ClarkFable t1_jc6knni wrote
I feel like public services do well when there is competition(USPS)—and not so well when there isn’t (MBTA), so perhaps this could work.
paperboat22 t1_jc6luey wrote
You think the MBTA doesn't have competition in the form of private cars, ride share, bikes, walking, etc? The difference between the postal service and public transit in the US is that one (mostly) hasn't been systematically sabotaged for decades.
whmeh0 t1_jc8owyj wrote
Oh, there was a major sabotage attempt of USPS: https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis-and-how-to-fix-it/
ClarkFable t1_jc6u9fs wrote
None of those things are really competition in that they offer the same service (e.g., a very low percentage of the population that uses the MBTA would bike to work today, even if you paid them). USPS has direct competitors that offer basically the same set of services.
paperboat22 t1_jc6uk3n wrote
The service is getting people to their destination. If they stop taking the T and still need to get to work, they're going to use one of those other options. Probably driving.
ClarkFable t1_jc72y7o wrote
You’re not wrong, but that’s a broader definition of competition than what economists typically use. To offer up an absurd example to illustrate this point, suppose I prevent you from all other means besides hovercraft of commuting to work, then I suppose you would take a hovercraft to work (if you HAD to get work), and therefore conclude a hovercraft must be competition with the MBTA (generally). Thus, we must first consider the closeness/substitutability of alternatives before deeming them as sufficiently competitive to be considered proper competition.
paperboat22 t1_jc73c3t wrote
In the end, I think we treat these agencies (public transit, mail, etc) too much like businesses and not like public services.
No one questions whether roads are making enough money because it's understood that they enable productivity in the areas they serve. Meanwhile we expect the T to pay for itself rather than act as a utility.
ClarkFable t1_jc74px4 wrote
>o one questions whether roads are making enough money because it's understood that they enable productivity in the areas they serve. Meanwhile we expect the T to pay for itself rather than act as a utility
I'll get slammed for saying this, but a big part of the problem with a non-competitive public service like the MBTA is that, in the long run, the unions and the contractors will extract all of the benefits from the system until it's too expensive to maintain. Thus, it becomes a never ending money pit.
But then again I don't really have any good answers to solve it.
blackdynomitesnewbag t1_jc6vy92 wrote
The USPS doesn’t have as much competition as you think. Other shippers don’t really send letters, and some types of letters are legally required to go though the post
IntelligentCicada363 t1_jc7qobv wrote
The USPS is required by the Constitution and avails itself from longstanding cultural understanding that the founding fathers thought it important and that a well run postal service is a matter of national pride.
Of late the libertarians in this country have decided even that shouldn't be, although the Constitution limits most acts of sabotage against it.
ClarkFable t1_jc7rcoy wrote
>Of late the libertarians in this country have decided even that shouldn't be, although the Constitution limits most acts of sabotage against it.
Yah, conservatives have done their best to try and destroy it for the past two decades, and thank god their options for interference are somewhat limited. In any event, when you cut through the bullshit, the USPS basically costs almost nothing (on a net operating basis), and still provides all the valuable services that the framers intended (and several more).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments