Bear with me, please. I’m working on a dim memory of something I read a few years ago about reasons why the USPS is having money issues.
The gist of it is that the USPS is legally obligated to deliver to every single address in the U.S., whereas carriers like UPS, FedEx, and DHL aren’t.
In low-population density areas, these carriers often hand off packages to USPS for delivery because the post office has to go there anyway and it’s cheaper for UPS, etc., to pay the USPS to do the delivery than it is to run a truck out to a location that may not be anywhere near anything else they’re delivering.
Meantime, the USPS gets a (relatively) small fee for carrying this package to the remote location and loses out on the larger fee for carrying it cross-country. Why is this a problem? Because delivering in high-density areas subsidizes delivering in low-density areas, and the USPS is losing delivery to high-density areas to the express carriers, who can afford to charge less for package delivery because they aren’t having to subsidize delivery to low-density areas.
It’s sort of the same reason why rural areas are the last to get paved roads, electricity, and phone service. The costs to provide those services is higher than the fees that can be earned from providing them, so those costs are partially paid for by the fees charged to the people who get them for a lower cost.
I hope that makes sense. I’ve had a day that turned my brain to tapioca, so I’m not sure how clearly I’m explaining. I wish I could provide a credible cite, but so far all I’ve turned up that even remotely sounds like what I remember reading is a comment by a retired postal worker on a Talking Points memo (thanks, Google), but this is (a) way too recent to be what I remembered, (b) an unlikely thing for me to have read since I rarely if ever read Talking Points, and (c) supplies no numbers.
If you want, I can keep digging, but as I said, this was something I read a few years back. No idea if I can find it again.