From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.general
Subject: Re: Americans taxed less, complain more
Date: 14 Aug 92 13:52:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> >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.

> 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."

"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?
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | Life's Little Instruction Book:
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            | "#138.  Learn Spanish.  In a few years,
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  more than 35% of all Americans will speak
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  it as their first language."