U.S. Postal Service: salvageable or doomed?

We already go to the post office to pick up packages -- half the time they either need a signature or it's too big. And no one ever tries to leave a package for pick-up at their home, do they?

Wrt mentioning the French PO, the number of complaints has risen by 47% since 2009. Ironically, the PO says this is because they nopw have a 911-style 4 digit complaint line (80% of the complaints are made this way) and also complaint link on their website.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2012/05/03/05007-20120503ARTFIG00424-la-poste-mecontente-ses-clients.php

Being France, Le Figaro tends to see this as relatively benign and a union rep says it's 'cause of lay-offs.

My doorman takes all my packages, one of the main reasons I don't wanna move.

We already go to the post office to pick up packages -- half the time they either need a signature or it's too big. And no one ever tries to leave a package for pick-up at their home, do they?

you can order a pickup even w/ usps but I don't think it's worth it unless you ship regularly + live somewhere where you don't mind leaving a package in public. I don't know how the price w/ that service compares to the private carriers.

but basically my point is that outside of places where the usps is the last mile, cutting down from M-F service basically ensures that it won't be able to offer a comparable service to ups/fedex. basically there's either a slow death by cuts where one day a week service could very likely be the endpoint or a radical restructuring of the organization, its finances and long-term purpose. I don't think the first scenario is unlikely, I just don't think its the best one. neither do people who run the post office, which is why they've always been pushing to diversify the business.

Maybe the post office could bring me a pizza with my mail.

You'd probably end up throwing that right into your compost bin

I've never heard it called that.

Are stamps a topping y/n?

I've never heard it called that.

Here in the Utopian Progressive Paradise of SF, we have landfill, recycling and compost bins. Failure to sort properly leads to mandatory stays in Fresno.

today the mailman got out of his truck carrying too much mail and dropped a huge pile of it on the wet street.

and he's driving like a kia soul or something, not an actual mail truck.

the deal, iatee, is that to argue that the USPS is doomed, you point to the chart you posted above re. the decline of paper mail over the last five years & say it's gonna extrapolate out. & "this is true even before you factor in the health care mandate". The USPS is doomed, privatize, diversify it, or shut it down. that's what the market has decided, you can't argue with dollars.

whereas others think "the health care mandate" you poo poo is actually important in explaining why the USPS is doomed right now.

poo poo'ing a right-wing policy, & actually being happy with a right-wing outcome: that's why you come across as right-wing.

"but eliminating a post office in the sticks isn't going to save money because a truck no longer has to drive up there to deliver the mail."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/senate-passes-postal-reform/

"The Postmaster General last year agreed to delay until May 15 obligatory closings of an anticipated 3,600 post offices nationwide, in order to give Congress the opportunity to help with legislation. The bill splits the number of mail processing centers the Postal Services currently wants to close — from 252 to 125."

except I never said privatize it or shut it down and it lost 5 bil *before the health care mandate* last year and I think the solution is gov't banking ~that's kinda sorta not right-wing~

maybe I 'come across as right-wing' because people read whatever the fuck they want into my argument

it lost 5 bil *before the health care mandate* last year

I believe he was referring to the 2006 health benefits funding law mentioned in the thread starter. ("In 2006, before those payments kicked in, the USPS generated a small profit.")

There's a difference between being a right-wing market apologist and seeing that something is economically unsustainable.

seems to me that privatizing the USPS would make the junk mail problem worse, since, if junk mail is 50% of the postal service's business anyways, I don't know why a privately owned mail supplier would turn that away, on top of the fact that in order to stay competitive these privatized companies are certainly going to use the services they provide as a primary means of advertising...

so be prepared for a large increase of junk mail, much of which are fliers trying to convince you to write letters to dear far-away friends and relations instead of just emailing them

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service ended its 2011 fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2010 – Sept. 30, 2011) with a net loss of $5.1 billion. The year-end loss would have been approximately $10.6 billion had it not been for passage of legislation that postponed a congressionally mandated payment of $5.5 billion to pre-fund retiree health benefits.

source: USPS WEBSITE

seems to me that privatizing the USPS would make the junk mail problem worse

literally nobody has suggested privatizing the usps

itt

I stand corrected xp

(NB I'm sitting)

i think people are reading as right wing the fact that whenever anyone gets into the idea that postal service is a public good you slam in with a bunch of half-assed ideas about why the post office is doomed that seem to all have as their endpoint "fuck people getting things that they dont pay for, why should i foot the bill" which equals exactly the attitude that i hate most (well one of them) about right wing dudes.

I am not suggesting privatizing but when the price of postage was brought up, I was quite curious to see what the Royal Mail, which has been privatised, was charging since that would likely represent a sustainable price leading to profits in the UK.

well when I say 'fuck people getting things that they dont pay for' it's because I think there can be environmental consequences from underpricing distance not because I believe there is some 'deserve' thing see: everywhere else where I argue for a swedish welfare state

xp

"fuck people getting things that they dont pay for, why should i foot the bill"

At its worst, this is just deludedly selfish whining. Why delusional? 'Cause most public goods end up benefitting everyone whther directly or indirectly. However, saying that we should pay for a public good regardless of cost is not defensible either. It is ppl's money and just 'cause everyone likes something doesn't mean we should pay an exorbiatnt price that deprives us of other good things.

I mean, I can be down w/leftist ideology that wants to progressively tax the rich but not with leftist ideology that doesn't understand the fundamentals of economics and iatee has the good economic sense to feel that many goods and services are underpriced because the market presently doesn't take into account their real long-term costs.

to be charitable, IF a) the post office is primarily and increasingly a 'service' of shuttling junk paper around the country and b) that activity is getting more and more expensive, then, ok, it is basically destructive and on par with building ships that rot and planes that do nothing well (nb both of these things are truly happening right now)

but i don't think that's the right way to think about what the postal service is for and where it should go next. i mean, reading over this thread again, apart from balls trying to throw his weight around, and people hating iatee already, i don't think anybody really disagrees about what to do?

getting packages in and out of distant & sparsely populated areas is always going to come with greater costs. my opinion is those just have to be borne by the public for social/constitutional reasons. i don't think 'subsidy' is the right way to look at the mail.

the postal service running in the red is a slightly difft issue and could be solved by preventing congress from destroying the postal service.

i guess i'm saying 'salvageable if things were sensible, so, probably doomed'

getting packages in and out of distant & sparsely populated areas is always going to come with greater costs. my opinion is those just have to be borne by the public for social/constitutional reasons. i don't think 'subsidy' is the right way to look at the mail.

exactly how much of the cost - which is going to continue to rise, inevitably w/ transportation costs and the collapse of first-class mail?

another side of this is that 'arguably too cheap' parcel postage to anywhere in the country is basically what's been killing retail

how the fuck should i know!

actually if you want to go after whats been killing local retail it has much more to do with internet exemptions from collecting sales tax than postal rates

As I pointed out upthread postage is more expensive almost everywhere else and rural issues are not just an American issue. Yesterday's presidential debate brought up the ruinous effect of high gas prices on French ppl living in the country.

esp considering that local retail is just as much a beneficiary of inexpensive postal rates wrt incoming product

that's an element too, but that doesn't mean that online retail doesn't benefit from cheap transit to anywhere in the country

xp

goole's point is well-taken. If we just nixed the F-35, the USPS could be easily saved.

its a pretty minor aspect tho, the cost for larger packages (like over a few pounds) shift pretty quickly to UPS vs USPS, which means that the shipping aspect is pretty negligible.

aspect aspect everywhere

esp considering that local retail is just as much a beneficiary of inexpensive postal rates wrt incoming product

nah there's no way you can say 'just as much a beneficiary' - when transit costs are high, it gives a comparative advantages to people who are buying in bulk ie (most of) retail

I mean to have market apologists look askance at mixed economy public sector institutions/public goods like the USPS but not look askance at the train-wreck which is the development of a fighter plane desperately wanted by the military/industrial complex, an example of wrong-headed 'socialism' if ever there was one, is to miss sight of a very important economic and philosophical debate for a shallow political one.

'a comparative advantages' = 'a comparative advantage'

nah there's no way you can say 'just as much a beneficiary' - when transit costs are high, it gives a comparative advantages to people who are buying in bulk ie (most of) retail

but the retail opposition here is between smaller businesses and amazon etc right? so unless you are saying that amazon et al are being crippled by cheap postage i dont get how you can argue that at all

heres a real world example - lets say that some dude is buying a thousand dollar guitar which costs $15 to ship. as someone in a place with approx 7% sales tax, would i rather compete with that, or the fact that the guitar is $70 cheaper from him because i have to charge sales tax?

It really is about storage and delivery to a great extent. Amazon is at a great advantage because their stocking and ordering is far more pinpointed and efficient than a local retailer's is and the cost of delivery, even if slightly higher from an online retailer, is still borne by the buyer.

also note - even if you raise the price of shipping to $69, amazon still has a competetive advantage

somehow I missed M White's French presidential debate thread.

chances of multiplying that shipping cost by 5? so not going to happen

again I don't think sales tax is a non-issue, but the fact that some dude can buy a thousand dollar guitar from *anyone in the country* or increasingly from the amazon-borg which can demand steeper discounts than you get and better shipping prices too, is a bigger problem xp

this btw is def a whole different thread topic and i dont want to derail, but retail survival is a fairly weak argument against low postal rates is all im saying

somehow I missed M White's French presidential debate thread.

I had a Sarko vs Royal thread back last time. This time I just posted 'eugh' on this thread:

J'ecoute le debate entre Sego & Sarko

haha I wanted to watch that is it up somewhere