🚀 go-pugleaf

In <21343@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1992Aug11.173544.21794@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>In <21309@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>Consider the volume of mail moved and the subsidization of other
>>classes of mail by the cost of a first class stamp.

>Oh.  I guess they didn't teach you about "Economies of Scale" when you
>were getting that degree in economics.

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.

>This is how it works.

>I spend $1B on sorting equipment which is utilized at a 50% rate because
>there is low mail volume.  When the utilization rate climbs to 60%, the
>FIXED COST (You do remember those fixed costs, right?) amortized out per
>piece of mail DECLINE.

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.

>The problem with the USPS has NOTHING to do with volume or subsidization.

Gee, what kind of machine can DELIVER mail?  That's what letter
carriers do, right?

>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?).

>The socialists
>will argue that this is evil - replacing people with machines is just
>absolutely HORRIBLE - but the Japanese have been doing it for decades
>and right now they are eating our lunch.  

John, frankly, you wouldn't know a 'socialist' if one bit you on the
ass.  Can we have YOUR definition of socialist?  Since I've had so much
trouble in the past with you having your own proprietary meanings for
things, I figure we should hear your definition up front.  Just as a
hint, though, socialism has nothing to do with whether or not you
'replace workers with machines' or not.

>It also has to do with being a
>governmental agency.  No business could ever maintain that rate of cost
>growth without being a protected monopoly.

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.  


-- 
"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.