• ryathal
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Just because it’s a service doesn’t mean it has to operate at a loss. Water is a service too, but you can’t bankrupt the water company by using 300x as much water.

    • khornechips
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Here’s a crazy take, maybe water shouldn’t be privately owned.

      • ryathal
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Whether it’s public or private has no real bearing on my point though. Water consumption is priced to cover the cost of delivering the water. That isn’t the case in international shipping, the more packages from China for the USPS, the more money they lose.

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          the entire premise of your “point” is mind-bogglingly wrong. the USPS doesn’t make money, it costs money, just like any other org run by the government

          how much revenue is the US military raking in? or are they “operating at a loss” too?

          talking about ending the USPS because it’s “losing money” is the most bone-headed bullshit take on anything, ever. period

    • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Services can still cost money. Utilities, such as water, cost money but if the government is running them they do not need to produce profit.

      Republicans framing the postal service as a failed business venture is purposeful.