Regarding long lines: that's a common complaint (e.g. Of the DMV), presented as evidence of government inefficiency (not that you were making that argument).
But sizable lines are evidence of government efficiency here; one unskilled employee is able to process a huge number of people.
In return for for the massive taxpayer savings, you have to wait in line for ten minutes 2x a month (or per year in the case of the much-maligned DMV), and occasionally endure employees who are unenthusiastic to be earning very few of your tax dollars per hour.
efficiency. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
In any free market situation, like retail stores, you don't see lines as long, or employees that unhelpful. If there are 40 people in line (not uncommon at my local DMV), their time is actively wasted by one DMV employee who should be making as much as a retail cashier, but isn't because of gov't and union benefits. Opening up one more 'cashier lane' at the DMV would reduce everyone else's wasted time, so they can go back to being productive.
It's not enough to analyze just the DMV's side of the equation, you have to look at both sides to get the whole story.
It's the same story with, e.g. traffic. Minimizing traffic repair costs, at a cost of longer repair times, forcing every single person in town take longer to get to work is a huge net loss.
Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened.
So, yes, it's more efficient for the _store_, but not for _me_ as a customer.
Maybe that's what you're saying—there are two sides to efficiency. Corporations maximize it for themselves, sometimes at the expense of customers. Every once in a while one is enlightened enough to realized that improved customer efficiency is a long-term win.
> Most grocery stores I frequent have replaced several lanes of "efficient" cashiers with the much slower (for shoppers) self-checkout systems. Yes, the lines may be shorter, and the store needs fewer checkers (one can cover multiple self-check lanes), so the store is saving money. But I feel a loss in service quality and am not convinced my checkout time (waiting + service) has been shortened.
Yes, I don't use them either, for the same reasons. But other people do. They've chosen to use that line. If the lines get too long, I can choose to go to another store. Having 1 cashier for each customer in the store would obviously be impractical too. But an equilibrium forms. People get short, not unreasonable wait times, and the store saves money (lowering prices for the customers).
At the DMV, that equilibrium doesn't happen, because people don't have that choice. They can't choose to go to another "store".
Everything is a tradeoff. Your grocer probably feels that customers appreciate lower prices in exchange for that setup.
There may also be an upscale grocer down the street that tends to provide ample staffing at checkout lanes.
The problem due to the monopoly held by the postal service, its system is not subject to competition. Competition might result in competitors trying new approaches with similar staffing (improving processes, etc.) or in different staffing levels and even better service.
It's hard to know what all the clever people actually doing the work would have come up with, since their jobs will never exist when there is only one entrenched monopoly.
But sizable lines are evidence of government efficiency here; one unskilled employee is able to process a huge number of people.
In return for for the massive taxpayer savings, you have to wait in line for ten minutes 2x a month (or per year in the case of the much-maligned DMV), and occasionally endure employees who are unenthusiastic to be earning very few of your tax dollars per hour.