the post office is bad for the environment and other living things! that's what you're trying to say. i buy that. so many tons of junk paper.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:50 (twelve years ago) link
So instead of banning bulk rate/junk mail, let's def. eliminate the post office instead.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:50 (twelve years ago) link
a) the rights that inhere to you as a citizen of the US and b) the sovereignty the US government holds over the country are both irrespective of the physical geography of the continent. each person and each square inch of US space is formally the same. if this makes the mail expensive in some places relative to others, that's a lesser concern.
both of those things are somewhat fictive (or abstract, if you like) but so what? i mean shit if health care is going to follow the same logic as rights/access then shuffling paper around the country in some useful, regularized way is nbd frankly.
you can argue that in the 18th cent the intent of the clause in Section 8 is idealized, it's about the state fostering the movement of information and correspondence and not about paper per se, but we're not borg yet so let's just pay for it, jesus.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:51 (twelve years ago) link
if you banned them the post office would be even more fucked! xp
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:51 (twelve years ago) link
Less concerned by actual number of farmers than the idea of telling millions of people that they need to cut all their social/family connections and pack it up for Queens.
All indications are that Americans will continue to naturally urbanize in the coming generations, we don't need draconian bullshit like purposely making life outside of major metropolitan areas more difficult.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:52 (twelve years ago) link
I have to admit I wouldn't miss getting mail from every Orthodox Jewish institution in my neighborhood (of which there are many) bcz someone put every plausibly non-Gentile name from my building's directory on their lists. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph....
Kept getting notices from The Nation when I subscribed that the bulk mail subsidy for periodicals had also vanished or nearly so, yes?
― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:53 (twelve years ago) link
I'm pretty sure the post office isn't fucked becauase ppl like me are in charge it is fucked because people don't really use mail that much and, without a doubt, that trend is only going to continue
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:53 (twelve years ago) link
and they can't even send a return address because there's no Post Office! Yikes!
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:53 (twelve years ago) link
the junk mail thing is a non starter because the post office is not responsible for the content of the mail you get though xposts
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:55 (twelve years ago) link
right but its fragile finances atm are built on 50%+ of the mail people get being pieces of paper they will immediately throw in the trash
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:56 (twelve years ago) link
you can tell all those benefits that postal workers get make them really happy because everyone who works at the post office is always soooooooooo happy. just a bunch of good time charlies. i say release them from their inhuman chains of misery.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:56 (twelve years ago) link
post office people are cocks! i like mailmen, though. my great grandpa was a mailman, and almost everybody he worked w/ was a WWII vet. Except for the dudes who worked in the offices, and they were all gov't job placement hacks, and he hated them a lot.
― fka snush (remy bean), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:58 (twelve years ago) link
I thought the mail was privatized in Queens.
http://www.officialpsds.com/images/thumbs/Doug-Heffernan-King-of-Queens-psd41765.png
― pplains, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 16:58 (twelve years ago) link
reasons why the junk mail thing doesn't matter
1 - the recipient is not the customer/funder of that mail, so their demands and wishes have nothing to do with the financial situation of the post office2 - basic economics say that the only reason for the sender to pay for that "junk mail" is that it actually has a higher return rate than the cost of mailing. so no matter what we call it, it works enough for it to be growing business for the post office, and our value judgements about it dont really matter
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:02 (twelve years ago) link
'basic economics' say that it doesn't cost 50 cents to send a piece of paper anywhere in america
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:03 (twelve years ago) link
you are amazing
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:04 (twelve years ago) link
you really think that billions of dollars of subsidies to send paper trash around the country is a good thing because of 'basic economics'
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:05 (twelve years ago) link
How much does it cost? xxp
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:06 (twelve years ago) link
do you really think that you can get away with this level of hilariously misapplied argumentation xpost
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:06 (twelve years ago) link
http://i.imgur.com/7WenP.gif
― dayo, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:06 (twelve years ago) link
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_t5Xqp0AYeg4/S8yJXKVoO5I/AAAAAAAAAPs/pYPHjEyGBNo/s1600/mail+truck.gif
― dayo, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:07 (twelve years ago) link
I just want people to look at this post for a while, just look at it
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:07 (twelve years ago) link
everyone can learn some 'basic economics' if you just reread that post I think
well apparently you cant but yknow
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:09 (twelve years ago) link
There's a question on the table about how much it costs to send a piece of paper.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:09 (twelve years ago) link
usps works the life out of people and those people can never leave because they will never find better money/benefits and its a vicious cycle and it kinda sucks unless you are a chill rural route carrier but mostly you sell them your soul for good healthcare.
― scott seward, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:09 (twelve years ago) link
I think you should write a textbook called 'basic economics' where you teach people how the government paying money to send trash around the country is just 'basic economics'
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:09 (twelve years ago) link
Don't make me use the gavel and call the previous question or w/e.
― i love the large auns pictures! (Phil D.), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:10 (twelve years ago) link
iatee, you realize that you arent actually fooling anyone here right
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:11 (twelve years ago) link
no you convinced me w/ basic economics, I'm on your side now
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:11 (twelve years ago) link
what i heard was USPS actually earns money from junk mailers paying them to send crap everywhere but this was from a pamphlet i received sponsored by awesome patriot junk mailers for america or some such group.
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:12 (twelve years ago) link
um, you should probably double-check what 'basic economics' refers to, iatee
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:13 (twelve years ago) link
iatee if you had bothered to read the first post in the thread you'd know that the turn to increased junk mail is in large part a result of absurd pension-funding requirements designed to kill the postal service
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:15 (twelve years ago) link
1. postal service exists, 2. prices set by (?)(no idea what bulk rates are tbh), 3. business that want to cram your box with coupons use it.
again this seems like a minor problem. solving 3. by getting rid of 1. doesn't make much sense to me.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:17 (twelve years ago) link
prior to the passage of the union-busing bush law discussed upthread, the USPS actually managed to break even year after year. the postal service paid for itself. i.e., there is was no subsidy to mail paper around the country.
― Choc. Clusterman (contenderizer), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:18 (twelve years ago) link
ppl who think post office ppl are 'cocks obv need to move out of the city
― Silky Slim (dan m), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:19 (twelve years ago) link
most people in cities are cocks btw
its obligations have nothing to do w/ its revenue sources - the revenue from traditional mail is going to continue to decline regardless. does anyone believe they will be paying their bills by mail in 2030?
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:19 (twelve years ago) link
best way to reduce the amount of useless bulk mail would be to slightly increase the cost of sending it. would weed out a few who can't afford or don't really depend on it, while generating more income off the remaining users. i suspect that the post office has already pushed this as far as they can. what's probably required is a subsidy to offset the cost of making bulk mail prohibitively expensive to all but a few users.
― Choc. Clusterman (contenderizer), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:21 (twelve years ago) link
i'd say the fundamental problem with the USPS isn't that it sends paper around -- how is the core function of a thing a 'liability'? -- it's that its service (to everywhere the same) and price (the same everwhere, and low) are highly constrained by politics.
the education and blowing-shit-up functions of the public sector don't have to worry about this kind of strict return; the mail is more like that, no matter what a great job UPS and fedex are doing picking and choosing what they send and how, which the mail can't and shouldn't do.
― goole, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:23 (twelve years ago) link
does anyone believe they will be paying their bills by mail in 2030?
― iatee, Wednesday, May 2, 2012 10:19 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
not if the gov't succeeds in destroying the USPS
― Choc. Clusterman (contenderizer), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:23 (twelve years ago) link
i kind of like junk mail when it's awesome, like cereal samples, coupons for free burgers, $1 bills, fancy CD cases...
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:25 (twelve years ago) link
well and wrt the current discussion, the junk mail thing is really a red herring, like i said upthread - it makes no sense to talk about junk mail percentage in a conversation about the sustainability of the post office. xposts
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:25 (twelve years ago) link
well, I agree w/ the second part but w/r/t the first part, it's a business that's in an inevitable decline.
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:25 (twelve years ago) link
see but it is not a business per se
― Rachel Profiling (jjjusten), Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:26 (twelve years ago) link
'the necessity to send pieces of paper across the country is quickly becoming less of a necessity'
― iatee, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:27 (twelve years ago) link
yes i don't think it's a business, it's a public service. therefore if it's expensive you do what you can to manage it but ultimately say "huh interesting, here's the check"
― goole, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:28 (twelve years ago) link
they send other stuff, too! not just slips of paper. cheaper than fedex/ups sometimes also!
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:29 (twelve years ago) link
Do they give away $1 bills in junk mail???
― how's life, Wednesday, 2 May 2012 17:31 (twelve years ago) link
they