Post office says it will deliver mail slower... to SAVE money???

[Little-Acorn]

You've probably heard that the U.S. Post Office is now saying they might eliminate the normal 1-day servivce for delivering letters across town or to a town a hundred or two miles away etc. Now delivery will take at least two days, or more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/eliminating-next-day-service-on-tap-to-save-billions-for-usps/?test=latestnews

I've been wondering something about the Post Office taking two or three days to deliver something that UPS takes one day to deliver, by ground transportation.

If I send something from Los Angeles to San Jose, it's about a 400 mile distance. UPS ground usually gets it there in a day. The Post Office often takes two or three days, or longer if it's Parcel Post.

The actual "transporting" part is the same in both cases. Both services use a truck, both bring the package 400 miles. That's around 8 or 9 hours spent actually moving over the road from one place to another. The rest of the time (total 24 hours for UPS Ground, total maybe 72 hours for Post Office) is spent sitting in a truck that's parked, or in a warehouse waiting to depart, or in another warehouse (or two) near the destination.

Aren't the two services, spending money for that truck that's parked? Or for the warehouse where my package sits?

And if the 1 million packages going from LA to San Jose every week spend 64 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (with the Post Office), versus maybe 16 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (for UPS Ground)....

...then doesn't the Post Office wind up spending a lot MORE money taking care of those 1 million packages, than UPS does?

The Post Office has to spend a lot more money on enough warehouses etc. to house those 1 million packages for 64 hours, than UPS does to house them for 16 hours. Doesn't it?

Now the Post Office is telling us that it will keep the packages for EVEN LONGER than it usually does... and that it's saving money by doing so?

I don't get it.

I figure the PO and UPS spend about the same amount to actually move the packages from LA to SJ. But doesn't the PO have to spend MORE than UPS, to keep the packages for three days instead of for one day?

So how does taking even more time to deliver stuff, "save money"?

Anybody got any comments on this?

[jimnyc]

Let them die out, and I guarantee you that better companies will eat up the service. Win win for everyone and the government stays the fuck out this time.

[logroller]

You've probably heard that the U.S. Post Office is now saying they might eliminate the normal 1-day servivce for delivering letters across town or to a town a hundred or two miles away etc. Now delivery will take at least two days, or more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/eliminating-next-day-service-on-tap-to-save-billions-for-usps/?test=latestnews

I've been wondering something about the Post Office taking two or three days to deliver something that UPS takes one day to deliver, by ground transportation.

If I send something from Los Angeles to San Jose, it's about a 400 mile distance. UPS ground usually gets it there in a day. The Post Office often takes two or three days, or longer if it's Parcel Post.

The actual "transporting" part is the same in both cases. Both services use a truck, both bring the package 400 miles. That's around 8 or 9 hours spent actually moving over the road from one place to another. The rest of the time (total 24 hours for UPS Ground, total maybe 72 hours for Post Office) is spent sitting in a truck that's parked, or in a warehouse waiting to depart, or in another warehouse (or two) near the destination.

Aren't the two services, spending money for that truck that's parked? Or for the warehouse where my package sits?

And if the 1 million packages going from LA to San Jose every week spend 64 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (with the Post Office), versus maybe 16 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (for UPS Ground)....

...then doesn't the Post Office wind up spending a lot MORE money taking care of those 1 million packages, than UPS does?

The Post Office has to spend a lot more money on enough warehouses etc. to house those 1 million packages for 64 hours, than UPS does to house them for 16 hours. Doesn't it?

Now the Post Office is telling us that it will keep the packages for EVEN LONGER than it usually does... and that it's saving money by doing so?

I don't get it.

I figure the PO and UPS spend about the same amount to actually move the packages from LA to SJ. But doesn't the PO have to spend MORE than UPS, to keep the packages for three days instead of for one day?

So how does taking even more time to deliver stuff, "save money"?

Anybody got any comments on this?

It's far more costly to sort, route and deliver a package than to store it. Warehouse vs labor. A fuller warehouse doesn't cost much more money; whereas a larger labor force does.

The PO contracts their bulk mail to private companies, so there is likely a contracted number of trucks/trailers per day. Once they are full, rather than hire additional trucks at higher costs, they just load trailers for the next day--adding a day. Also, volume varies certain days of the week, so they may delay sending a load in anticipation of lighter volume the following day. Say a truck/trailer isn't full to capacity-- UPS would send it anyways. The PO may elect not to, as it's not as cost effective. Compounded, such delays could be days. Hope that sheds some light on it for ya.:thumb:

[Psychoblues]

You've probably heard that the U.S. Post Office is now saying they might eliminate the normal 1-day servivce for delivering letters across town or to a town a hundred or two miles away etc. Now delivery will take at least two days, or more.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/05/eliminating-next-day-service-on-tap-to-save-billions-for-usps/?test=latestnews

I've been wondering something about the Post Office taking two or three days to deliver something that UPS takes one day to deliver, by ground transportation.

If I send something from Los Angeles to San Jose, it's about a 400 mile distance. UPS ground usually gets it there in a day. The Post Office often takes two or three days, or longer if it's Parcel Post.

The actual "transporting" part is the same in both cases. Both services use a truck, both bring the package 400 miles. That's around 8 or 9 hours spent actually moving over the road from one place to another. The rest of the time (total 24 hours for UPS Ground, total maybe 72 hours for Post Office) is spent sitting in a truck that's parked, or in a warehouse waiting to depart, or in another warehouse (or two) near the destination.

Aren't the two services, spending money for that truck that's parked? Or for the warehouse where my package sits?

And if the 1 million packages going from LA to San Jose every week spend 64 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (with the Post Office), versus maybe 16 hours in warehouses or parked trucks (for UPS Ground)....

...then doesn't the Post Office wind up spending a lot MORE money taking care of those 1 million packages, than UPS does?

The Post Office has to spend a lot more money on enough warehouses etc. to house those 1 million packages for 64 hours, than UPS does to house them for 16 hours. Doesn't it?

Now the Post Office is telling us that it will keep the packages for EVEN LONGER than it usually does... and that it's saving money by doing so?

I don't get it.

I figure the PO and UPS spend about the same amount to actually move the packages from LA to SJ. But doesn't the PO have to spend MORE than UPS, to keep the packages for three days instead of for one day?

So how does taking even more time to deliver stuff, "save money"?

Anybody got any comments on this?

I think you have the entire storage thing figured completely wrong, la. While a package may spend a few hours in a particular facility for sorting purposes it is by no means being stored there. The post office, like UPS or FedEx, moves packages through as they get them. Sometimes a 3 day delivery happens overnight and sometimes it happens in 3 days. And transportation is different one to another of these entities. But, everyone wants a guarantee or at least a reasonable expectation of so many days or less. And cost to the consumer is tremendously different FedEx/UPS to USPS. There is no other postal service in the world that can deliver a letter 2,500 miles sometimes in a day and a half for 44 cents.

I heard the PO General just today talking about how the PO had lost over 50% of it's package business in the last few years due to internet and email. Therefore they had tremendous excess in package handling capability and the intent is to streamline the operations to fewer and leaner operations costing ultimately about 280 sorting facilities, I forgot how many post offices and over 100,000 employees. I think that is prudent considering the reduction in demand for services. And like you, I find the question fascinating and would like to see credible comments.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

Let them die out, and I guarantee you that better companies will eat up the service. Win win for everyone and the government stays the fuck out this time.

The post office IS of constitutional importance Jim. Created to promote informational exchange that anybody was able to utilize. A few more days in transport is of little concern, if someone wants it there faster, they can pay more for a private carrier. With the advent of email, they certainly need to adapt their methods to the changing demands of modern society, but a profit centered business was never their mission, nor should it be. They are to, and still do, provide a universally available, adequately dependable, and, most definitely, an inexpensive means of sending documents-- which is an invaluable and still necessary service--- and they shouldn't be allowed to die out.

[Psychoblues]

The post office IS of constitutional importance Jim. Created to promote informational exchange that anybody was able to utilize. A few more days in transport is of little concern, if someone wants it there faster, they can pay more for a private carrier. With the advent of email, they certainly need to adapt their methods to the changing demands of modern society, but a profit centered business was never their mission, nor should it be. They are to, and still do, provide a universally available, adequately dependable, and, most definitely, an inexpensive means of sending documents-- which is an invaluable and still necessary service--- and they shouldn't be allowed to die out.

In the case of letters or documents as you relate, I don't believe anyone has ever and could never compete with the post office except in the extreme priority department and even then the PO has made tremendous strides in the last decade or so. Thanks for your very well reasoned response here, lr.

Psychoblues

[avatar4321]

Apparently they think poorer service will invite more customers..

Clearly the government in action.

[logroller]

In the case of letters or documents as you relate, I don't believe anyone has ever and could never compete with the post office except in the extreme priority department and even then the PO has made tremendous strides in the last decade or so. Thanks for your very well reasoned response here, lr.

Psychoblues

Funny you'd mention that, because since 2003ish the PO contracts out their priority packages to FedEx. Part of that deal is why you see fedex dropboxes at Post Offices.

[logroller]

Apparently they think poorer service will invite more customers..

Clearly the government in action.

The reasoning is not many people send time-sensitive things through the post office because private companies and modern innovation have taken those customers--clearly as a result of free-enterprise in action.

[jimnyc]

The post office IS of constitutional importance Jim. Created to promote informational exchange that anybody was able to utilize. A few more days in transport is of little concern, if someone wants it there faster, they can pay more for a private carrier. With the advent of email, they certainly need to adapt their methods to the changing demands of modern society, but a profit centered business was never their mission, nor should it be. They are to, and still do, provide a universally available, adequately dependable, and, most definitely, an inexpensive means of sending documents-- which is an invaluable and still necessary service--- and they shouldn't be allowed to die out.

The service is absolutely not necessary, if someone takes over the job that can do it better and be profitable, while still guaranteeing service. I think service IS the concern, and that's why the PO is floundering. The few more days in service may not be of concern to all, but is the very reason that it's going down the tubes. Competitors are simply performing a better service. Any money poured into the USPS will be a waste of time as I can't see them being profitable anymore, unless they raise stamps to $20 a letter. And even then people will just go elsewhere even faster. Slowing the service will slower their customer base.

If they lower their service, who suffers? If they don't profit, who pays? If their combined losses cost the taxpayer $0 - then let them keep chugging.

I know it's a constitutional matter, but it's also a shitty business right now and simply costing money to do what is already done at a faster and better way.

[logroller]

The service is absolutely not necessary, if someone takes over the job that can do it better and be profitable, while still guaranteeing service. I think service IS the concern, and that's why the PO is floundering. The few more days in service may not be of concern to all, but is the very reason that it's going down the tubes. Competitors are simply performing a better service. Any money poured into the USPS will be a waste of time as I can't see them being profitable anymore, unless they raise stamps to $20 a letter. And even then people will just go elsewhere even faster. Slowing the service will slower their customer base.

If they lower their service, who suffers? If they don't profit, who pays? If their combined losses cost the taxpayer $0 - then let them keep chugging.

I know it's a constitutional matter, but it's also a shitty business right now and simply costing money to do what is already done at a faster and better way.
Lots of talk about profits, and if this was a for-profit company, I'd be right there with ya-- but it isn't, nor was intended to be. Contrary to the common practice of crony capitalism--the government's mission was never contingent on profitability.


The USPS is created as a government agency under Title 39, Section 101.1 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/101.html) of the United States Code which states, in part:


(a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

Under paragraph (d) of Title 39, Section 101.1 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/101.html), "Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis."http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/uspsabout.htm




Saying the post office should fold is like saying the American Red Cross should turn a profit or fail. Show me a private business that will send a xmas card to my sister in Hawaii for less than 50 cents and I may be persuaded that the PO no longer remains viable. I suspect your concern is the unsustainable spending that government is engaged in, to which I offer no dispute, but I'd say we should start by reducing the spending of such things which aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution at the behest of our Founding Fathers.

[Shadow]

Lots of talk about profits, and if this was a for-profit company, I'd be right there with ya-- but it isn't, nor was intended to be. Contrary to the common practice of crony capitalism--the government's mission was never contingent on profitability.

Saying the post office should fold is like saying the American Red Cross should turn a profit or fail. Show me a private business that will send a xmas card to my sister in Hawaii for less than 50 cents and I may be persuaded that the PO no longer remains viable. I suspect your concern is the unsustainable spending that government is engaged in, to which I offer no dispute, but I'd say we should start by reducing the spending of such things which aren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution at the behest of our Founding Fathers.

I would have to agree with you about a private business not being a cheaper alternative. I send out a lot of books...I have priced shipping/postage at many more conveinient places,but they always cost twice as much...so, guess where I usually always end up...yep, back at the post office.

[Psychoblues]

Funny you'd mention that, because since 2003ish the PO contracts out their priority packages to FedEx. Part of that deal is why you see fedex dropboxes at Post Offices.

And visa versa, lr. There are millions of rural addresses where FedEx cannot deliver so the PO contracts to deliver for them. Ain't that a damned hoot?!?!??!?!?! Someone paying FedEx prices for packages delivered by the PO.!!!!!

Thanks again for all you're sharing on this subject. Have you got space for 2 more pallets on that rig? The money is right if you can get it on! Been there and done that, as a dispatcher, my friend!

Psychoblues

[logroller]

And visa versa, lr. There are millions of rural addresses where FedEx cannot deliver so the PO contracts to deliver for them. Ain't that a damned hoot?!?!??!?!?! Someone paying FedEx prices for packages delivered by the PO.!!!!!

Thanks again for all you're sharing on this subject. Have you got space for 2 more pallets on that rig? The money is right if you can get it on! Been there and done that, as a dispatcher, my friend!

Psychoblues

Not FedEx Express-- We delivered anywhere and everywhere(except PO Boxes). I believe you're thinking of a FedEx freight service or some other subsidiary. When UPS was on strike, iirc, 1999, FedEx made big bucks and bought several other businesses: Viking Freight, RPS and a number of other regional carriers-- since re-branded as FedEx Freight and FedEx Ground. They also have a an FedEx Express Freight, FedEx Custom Critical, FedEx Logistics... But with Express, the flagship of the company, service trumped profit. I know, I went to some money losers, let me tell you. 2 hour round trip for one letter, sig required-- about $15 for shipping at the time. I got paid $16/hr.-- do the math-- definite loser money-wise. Never mind the fact there was no contact-- back the next day, then the next day. Finally get a release,(ie no sig req)-- over a barbed wire fence, a quarter mile by starlight with two horses following (creepy), over an electric fence and delivered to front door, under mat. "Can you get it there tomorrow?---Absolutely. Positively" Door to door.. We did sub-contract air services to outlying FedEx stations, aka FedEx Feeders, and the occasional expedite by commercial airline-- a rare exception. Volume at my station was around 4000 inbound and 8000 out, with maybe one package expedited a week. Regardless, delivery was ALWAYS done by a FedEx employee.

FunFact: A FedEx Letter gets scanned an average of 28 times.

[logroller]

I would have to agree with you about a private business not being a cheaper alternative. I send out a lot of books...I have priced shipping/postage at many more conveinient places,but they always cost twice as much...so, guess where I usually always end up...yep, back at the post office.

Exactly the kind of informational exchange our founding fathers thought necessary to our society. :salute:

And a far better example than my xmas cards.:laugh:

[Psychoblues]

Not FedEx Express-- We delivered anywhere and everywhere(except PO Boxes). I believe you're thinking of a FedEx freight service or some other subsidiary. When UPS was on strike, iirc, 1999, FedEx made big bucks and bought several other businesses: Viking Freight, RPS and a number of other regional carriers-- since re-branded as FedEx Freight and FedEx Ground. They also have a an FedEx Express Freight, FedEx Custom Critical, FedEx Logistics... But with Express, the flagship of the company, service trumped profit. I know, I went to some money losers, let me tell you. 2 hour round trip for one letter, sig required-- about $15 for shipping at the time. I got paid $16/hr.-- do the math-- definite loser money-wise. Never mind the fact there was no contact-- back the next day, then the next day. Finally get a release,(ie no sig req)-- over a barbed wire fence, a quarter mile by starlight with two horses following (creepy), over an electric fence and delivered to front door, under mat. "Can you get it there tomorrow?---Absolutely. Positively" Door to door.. We did sub-contract air services to outlying FedEx stations, aka FedEx Feeders, and the occasional expedite by commercial airline-- a rare exception. Volume at my station was around 4000 inbound and 8000 out, with maybe one package expedited a week. Regardless, delivery was ALWAYS done by a FedEx employee.

FunFact: A FedEx Letter gets scanned an average of 28 times.

Groovy!!!!!!! I think the unionized PO would have done the same job for much less than $15 but you earned every penny of that money for FedEx!!!! UPS would also have done it for about the same as FedEx but with union employees. My, my. Thanks again, lr.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

And visa versa, lr. There are millions of rural addresses where FedEx cannot deliver so the PO contracts to deliver for them. Ain't that a damned hoot?!?!??!?!?! Someone paying FedEx prices for packages delivered by the PO.!!!!!

Thanks again for all you're sharing on this subject. Have you got space for 2 more pallets on that rig? The money is right if you can get it on! Been there and done that, as a dispatcher, my friend!

Psychoblues

PB if the USPO goes away and thus saves taxpayers BILLIONS, someone will step in a fill any voids in the delivery system. It is called capitalism PB

The USPO is outdated, inefficient, and thnaks to union demands to expensive.

I have always said, if you can find a service in the Yellow Pages, the government should not offer the same service

Your main concern is all those union members paying dues that end up in the re-election accounts of Dems. You want that money more than anything else PB

[fj1200]

Given the PO's constitutional basis it is NOT about capitalism, it's about the flow of information; It still has a function and it needs to meet the function. If they need to dial back their service levels and their business suffers even further so be it, the constitution defines its role but not speed of delivery.

[jimnyc]

Given the PO's constitutional basis it is NOT about capitalism, it's about the flow of information; It still has a function and it needs to meet the function. If they need to dial back their service levels and their business suffers even further so be it, the constitution defines its role but not speed of delivery.

If it's not about money, why go even further and limit the service and make your business worse than it was. Why not just leave it as-is? Or hire more and have a plan to increase service instead and be a competitor?

[fj1200]

If it's not about money, why go even further and limit the service and make your business worse than it was. Why not just leave it as-is? Or hire more and have a plan to increase service instead and be a competitor?

Nobody said we couldn't have efficiency in government or competition for the service. The PO already can't compete even with legislation limiting competition.

[ConHog]

IF the post office were to fold, I doubt I'd notice at all except for the lack of junk mail arriving every day.

[logroller]

If it's not about money, why go even further and limit the service and make your business worse than it was. Why not just leave it as-is? Or hire more and have a plan to increase service instead and be a competitor?

But they aren't competing, nor can they. They merely provide postal services which are "adequate and efficient." They have two options, raise rates or decrease service frequency/ timeliness. I'd imagine most people who use the PO probably aren't as concerned with how expedient the service, but everybody care's about cost--otherwise, they'd use a private carrier. But there are those who can't afford a private carrier; they still need a "fair and equitable" means of communication.

It all stems from the reasoning for a legal monopoly-- if a private company could provide the same service (see: Universal Service Obligation (http://www.prc.gov/PRC-DOCS/library/USO%20Appendices/Appendix%20B.pdf)) for the same or lesser cost, it would have been done that way from the beginning. But it couldn't-- so what's changed now? Electronic communications. The post office simply cant compete with the speed and efficiency of email; so it must adapt to the niche market of universally available, inexpensive, parcel deliver service. Not because it makes sense market-wise, but because without it the market would actually be less robust. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but a truly free-market depends on the availability of information. If we made all forms of communications pay-to-play,(subject to profit consideration), we'd have less information/ less informed people-- that's not good for the markets, its not good for free speech, and its not good for a free society. If there's anything We are entitled to, it's an affordable means of communication.

[fj1200]

But they aren't competing, nor can they. They merely provide postal services which are "adequate and efficient." They have two options, raise rates or decrease service frequency/ timeliness. I'd imagine most people who use the PO probably aren't as concerned with how expedient the service, but everybody care's about cost--otherwise, they'd use a private carrier. But there are those who can't afford a private carrier; they still need a "fair and equitable" means of communication.

It all stems from the reasoning for a legal monopoly-- if a private company could provide the same service (see: Universal Service Obligation (http://www.prc.gov/PRC-DOCS/library/USO Appendices/Appendix B.pdf)) for the same or lesser cost, it would have been done that way from the beginning. But it couldn't...

Plus their monopoly on letter delivery is legislated as UPS/FE are prohibited from entering that market. The PO is unlikely to lose business over this becaause there isn't anyone to pick up the slack.


I hope my Netflix doesn't start to take longer. :eek:

[logroller]

IF the post office were to fold, I doubt I'd notice at all except for the lack of junk mail arriving every day.

And how would those junk-mailers advertise then? Other means which are more costly; costs which ultimately are borne by the consumer. Cheap means of communication keep information availability up. Now if we could just get people to actually read and consider the information, instead of the parroting the indoctrination of for-profit sources; but like you said in another thread-- Americans are lazy and/or cognitively deficient. It's functionally impossible to reason with the comfortably ignorant-- but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

[ConHog]

But they aren't competing, nor can they. They merely provide postal services which are "adequate and efficient." They have two options, raise rates or decrease service frequency/ timeliness. I'd imagine most people who use the PO probably aren't as concerned with how expedient the service, but everybody care's about cost--otherwise, they'd use a private carrier. But there are those who can't afford a private carrier; they still need a "fair and equitable" means of communication.

It all stems from the reasoning for a legal monopoly-- if a private company could provide the same service (see: Universal Service Obligation (http://www.prc.gov/PRC-DOCS/library/USO%20Appendices/Appendix%20B.pdf)) for the same or lesser cost, it would have been done that way from the beginning. But it couldn't-- so what's changed now? Electronic communications. The post office simply cant compete with the speed and efficiency of email; so it must adapt to the niche market of universally available, inexpensive, parcel deliver service. Not because it makes sense market-wise, but because without it the market would actually be less robust. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but a truly free-market depends on the availability of information. If we made all forms of communications pay-to-play,(subject to profit consideration), we'd have less information/ less informed people-- that's not good for the markets, its not good for free speech, and its not good for a free society. If there's anything We are entitled to, it's an affordable means of communication.

Good , so do away with the post office and just give every home in the US a free broadband internet connection. Figure $30 a month X however many households in the US, I bet it would be FAR cheaper than the current post office is.

[logroller]

Plus their monopoly on letter delivery is legislated as UPS/FE are prohibited from entering that market. The PO is unlikely to lose business over this becaause there isn't anyone to pick up the slack.


I hope my Netflix doesn't start to take longer. :eek:

Exactly, there's no viable market-based alternative. Whereas with netflix, streaming is an option. :thumb:

[Psychoblues]

But they aren't competing, nor can they. They merely provide postal services which are "adequate and efficient." They have two options, raise rates or decrease service frequency/ timeliness. I'd imagine most people who use the PO probably aren't as concerned with how expedient the service, but everybody care's about cost--otherwise, they'd use a private carrier. But there are those who can't afford a private carrier; they still need a "fair and equitable" means of communication.

It all stems from the reasoning for a legal monopoly-- if a private company could provide the same service (see: Universal Service Obligation (http://www.prc.gov/PRC-DOCS/library/USO Appendices/Appendix B.pdf)) for the same or lesser cost, it would have been done that way from the beginning. But it couldn't-- so what's changed now? Electronic communications. The post office simply cant compete with the speed and efficiency of email; so it must adapt to the niche market of universally available, inexpensive, parcel deliver service. Not because it makes sense market-wise, but because without it the market would actually be less robust. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but a truly free-market depends on the availability of information. If we made all forms of communications pay-to-play,(subject to profit consideration), we'd have less information/ less informed people-- that's not good for the markets, its not good for free speech, and its not good for a free society. If there's anything We are entitled to, it's an affordable means of communication.

I totally disagree that the PO is not competitive. Even though the government has insisted the PO preload its projected retirement funds for 75 years out and NOBODY else has to do that, and even though the PO contributes about five billion dollars to the US Treasury for expenses unrelated to Postal Service where no one else is required to do that, and even though it's workers are unionized and even though no taxpayer has ever spent a single cent paying them and you said the other night that the PO can deliver a Christmas card to your sister in Hawaii, it goes way further than that, and no one has ever stepped forward in any way trying to compete with that then I have to assume that no one CAN compete with that.

I do ebay and ship small packages all the time. I drive right past a UPS and a FedEx store with no lines to the PO where I stand in line for sometimes 30 minutes or more to ship a package. I've certainly got the time and I continue to believe the practice just makes good sense for me.

Thanks again for you contributions here, lr. You seem to make better sense than most around here on most any subject.

Psychoblues

[logroller]

Good , so do away with the post office and just give every home in the US a free broadband internet connection. Figure $30 a month X however many households in the US, I bet it would be FAR cheaper than the current post office is.

Uh...no. IIRC, the post office is only appropriated $92 million per year, for free mail for the blind, foreign voting docs and what not. They get subsidized loans, but I don't think it would amount to much. Say they borrow $5B at half a percent discount~another $50 million. hell, round up to $250 million...

Figure $30 x 100 million households, that's $3B. Still cheaper than universal healthcare though, but I digress. The PO provides a still necessary and valuable service. That we choose not to appreciate what it provides, is not a fault of their purpose, but rather a fault of their methods. Congress needs to allow the PO to adapt to the changing needs of our Nation, and not allow it to perish under arcane statutes dictating speed and frequency of service.

[Psychoblues]

Uh...no. IIRC, the post office is only appropriated $92 million per year, for free mail for the blind, foreign voting docs and what not. They get subsidized loans, but I don't think it would amount to much. Say they borrow $5B at half a percent discount~another $50 million. hell, round up to $250 million...

Figure $30 x 100 million households, that's $3B. Still cheaper than universal healthcare though, but I digress. The PO provides a still necessary and valuable service. That we choose not to appreciate what it provides, is not a fault of their purpose, but rather a fault of their methods. Congress needs to allow the PO to adapt to the changing needs of our Nation, and not allow it to perish under arcane statutes dictating speed and frequency of service.

lr, it appears to me that the PO has made enormous strides in recent years and projections indicate strides more aggressive than anything we have ever seen anywhere at anytime with parcel delivery no matter the provider. conway thinks we need free broadband internet in every home. I agree and actually many countries already have that, even very poor countries. Healthcare, too. I like your thinking.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I totally disagree that the PO is not competitive. ... and no one has ever stepped forward in any way trying to compete with that then I have to assume that no one CAN compete with that.

You're right, no one CAN. They're prohibited from competing in local mail delivery.

[ConHog]

You're right, no one CAN. They're prohibited from competing in local mail delivery.

So once again PB shows up with half the facts and half a whit to debate?

And not that I don't believe you , but can you link to that law, I've never heard it. I mean I know that by law only the USPS is allowed to put things in mailboxes , but I assumed FedEx could do local door to door delivery if the wanted. Or is that the law you were referring?

[fj1200]

Here you go.

Private Express Statutes
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)

The PES created a governmental monopoly on the carriage and delivery of letter mail, and ensured that this monopoly can be enforced. Today the USPS is empowered to suspend the PES, if it believes such a private postal service would be in the interests of the general public.

[ConHog]

Here you go.

Private Express Statutes
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes)


So , it gets even better. Not only does the USPS have a legal monopoly , they are also in charge of deciding if that monopoly can be broken? LOL that,s real incentive to be financially responsible.