How will AI effect our economy?

[jaypatriot]

There is a thread in the AI forum and a statment which I think is far more relevant to economics than AI. The thread was about predicting some future changes that AI will bring.

That said, this isn't an AI thread, it's econ, if you want to discuss AI, here is the thread the comment below came from

I find this statment is fundamental to understanding how economies work.



I'm not addressing aoc in this thread, I did it in the AI thread. But, for what it's worth I think that aoc is correct in that AI is a productivity tool. I use it almost every day at my job, and I know it's allowed me to do more work in less time.

But when looking how AI will affect the economy, that's a very different question. AI will increase potential productivity, but the actual effect will depend on our system of money and how it's used.

Let me see if I can explain.

Let's say right now there is some stock of money, let's say $1 trillion dollars and the labor productivity rate is $10 per/hr and there are 100 million who can reasonable be expected to be in the workforce (easy round numbers). If AI increases labor productivity by 50% over ten years there are two opposing factors in play. The result is that, per labor unit, people could create more per person resulting in the potential for more goods and services in the economy. However, there are two possibilities of what can be done with the capacity to create more output per person

Either, that you can create (roughly) 50% more "stuff" per hour worked or it takes 50% fewer people to produce the same amount of stuff.

So a company with 100 employees and a revenue of $100k, could, in theory reduce it's employees by 1/2 and maintain it's revenue of $100k, however, the companies labor costs would be reduced by 1/2 (keeping things simple) increasing profits.

There are a lot of people like AOC in this thread that want to cut the deficit to zero or even target a surplus, that would reduce government spending, and surpluses would reduce the stock of money circulating in the economy.

And, btw we haven't even included the fact that in 10 years, the population of a country can grow by 10%

Thus in 10 years the labor productivity could go from $10-$15hr and the number of people looking for work could go from 100 million to 110 million., thus potential output could go from 100 million people x $10 per unit our of labor, or $1 trillion in GDP, to: 110 million people x $15/ unit hour of labor or $1.65 trillion.

Now, what happens if we try to hold the amount of money constant?

Well, there was $1 trillion in money stock and $1 trillion in output, and in 10 years we'd have $1 trillion in money stock and potential output of $1.65 trillion.

Sounds great, but if you think this would ever happen in the real world, you fundamentally misunderstand the real world.

Even if all of that potential productivity were turned into real output (under almost every circumstance it wouldn't), it would result in extreme deflation. Money would increase in value as the supply of goods would increase and the money would stay the same or decrease.

In short, the extra potential output wouldn't surface because companies individually don't always grow proportionally to the size of the economy. They can instead realize higher profits simply by reducing the number of people it takes to maintain or even slightly increase revenue.

Every industry and sub-industry is different when it comes to the application of AI in the workplace.
My grand daughter is a graphics designer. I regularly encourage her to listen for any talk in her company about appropriating known AI tools to make graphic design easier and quicker.
AI used in graphic design can do certain things but it can't judge what is artistic and creative and what is not.
As far as warehousing and picking of retail items, we already know how much efficient robots can be than humans finding a picking items to be shipped.

New technology innovations have always ended up reducing the number of workers needed in certain industries.
That started back in the 18th century with the Industrial Revolution.
Let's hope in our 21st we don't see armies of Luddites running around trashing machines that function using AI to make decisions in the workplace,

 

[Econ4every1]

Let me kill two birds with one stone in a single post.

Suppose half the workforce got replaced with AI. The companies that layed off their employees also layed off their customers. They might be able to maintain productive output with fewer people, but can they maintain profits with fewer customers when half of them can no longer afford to buy their products?

I wanted to swing back and address this.

Honestly, I've actually thought the same thing in the past, however, there is a problem with this idea.

The top 1% held 14.2% of the wealth and 43.9% of all income in 1989. Today it's 17% and 47.4% respectively.

For every other group wealth has declined and for income everyone in the bottom 90% saw their incomes decline. (Source)

But here's the thing. Total real wealth held by families in the US nearly quadrupled in real terms from $52 trillion to $199 trillion between 1989 and 2022. Being the car buff that I am, I remember in 1989 when Porsche introduced the 959 for an eye watering $250k at a time when the market for such cars was measured in the 100's of millions. Today there are cars that sell for $30 million dollars and the market for ultra high end cars is measured in the billions. When I was a kid you could go to a ballgame for $10 and sit in the bleachers for $50 and sit behind home plate. Now there are seats that cost 100's or thousands of dollars because there are more people with more disposable income.

Thus, the bottom 90% customers have less real income (and wealth) compared to 1989, yet GDP and consumer sending have increased. I think that one of the reasons for that is the growth of high end consumables. Cars, home, yachts, watches, art and other collectables have increased, not to mention high end consumer goods.

The point here is that increased automation and AI will result in decreasing salaries and/ or higher unemployment (I believe it will continue to decrease salaries for those in the 50th to 99th percentile the most, and greater unemployment and decreased salaries in the bottom 50%)
So while there will be more people with less discressionary spending, there will be a few people with a lot more discressionary spending. Productivity will follow the money. Homes and cars will be more elaborate, the wealthy will continue to buy up real property. Very, very high end consumer goods will continue to fill the pages of Amazon, and while you may be tempted to point out that someone (or thing) needs to make that stuff, AI and automation will drive down relative wages such that only a small percentage of people who have very special skills will make middle class or higher wages. AI will make people more efficient and continue to erode wages and wealth in the bottom 90%.

Now, I suspect there is a point at which the top 1% capture too much of the income and wealth and the system collapses, but I don't think we're there yet. The last 30-40 years is showing a trend that will continue for at least the next 5-10 years, where a few percent of the people in the country continue to capture a greater share of the gains, something the current administration has cemented, at least for the next 4-5 years and it will accelerate.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Feel free to put my response in the AI of your choice.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Thus, the bottom 90% customers have less real income (and wealth) compared to 1989

That isn’t the case, as you already acknowledged:

But here's the thing. Total real wealth held by families in the US nearly quadrupled in real terms

Both real median income and real median wealth have increased since 1989.

For every anecdotal example of cars or ball games, a counterexample can be made for the cost of a GB of RAM, the cost of robotic prosthetics, the cost of 48MP cameras, etc.

The bottom 90% is better off now than they were in 1989. Mostly due to the release of Civ V, which elevated the median quality of life tenfold.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's a point that gets to the very heart of why the Postal Service was designed as a universal service.

Let me stop you right there. Who cares how it was designed in 1789? Today, most mail is junk mail, because the post office subsidizes it. We cut down literally 100 million trees a year to print junk mail that goes straight to the landfill. The post office's time has come and gone. It should be abolished immediately.

You're right that mailing a letter across the country is more expensive than mailing one around the block. However, if we eliminated uniform pricing and forced the USPS to operate like a private company, it would certainly abandon the most expensive 'last mile' routes to rural and remote areas, but those costs wouldn't vanish, they would just shift from the public to the private sector disproportionately onto those that live in rural areas, especially the poor.

That's too bad. If you want to live out in the sticks you can drive into town once a week for your mail. How is that unreasonable?

Seniors might pay $20 for a prescription delivery. A small business in rural Wyoming would be unable to compete with one in Chicago.

A single stamp price is a deliberate policy choice. It socializes the cost of maintaining a national network to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their zip code (sort of like roads, sewers, electricity, water delivery etc.), has affordable access to an essential service.

Mail delivery is not like any of those which we call infrastructure monopolies. Private carriers have existed for decades and are profitable. It's not like there's some big question mark as to whether the private sector can do it, because it already does it. Hell, even Amazon, which is an online retailer, is 10x better than the post office when it comes to delivering packages and they do it cheaper.

The alternative is a variable pricing structure that might save a few cents on a local letter in once place only to increase costs in another The real expense is creating a two-tiered system that isolates entire communities and has unintended follow on affects.

JFC, "two-tiered" pricing exists everywhere: airplane tickets, internet service, health insurance, etc, and no one think of it as a moral failure. You're supposed to be some sort of economist, remember?

If we use our imagination, we could imagine that privatization might offer some benefits, but I could see a lot of downsides as well. At best I could imagine a lot of competition in densely populated areas, which is almost always the case (save perhaps Sweden) where mail systems have been privatized, but at worst (and more likely) I could also imagine effective monopiles in rural areas where the number of residents cannot support meaningful competition almost certainly resulting in decreased services at increased costs. I think the closest example are businesses like Grub Hub and Door Dash.

There are examples in my town where I can order a pizza through one of the few restaurants that offers their own delivery staff. I pay the menu price plus a few dollars delivery fee and a tip on $25-$30 on a pizza that has a similar eat-in price as other pizza shops with similar quality.

If I order that same pizza though Door Dash, it's $35-$50 or $10-$25 more.

Except that mail delivery and food delivery are not comparable.

Now, this isn't an apples to apples comparison, I admit, mail delivery is a public good, pizza is not, but I can imagine something similar happening in a privatized mail system, where venture capitalists using large sums of money take huge losses to dominate markets and drive out competition and appear to deliver real value-ads to their customers until they dominate the market and raise prices significantly.

Wrong. Mail delivery is not a public good. Mail delivery is excludable (you can be charged) and rivalrous (each letter uses up fuel, labor, etc)

 

[Econ4every1]

Every industry and sub-industry is different when it comes to the application of AI in the workplace.

Agreed, however, unlike a lot of automation of the past, AI will affect a disproportionate number of industries, but as you stated it's effects will vary by business.

My grand daughter is a graphics designer. I regularly encourage her to listen for any talk in her company about appropriating known AI tools to make graphic design easier and quicker.

As a Sr. Level IT person who is on the periphery of the AI transformation, I'd say that's good advice. However, I would also encourage everyone to look beyond AI as just a tool to evaluate questions and give information. There is a lot of self-paced learning on the web, but watching videos or reading can be difficult without feedback. But with AI, you can watch or read information and ask questions, and get feedback in real time.

New technology innovations have always ended up reducing the number of workers needed in certain industries.

I agree, but it freed people up from having to provide basic needs and allowed people to provide more sophisticated needs like advanced medicine and research and development on countless safety systems, and of course wants. However, there are far fewer spaces to move into as AI reduces the total number of labor hours needed.

 

[Econ4every1]

That isn’t the case, as you already acknowledged:

"But here's the thing. Total real wealth held by families in the US nearly quadrupled in real terms"

Both real median income and real median wealth have increased since 1989.

It's baffling reading most of your responses as very few of them address the points of my post.

Thus, I have no idea what this statment is refuting. I never claimed nor did I infer that real median income isn't rising.

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

For every anecdotal example of cars or ball games, a counterexample can be made for the cost of a GB of RAM, the cost of robotic prosthetics, the cost of 48MP cameras, etc.

The bottom 90% is better off now than they were in 1989. Mostly due to the release of Civ V, which elevated the median quality of life tenfold.

You are either unaware of the point I was making or you're intentionally ignoring it. Which is it?

I was pointing out that those at the top have been taking a larger share of the growing pie for the last 30 years. And while RAM and cameras are getting better, necessities like housing, medical care and education (to name a few) are much more expensive. Access to credit is more expensive and increasingly necessary

I was also making the point that despite the fact that the economy is not zero-sum, wealth is increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and the result is that the wealthy are driving up prices on things like real estate and energy. They are diverting money from productive uses like training and R&D and worker benefits and are increasingly using the money to out compete the guy with the 48mp camera and 64GB of RAM playing Civ V for representation at all levels of government.

The discussion isn't about whether we are better off than our ancestors in absolute terms; it's about relative distribution of wealth and societies resources and the unsustainable trends of increasing costs for essentials like housing and education, which make it more difficult for a large portion of the population to achieve financial stability, even as the wealthiest accumulate unprecedented levels of capital and the fact that the disparity will only accelerate.

But, let's circle back to the claim that media incomes are rising.

For whom? The nation as a whole? Sure.

But let's look at Median income by quintile:



If we look at the year 1989 though 2023 and just look at the raw trend:



See how the top quintile is accelerating away? And looking at the top 5% it's even more pronounced.

That is an economic paradigm that is unsustainable.

 

[jaypatriot]

Agreed, however, unlike a lot of automation of the past, AI will affect a disproportionate number of industries, but as you stated it's effects will vary by business.


As a Sr. Level IT person who is on the periphery of the AI transformation, I'd say that's good advice. However, I would also encourage everyone to look beyond AI as just a tool to evaluate questions and give information. There is a lot of self-paced learning on the web, but watching videos or reading can be difficult without feedback. But with AI, you can watch or read information and ask questions, and get feedback in real time.


I agree, but it freed people up from having to provide basic needs and allowed people to provide more sophisticated needs like advanced medicine and research and development on countless safety systems, and of course wants. However, there are far fewer spaces to move into as AI reduces the total number of labor hours needed.

Thanks for the useful insights and advice.

 

[Econ4every1]

We cut down literally 100 million trees a year to print junk mail

You care about the environment?

The post office's time has come and gone. It should be abolished immediately.

Look, I conceded in my last post that it may be time to re-evaluate the services the PO provides. Perhaps a regulation that prevents using the PO for junk mail. We'd save a lot of trees!

Mail delivery is not like any of those which we call infrastructure monopolies. Private carriers have existed for decades and are profitable

Because they don't accept routes that are unprofitable. They get to refuse to deliver to certain places.

Hell, even Amazon, which is an online retailer, is 10x better than the post office when it comes to delivering packages and they do it cheaper.

You're laving the most important part out.

In many cases the PO delivers the last mile for Amazon.

JFC, "two-tiered" pricing exists everywhere: airplane tickets, internet service, health insurance, etc, and no one think of it as a moral failure. You're supposed to be some sort of economist, remember?

There are certain services that are "public goods" and the PO has always been one of them, so while the costs and losses are socialized, the benefits are realized by those that need it most. Privatizing the PO will reduce the social cost and increase costs on certain individuals, which, in the end may have higher overall costs. But as I said, I'm open to re-evaluating the PO, though the final determination needs to be made within a framework of priorities, which I'm going to go out on a limb as say we likely won't agree on.

Except that mail delivery and food delivery are not comparable.

No, they aren't and I acknowledged that, however, there's no reason to think that markets can't be dominated by virtual monopolies or oligopolies and prices driven up because of market dominance.

Wrong. Mail delivery is not a public good. Mail delivery is excludable (you can be charged) and rivalrous (each letter uses up fuel, labor, etc)

Gemini's answer

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It's baffling reading most of your responses as very few of them address the points of my post.

Thus, I have no idea what this statment is refuting. I never claimed nor did I infer that real median income isn't rising.

You said this:

For every other group wealth has declined and for income everyone in the bottom 90% saw their incomes decline. (Source)

You explicitly said that everyone in the bottom 90% saw their incomes decline.

Here is another one:

Thus, the bottom 90% customers have less real income (and wealth) compared to 1989

You are here again explicitly stating that "real income (and wealth)" has declined for the bottom 90% since 1989.

The discussion isn't about whether we are better off than our ancestors in absolute terms; it's about relative distribution of wealth and societies resources

I disagree. The discussion is about whether AI will make our progeny better off than we are in absolute terms.

Previous technological advancements have made us better off than our ancestors in absolute terms. It hasn't just made the 1% better off. Flush toilet tech has become available to every stratum of society now, and everyone is better off for it.

I expect this trend will continue, and that AI advancements will be a net benefit to every stratum of society.

 

[aociswundumho]

You care about the environment?

Of course I care about the environment. Getting rid of the dumbass "post office" is an easy trade-off to benefit the environment.

But as I said, I'm open to re-evaluating the PO, though the final determination needs to be made within a framework of priorities, which I'm going to go out on a limb as say we likely won't agree on.

True - since your priorities revolve around what's best for the state, rather than, you know, people.

No, they aren't and I acknowledged that, however, there's no reason to think that markets can't be dominated by virtual monopolies or oligopolies and prices driven up because of market dominance.

Market dominance only lasts if competitors are barred from entering, typically by government, not the market. If prices go too high, that's an open invitation for someone else to offer a better, cheaper service.

Gemini's answer

You asked:

Is mail delivery in the US considered a public good?

Of course there are millions of ignorant leftists like yourself who consider mail delivery to be a public good. But it isn't a public good, and I already told you why.

 

[Econ4every1]

You explicitly said that everyone in the bottom 90% saw their incomes decline.

In relative terms.

You are here again explicitly stating that "real income (and wealth)" has declined for the bottom 90% since 1989.

Again, in relative terms. I mean, I literally posted this chart:



This shows quite clearly that incomes have risen in real terms. Having to explain that when it's implicit in my post get's verbose.

The point still stands.

The discussion is about whether AI will make our progeny better off than we are in absolute terms.

As I already stated. Advances in technology have made things better in the past, but there is tension between the investors and owners of technologies that create a unit of productive output with fewer human labor hours per unit.

The point of my chart is to show that the income and wealth gains are not distributed evenly and that there is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue to accelerate.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that increased per labor hour output will simply improve lives and create new jobs.

I said that's not a certainty, especially for the majority of Americans. It depends on income distribution which is increasingly moving to the very top (no AOC I don't support or endorse the concept of equal distribution). This movement to the top allows a relative few people to drive up prices in one of several ways. For example simply by being willing to pay more for a thing. This is especially pronounced with inelastic goods. Now, Taylor swift tickets are inelastic, but are a pure discretionary item. But land is a very different story.

What is the value of land? Whatever the market determines? But what if spending more on an inelastic good like land makes it possible to extract more rent?

And in fact we're now seeing investment groups buying up housing in major cities (and they aren't doing it to make peoples lives better), such that the obvious eventual outcome will be just a handful of huge investment groups who use their growing wealth (relatively speaking, an example of how increasing wealth in the hands of a few hurts most people) to buy land in and around areas people need to live to have access to their jobs.

This is happening in mobile home parks. Buy the park, drive up lot rents where trailer owners rent a lot in the park. These are the the kinds of families that typically have little disposable income or savings. Eventually they are priced out and are forced to abandon their homes because they cannot afford to move them. The owners take them, usually for a fraction of their value with the goal of earning a return on investment by renting the lot and the homes.

So where does AI come into this? Today's profit driven investor will, in many (though not all) cases, see more profit in reducing wages, benefits and in some case staff, then they will simply by increasing output.

Of course, the reality is more complex and will likely be a combination of some increases in output and decreases in real wages, but as the wealthy are increasingly using their wealth to to extract money, not earn it and that will impact how future increasing in output affect our economy.

 

[aociswundumho]

Because they don't accept routes that are unprofitable. They get to refuse to deliver to certain places.

If something isn't worth doing, it doesn’t magically become worthwhile just because taxpayers are footing the bill.

 

[Questerr]

If something isn't worth doing, it doesn’t magically become worthwhile just because taxpayers are footing the bill.

Yeah, if a rich lord's private army decides your house isn't worth protecting from an invading enemy's soldiers, you can't expect a state to raise a military to protect you. You just have to accept your family being raped and killed and your home burned down.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

If something isn't worth doing, it doesn’t magically become worthwhile just because taxpayers are footing the bill.

Your problem is thinking something is only worthwhile if it turns a profit.

 

[aociswundumho]

Your problem is thinking something is only worthwhile if it turns a profit.

No my problem is pretending a bad idea becomes noble the moment you force someone else to pay for it.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

No my problem is pretending a bad idea becomes noble the moment you force someone else to pay for it.

The post office lost a whopping $9.5 billion last year. That's a rounding error in our budget. For that, we get mail delivered six days a week. We ALL get that.

I would guess the loss to businesses would far exceed that sum if we had no postal service.

 

[jaypatriot]

If something isn't worth doing, it doesn’t magically become worthwhile just because taxpayers are footing the bill.

Isn't the Post Office legally obligated to deliver mail to everyone regardless of location? What is the argument here? Taxpayers pay to have the PO live up to its legal obligations.

USPS Universal Service Obligation Explained​

By GovFacts

What Is the USO?​

The Universal Service Obligation (USO) is a legal and policy framework that ensures every individual and business in the United States has access to quality mail and package delivery services, regardless of geographic location. The USO requires the USPS to:

• Deliver mail to every address in the United States—urban, suburban, rural, or remote.
• Maintain consistent delivery schedules at affordable prices.
• Offer universal access to postal services via post offices and other access points.

The USO is what sets USPS apart from private carriers. While companies like UPS or FedEx can pick and choose profitable routes and regions, USPS must serve every community—even if that means delivering a single letter to a remote address far from the main delivery routes.

USPS Universal Service Obligation Explained

For many of us, receiving mail is a routine part of daily life—whether it’s letters, bills, or packages. Have you ever wondered why the United States Postal Service (USPS) is required to deliver to every address across the nation, from the biggest cities to the most remote rural communities...

govfacts.org

 

[aociswundumho]

Isn't the Post Office legally obligated to deliver mail to everyone regardless of location?

The constitution grants fedgov the power to run post offices, but it's not a mandate.

 

[Econ4every1]

No my problem is pretending a bad idea becomes noble the moment you force someone else to pay for it.

If you think that anyone here, including myself thinks that spending government money makes something noble, your biggest problem is understanding what other people are saying.

The fact is there are plenty of examples of government spending money on research that private industry exploits for profit and the government doesn't ask for payment or to be part owner. Advancements in communication, aerospace, telecommunication (including wireless) and medicine are areas the US government has invested 100's of billions improving US private industries profitability and helped keep US industry on the cutting edge globally.

 

[aociswundumho]

The fact is there are plenty of examples of government spending money on research that private industry exploits for profit and the government doesn't ask for payment or to be part owner. Advancements in communication, aerospace, telecommunication (including wireless) and medicine are areas the US government has invested 100's of billions improving US private industries profitability and helped keep US industry on the cutting edge globally.

Opportunity costs are a thing. Could all that money have been better spent elsewhere? Did the bureaucrats allocate the money productively? What percentage of projects actually led to meaningful industry advances?

You don't know or care about the answers to these questions.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Opportunity costs are a thing. Could all that money have been better spent elsewhere? Did the bureaucrats allocate the money productively? What percentage of projects actually led to meaningful industry advances?

Opportunity costs are certainly not a thing in this instance. There is not a limited pile of money that the government can spend. Every choice to spend or not is purely political, not financial.

You don't know or care about the answers to these questions.

He understands the financials far better than you do. And he's absolutely correct to say that businesses benefit greatly from government-funded research and projects.
Just like my example of the Post Office. They cost less than $10 billion/year, but they add far more value than that.

 

[aociswundumho]

Opportunity costs are certainly not a thing in this instance.

Wrong. Opportunity costs always exists. Every time the government spends money on x, that is money not spent on y - or not left in taxpayer's pocket. Even if they print the money, the opportunity cost becomes inflation or debt.

There is not a limited pile of money that the government can spend. Every choice to spend or not is purely political, not financial.

Ah yes, the magic money tree, aka mmt.

He understands the financials far better than you do. And he's absolutely correct to say that businesses benefit greatly from government-funded research and projects.

For every darpa there are a dozen solyndras and bridges to nowhere.

Just like my example of the Post Office. They cost less than $10 billion/year, but they add far more value than that.

Based on what?! If the stupid post office adds more value than it costs, why does it require taxpayer bailouts? Why does it need a legal monopoly?

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Wrong. Opportunity costs always exists. Every time the government spends money on x, that is money not spent on y - or not left in taxpayer's pocket. Even if they print the money, the opportunity cost becomes inflation or debt.

Sovereign debt is private sector savings. And government spending doesn't cause inflation. There is a long history of deficit spending along with low inflation.

You love the phrase "opportunity cost," but you don't understand it, because you apply it to everything.

Ah yes, the magic money tree, aka mmt.

Prove me wrong.

For every darpa there are a dozen solyndras and bridges to nowhere.

Links? Proof?

Not all companies make it, and not all projects turn out great. But on the whole, the government had done great things with their spending.

Based on what?! If the stupid post office adds more value than it costs, why does it require taxpayer bailouts? Why does it need a legal monopoly?

The Post Office is not a monopoly. You are free to hire any company you like to deliver letters and packages. Good luck finding one that will deliver for under a buck.

And the value added is to people and businesses. It won't show up as a profit for the Post Office. Again, you seem incapable of understanding that not all value is reflected by profits.

 

[aociswundumho]

The Post Office is not a monopoly.

Well, the post office itself disagrees:

Universal Service and the Postal Monopoly: A Brief History - Who we are - About.usps.com

To enable USPS to serve all Americans Congress gave the organization a monopoly over the carriage of letter-mail.

about.usps.com

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

Well, the post office itself disagrees:

Universal Service and the Postal Monopoly: A Brief History - Who we are - About.usps.com

To enable USPS to serve all Americans Congress gave the organization a monopoly over the carriage of letter-mail.

about.usps.com

So UPS et al can't use your mailbox. So what?