get
>charged extra.  Where is that "cream skimming" you are talking about?

Well, first of all, FedEx doesn't do letters (because they aren't
allowed to), so your whole chain of argument is bogus here.  It works
just like phone service, etc., John.  I'd suggest picking up a good
book on the history of the phone company in this country (to include
all the litigation and breakup, start of services like MCI, etc.).

This is just more of your usual anecdotal 'Haugh Gwash', and as usual
it demonstrates nothing.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.