Banking services for rural Alaskans / people without internet access / anyone else in the 2% [x] lose about as much as postal services.

[x] In the west big tech can more or less serve 98% of the population. but there is (approx) 2% of the population who for various reasons are massively uneconomic to serve - mentally, ill, disabled, poor, lacking literacy skills or the wrong language. Hell its probably more than 2%. But the point is Government must serve these people and provide a level playing field. Commercial companies dont have to.

Those are already challenges the USPS has to deal with. They have infrastructure in place to address those challenges. If they're paying those costs anyway, they might as well add services that can take advantage of that investment in exchange for more revenue.

There certainly would be an additional marginal cost, but it would be much, much less than an entity trying to start that from zero.

I believe something like 10% of NYC is unbanked.

Of hand, I believe it is a lot higher than that. I listen to an NPR (Or was it NYTimes?) podcast that interviewed working poor people and the number thrown around was that something like 40% of Americans working poor are unbanked with some areas of the country upwards of 60% (I think they said certain zip codes in Queens) are unbanked. What really stings working poor people from using banks are the hidden fees. There needs to be cheap and no frills banking for the poor.

Banks are required to offer such accounts by law in NY:

https://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumers/banking_money/basic_bank_ac...

Do you mean even cheaper and less frills than that?

It's not for lack of banking locations.

They did something like this at one time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings_S...

So it would make a profit providing a service no one else finds profitable (offering services to these unbanked), and will also take a loss to serve this underserved marked?

How can it act as both a public service and source of free money? Even if it made a small profit doing so, it would be less than ramping up their most profitable areas and would have an opportunity cost.

(If you mean they should do it purely as a public service, that's a fair point, but you're writing like it's an easy way to improve their financial position, which doesn't make sense.)

I don't think it's a given that just because no one else finds it profitable means that the USPS couldn't operate it in a profitable way.

Most of the reasons that it isn't profitable relate to problems that the USPS already has to solve as part of their core function. It doesn't make sense for a bank to invest in physical infrastructure in the middle of nowhere, the cost of the building would erase any potential profit. The post office already has a building there though (and staff, etc). A significant amount of the up front expense, as well as a decent chunk of the ongoing expenses, is already going to be spent anyway.

Yes, but that means you're saying the USPS has some kind of advantage locating where there are disproportionate unbanked and also a dearth of banks. But I keep hearing about the unbanked as being an issue of large urban areas, which don't have any shortage of bank locations.

So for these five or six people in rural areas that can't get a bank account, and aren't complete deadbeats, and can't get to a bank as easily as they can get to a post office, the USPS has a cost advantage in serving them. Okay. I just don't see numbers that make this a big source of free money.

The USPS should provide local health care services. An interesting deployment strategy for socialized medicine. It would be everything everyone expects from both right and left wing perspectives.

Edited to add: Wealthy privileged HN readers would not know this, but poor people who are "unbanked" have to use USPS money orders to pay bills, and the USPS charges a fraction of one percent on money orders. So yes, the USPS is already performing banking functions.

The implications in your comment are gross, but to respond to the underlying question:

Using a bank as a poor person is stupid expensive. Have less than 200$ in an account? That's a monthly fee. Use your debit card less than 15 times last month? That's a fee. Need checks for that account with only $100 in it? Most people get them for free but you pay. For a time, TD Bank was even applying transactions to your account out of order so you would incur more than expected overdrafts and accrue more overdraft fees than you actually should have had. They lost a court case about that and had to pay people a few dollars, because class action suits are a travesty of justice often.

>Just curious, but why are poor people unbanked? It seems like one could open a bank account with pretty much $5 at almost any bank in the country.

With a $15/month charge for having less than $1000 in the account per month.

With a destroyed credit history when Wells Fargo and BoA continue their stock value pumping shenanigans and opening accounts in your name.

For another discussion of why banks are terrible for poor people: "Why It's More Expensive to Be Poor", from PBS's personal-finance channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0