Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Rain? Snow? Try $5.5b in debt [US POSTAL SERVICE]

124678

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    My problem is less government waste and more waste for society. When the government steps in and makes it cheaper and easier to live in rural places it screws with the market for living and working in those places.
    The point is that there is social value in having people living in those places even though it is otherwise a completely unworkable proposition. One of the functions of government is step in when a market solution results in a negative effect on society. The USPS serving rural areas is exactly that.

    Fair enough point. I would say the economic forces are enough but one could make an argument otherwise.

    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?

    For me? The universality of man. This line of argument always reminds me of an interesting short story by Mark Twain: Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven.
    Oh, a LOT of people WE never heard of before - the shoemaker and horse-doctor and knife-grinder kind, you know - clodhoppers from goodness knows where that never handled a sword or fired a shot in their lives - but the soldiership was in them, though they never had a chance to show it. But here they take their right place, and Caesar and Napoleon and Alexander have to take a back seat. The greatest military genius our world ever produced was a brick-layer from somewhere back of Boston - died during the Revolution - by the name of Absalom Jones. Wherever he goes, crowds flock to see him. You see, everybody knows that if he had had a chance he would have shown the world some generalship that would have made all generalship before look like child's play and 'prentice work. But he never got a chance [...]

    There is absolutely no reason to believe that the next Isaac Newton won't be born in the middle of Montana (Or Zimbabwe for that matter, which is why I'm a bit of a world federalist/liberal internationalist but that's neither here nor there.) and would bring about stunning advancements in human thought &c. but for the simple accident of birth forcing him to go without rather basic standards of living under your supposed suggestions. There is certainly a limit to which subsidies and such break the economic logic and so should not be supported. The rural aircraft subsidy that was the middle of the FAA furor, for instance, is something that could actually be better served through inter-city bus networks for slightly less money and much better ecological impact with very little trade-off. I'm not advocating blindness to economics, but for such basic things as universal postal service or utilities or even internet access with a cost of such trifling amounts I cannot take the societal waste argument seriously.

    tea-1.jpg
  • DashuiDashui Registered User regular
    Has there been any word about Congress acting to fix it or pay its bill? I haven't heard anything on that front, which is depressing.

    Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis

    steam_sig.png
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?
    As I've said several times on the previous page, try housing the visitors to a national park without a rural population. Try farming without one either. Killing the post office, which is what not changing the silly rules they're forced to operate under will do, means that those people will lose out on some very serious things like being able to handle contracts. I like farming, it gives me food. I like national parks, for that matter I also like having people who check and maintain oil pipelines. Hell, little as I like coal, I'm forced to like coal miners because I like the thought of people still having power tomorrow. Rural populations perform any number of important functions, which you seem to be ignoring in your pursuit of a free market solution to a problem that was invented by Congress.

    I'd like you to think about that last phrase for a moment or two. The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?
    As I've said several times on the previous page, try housing the visitors to a national park without a rural population. Try farming without one either. Killing the post office, which is what not changing the silly rules they're forced to operate under will do, means that those people will lose out on some very serious things like being able to handle contracts. I like farming, it gives me food. I like national parks, for that matter I also like having people who check and maintain oil pipelines. Hell, little as I like coal, I'm forced to like coal miners because I like the thought of people still having power tomorrow. Rural populations perform any number of important functions, which you seem to be ignoring in your pursuit of a free market solution to a problem that was invented by Congress.

    I'd like you to think about that last phrase for a moment or two. The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

    You make it sound like I am proposing forced relocation of all North Dakota or something. Farmers still farm and national parks still function, they just have to pay what it actually cost to mail letters. If it cost too much to live there people will move into more urban areas where it is easier to get services to them. I would rather see this done thru the present system but with the way the senate is set up it not possible.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Farmers still farm and national parks still function, they just have to pay what it actually cost to mail letters. If it cost too much to live there people will move into more urban areas where it is easier to get services to them.

    I doubt that rising postal prices would actually cause rural residents to move to urban areas. I think it's more likely to detach them further from the mainstream.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    My problem is less government waste and more waste for society. When the government steps in and makes it cheaper and easier to live in rural places it screws with the market for living and working in those places.
    The point is that there is social value in having people living in those places even though it is otherwise a completely unworkable proposition. One of the functions of government is step in when a market solution results in a negative effect on society. The USPS serving rural areas is exactly that.

    Fair enough point. I would say the economic forces are enough but one could make an argument otherwise.

    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?

    Because someone has to grow the frigging food, man.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    My problem is less government waste and more waste for society. When the government steps in and makes it cheaper and easier to live in rural places it screws with the market for living and working in those places.
    The point is that there is social value in having people living in those places even though it is otherwise a completely unworkable proposition. One of the functions of government is step in when a market solution results in a negative effect on society. The USPS serving rural areas is exactly that.

    Fair enough point. I would say the economic forces are enough but one could make an argument otherwise.

    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?

    Because someone has to grow the frigging food, man.

    Right, but they can grow the frigging food while living in a mud hut with no electricity, power, internet, mail, or schools.

    Or....something. Because heaven forbid our society have the audacity to create any sort of minimum standard of living and economic opportunity for people that choose not to live in Brooklyn. Or for children, whose parents make that choice for them. But fuck those kids.
    I doubt that rising postal prices would actually cause rural residents to move to urban areas. I think it's more likely to detach them further from the mainstream.

    Exactly. These are people that already pay more for a lot of shit (like groceries) or straight-up go without some things (like decent internet). Yet they still live there. But taking away their post office will certainly be the catalyst for their relocation to Berkeley. Sure.
    Because having the ability to exist outside of a city provides tremendous mental and physical health benefits for millions of people and broadens our culture's diversity.

    Also, this. If I wanted to live in South Korea, I'd move to South Korea. And hell, they still have rural areas there, too.

    Spoiler:
  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?
    As I've said several times on the previous page, try housing the visitors to a national park without a rural population. Try farming without one either. Killing the post office, which is what not changing the silly rules they're forced to operate under will do, means that those people will lose out on some very serious things like being able to handle contracts. I like farming, it gives me food. I like national parks, for that matter I also like having people who check and maintain oil pipelines. Hell, little as I like coal, I'm forced to like coal miners because I like the thought of people still having power tomorrow. Rural populations perform any number of important functions, which you seem to be ignoring in your pursuit of a free market solution to a problem that was invented by Congress.

    I'd like you to think about that last phrase for a moment or two. The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

    You make it sound like I am proposing forced relocation of all North Dakota or something. Farmers still farm and national parks still function, they just have to pay what it actually cost to mail letters. If it cost too much to live there people will move into more urban areas where it is easier to get services to them. I would rather see this done thru the present system but with the way the senate is set up it not possible.
    I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most rural towns aren't exactly swimming in money. If they have to pay out the nose for FedEx to deign to visit their neck of the woods they simply don't have the available money to do it.

    Also: The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    What makes you think rural population are worth their resource cost?
    As I've said several times on the previous page, try housing the visitors to a national park without a rural population. Try farming without one either. Killing the post office, which is what not changing the silly rules they're forced to operate under will do, means that those people will lose out on some very serious things like being able to handle contracts. I like farming, it gives me food. I like national parks, for that matter I also like having people who check and maintain oil pipelines. Hell, little as I like coal, I'm forced to like coal miners because I like the thought of people still having power tomorrow. Rural populations perform any number of important functions, which you seem to be ignoring in your pursuit of a free market solution to a problem that was invented by Congress.

    I'd like you to think about that last phrase for a moment or two. The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

    You make it sound like I am proposing forced relocation of all North Dakota or something. Farmers still farm and national parks still function, they just have to pay what it actually cost to mail letters. If it cost too much to live there people will move into more urban areas where it is easier to get services to them. I would rather see this done thru the present system but with the way the senate is set up it not possible.
    I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most rural towns aren't exactly swimming in money. If they have to pay out the nose for FedEx to deign to visit their neck of the woods they simply don't have the available money to do it.

    Also: The fix to this problem is as simple as saying that Congress needs to stop telling the Post Office how to run their business. Meanwhile, you're advocating the government forced failure of an otherwise successful business. How does that fit into a free market again?

    What's the free market have to do with it?

    Listen, I don't hate rural people, I don't care where they live and I wish the post office could stay government run. All I am saying is that it takes alot of resources to run mail to people who live in places with low population densities and those people should be be the ones who pay for their services.

    On the government side we are on triage and should be looking at doing the most good for the money.

    On a society wide level we shouldn't be encouraging people to live in places that are unsustainable. If people want to live there, more power to them.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    rockrnger wrote:
    What's the free market have to do with it?

    Listen, I don't hate rural people, I don't care where they live and I wish the post office could stay government run. All I am saying is that it takes alot of resources to run mail to people who live in places with low population densities and those people should be be the ones who pay for their services.

    Do you feel like the postal service is prohibitively expensive to you, as is? Because, uh, they'd be self-sustaining right now at the current rates absent silly policies constraining their financial practices.

    Is forty-two cents breaking your bank?

    On the government side we are on triage and should be looking at doing the most good for the money.

    I'd be really curious as to how far you take this philosophy. I'm willing to guarantee that there exists some government expenditure that does not achieve the "most good for the money," but which you support. But hey, it probably doesn't benefit yokels.

    On a society wide level we shouldn't be encouraging people to live in places that are unsustainable. If people want to live there, more power to them.

    When you declare their way of life "unsustainable," it implies that you probably do care just a teensy bit where they live.

    mcdermott on
    Spoiler:
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Wait, is it still forty-two cents? I forget. Mainly because both stamps can be purchased at a "forever" rate, and because they are already so damn cheap that I don't notice the expense. But yeah, us cityfolk are sure gettin' robbed so that Jethro can get his letters.

    Spoiler:
  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Also, can't we just outlaw junk mail? Or do a no-call list, but for mail?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    Spoiler:
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    also, I might be a bit crazy, but I liked getting junkmail. catalogues and things to look at. Not so much the credit card offers, but those you just tear up. But I loved to get catalogues in the mail and look at all the pretty things. it was like window shopping right there in my comfy chair.

    Also, like McDermott said.. It's the freaking post office. It's the delivery of mail to and from our citizens and around the world. It's like, fundamental.

    Also also, it was created by a founding Father. Throw that in their face! (of course they'll probably say that ben Franklin was an intellectual elitist snob, but fuck them.)

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    I think right now they basically make all their money from junk mail and netflix.

  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Well, Qwikster now.

    steam_sig.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    MuddBudd wrote:
    Well, Qwikster now.

    Ugh what a stupid name.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    mcdermott wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    The way I had in mind was that individual offices would be able to change the way that they work on a local level after getting a fixed budget from DC.

    Example: town A has a vote where they decide to cut services down to 3 days a week while town B decides to pay extra property taxes to keep service as it is.

    rockrnger on
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    Frankly, I'm ok with the current incarnation of the post office failing. I've always wanted to meet Kevin Costner.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    The way I had in mind was that individual offices would be able to change the way that they work on a local level after getting a fixed budget from DC.

    Example: town A has a vote where they decide to cut services down to 3 days a week while town B decides to pay extra property taxes to keep service as it is.

    o_O
    You honestly think the administrative overhead and needless complexity implied by such a situation would actually save money? And even if that were the case, you honestly believe it would be better than, you know, paying an extra few cents on a stamp? Which is, again, the absolute worst possible scenario. The far easier route would just be to stop requiring insane levels of pension/health funding and overall Congress telling them how to run their business without paying them for the privilege.

    tea-1.jpg
  • RichardTauberRichardTauber King of the north Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    "It began as a mistake" as Charles Bukowski put it

    RichardTauber on
  • azith28azith28 Registered User regular
    As important as the mail is, I think it needs to be kept going, however I think its been shown that the government can't make it break even or profitable. They should consider allowing one of the private companies like UPS or Fedex (That people generally trust as much as they do the post office) buy them out lock stock and barrel so they can turn it into a business model that works. Not sure if they would really want to but I have a feeling it would be an investment that would turn out worthwhile in the longrun.

  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus Right here in River CityRegistered User regular
    azith28 wrote:
    As important as the mail is, I think it needs to be kept going, however I think its been shown that the government can't make it break even or profitable. They should consider allowing one of the private companies like UPS or Fedex (That people generally trust as much as they do the post office) buy them out lock stock and barrel so they can turn it into a business model that works. Not sure if they would really want to but I have a feeling it would be an investment that would turn out worthwhile in the longrun.

    Pardon? The Post Office DOES turn a profit, as the past 4 pages of this thread have said. The only reason why they are so much in debt is that the last Republican Congress forced the Post Office to pay its pension fund 75 years in advance. That's why they're in debt. Also boo sucks to you for trusting UPS or Fedex; the moment they get their filthy, disease-ridden hands on the mail then you're going to see $5 a letter prices, not to mention rural areas being completely ignored/blackmailed into paying premiums for their mail.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular

    moniker wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    The way I had in mind was that individual offices would be able to change the way that they work on a local level after getting a fixed budget from DC.

    Example: town A has a vote where they decide to cut services down to 3 days a week while town B decides to pay extra property taxes to keep service as it is.

    o_O
    You honestly think the administrative overhead and needless complexity implied by such a situation would actually save money? And even if that were the case, you honestly believe it would be better than, you know, paying an extra few cents on a stamp? Which is, again, the absolute worst possible scenario. The far easier route would just be to stop requiring insane levels of pension/health funding and overall Congress telling them how to run their business without paying them for the privilege.

    Where are you getting the increased Administration cost?

    As far as money, I would be advicating for this if the post office was gushing cash.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Couldn't the people in rural America just use PO boxes and we'd have a tag system so they'd know if something they wanted came in (so they wouldn't come to town just to get junk mail)?

    Delivery of the "tags" wouldn't be all that much cheaper, really. You'd still have to drive the entire route.

    And it's my understanding that that junk mail subsidizes universal delivery much more so than those oh-so-expensive stamps us cityfolk are forced to buy at outlandish rates.

    The way I had in mind was that individual offices would be able to change the way that they work on a local level after getting a fixed budget from DC.

    Example: town A has a vote where they decide to cut services down to 3 days a week while town B decides to pay extra property taxes to keep service as it is.

    How about just dropping the ridiculous pension requirement?

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Magus` wrote:
    Also, can't we just outlaw junk mail? Or do a no-call list, but for mail?
    IIRC, junk mail is some of the more profitable portion of the USPS's business.

    Couldn't we fix the USPS by having Congress limiting its oversight to laying out general guidelines? Congress should simply say that the USPS's job is to deliver mail to everyone in the country at a flat rate, and leave the financial aspects of that to the people running the USPS. If that means we all have to pay a few pennies more a letter, that's still an amazing bargain to get a piece of mail sent across a continent (or even just across town).

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Magus` wrote:
    Also, can't we just outlaw junk mail? Or do a no-call list, but for mail?
    IIRC, junk mail is some of the more profitable portion of the USPS's business.
    Probably.

    Also, before anyone gives this a serious look, they're probably going to wait out the ruling on the current phone book opt-out in Seattle, see if the phone book companies have a constitutional right to leave garbage on your doorstep.

    If they do, then junk mail companies probably have a constitutional right to send you garbage in the mail.

  • GospreyGosprey Registered User
    Maintaining federal systems for civilian logistics would be a defence issue, surely?

  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    I don't see why everyone has such a love of supporting rural subsidy and holds the view that any effort to maybe revisit parts of it are some sort of assault on America. People paying for their lifestyle choices doesn't seem fundamentally unfair, whether that be living in an extremely rural area, or living in the heart of Manhattan. If you are truly concerned about poverty traps or the like, it would be more effective to offer relocation assistance and job training than to simply throw them a bone with patchwork subsidies.

    Tiering delivery rates based on demographics and closing offices doesn't really seem all that outlandish (80% of the post offices in the US are in the red). I mean, sure, fix the pension bugaboo and maybe revisit some of the archaic rules binding the post office. But underlying all that is the fact that the post office is providing a service where demand is dropping precipitously and its previous operating mode is no longer going to be viable in the future.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    So, could the netflix split be related to this? Their dvd delivery service seems heavily dependent on a functioning post office.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Drop the pension thing AND increase the cost for junk mail, then?

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    We could also let them limit unnecessary services that the post office wants to drop anyway and close duplicate offices in some cities.

    The pension thing is great though, we should demand that all companies in the US pre-fund their health care costs and retirement costs for 75 years. I am sure that would not hurt anyone...

  • SyrdonSyrdon Registered User regular
    Saammiel wrote:
    The post office's previous operating mode is no longer going to be viable in the future.
    I don't think I've ever seen this reasonably demonstrated. If you'd like to attempt to be the first, please do so.

    Make me dictator for 30 seconds and I can make the post office's current problems go away. They probably need to make some long term adjustments to deal with the slow switch to electronic for trivial stuff, but so long as legal correspondence is handled through mail they have plenty of business.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    I don't see legal correspondence ever going fully digital. Even as a full fledged technophile and person who will be first in line to have my limbs replaced with augmented robotlimbs, I would prefer to have legal documents be physical, because it's easier to prove receipt and authenticity of them.

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Syrdon wrote:
    Saammiel wrote:
    The post office's previous operating mode is no longer going to be viable in the future.
    I don't think I've ever seen this reasonably demonstrated. If you'd like to attempt to be the first, please do so.

    Make me dictator for 30 seconds and I can make the post office's current problems go away. They probably need to make some long term adjustments to deal with the slow switch to electronic for trivial stuff, but so long as legal correspondence is handled through mail they have plenty of business.
    A lot of law offices are switching to email. With prior approval, you can e-serve people in Washington already, and a ton of courts are going to e-filing only.

    I mean, a lot of the initial stuff will still be via mail, but the bulk is going to be electronic.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    I don't see legal correspondence ever going fully digital. Even as a full fledged technophile and person who will be first in line to have my limbs replaced with augmented robotlimbs, I would prefer to have legal documents be physical, because it's easier to prove receipt and authenticity of them.

    Corporate lawyers are very paper heavy.

    Also, with the robo signing fiasco, I think we can safely say that judges are less than impressed by a non-existent paper trail.



  • SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited September 2011
    Syrdon wrote:
    Saammiel wrote:
    The post office's previous operating mode is no longer going to be viable in the future.
    I don't think I've ever seen this reasonably demonstrated. If you'd like to attempt to be the first, please do so.

    Make me dictator for 30 seconds and I can make the post office's current problems go away. They probably need to make some long term adjustments to deal with the slow switch to electronic for trivial stuff, but so long as legal correspondence is handled through mail they have plenty of business.

    The problem is that you can solve the current problems but there is a fundamental mismatch between the nature of what they are selling (delivery of primarily letters and paper circulars) and what the population at large is moving towards (e-mail, web based services, and internet coupon sites like groupon et al). That is a fundamental problem and private business is traditionally not very adept at managing such a shift (look at video rental chains for an example), let alone an entity like the post office.

    And I'm extremely skeptical that legal correspondance is enough to keep about 550,000 people employed. Even the slow to adapt legal field is moving towards more electronic transactions.

    Saammiel on
  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    Saammiel wrote:
    Syrdon wrote:
    Saammiel wrote:
    The post office's previous operating mode is no longer going to be viable in the future.
    I don't think I've ever seen this reasonably demonstrated. If you'd like to attempt to be the first, please do so.

    Make me dictator for 30 seconds and I can make the post office's current problems go away. They probably need to make some long term adjustments to deal with the slow switch to electronic for trivial stuff, but so long as legal correspondence is handled through mail they have plenty of business.

    The problem is that you can solve the current problems but there is a fundamental mismatch between the nature of what they are selling (delivery of primarily letters and paper circulars) and what the population at large is moving towards (e-mail, web based services, and internet coupon sites like groupon et al). That is a fundamental problem and private business is traditionally not very adept at managing such a shift (look at video rental chains for an example), let alone an entity like the post office.

    And I'm extremely skeptical that legal correspondance is enough to keep about 550,000 people employed. Even the slow to adapt legal field is moving towards more electronic transactions.

    Ugh, legal email. Financial email is bad enough. I really hate getting emails from my loan providers that are just "You have an important message! Click here to create an account or sign in to our third party service to download your secure PDF!"

Sign In or Register to comment.