Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Opposes Plan To End Saturday Mail Delivery

theodp writes "Online retailer giant Amazon.com has come out against a US Postal Service proposal to end Saturday service, part of efforts to address the USPS budget deficit. 'Amazon's customers have come to appreciate and expect Saturday delivery,' explained Amazon VP Paul Misener. 'If the five-day delivery proposal is not withdrawn,' he added, 'we ask that Congress ensure that Saturday delivery be maintained.' In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence." The article adds, "Interestingly, online DVD service Netflix is backing the plan to end Saturday mail delivery, arguing that a 'well functioning' Postal Service is more important than 'maintaining current delivery frequency.'"

504 comments

  1. The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference between Amazon and Netflix is that Netflix product fits comfortably in a mailbox.

    1. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And, for Netflix, it benefits them by slowing down the rate that they receive videos (though it means Monday's will be heavier than they were before).

      For Amazon, people want Saturday delivery without paying for it. For Netflix, people certainly want it, but if the USPS doesn't do it, then people will understand. So, Netflix can stop staffing the delivery portion of Saturday's if that goes through, while Amazon still has to do everything as normal and they lose the ability to cheaply send packages that can potentially arrive on Saturday.

    2. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plus, netflix sells you a plan that is limited only by how often you can get mail. If you can't get mail on Saturday, that's one less DVD they have to send you. Amazon, on the other hand, gets paid for every package they send you.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's 17% fewer movies sent and received by Netflix every week. I would expect them to also want more public holidays in a year as well

    4. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Netflix was moving more and more of their delivery to a series of tubes instead of old boxes?

    5. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most of the products I buy from Amazon COULD fit comfortably in a mailbox, but they come in a box about three times bigger than it needs to be. I ordered a map update for my Magellan GPS, it was on an SD card. It came in a SD card caddy, in an envelope, in a big fucking cardboard box. You know, kind of like getting software licenses from HP. And it's a $50 product, it's not like it deserves a big box based on value.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's only 17% for customers who turn their DVDs around ASAP. My wife and I mostly subscribe for the online content, and often have a couple of DVDs sitting around for a few days before we get around to watching them. Obviously, high volume customers will get less value from their subscription. But I think it's a mistake to extrapolate a 17% overall savings from this.

      Also, this will tend to cause more of a surge on Mondays outgoing mail / Tuesday and Wednesday's incoming at Netflix. This will also tend to reduce the positive effect for Netflix. Most companies prefer to have a constant workload across all of their shifts and days, rather than dealing with surges. Like a power company, or a tax consultant, they have to size their capital investment to deal with surges, even though that is not fully utilized most of the time.

    7. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by maxume · · Score: 1

      Only if they are morons. They should be trying to make each disc sent profitable and trying to maximize the number of paying customers that they have, not trying to manipulate the apparent value of the service they provide.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We're one of those quick turnaround people. With a 6-day week, we can get a DVD on Wednesday, stick it in the mail Thursday, and get the next on on Saturday. This gives us the weekend to watch that movie and we put it in the mail on Monday, which then gives us another DVD on Wednesday. It's a great routine -- exactly 2 DVD's a week on the same days and one of them to watch every weekend. Taking out Saturday would certainly change things.

    9. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      It's not the customers I am talking about, if you can't send mail on a Saturday, then they will receive less mail on Monday. Will they really be running around to all the drop boxes or even people's mail boxes to pickup outgoing mail on Saturdays if the delivery trucks aren't going out?

    10. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      I guess you have never heard of the throttling they have been accused of.

    11. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by DriveDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      True enough. And while Netflix may be looking forward to a mostly-online service, for now their customers (me) will be more likely to keep paying them if we can get DVDs on Saturday. Perhaps they're also being agreeable with the USPS because they've been at odds in the past over envelop jamming and such. I really couldn't care less if I get a package from Amazon on Saturday or wait until Monday. The only case that makes sense to me is when I send a gift and I'm as late ordering it as I usually am. I think skipping another day besides Sunday is OK for the USPS, but I'd vote for Wednesday so as not to have two consecutive days missed.

    12. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by cacba · · Score: 1

      This will save us money, until our customers realize they are paying for less.

    13. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our customers are idiots and will never realize they are paying for less, even with the occasional journalist who pushes it in their face.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by maxume · · Score: 1

      That directly manipulates the actual value provided.

      It's pretty bullshit. They should just state the maximum number of discs they will ship, they will still have plenty of happy customers, and fewer upset customers.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Go back to your order, and leave packing feedback. Amazon has a nice form letting you vent about ridiculously-sized boxes.

      Ever since they began collecting that data, I've noticed that my Amazon orders do seem to come in more appropriately-sized boxes (although they do still occasionally go ridiculously overboard). Their Frustration Free Packaging initiative is also great for consumers and the environment alike.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    16. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. I do exactly the same, the dvds are almost pointless to me. The online content when I want it is so much better.

      Now if we could convince Hulu to adopt more streaming devices such as the rumor let down on Xbox360, that would be the end of it all!

    17. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? I buy stuff from Amazon all the time, including big boxsets. It is rare that my packages don't fit in my mailbox.

    18. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Golddess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean more mail on Monday?

      With Saturday delivery:
      -On Friday, a particular drop box is emptied.
      -On Saturday, it becomes 50% full by the time the USPS empties it again.
      -On Monday, it has again become 50% full by the time the USPS empties it.

      Without Saturday deliveries, between the Friday and Monday cleanout, the box has become 100% full. So from that particular drop box, there was a 100% increase in mail on Monday.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    19. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jmitchel!jmitchel.co · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that you don't live in a particularly urban area, let alone an "urban" area where the mailboxes tend to be smaller and have locks on them.

    20. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      No, I mean less. If it's picked up on Saturday it is sent on and received on Monday. If it is picked up on Monday it is received on Tuesday.

    21. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by satch89450 · · Score: 1

      Will they really be running around to all the drop boxes or even people's mail boxes to pickup outgoing mail on Saturdays if the delivery trucks aren't going out?

      If you are talking about house pick-up and neighborhood/apartment cluster box pickup, no.

      If you are talking the large postal boxes (the ones that a small person could fit in) I would expect they would drop the "Saturday" pickup schedule and use the "Sunday/Holiday" pickup schedule. That would vary by locale and postmaster policy.

      If you are talking about the post office letter drop and parcel drop, I would expect those to be accessible on Saturday even if the post office is otherwise closed; those features are in the same area as the postal boxes, which in most places are accessible 24/7/365. The mail may not be *processed* until Monday, but at least it's on the "other side of the wall."

      By the way, I would expect the stoppage of Saturday delivery would include post office boxes. By not having to man the back rooms at all, the Post Office could save quite a bit of money -- handling mail is labor-intensive. If the post office were a non-government operation, subject to government-specific labor rules, I could see them dropping delivery on a different day of the week, like Wednesday. That way, you have two small holes in mail delivery instead of one large one.

      Which represents a window of opportunity to a package delivery company. They are not restricted by government-employee rules. Those companies could institute MTWTF business delivery, and MTTFS residential delivery. One reason for UPS and FedEx to consider using a different work-week for residential delivery is getting signatures. I still remember losing a package of network parts because I was at work, and UPS didn't deliver on Saturday. So they left the box on my porch, and somone else grabbed it before I got home. That wouldn't happen with Saturday residential delivery.

    22. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by ottothecow · · Score: 4, Informative
      You know the mail moves every day right? The USPS is open 24/7

      Sure they don't drop it off at your house, and most post office customer areas are not open sundays (they probably can't stop saturday customer house for people who work), but mail that is in the system is constantly moving. If it was going to arrive on monday, it will still arive on monday (with saturday's mail).

      I wouldn't be surprised if they still send the trucks around for a daily pickup on the blue boxes on saturdays since this requires significantly less labor than actually delivering mail to every single house in the country.

      --
      Bottles.
    23. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amazon products fit comfortably in UPS, Fedex, and DHL trucks.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually people have done some studies and found that netflix starts to fuck with your DVDs if you order too many. They got sued over this a few years back in which they admitted that they were doing this, settled with lawyers (netflix customers got less than one week free subscription as payback), and changed their TOS to say something like "netflix send you DVDs when we want to, the X many out at a time plan is not actually legally binding."

      They do things like mess with your queue. A movie that is ready to ship will appear as "long wait". Your DVDs will be shipped from a shipping center across the country so that it takes 2-3 days to get to you and back, etc.

      Ending Saturday delivery will only help netflix screw its customers out of more money. One more reason I don't have a netflix subscription.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    25. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Amazon is free to send their products through UPS and Fedex (which do deliver on Saturday's if you pay for it). Why should the USPS continue Saturday delivery so Amazon can send media products (books, DVDs, CDs) at a deep discount to other carriers?

    26. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      looks like it's too late, the order was placed October 29, 2009 and there's no feedback links for that order, just order details. Hilariously, the order was filled by Amazon LLC directly... perhaps the problem has self-solved, it's been a while since I got anything from amazon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      on the other hand, they sometimes will ship you an extra one, too, if they're shipping from across the country.

      I'm on the 2 at a time plan, and recently they sent me an email that said something like "The movie at the top of your queue is being shipped from the other end of the country. We've shipped the next one down from your local netflix shipping center". USPS got them both to me within about a day of each other (fast from across the country, not slow local) and I had 3 out for a little while.

      They probably like me lately though, because I've been watching more online than on disk.

    28. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Golddess · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I could be mistaken, but I believe the last time I looked at one of those blue drop boxes near me, Sunday was not listed as a pickup day for that box. So it's reasonable to assume that if they dropped Saturday deliveries, they might also drop Saturday pickups from those drop boxes.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    29. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      The only case that makes sense to me is when I send a gift and I'm as late ordering it as I usually am.

      And that case isn't very strong, because there are other delivery options through Fedex or UPS that do deliver on Saturdays.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    30. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I'm still not following what you're trying to say. If they dropped Saturday, the mail that otherwise would have been picked up on Saturday doesn't suddenly vanish, it gets shifted to Monday. So same mail overall, but Monday gets more mail than Monday used to.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    31. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by hoboroadie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some of us non-Sabbath-Keepers find Saturday delivery useful and productive. I've had problems with delivery drivers (particularly the pinheads from the USPS) over-ruling my request for packages to be left on the porch when no one is home, and causing delays in production due to untimely delivery. On Saturdays I stand a better chance of stopping them before they leave with my stuff.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    32. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by PPH · · Score: 1

      You know, kind of like getting software licenses from HP.

      So you got 2 cubic feet of styrofoam packing peanuts as well?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    33. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah if only they had lockers in some central location with 24/7 public access and a code to access the locker they could send you via email - then you could pick up your package when it suits you and eliminate the last mile costs.

      Personally i get deliveries to my work address but YMMV.

    34. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jaymz666 · · Score: 1

      and gets delivered on Tuesday, instead of Monday, and the replacement disc goes out a day later. Thus, decreasing the Netflix workload

    35. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by sexconker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's nothing. When Blockbuster Online first started... $18 / month Get 3 DVDs in the mail on Monday morning. "Watch" them, and head to Blockbuster on Monday evening. At Blockbuster, turn them in and get 3 DVDs from the store (free). Get 3 DVDs in the mail on Wednesday morning. "Watch" them, and head to Blockbuster on Wednesday evening. At Blockbuster, turn them in and get 3 DVDs from the store (free). Also turn in the 3 DVDs you got from the store on Monday. ... Plus they gave you coupons each month for a free game or movie rental. And coupons for cheap popcorn and candy. Came out to about 76 DVDs a month. It was less than a quarter per DVD.

    36. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Ah, I thought I might be thinking of the wrong "they". I was thinking about how much mail would be coming in to the USPS on Monday.

      Ok, so Tuesday would be heavier than previously. :P

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    37. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      My only problem with Amazon is the outlandish amounts they charge for postage and packaging. Granted, I expect to pay a bit of money for freight to Australia, but packing a single DVD in a box designed to hold a semi-trailer and a couple of grizzly bears is a bit unnecessary.

    38. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      And, for Netflix, it benefits them by slowing down the rate that they receive videos (though it means Monday's will be heavier than they were before).

      Eliminating Saturday delivery (unless it causes people to drop Netflix entirely or use it less) doesn't reduce the rate at which Netflix receives videos very much (and mostly, it does so by making the service less attractive to the customers that would be the only source of the reduced frequency, which isn't exactly an upside for Netflix), and it makes the day-to-day variability greater. Generally, for a business, this would be undesirable overall.

      OTOH, if the perceived alternative is 6-day delivery with less staff and higher delivery error rates, that could be significantly worse for Netflix than the 5-day delivery.

    39. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. amazon delivers for free, if you buy $25 or more. I can't remember ever having to pay postage on my amazon purchases.

      As for international, they have to charge for delivery confirmation otherwise Aussies, Canadians, and so forth could claim they did not receive the package. (I know - experienced it myself.) Int'l delivery confirmation costs at least $20 even for something lightweight like a DVD or book.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    40. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Because people rely on Saturday delivery, just as they rely on the banks and stores being open Saturday, I think the post office should eliminate the second-slowest day of the week, Mondays. That too would help this government monopoly to return to a profitable status.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    41. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      It is rare that my packages don't fit in my mailbox.

      Same here. My mailbox is a 45-gallon steel drum. But then, my mailbox is 1km along a dirt road away from my house...

    42. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Summary read:
      Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence

      What does that have to do with anything? Plus it's completely false. Amazon says it should not have to pay a tax to support New York's private government ~2500 miles away, but it still DOES support public services. It pays a toll for the roads (gas tax) and it pays a toll for the public mail (the postage tax) and it files income taxes with the U.S. and the California governments. I don't think a Slashdot summary should be stating politically-biased falsehoods like it did above.

      IMHO

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    43. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I think this idea of ending Saturday delivery is dumb. I had heard they were considering another idea, but I guess it's been dropped because I haven't heard of it since then; the idea was to end Wednesday delivery, and keep Saturday delivery. That way, you never have to go more than 1 day without deliveries. Plus, most people are at work on Wednesdays, and not on Saturdays, so it's easier to sign for stuff then. I wish they'd go back to this idea.

    44. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The biggest cost to them is probably delivery, because they have to send drivers out to all the routes, every day, past every house, even if that house doesn't get any mail that day. The more they can aggregate mail, the more they save. Theoretically, mail delivery would cost a fraction what it does if they only delivered mail once per week, even though it'd still be shipping 24/7. They'd only need 1/5-1/6 as many mail carriers. But customers wouldn't be very happy with that.

    45. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Amazon's basic-cost shipment to Australia doesn't include confirmation of delivery, and I don't require it.

      And, to Amazon's credit, if I do complain that a shipment hasn't arrived, they send off a duplicate straight away. (This once happened to me, only to find the original shipment arrived four days later.)

    46. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by flitty · · Score: 1

      Came out to about 76 DVDs a month.

      lawd that's a lot of movies in a month. Watching 3 a week is stretching it for me.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    47. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by markxz · · Score: 1

      Many businesses would object to the stopping of Wednesday deliveries (I suppose that not delivering to domestic premises on a Wednesday would be an option, but this would cause issues for mixed delivery rounds)

    48. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by markxz · · Score: 1

      Amazon (UK) offers free delivery within the UK on all orders (except non Amazon-fulfilled Marketplace items).

      One thing I have noticed of late is that when ordering fulfilled by Amazon items they all seem to be sent by courier (although the courier they use is one of the worst [cheapest]) even when the item is very low in value such as a second hand book for GBP 2.

    49. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      It would make much more sense to end Monday delivery.

      A lot of Mondays are already holidays anyway.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    50. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by markxz · · Score: 1

      The last mile is the most expensive bit for the delivery companies.

      In the UK other delivery companies (DHL, TNT and others) are able to do bulk business mailouts, sorting and delivering the mail to the local Royal Mail delivery centre. They pay a fixed fee for the final stage of delivery.

    51. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats how we get so much junk mail here in the US too. There are various discounts attached to things like presorting mail and dropping it off direct to distribution centers and if you do all of those, it can get pretty affordable to send spam to everyone.

      --
      Bottles.
    52. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > eave packing feedback. Amazon has a nice form

      Kewl, good to know. I think the over packaging is a psychological gambit. You pay 50, 100 dollars for a widget that is just data or something trivial to produce, but if it comes in this colossus packaging you tend to ignore just how thoroughly you're being gouged.

      Now, if that trick worked on women and engagement rings it'd be all profit! ^.^

    53. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But then you get the same problem where there's 2 consecutive days without mail delivery. With Wednesday off, there's be only 1.

    54. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by localman57 · · Score: 1

      So you were spending like 4 or 5 hours a day watching DVDs? A bit of self-examination may be in order...

    55. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The last time I looked at one of those blue drop boxes near me it had disappeared. I think it's safe to say they're very willing to cut back on pick-ups.

    56. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      lawd that's a lot of movies in a month. Watching 3 a week is stretching it for me.

      :/

      "Watch" them, and head to Blockbuster on Monday evening.

      He's ripping them to HDD. At the end of the month, he has nearly enough movies to last a year.

    57. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Most cheap UPS deliveries are handled by the USPS these days. They call it "UPS Mail Innovations". Some people don't like it when charged the full rate for UPS who just dumps it to the USPS for half.

    58. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I don't blame them. If I wanted to send something USPS, I'd pay USPS rates and send it through them, not let UPS pick it up and drop it off at a local USPS sorting facility and make a fat margin by not handling final delivery.

    59. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A movie that is ready to ship will appear as "long wait".

      I suppose you stopped into their warehouse and saw that the DVD was in the bin marked "To send to Mr. Freeman in two weeks?"

      Your DVDs will be shipped from a shipping center across the country so that it takes 2-3 days to get to you and back

      I am having a hard time imagining any reason why they would purposefully want to delay your movies for days in the mail. It's just as much to their advantage to get the movies to you (and therefore back) sooner. Now, if they didn't have enough copies of the movie on one side of the country to meet demand, then it would make sense to ship you one from a long way away. But that wouldn't be evil, would it?

    60. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by skarphace · · Score: 1

      yeah if only they had lockers in some central location with 24/7 public access and a code to access the locker they could send you via email - then you could pick up your package when it suits you and eliminate the last mile costs.

      Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but they do do this in some places. I live in a small town(<900) and they don't do local deliveries within the town. If you live on a ranch some 12 miles away, they will. Everyone within the town gets a PO box for just the cost of keys($2).

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    61. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the other difference is that the founder of netflix was the former post master general

    62. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Or about 5 minutes of active time and about an hour of passive waiting while the DVDs were ripped.

    63. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by AsmCoder8088 · · Score: 1

      You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping. A crime against humanity, to be sure.

      In short, I agree with your statement, and the guy above you is wrong, just plain wrong. If we are going to have another off day, it is far better to have it on such a day that the off days are as evenly spread out as possible. Consistency is usually best.

    64. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Delarth799 · · Score: 1

      The difference between Amazon and Netflix is that Netflix product fits comfortably in a mailbox.

      I thought the main difference was that Amazon almost always uses FedEx or UPS. In fact I don't think I have EVER seen them send something via the USPS.

    65. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea on Wednesday instead of Saturday. But the USPS could also take off Monday and preserve weekend delivery for those who can't be home M-F to personally receive a delivery.

      Alternatively, they could end letter deliveries on Saturdays and continue to deliver packages. Surely they could compete with UPS and FedEx on this . . .

    66. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm here to be utterly pedantic. Especially so since the nerds of /. are largely math nerds, not literary nerds.

      When using 's you're using turning the noun possessive. In your above sentences, "Monday's will be heavier" and "delivery portion of Saturday's if that goes through" are both quite likely incorrectly used.

      Although, it's ("it is," not possessive of it as would be indicated by its. It's an exception to the rule. The plural of it would be them, they, and so forth) possible for the second 's to be correct if you're using a rather odd sentence structure. "the delivery portion of Saturday's" could be an extremely oddly structured version of "Saturday's delivery portion".

      And "Monday's will be heavier" *could* be construed as correct if you were meaning "Monday's rate will be heavier" with an implied rate as found in the prior half of the sentence.

      HOWEVER! If you were using the plural form, as seems most likely given the sentence structure, you should have simply used Mondays and Saturdays rather than using the 's form. "though it means Mondays will be heavier" and "Netflix can stop staffing the delivery portion of Saturdays."

      This has been your little moment with internet grammar police. No, shut up. I'm not an English major. SHUT UP.

    67. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the point is that with 6 days USPS can deliver to netflix twice and to them twice. time for USPS to carry it to netflix and carry it to her is the issue. It's the turn around time the original poster is concerned about. If she doesn't get Saturday delivery or pickup, then she can only get 3 movies in 2 weeks rather than 2 movies per week.

    68. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by shiftless · · Score: 1

      You are quite right. I hate it when I want to order something next day and then realize that tomorrow is an "off" day. The more contiguous off days, the less advantage there is for expedited shipping. That is, the ratio of time spent en route to time spent in off days decreases to the point where next day delivery would become comparable to 5-day ground shipping. It still gets there four days quicker, but as the limit of off days approaches infinity, the four day advantage becomes increasingly negligible. It would be like waiting a year for a "next day" package to arrive, and saying, "oh, I only had to wait 365 days rather than 369 days". So you can begin to see that with more off days, you are effectively devaluing next day shipping.

      I applaud you sir, for your contribution of this valuable explanation. I for one was mystified as to what possible advantages could be sought or disadvantages suffered as a result of changing delivery days, but thanks to your insightful reasoning I am beginning to understand. God bless you, sir !

    69. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      ". It's just as much to their advantage to get the movies to you (and therefore back) sooner"

      No, it's not. They have to pay postage for every DVD they send. Thus, the more they send, the more postage they're charged.

      Either you don't know how netflix works, or you didn't read my post. I don't know this from first hand experience, I know this because I read about it.

      See information here:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#.22Throttling.22

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    70. Re:The difference between Amazon and Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop it all.

      It's nothing but junk mail and bills from companies too backward to get on the net.

      The US spends $40B a month to import oil, how much of that is squandered on delivering Fingerhut catalogs for plastic junk?

      For that matter, how many trees are clearcut to print political solicitations when most Americans don't even vote?

  2. Jack up the price? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just have a increased rate for Saturday delivery like Fedex and UPS? I don't see a reason for something to run on a loss. If Amazon's customers appreciate or expect it, either they or Amazon can pay extra for it.

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Jack up the price? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be some kind of pinko, to suggest a market-based solution instead of a (lightly) veiled corporate subsidy.

      In all seriousness, though, while there is a compelling public interest argument to be made in favor of the post office doing some un-economic things(and about the best chain of precedent you'll find for any US federal function, outside of war), like providing postal service to podunk towns that would have nothing otherwise; there seems to be no reason why they need to subsidize merely convenient services that have plenty of viable substitutes. If Saturday delivery costs more, offer it at a premium(or not at all, if you don't think you can make money at the new price point). People can either suck it up and wait till monday, or suck it up and pay Fedex/UPS.

    2. Re:Jack up the price? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You must be some kind of pinko, to suggest a market-based solution instead of a (lightly) veiled corporate subsidy.

      Why do people like you always have to come in and try to polarize an issue along political lines?

    3. Re:Jack up the price? by swabeui · · Score: 1

      I doubt that would work for a few reasons. The USPS doesn't offer guaranteed delivery on Saturday now (for standard mail), so people would only be paying more for the 'chance' of making it on Saturday. They would still need to maintain a Saturday fleet that wouldn't be much smaller than the current one but would carry far less mail. As you said, Fedex and UPS offer these services now, so if price isn't an issue the demand is covered.

    4. Re:Jack up the price? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      You must be some kind of pinko, to suggest a market-based solution instead of a (lightly) veiled corporate subsidy.

      Incorrect. He's a capitalist fascist who has sold out to The Man, not a pinko.

    5. Re:Jack up the price? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      If all they are offering is a "chance" of Saturday delivery, the post office wouldn't need to have more than a small Saturday fleet. (:-)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    6. Re:Jack up the price? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Let's not just assume hiking the Saturday price would increase revenue. My guess is people would think of it as "the expensive day" even if it were just a few cents more, and avoid mailing anything. Meanwhile, the carriers would still have to do their whole route.

    7. Re:Jack up the price? by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      USPS has a monopoly on certain types of mail, so it is an issue. Drop the monopoly, and the tax break they get and make them a real private corp. I'm one of those bleeding-heart liberals, I still think the USPS is a waste of money. They just stopped picking up mail where I live, with the nearest blue bin a couple of miles away. They still make sure to deliver all their junk mail on time, though.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    8. Re:Jack up the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because then Saturday delivery doesn't move enough mail to pay the costs (postal costs don't scale with pieces of mail delivered; they scale with number of places you have to deliver to, haw far you go, and how long that takes), and you have to crank the Saturday delivery surcharge so high people will think you're gouging. The supply curve in this case points the wrong way because standard USPS mail on Saturday is not a competitive industry: there are no other companies foolish enough to think they can profit in that market, as the USPS is clearly demonstrating. The end result will probably be a nominal fee for Saturday delivery, and new government subsidy to cover the difference. In other words, corporate welfare for Amazon.

      The free market, left on its own, does not always reach an equilibrium that people like. Few are willing to suck it up and live with reality--most start seeing conspiracies everywhere.

    9. Re:Jack up the price? by Devrdander · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, it should be know, the USPS has become self-sufficient and has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s. However it is currently borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury to pay its deficits. Its building up debt, thus the drive for the change.

      Amazon offers flat rate shipping subscriptions (their Prime service), anything that costs more money to them hurts their bottom line initially until they can figure out how to adjust it later(It's an annual subscription). Just like how they are fighting this "brown bailout" which is UPS's attempt to lobby the law that prohibits fedex ground from unionizing. FedEx unionizes their workforce, and their costs go up. Then UPS can put some slack back in their profit margins. Amazon doesn't want that to happen either. Also if the cost for Saturday delivery goes up, people will be less inclined to opt in for the upgrade in shipping, and instead turn to a local retailer to get their goods in time for their weekend needs.

      Netflix is only supporting the USPS change because it'll eliminate 1/6th of their delivery/processing days, and saves them a ton of money. They haven't stated yet if they plan to lower the costs of their service to reflect the loss to the customers. Of course they try to spin it as supporting the well being of their delivery medium, but in reality it again all comes down to the bottom line.

      I personally like the option of a cheap Saturday delivery, and hope that the USPS can figure out a way to generate more revenue and keep their 6 day schedule.

    10. Re:Jack up the price? by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I thought the viability of a public system like the USPS was a political matter.

    11. Re:Jack up the price? by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      My proposal is to go to 3-day delivery, depending on zone. The east half of each delivery route receives residential mail Monday/Wednesday/Friday, the west half Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday. People that want daily delivery can pay for a PO box or a commercial delivery license, and senders can pay extra for off-cycle residential delivery.
       
      Half the residential delivery trucks can be mothballed on the spot. You avoid massive layoffs by dropping all postal route delivery workers to half time, increasing back to full time as workers quit or retire (or as commercial delivery routes grow). The huge collection of mothballed trucks means free repair parts for the next decade.

    12. Re:Jack up the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately it's not so simple as raising the rates for Saturday delivery. Unlike Fedex and UPS, the USPS does not currently have the technological capability to determine when a package will be delivered. If you peek at a postal service package you'll see messages such as "There will be no further information on this package until it reaches its next destination." This also means that once it enters the USPS system there's a huge delivery window.

      For many types of packages the USPS is considerably cheaper than UPS/Fedex. This is certainly true for letters. If they raise rates much more then their cost advantage rapidly erodes. This is already happening with some of their larger packages. Though they are cheaper, the lack of package visibility and SLA guarantees is going against them.

      I am a small shipper/receiver and have USPS, UPS, Fedex and some smaller carriers delivering and picking up almost daily.

    13. Re:Jack up the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something people fail to realize about USPS is for a few years in 2000 it was turning a profit. Then we had the "gas crisis" which, and when you run a fleet that massive really explodes the fuel budget.

      Now USPS is (and actually has been) actively trying to cut costs but some of their more radical changes require Congressional approval and closing branches usually results in local backlash. ("Why can't someone else's branch get closed?!")

      So the things USPS wants to do to legitimately cut costs, they're being blocked from doing, either actively or passively.

    14. Re:Jack up the price? by delinear · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they've calculated this down to the last penny, but I don't really see how it helps anyway. It's just going to shift more pressure onto the other days, and unless they're ridiculously overstaffed on those days, they'll need to hire extra capacity to deal with it. I don't see where the savings come in (I'm assuming they'll still be doing some sorting over the weekend so they don't save anything on plant costs, and X number of packages will always take X amount of time to deliver, no matter which day you deliver them on).

    15. Re:Jack up the price? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      What kinds of mail, exactly, does the USPS have a monopoly on?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    16. Re:Jack up the price? by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      Works for me. If Saturday service is running at a loss, I don't object to paying extra to get something on Saturday if I badly need it. Since I oh so rarely get stuff mailed to me that is that time sensitive, I'll bite.

    17. Re:Jack up the price? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Don't knock the junk mail - without it the USPS would operate even more in the red than they do now. Besides idiot marketers and mail order retailers, who mails things using the USPS anymore? When was the last time you mailed a letter to someone?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    18. Re:Jack up the price? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Does anyone really need deliveries in that one day windows, but aren't willing to pay for UPS 2 or 1 day delivery? Personally, I feel like you could be fine with Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday deliveries. Anything that goes through the mail wasn't time-sensitive enough to e-mail, fax, or overnight.

      I bought a backpack and a teapot from amazon at about the same time, with the same shipping. The backpack arrived in 3 days. The teapot took about 40. Had the backpack taken 4 days, and the teapot 41, it would have been the same to me. Regular shipping is not for time-sensitive materials.

    19. Re:Jack up the price? by spidrw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The kind of mail they're allowed to leave in your mailbox and not on your doorstep.

    20. Re:Jack up the price? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    21. Re:Jack up the price? by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      the flat rate boxes are also a great deal for shipping heavy things that fit inside them across the country. they're generally pretty fast and you can ship up to 70lbs for $15 or less.

    22. Re:Jack up the price? by hoboroadie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't buy that "Junk-Mail-Subsidizing-First-Class" crap. If that was true, First-Class would be cheap or free, and the recyclable-paper-waste would cost more to deliver than First-Class does now.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    23. Re:Jack up the price? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      On most days, the average mail carrier is capable of carrying much more mail. They have to walk the entire route every day, even if they're carrying only a fraction of their maximum capacity; so the capacity is not the limiting factor. So I can see how eliminating one delivery day can save them money. (For the sorting, it probably won't make any difference either way.)

    24. Re:Jack up the price? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a capitalist fascist. It has as much meaning as capitalist communist.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re:Jack up the price? by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that "Junk-Mail-Subsidizing-First-Class" crap. If that was true, First-Class would be cheap or free, and the recyclable-paper-waste would cost more to deliver than First-Class does now.

      I don't agree with your logic. It makes perfect sense to me that that its cheaper (per unit) to spam an an entire zip code from a mailing that's dropped off at the post office, sorted and barcoded then it is to send a single letter with barely-legible handwriting from a house in the middle of rural America to its recipient.

      But even if spam subsidizes 1st class -- I'd rather pay 10x as much for the 5 snail mails I send a year if it means the near-daily spam would stop.

    26. Re:Jack up the price? by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      You're welcome to dispute the logic, it's not based on solid data. I believe that the price of bulk mail should be raised UNTIL it drives the bulk-mailers into a much more useful occupation, such as buggy-whip manufacturing. I'd like to see this voted on, but representation /= democracy.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    27. Re:Jack up the price? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      You mean, that box on your front lawn that they own? Yeah, I guess they do have a monopoly on that. I bet if you put up a "FedEx" box on the front lawn, FedEx would deliver into that box for you instead of your doorstep.

      Monopoly over?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    28. Re:Jack up the price? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can't pay DHL to deliver a letter for me without the USPS' permission?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    29. Re:Jack up the price? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a capitalist fascist.

      You obviously haven't seen The Young Ones .

      Letter to bank manager starts with:
      Dear Fascist Bastard....

    30. Re:Jack up the price? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Almost everything is a political matter. You can't even plant corn in your own backyard without tripping-over some local, state, or union law.

      As for the argument the post office should be burning my (and my neighbors') money to provide Saturday at a loss? I disagree. The retail store flyers and other crap isn't sooo important that I can't wait until Monday. I'd rather have no weekend mail service, than throw-away the money I sweated and labored to earn.

      I bend-over backwards to save my money (cheap cellphone, cheap internet, and no cable), and then politicians come-along and waste it.

      Totally unnecessary.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    31. Re:Jack up the price? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can't pay DHL to deliver a letter for me without the USPS' permission?

      As I understand it, yes.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    32. Re:Jack up the price? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      The savings come from 1/6th or 16% less gasoline burned each week by suburban and rural delivery. Even if they don't cut labor hours, they'll still be saving a huge chunk of money.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    33. Re:Jack up the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post office would also be able to reduce staff. The regular, full-time carriers work 5 days a week, which means they need a sub for the sixth day. This article suggests they can cut 40,000 positions by doing this.

    34. Re:Jack up the price? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It might work, but it throws simplicity out the window. Right now, you only have to pay postage based on weight. If it's a one-ounce envelope or less, you put a 42-cent stamp on it (or whatever the current rate is; I've lost track). The USPS delivers it whenever it gets around to it.

      Doing what you say adds a lot of complexity. Now people have to somehow mark their envelope with optional Saturday delivery, and somehow pay for extra postage for it. Delivery dates aren't exact with the USPS, unlike UPS/Fedex; what if it'll get there Friday anyway? Then you just paid for extra postage you didn't need, and that'll piss off people. Worse, what if it doesn't get there until Monday? Then the customer will be pissed that they paid for Saturday delivery and it didn't get there on Saturday, even though the system couldn't have gotten it there on Saturday anyway. Plus, there'll have to be some change to the equipment to see some extra stamp or something indicating Saturday delivery; that's a big change to the USPS's current process and equipment. And for what gain?

      If you need something there on Saturday, use UPS, Fedex, or Express Mail. If you're sending stuff by USPS First Class or Priority, then you're not in a hurry. (Though, sadly, I've found that First Class parcels get to destinations faster than they would by UPS or Fedex, and for a lot less money (under 13 ounces only)).

      Finally, pointing to UPS or Fedex as the way to do things is just inane. Those companies are terrible; they cost a fortune to ship anything under 5 pounds, they're slow (unless you pay a fortune for the express services), even slower than USPS First Class Mail, and they (esp. UPS) like to intentionally damage parcels. If you're shipping something delicate, that can't survive a 20-foot drop onto concrete, then ship it by USPS.

    35. Re:Jack up the price? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have weekend mail service on Saturday, and give up Wednesday service in return. Then, I don't have to go more than 1 day without mail service.

    36. Re:Jack up the price? by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      Quoth the interwebs:

      "Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants U.S. Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads. The Federal Government has interpreted this clause as granting a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. According to the government, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established absent Congress's consent. Congress has delegated to the Postal Service the power to decide whether others may compete with it, and the Postal Service has carved out an exception to its monopoly for extremely urgent letters."

      So yeah, they are a monopoly.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    37. Re:Jack up the price? by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      Making the USPS a completely private entity is not the right answer. I am one of those conservatives who believe in the enumerated powers of Congress. Federal law compels the USPS to provide service to all addresses in the US. I believe that this is essential to our democracy. If you are upset now about them closing the mail box a few miles away, imagine how great you will feel when it is relocated to the next town.

    38. Re:Jack up the price? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USPS is a private government agency, as such they do not receive "tax breaks". Wouldn't it be great if we could close the Federal deficit by taxing the Government's income?

    39. Re:Jack up the price? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      It has as much meaning as capitalist communist.

      Untrue.

      "Capitalist" is an economic system. "Fascist" is a political system. They can be combined.

      "Capitalist" and "communist", by contrast, are both economic systems. They cannot be combined without losing their identity, even in theory.

      I thought modern-day China had finally put down the fallacy that free-market economies would inevitably result in political freedoms.

    40. Re:Jack up the price? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      In Portugal the government is planning on selling the Post Office (CTT), so it's not only the USA. I surely hope they're stopped by the opposition (yes, here the government doesn't actually have more than 50% of votes, so they can be stopped if the whole opposition joins. Of course, joining Christian conservatives with communists isn't common...)

    41. Re:Jack up the price? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Wow, who can we elect to get THAT interpretation slimmed down?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    42. Re:Jack up the price? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The stupid thing about paying extra for "Saturday delivery" is that you have no guarantee what day it will arrive, even for "guaranteed" shipments. Maybe your item was the last in stock, and they crushed it with a forklift. Maybe it will arrive on Friday. Maybe it won't arrive until Monday. Maybe it will get routed through Hong Kong and arrive in 3 months. All you're doing is paying a steep price to widen your window of opportunity by an UNKNOWN percentage. Personally, I think Saturday delivery should be a standard practice. Sundays too.

      For that matter, any service or industry that doesn't rely on a sole individual should be available 24/7, including public services. If cops can work 24/7, judges can too.

    43. Re:Jack up the price? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Fascism is a political system where the government controls the means of production, Capitalism is an economic system where individuals control the means of production. China does not have a free market system, they have merely moved from having something that was more or less Communism to something that is essentially Fascism.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    44. Re:Jack up the price? by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      The rules are only the USPS can deliver letters, unless one of several special exceptions apply.

      Exception: The was delivered with no compensation including either goodwill or bartering.

      Exception: the letter is in a properly addressed envelope, with the correct amount of postage on it, the envelope is sealed such that the it is obvious if opened, the stamp is canceled (in ink) by the sender, and either the sender or the courier mark the date of sending on the envelope in ink (i.e. postmark the envelope).

      Exception: the letter is sent by or addressed to the courier.

      Exception: is if the letter weighs more than 12.5 ounces, in which case it is basically a package.

      Exception: If the service charges at least 6 times the basic postage rate.

      Exception: a special agreement is in place between the USPS and the currier in question.

      Exception: the letter relates directly to something else the courier is delivering.

      Exception: the letter is deliver by a special messenger hired for this specific ocassion only, and is delivering a maximum of 25 letters.

      Exception: the letters are being delivered before or after mailing. (Such as delivery to the post office)

      Excpetion: The letter is extremely urgent, meaning it has certain specific time limits on the delivery, and that failure to meet these limits would cause the letter to become significantly less valuble or worthless. If the cost to deliver the letter is at least the greater of $3 or double the cost the postal service would have charged, that is considered to create a conclusive presumption that the letter is extremely urgent. Regardless of price, The envelope must be marked extremely urgent, or reference the relevant clause of the Code of Federal regulations, or otherwise be marked in some equivalent fashion.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    45. Re:Jack up the price? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      There's a distinction when one speaks of only of control and not ownership, to be sure, but it's a fuzzy line -- a large-scale, modern economy run without some level of government-mandated regulation into businesses' affairs is unheard of.

      I do agree that one cannot have a pure free market in combination with a government espousing all the tenants of fascism (including national corporatism) -- but would argue that it's possible to have a generally fascist society (nationalism, expansionist imperialism, authoritarianism, social Darwinism, etc) while still having a generally capitalist economy.

    46. Re:Jack up the price? by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      You mean, that box on your front lawn that they own?

      USPS doesn't own your mailbox. You have to purchase your own box and it must be certified by the USPS. But you are correct, there is nothing to stop you from putting up a FedEx or UPS box. Although there would be no legal ramifications if UPS put a package in your FedEx box, unlike the USPS mailbox.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    47. Re:Jack up the price? by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Make them a private corporation, with everything that goes along with that. The USPS is no longer an essential means of communication.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  3. USPS isn't a State Function by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence.

    I'm having trouble seeing exactly why this is relevant, other than innuendo. State taxes don't pay for mail delivery, that's a federal function. Amazon's stance is consistent. (Whether it's morally right or wrong is a separate issue, mind you.)

    1. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think that's referring to Amazon defending its exemption from sales taxes (as cross-state sales typically are, at least in practice), the argument being that it's not bearing its share of e.g. road upkeep costs for the products its delivering.

      Of course, I disagree with that argument, since taxes are normally completely decoupled from provision of the government service they fund, but I'm just trying to clarify what (I think) it's referring to.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    2. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      I think that's referring to Amazon defending its exemption from sales taxes (as cross-state sales typically are, at least in practice), the argument being that it's not bearing its share of e.g. road upkeep costs for the products its delivering.

      Most of those roads are being maintained by federal money not sales taxes. So that would be a rather stupid argument to make.

    3. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Also the salient point is "in which it has no physical presence." Where they do have a physical presence they support public services.

      Amazon is not alone in the position. So let's stop pretending that it's only Amazon that does not what to pay an Internet tax, which is what we are talking about.

    4. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my understanding of the Amazon argument is that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth , depending on which side benefits them most.
      However the USPS is not a govt agency, govt funded maybe but not direct govt.

      Let Amazon strike good deals with FedEx & UPS for shipping sh*t on Saturdays

    5. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      State and local gasoline taxes are more than enough to upkeep roads in most cases. They also usually fund things that have nothing to do with roads. That's how it should be.

      States always want more money. Once Amazon is taxed, that means all the small internet businesses have to be taxed as well. There are so many small municipalities, especially in CA, demanding their special rate of sale's tax, that it would be hard for a small merchant to file it all.

      Of course, I'm for the apt tax replacing all this bullshit anyway, no loopholes.
      http://www.apttax.com/

    6. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by sco08y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence.

      I'm having trouble seeing exactly why this is relevant, other than innuendo.

      Another reason it's irrelevant: corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to consumers and investors.

    7. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll add for you that Amazon is paying the USPS for delivery. In that respect, they are paying to support services. Why should Amazon pay for police or firefighters in states where they don't have a business presence?

    8. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by RotsiserMho · · Score: 1

      At first glance this seems like a ridiculously good idea. What's the catch?

    9. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... However the USPS is not a govt agency, govt funded maybe but not direct govt.

      Interesting that on USA.gov where they list all the government agencies they list the postal service. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/P.shtml

      Also my two BIL's that work for the post office are in the government retirement plan and don't get social security.

    10. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Why should a company have to pay taxes to a state simply because they're delivering something there?

      There's nothing immoral about it. State's are running up deficits because they're run by people the corrupt and incompetent. Instead of fixing the problems, they are looking for their next revenue stream.

      This is not just about Amazon. If a mom and pop shop sells a dress from their website to a person out of state, why should they have to pay the taxes of that state? Talk about an unnecessary cost of doing business.

      As others have pointed out: they have a duty to pay for shipping (either directly, or indirectly by charging the consumer), but otherwise the services of that state should be irrelevant to that company and those people.

    11. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      With the exception of mail sent by NPOs, congressmen and soldiers, the USPS is actually self-supporting. Perhaps the one and likely only thing Nixon did that actually made sense.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    12. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catch is that it's not progressive; ie poor people will generally pay a far greater percentage of their income in tax than the wealthy, compared to our current graduated system. Many people feel it's better to have people pay a greater share as their benefits from society (wealth) increase.

    13. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because rent seekers need rents!

    14. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 2, Informative

      However the USPS is not a govt agency, govt funded maybe but not direct govt.

      Did you mean to say "the USPS is not a state govt agency? Because it most certainly is a federal funded, constitutionally mandated federal function, with the Postmaster General being a cabinet level position. The specific rules, funding, and post office distribution is certainly up to debate, however. Citation, plz? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause

    15. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the one and likely only thing Nixon did that actually made sense.

      I think his handling of the war with Spheron was also pretty good.

    16. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know of a state that doesn't have a line on their income tax forms enabling an individual to remit sales tax on out-of-state purchases. The notion is no different from having Oregon (a state with no sales tax) retailers collect and remit for their non-resident customers their state of residence sales tax. It's an unrealistic logistical and administrative burden, especially for small, "out of their garage"/"mom and pop" retailers.

      The concept of a sales tax is a piss poor idea from a number of different angles. Of which includes the fact that it's horribly regressive, burdening low-income individuals relative to their income substantially more than others. Only a token gesture is made in some states to offset this fact by not taxing food and sometimes clothes. Having untold thousands of revenue collection points (each retailer) as opposed to a single point (state treasury) has got to rank rather high on the stupidity scale as well; especially when nearly all of these states have an income and/or property tax that they're collecting as well anyway. Why not just lump all of the taxation into one revenue stream, eliminate the substantial costs of collecting and administering multiple streams.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    17. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Polo · · Score: 1

      I think a better way to put it would be: "No Taxation Without Representation"

    18. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Since the volume of all transactions is estimated to be 100 times larger than the current tax base

      That's a pretty fundamental point that wasn't substantiated (in my 2.5 minute reading of the website). All the numbers he gives hang on that being true. What if it turned out to be false?

      Seems like that'd be the catch, to me.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    19. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? The wealthy would only pay a smaller percentage if they spent less than they made. Even if they did that, they'd be paying *MORE* taxes than the poor, even if they only spent as much as the poor. In that case, who cares if they have piles of unspent cash laying around? The moment they spent it, the percentage of their income they paid in tax would be identical to the poor.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    20. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 1

      And consumers pass them on to employers... And employers pass them on to customers... and so on. I think that noone, in reality, pays taxes.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    21. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Totenglocke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, I'm for the apt tax replacing all this bullshit anyway, no loopholes.

      I'll read your link later, but as of now, the Fair Tax seems the best option - tax on what you spend, not on what you earn.

      www.fairtax.org

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    22. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Were self-supporting. The rise in fuel prices has driven them into the red, hence why they're looking for places to cut costs.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    23. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The loophole is you avoid settling accounts with money (i.e. minimize the number of transactions you make). So you obviously haven't thought that one through very hard. TIA. Sure you or I

    24. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by cgenman · · Score: 1

      When there are a plethora of confusing local regulations, the federal government usually sets up a "fair market" price for things (like radio play, etc).

      Peg online taxes at 6%. 3% goes to the city where the product is being delivered. 3% goes to the city of the fulfiller. In case of being spread across multiple cities, the fulfiller can choose. If New Hampshire, for example, doesn't want the tax, they can donate it to the feds.

    25. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 0

      But Amazon wants the USPS to continue Saturday delivery, even though the USPS is bleeding red ink. If Amazon feels the service is worthwhile, they can pay for Saturday delivery. No point in making everyone who pays for postage subsidize their need.

    26. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not just lump all of the taxation into one revenue stream, eliminate the substantial costs of collecting and administering multiple streams.

      Because then people might start to realize just how much of their money goes to prop-up 'big government (tm).

    27. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubly so since those states are complaining Amazon won't collect Sales Tax.

    28. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The apt tax woudn't work. I've seen it under many different guises.

      There are always snake oil sales men trying to make complex thing simple as part of the scam or ignorance.

      Run the number,s it doesn't work in any practical manner. Plus trying to sell the idea that people should pay tax on money they lost in the market is going to be at tough one.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    29. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by geekoid · · Score: 2

      He also doesn't define what a transaction is, or why people who pay a tax on money they lost.

      He is taking a big 'evil' thing people don't understand and using it as a way to spread FUD.

      Taxing tranactiona tinme amount does seem like somethign we shoudl do.

      I know America isn't ready to face a the simple truth:
      The government need to generate more revenue. There really sin't any service left we can cut without dramatically undermining the countries future.

      This mean higher taxes.
      Taxing transaction might be a good start.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Plus trying to sell the idea that people should pay tax on money they lost in the market is going to be at tough one.

      Huh? You already pay income tax before investing a penny into the stock market. How is apt-tax forcing you to pay tax on money lost in the market? You pay the tax at time of a transaction...

    31. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence.

      I'm having trouble seeing exactly why this is relevant, other than innuendo.

      Another reason it's irrelevant: corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to consumers and investors.

      It's relevant because by not having to pass the taxes onto consumers, Amazon can charge less for it's products. It gives them a competitive advantage.

    32. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that reasoning, employees don't pay tax - they pass it on to employers...

    33. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      At first glance this seems like a ridiculously good idea. What's the catch?

      One catch is that all financial transactions are automatically reported to the government. Imagine the fun that could be had with that information.

    34. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by shentino · · Score: 1

      For not being a govt agency they sure have a funny position in their headquarters called the OIG.

    35. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      State and local gasoline taxes are more than enough to upkeep roads in most cases. They also usually fund things that have nothing to do with roads. That's how it should be.

      Yes, that is how it *should* be -- and it's so darned logical that everyone wants to believe it's true. Unfortunately, that's not reality. For example, I live in GA where Vehicle Taxes cover about 3% of road costs and Fuel Taxes cover 5%. The majority of the remaining 92% comes from property taxes (40%) and bonds (30%).

      GA is a terrible example, though. On average, US States get about 60% of road funds from combined Fuel and Vehicle Taxes. The remainder comes from bonds and the general state fund.
      study from Iowa, backs up my numbers

      (note: federal fuel tax *does* cover the costs for interstate highways, the above numbers reference local roads and non-interstate highways)

    36. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by shentino · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have with the apt tax is taxation of withdrawals and deposits.

      For withdrawals, presumably that money has already been taxed once when it was paid to me.

      For deposits, especially for businesses, it has already been taxed at the register.

      For both of them, I despise taxation on my property when it doesn't legally change hands. The bank account is in my name, I legally own that money, and it's even federally insured.

      This is akin to being required to deal with DRM that forces you to rebuy content just because you want to shift it to a different device.

      Purchasing savings bonds, stocks, etc, go ahead since it's a trade. Moving money in and out of a bank account, no thanks.

      Ditto for loans and payments on a loan.

    37. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Eil · · Score: 1

      Okay then. Using that logic: consumers don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to their employer.

    38. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      H

      I know America isn't ready to face a the simple truth:
      The government need to generate more revenue. There really sin't any service left we can cut without dramatically undermining the countries future.

      This mean higher taxes. Taxing transaction might be a good start.

      You say that as an absolute, but I disagree. I think America isn't ready to face THIS truth:

      The people need to be responsible for themselves, and shouldn't expect others to take care of them. This means that there won't be government-funded health care, won't be government-funded welfare, won't be a "farm bill", won't be government bailouts, won't be government-funded home loans, won't be government-funded fixes when people insist on building their houses below sea level in hurricane zones.

      I'd say there are PLENTY of programs to cut. The problem is, there are too many looters and not enough producers left.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    39. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Cassini2 · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have with the apt tax is taxation of withdrawals and deposits.
      For withdrawals, presumably that money has already been taxed once when it was paid to me.
      For deposits, especially for businesses, it has already been taxed at the register.
      For both of them, I despise taxation on my property when it doesn't legally change hands. The bank account is in my name, I legally own that money, and it's even federally insured.

      This is precisely the issue with the tax. People would very quickly discover that if they cash a pay cheque, instead of depositing it in the bank, they pay the tax only once. Even better, if the employer pays you in cash, you don't get taxed ever. If your favourite store runs entirely on cash, then they don't pay tax either. Very quickly, large segments of the economy become barter collectives or entirely cash based.

      The end result is that the "100 times" financial transfer multiplier from the article can be reduced by a clever populace. The tax becomes a tax on big financial businesses, which may have positive effects at very small (0.05%) tax rates. However, it would never replace income tax as a revenue generator. The tax is too easy to avoid.

    40. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Another reason it's irrelevant: corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to consumers and investors.

      That both right and wrong, in exactly the same sense as saying "individuals don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to their employers" is both right and wrong.

    41. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      It's not the rise in fuel prices that got them into the red. It's their high fixed costs coupled with decreasing sales volume.

      Email put the first nails in the coffin for the postal service. Cell phones added some more (why send a letter to Grandma Gladys in Florida? Now you can call her from your cell phone *for free*).

      The USPS is dying, and the question is whether we agree to subsidize mail service, and if so, to what extent. Currently we subsidize them by giving them below-market loans via T-bills. That's unsustainable, as they will *never* get back into the black as they currently operate -- and their pensions are going to make things even worse.

      So yes, they're looking for places to cut costs. But it's more than that -- this proposed reduction in service is really more of a klaxon call to everyone who uses mail that there is a big problem in the USPS. Either rates need to go way up (further exacerbating their fixed cost vs. shrinking volume problem) or they need to be directly subsidized. By threatening to reduce service levels, they are reminding people that spending on the USPS has direct benefit to them, thus justifying some sort of subsidization as an alternative.

      Long story short -- the USPS is in deep money trouble, and the threat of reduced services is a call for the people who hold the purse strings to start spending.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    42. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not bearing its share of e.g. road upkeep costs for the products its delivering.

      You're right to disagree with that, but there's an even more obvious reason: amazon doesn't even deliver anything. Or, put more succinctly, they don't use the roads in the first place.

      Rather, what amazon does is approach a delivery service (e.g. USPS, but it really could be any) and say, here, deliver this; the delivery service then say, sure, that'll be X dollars. Amazon pays, and that's that. (Of course, they do charge the customer for this, but that part's irrelevant here.)

      The delivery service, then, is the one using the roads - or the train network, or planes, or hot air ballons, or laser-powered squirrels, or whatever they use to deliver things. Therefore, the delivery service is the one that should ethically be required to pay for e.g. road upkeep costs.

      Of course, they will add these costs to their expenses and charge their customers (like Amazon) for it, but those customers shouldn't have to pay themselves as well.

    43. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So then, what exactly do states need money from Amazon for? To pay for police services? That's supposed to be paid by property taxes (on the residences of people who but from Amazon). To pay for fire services? Same thing.

      Amazon pays Federal taxes for the roads: they ship stuff by carriers like UPS and Fedex, who buy fuel, which pays fuel tax, which pays for roads.

    44. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      The liberals don't like it when wealthy people don't pay a much greater portion of their income in taxes than poor people, even though poor people are the ones who use all the social services for sitting around and popping out babies and not working, and who also use most police services. Of course, you could also argue that rich people need the police services more, to protect them from the hordes of poor people, even if the police spend most of their time in the poor peoples' neighborhoods instead of waiting for them to go to the rich peoples' neighborhoods to rob them.

      The other supposed problem with rich people is that they don't spend all their money locally. They take expensive vacations overseas, for instance, or buy property overseas. Poor people never leave the country; it's too expensive. Even the luxury goods they buy aren't usually made in America, and thus help the country they come from more: rich people don't drive Chevies, they drive Ferraris, Bentleys, Rolls-Royces, etc. Of course, I'm not sure how much that matters any more since Chevies and Fords are all made in Mexico. If you want to help the American economy, and American workers, buy a Toyota or Honda that's made in the USA.

    45. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the website:

      All deductions and exemptions would be eliminated. By declaring a "zero tolerance" policy for any exemption, we wipe out every special interest loophole that now riddles our overly complex tax code.

      And that there is the reason it is dead in the water. Do you think, for one second, that the politicians will give up the power they garner from being able to manipulate the tax code? This has no more chance than the Fair Tax of being seriously discussed, let alone implemented.

    46. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just raise the prices for all that junk mail? That's 90% of their business.

    47. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently the OP has never purchased anything locally before, otherwise they would know that Amazon would not have to pay sales tax, buyers would. Corporations that sell products and charge sales tax are not taxed, instead they merely collect tax that was charged to the consumer and remit this tax to the state.

      When you purchase from Amazon, you are generally required to send USE tax to your state (which is just you paying the sales tax that Amazon would have collected directly to your state). Obviously, most people don't do this.

      So, the states are trying to go after Amazon to force them to take the sales tax from you instead of relying on you to send it in yourself. If you have a problem with Amazon, then why don't you just follow your own state's laws and send in a check for sales tax instead of bashing Amazon for not taking the money from you and sending it in on your behalf...

    48. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      State and local gasoline taxes are more than enough to upkeep roads in most cases.

      False. Even if gas tax funds "were fully devoted to highways, total user fee revenue accounted for only 65 percent of all funds set aside for highways in 2007."

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    49. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Enry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhm, they are paying for Saturday delivery. By paying the USPS for delivery.

    50. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by RotsiserMho · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, with every transaction being reported and no loop holes to exploit, the percentage taxed (0.3%) can cover the revenue otherwise lost. Still, privacy would remain a concern.

    51. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'll read your link later, but as of now, the Fair Tax seems the best option - tax on what you spend, not on what you earn.

      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are. -- Colonel Adolphus Busch

      Taxing consumption rather than income means that the rich, who spend a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, also end up paying a smaller fraction of it as taxes. It's actually worse than mere flat tax, as it's an outright regressive tax - your tax rate goes up as your earnings go down.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    52. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by DocHoncho · · Score: 1

      The end result is that the "100 times" financial transfer multiplier from the article can be reduced by a clever populace. The tax becomes a tax on big financial businesses, which may have positive effects at very small (0.05%) tax rates. However, it would never replace income tax as a revenue generator. The tax is too easy to avoid.

      (Emphasis mine)

      I have no opinion either way about the APT tax in particular, but if you really think that a significant enough portion of the population would actually A) realize the ease of evading this tax and B) actually bother to do it, then I want to live in the world you live in. Because my world is full of lazy, stupid gits who collect empty buckets of chicken with race car drivers on them.

      No doubt a goodly number of folks would actively work to evade paying taxes, but those same people are probably already doing that as it is.

      --
      Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
    53. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I understand that. I'm saying they want to push the USPS to continue to deliver (unlike Netflix) because Amazon's costs are higher to deliver via UPS/Fedex vs USPS. USPS Saturday delivery costs are lower than UPS/Fedex because it's subsidized by all the other mail (which is slowly drying up). Amazon should be figuring out how to live without USPS providing Saturday delivery (use other carriers and try to obtain discounts; use incentives so people by earlier in the week and won't use Saturday delivery), not lobbying for them to continue an unprofitable practice.

    54. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by sco08y · · Score: 1

      And consumers pass them on to employers... And employers pass them on to customers... and so on. I think that noone, in reality, pays taxes.

      For a typical middle class schlub, if you get to work at 9am, take 11:30 to 12:00 for lunch and call it quits at 5:30pm, pretty much your morning goes to the government. Trust me, you really are paying taxes, every fucking day.

      The reason I say corporations don't pay taxes is because only actual people pay taxes, corporations don't pay taxes because they don't actually exist. The people who associate to form the corporation, though, certainly do pay taxes.

    55. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by fermat1313 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why should Amazon pay for police or firefighters in states where they don't have a business presence?

      Because Amazon wouldn't be paying sales tax. They are just collecting tax from the customers on behalf of the state. It's the customers who are paying for services in their local area. Amazon doesn't have a problem with collecting taxes because they think they shouldn't have to pay for services, since sales taxes are always passed on to the customer. Amazon has a problem with it because not collecting sales tax gives them a huge (upwards of 10% in some areas) price advantage over local retailers.

    56. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Because raising the price reduces the sales volume. Basic relationship between price & demand -- demand is not inelastic for junk mail.

      They have a huge amount of fixed costs -- reducing their volume makes it even harder to cover those fixed costs.

      Ex. Say I have $1000 in fixed costs weekly (rent, my salary), and I sell widgets that cost me $100 each. I sell 50 widgets a week at $120 each -- I break even (50*(120-100)-1000). But if I raise my price to $150 each, some of my buyers won't buy from me anymore. Maybe I only sell 18 of them at that price -- which means I lose $100 (18*(150-100)-1000). Sure, I'm making $50 on each widget, instead of $20 -- but that nasty overhead takes the first $1000 I clear each week. This is the situation the USPS faces. Demand for bulk mail services is very elastic. Raise the prices, and volume drops significantly.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    57. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Demand for bulk mail services is very elastic. Raise the prices, and volume drops significantly.

      I don't think many people would have a problem with that. How many people really want junk mail?

      How much profit are they getting on the bulk mail anyway? If it's not a lot, then maybe they should raise prices, and let it subsidize other mail services.

    58. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand my point... if they raise the prices on the bulk mail, they will lose [even more] money on it. That will not help subsidize other services.

      You're missing the concept of fixed costs, I think.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    59. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by samuraiz · · Score: 1

      Passing taxes on to investors is entirely appropriate. Liability shielding is a really sweet government-provided perk of incorporation -- no individual BP shareholder (who wasn't also a negligent corporate officer, and unfortunately probably not even those) will be personally liable for a dime of gulf spill damage, to name one example. The liability shield facilitates capital formation but it can also lead to short-sightedness, risky corporate behavior, and higher social costs. No reason the shield should come free of charge.

    60. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not missing the concept. I'm just questioning whether they've really set the price for bulk mail at the point for optimal profitability.

      Another poster in this thread somewhere alleged that bulk mail is actually subsidized by the other services, and is too cheap.

    61. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Small merchants file for a business license every year anyway, its not like a federal listing of local taxation policy couldn't/doesn't exist based on zip code.

      The real question is not how to get Joe Mechanic to file his taxes (its pretty easy to get done with $20 worth of tax software on a $100 netbook), but rather determining why Jane Doe (who lives in Santa Monica) pays California taxes on a product she buy from Amazon when the product is manufactured in China, assembled in Texas, and shipped to her mother in New York.

    62. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, that's hard to determine, as they don't have a complete system to test price changes on.

      I will mention that when I worked for a company that regularly commissioned bulk mail... postage was the largest cost portion of the bulk mail efforts. Any increase in postage really hit that department's budget hard. Anecdotal, I'm sure, but we saw that other forms of marketing became slightly more cost-effective when postage rates went up... so more budget was allocated to telemarketing in lieu of direct mail.

      Not only did we reduce the amount of bulk mail in direct response to the increased cost, but we ended up shifting budget from direct mail to telemarketing, further reducing the amount of mail we sent.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    63. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Right, I agree. At the end of the day, the people doing WORK (Ayn Rand would call them "Producers") are the ones paying taxes.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    64. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's only looking at it from the spammers' point-of-view. Obviously, the cheaper the mailing costs, the better for them. But that doesn't say anything about how profitable bulk mailing is for the USPS, and that's what I'm wondering. At the absurdly low rates they charge bulk mailers, I really wonder how much money they're making there, and if it's really worth it.

      With the growth of the internet, Ebay, Amazon, and mail-order in general, I'm surprised the USPS hasn't done more to court that market. There's a lot of people that would like to be able to ship stuff cheaply, even if it isn't particularly fast. UPS and Fedex are famous for destroying packages and then refusing to pay insurance claims, and aren't terribly cheap either, but they're cheaper than USPS for anything over 5 pounds. The USPS already has a nationwide distribution network in place and handles parcels, so I wonder why they don't adjust their system to reduce their parcel prices for internet buyers. Local and state governments might not like it, but too bad.

    65. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why should a company have to pay taxes to a state simply because they're delivering something there?
      They already do pay taxes to that state. They have to pay USPS or another delivery company, which pays fuel taxes, which is passed along to Amazon. What the states are proposing is that out-of-state retailers collect sales tax which is ALREADY DUE the state and is the responsibility of the STATE to collect from each consumer and not the duty of the RETAILER to collect on behalf of the state.
      I wasn't around, but I imagine that there was a similar flap when the states and the feds started asking businesses to collect income taxes from the employees, when it is quite clearly the state and federal governments responsibility to collect those taxes.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    66. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The concept of a sales tax is a piss poor idea from a number of different angles.
      I disagree. I think the concept of any tax other than a sales tax is a piss poor idea. Why should I have to pay tax just because I earned some money? Earned money means nothing to me until I spend it. If I never spend it and just save it and make more interest off of it, it still hasn't done anything for me until I spend. Then when I spend it, what ho, there is tax on it, including the tax on the interest, all without anybody ever having had to send in a 1099 of how much interest I earned, or what my investment income was.
      Yes, perhaps it seems like the poor use more of their income to buy things, but in the long run everybody has to either spend it or save it, and if they save it, then eventually they have to spend it, or pass it on to someone else who will spend it or save. There is no point in saving money in perpetuity.
      I suppose if they wanted to be nice, they could not charge tax on non-prepared foods or low cost clothing items. Our state already has that in their constitution that you can't charge sales tax on non-prepared foods or basic necessities. They still charge tax on these items, but it is in the constitution that they can't.
      I know of no states that charge sales tax on rent, which helps low income families out a lot.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    67. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by StikyPad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The people need to be responsible for themselves, and shouldn't expect others to take care of them.

      And it's being responsible to pay taxes. Everyone's still taking care of "themselves," but the risk is distributed such that no one person bears a proportion larger than they could handle. That holds true whether it's fixing a sinkhole on the road in front of their house, or treating cancer, and should be patently obvious. It's the whole point of living in communities and societies; otherwise we'd just head off into the woods and fend for ourselves.

    68. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You've forgotten a couple important factors. First people DO save their money in perpetuity. They live off of the capital gains of their paper investments which are not subject to sales tax. Assets left when they die are divided amongst friends and family. Second money stored loses value at the rate of inflation which historically is about 3% for the US. So in the simplified case of Joe saving his income for a year before he spends it there's 3% less sales tax collected on that income.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    69. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Scott+Wood · · Score: 1

      So then, what exactly do states need money from Amazon for?

      They don't need money from Amazon. They need money from Amazon's customers, who live in those states. Why should local purchases be taxed but not interstate delivery orders?

      To pay for police services? That's supposed to be paid by property taxes (on the residences of people who but from Amazon). To pay for fire services? Same thing.

      So everything states do is currently fully paid by property taxes (and income, etc), and the sales tax is collected for fun? :-P

      Amazon pays Federal taxes for the roads: they ship stuff by carriers like UPS and Fedex, who buy fuel, which pays fuel tax, which pays for roads.

      Federal and state gas taxes are insufficient to pay for construction and maintenance of the highway system, much less all the regular streets that the last mile delivery trucks run on. Much like your property versus sales tax statement above, you seem to be falling for a fallacy that paying some part of the bill means you've paid the whole thing.

      And that's before you factor in the other costs of burning that fuel, such as pollution, oil spills, and wars.

    70. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Scott+Wood · · Score: 1

      The customers who would be taxed have plenty of representation. Amazon just doesn't want to lose the competitive advantage of providing tax evasion services.

      If Amazon doesn't want to follow the tax laws of a given jurisdiction, it should refuse to sell items for delivery there. It's not an Internet Tax, it's a Sales Tax -- the same one those customers were paying before they started buying things across state lines. In many states, the customers are supposed to be paying an equivalent Use Tax on those items, but enforcement is difficult.

      I could see exempting small vendors for whom the compliance costs of dealing with many jurisdictions would be too high, but that's not the case with Amazon -- and surely the market could provide services to help vendors sort it out?

    71. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Federal and state gas taxes are insufficient to pay for construction and maintenance of the highway system, much less all the regular streets that the last mile delivery trucks run on.

      Then those taxes should be raised to pay for that, and other taxes reduced to compensate. Make the people who use the roads pay for the roads.

      Don't penalize amazon and all the online sellers because the government is too stupid to allocate taxes properly and fairly, and wants to subsidize road costs with unrelated taxes.

      Why should local purchases be taxed but not interstate delivery orders?

      Simple: because interstate delivery orders are more efficient, and don't need all the overhead of retail stores, parking lots, loss-prevention employees, and all the infrastructure to support them. All they need is a big warehouse in the middle of Montana, and Fedex. Why do you want to punish success and efficiency? Ordering online is better for the environment; it uses less fuel than driving around to 10 stores to compare prices, it doesn't require parking lots which waste tons of land, and it doesn't require and fire and police since there's no physical location there. It's more efficient for the retailer because they don't have to employ salespeople, they can be open 24/7 for no additional cost, they don't have to employ security guards since it's kinda hard to shoplift from a warehouse 3 states away, and they only have to have 1 warehouse (or 2 or 3), instead of thousands of retail stores across the country. Everything about online shopping is better and more efficient, except maybe that you can't see stuff in person, but if that's important to you, go buy it at Best Buy and pay a 50% higher price for the privilege.

    72. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      If you bothered to read up on the fair tax, you'd know that it's not regressive. But, since you already outed yourself as being against fairness by wanting to play the jealousy against the "evil rich" card, you're not going to read it anyways.

      The really amusing part about your comment is that the Fair Tax would require the rich to pay more than they currently do as a result of eliminating all of the tax loopholes. When they buy a new $6 million house, they'll pay out the ass in taxes. When they guy a new $400,000 car, they'll pay out the ass for it. All of their parties, they'll pay more for in taxes.

      Oh, and since I know you'll never read up on the Fair Tax because it goes against your idea that success is a bad thing and should be punished, the Fair Tax actually gives a rebate on taxes for necessities based on the number of people in your home - so the poor will pay very little.

      One more thing - "the rich, who spend a smaller proportion of their income than the poor, also end up paying a smaller fraction of it as taxes." How the FUCK can you justify the current situation where 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes? Yea, I get it, you're jealous that someone has more than you. However, there's absolutely no possible way to claim it's "fair" or "just" for most of the population to pay little to no taxes (it's currently around 50% of the people in the US don't pay any income tax) and a small portion pay almost all of the taxes.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    73. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's also a lie. Amazon has never said that. They said that they shouldn't be burdened with collecting taxes that the Constitution of The Unites States could be construed to make it illegal to force them to collect, and that the funds that they are being told they should be collecting are already owed by the purchasers to the state, and that the state should just enforce its existing laws, to the same effect, rather than inventing new ones to the same effect.

      They have no issue with the cost of their products going to support localities. And the law already requires any such purchases to have that fee paid by the purchaser to the state.

      But people like adding in inflammatory and completely untrue statements to highlight their campaign to protect us from evil.

    74. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by ultranova · · Score: 1

      How the FUCK can you justify the current situation where 1% of the population pays 40% of the taxes?

      Easily: they control more than 40% of the nation's wealth.

      Yea, I get it, you're jealous that someone has more than you.

      Even if that were true, it wouldn't invalidate anything I've said. Perhaps you should analyze your own position, and ask yourself why you felt the need to resort to such illogical rethorical tactics to defend it.

      However, there's absolutely no possible way to claim it's "fair" or "just" for most of the population to pay little to no taxes (it's currently around 50% of the people in the US don't pay any income tax) and a small portion pay almost all of the taxes.

      It is both fair and just that those who control most of nation's economy also pay most of its maintenance costs.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    75. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Scott+Wood · · Score: 1

      Federal and state gas taxes are insufficient to pay for construction and maintenance of the highway system, much less all the regular streets that the last mile delivery trucks run on.

      Then those taxes should be raised to pay for that, and other taxes reduced to compensate. Make the people who use the roads pay for the roads.

      I agree entirely, but what should be and what is are not always the same.

      Don't penalize amazon and all the online sellers because the government is too stupid to allocate taxes properly and fairly, and wants to subsidize road costs with unrelated taxes.

      It's not so much that the "government is too stupid", but that a significant chunk of the electorate screams bloody murder if their precious gas gets even slightly more expensive.

      "Government is too spineless" might be more accurate.

      Why should local purchases be taxed but not interstate delivery orders?

      Simple: because interstate delivery orders are more efficient,

      If they're more efficient, that ought to be reflected in lower base prices, plus consumer preference due to less hassle/cost on their end getting to the store.

      Why do they need a subsidy in the form of a tax exemption on top of that?

      it uses less fuel than driving around to 10 stores to compare prices,

      How many purchases actually involve that? More common is driving to one store (bad, but not sure how much worse it is than the extra driving (and likely idling time) of a local delivery truck), and not always that for people that live in walkable/transitable areas.

      Making drivers bear the full cost of driving would help with customer choice here, too.

      it doesn't require parking lots which waste tons of land,

      Stop having zoning codes that require low densities and minimum parking.

    76. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      That's only looking at it from the spammers' point-of-view. Obviously, the cheaper the mailing costs, the better for them. But that doesn't say anything about how profitable bulk mailing is for the USPS, and that's what I'm wondering. At the absurdly low rates they charge bulk mailers, I really wonder how much money they're making there, and if it's really worth it.

      You missed the point of the anecdote, it was to illustrate that higher pricxes lead to reduced demand. Higher rates == lower sales volume. Coupled with high fixed costs, it's more likely that higher prices, and reduced demand, lead to lower profits than it is to lead to higher profits.

      And FYI, there are non-spammers that send bulk mail -- such as the media company that I worked for.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    77. Re:USPS isn't a State Function by godefroi · · Score: 1

      Sure, of course. I have no problem paying my taxes. I do, however, have a problem with those who draw from the pool but contribute nothing.

      Once you remove the incentive to contribute, you'll have to start requiring those who produce to contribute more and more, because there's always a large group of lazy people who are willing to let everyone else take care of them.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
  4. It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by h2oliu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there are fewer delivery days in a month, then you get fewer movies per month if you turn them around every other day. This would help Netflix's bottom line to cut delivery down to 5 days a week.

    --
    Ok, I give up, why you?
    1. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      If there are fewer delivery days in a month, then you get fewer movies per month if you turn them around every other day. This would help Netflix's bottom line to cut delivery down to 5 days a week.

      It's interestingly like using monthly transit passes that come at a flat rate: you can use them for 31 days in a month without paying "extra," but those smaller months of 30 and 29 days come at no return to the buyer.

      Shouldn't we feel somewhat cheated on leap years? Anyway, companies always milk the system (both our millenary date-wise system and the law system) to increase margins thanks to reduced work loads for them.

    2. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by EMR · · Score: 1

      Very interesting observation.. I was trying to figure out what Netfix's catch was on supporting 5 day delivery, and this makes perfect sense.. Although, what percentage of their user base does that, surely it can't be that high to really affect their bottom line much at all. I'm sure many users keep movies for a LONG time and end up spending a months subscription on 1 or 2 movies.

    3. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Short sighted.

      It also means they are a slightly less attractive option to new customers.
      Hey, maybe they just mean what they said?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's another angle here. If people are left waiting for discs that would have arrived on a Saturday, they might just fire up Netflix online and start watching more movies that way. Netflix would really rather just pay bandwidth costs rather than maintain multiple physical distribution centers, replaced broken/scratched discs, and employ people to sort the outgoing and incoming shipments.

    5. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's interestingly like using monthly transit passes that come at a flat rate: you can use them for 31 days in a month without paying "extra," but those smaller months of 30 and 29 days come at no return to the buyer.

      Months are nominally 30 days and have long been computed thus. 365.25 / 12 = 30.4375. You're not being robbed of a day, you're getting an extra average 0.4375 days of transit per month at no charge.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off-topic, but I just noticed last night that Netflix instant queue censors at least one South Park episode - "China Probrem" - so this is two strikes against them in less than 12 hours. (The weird thing is they show uncensored movies, so...)

    7. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Meh. My DVD queue has 19 movies in it. My streaming queue? 186.

    8. Re:It helps Netflix to end Saturday delivery by h2oliu · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the cost for delivery/handling of single movie is on order of 80 cents. With a customer base of tens of millions, cutting one movie a month out of the delivery cycle could have a significant impact on the bottom line.

      --
      Ok, I give up, why you?
  5. I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Monday through Friday, I leave for work before our local Post Office opens and leave from work after it closes.

    1. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      So you can't shove your letters in the slot after hours?

    2. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by wesborgmandvm · · Score: 1

      1st Netflix makes an agreement with Warner Studio's to delay the rental release of New Titles http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/03/blockbuster-gets-deal-that-netflix-redbox-couldnt.ars now they want to save a few bucks and blame the USPS.

      If the USPS has to cut a day of the week why not mid week (wed or thursday)?

    3. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Doesn't your office have outgoing mail? I don't know the practice in the USA but in the UK most places where I have worked have allowed employees to put private stamped letters in the company mail. Some also allow parcels if you take them to the post room.

    4. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The USPS should work around my schedule.

    5. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because all the overpaid postal workers won't get a two day weekend, duh.

    6. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Won't somebody think of the Newman!

    7. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by apparently · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you can't shove your letters in the slot after hours?

      Yeah, that works really well for sending international mail or larger domestic packages.

    8. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Move to Canada - many postal outlets open 7 days a week.

    9. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by omnichad · · Score: 1

      OP sounds like they have a Post Office box and not home delivery of mail. When they receive larger packages that don't fit, they have to be able to pick it up from the postal office on a Saturday. Or they're really lazy and they don't buy stamps in bulk or use online shipping tools for small packages. We have outdoor drop boxes for mail all over the U.S. Especially outside of most post offices, or even in the lobby of the post offices that have a 24 hr. lobby for checking PO Boxes.

    10. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't even shove my package in the slot during hours!

    11. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In the UK you can buy postage online (from Royal Mail, the government company). You fill in the address and pay online, then print out a label with a big 2D barcode, stick it to your letter and drop it in any postbox within 24 hours.

      If you're sent something that e.g. won't fit through your own letterbox, or requires a signature, you can either collect it, or redirect it (i.e. have it sent to work or the post office nearest to your workplace) for 50p. If you can't get to the post office during a lunch break or before/after work or have stuff sent to work you're a bit stuck.

    12. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They have big blue mailboxes on street corners that will take almost anything except boxes in my city. If I need a box delivered (computer parts from JDR or something) I just have them deliver it to my work. On the very rare occasion I need to send a box, I go to the PO on my lunch hour.

    13. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the actual post offices will be open on saturday. You'll still be able to go in and take care of some things. You just won't have delivery to that little box at your house.

    14. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by guy5000 · · Score: 1

      Did you read? "I need saturday mail pickup" "international mail or larger domestic packages" can't be shipped by putting them in the mail box (or the containers that say post office) for pickup. Over 13 ounces domestic you have to bring it to a post office. Pickup implies that you place the item in your mailbox.

    15. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially when anything over 13 ounces is illegal to drop off.

      people are also forgetting those with PO boxes who pick up their mail, including behind the counter packages, at a post office.

    16. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by initialE · · Score: 1

      A reasonable employer would allow deliveries to your place of work though.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    17. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So have your packages delivered to work. What's the big deal?

    18. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you're sending anything over about 4 pounds by USPS, then you're a fool. Fedex is cheaper, and you can go to Kinko's 24/7 to ship things. For some reason, USPS gets very expensive over 4-5 pounds compared to Fedex and UPS.

      Of course, if you're shipping something that can't survive a 30-foot drop onto concrete, you better avoid UPS. They do everything they can to destroy your package.

    19. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by theycallmeB · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that an institution that has been open six days a week for decades has not discovered the miracle of rotating shifts, thus allowing its workers to have consecutive days off?

    20. Re:I need saturday mail pickup by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that an institution that has been open six days a week for decades has not discovered the miracle of rotating shifts, thus allowing its workers to have consecutive days off?

      The fact that the same 5 or 6 employees work there Monday - Saturday and there aren't enough employees to take shifts.

  6. Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by enigma32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netflix benefits from less frequent mail delivery. (Lower costs for them)
    Amazon loses big from less frequent delivery (I frequently choose them because I can have a package here before I'd have time to go get the item in Manhattan myself).

    As for the postal service, I frequently find myself waiting in 20 minute lines, at any time of day, to pickup a package that they were incapable of delivering correctly to my residence. I'd love to see someone that has a clue about business run the postal service rather than it being run with the competence level of the DMV.

    Keep the Saturday delivery or go the way of the dodo, guys. (add Sunday delivery and be super-cool)

    1. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by darjen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the national post office was eliminated, we would have more private competition and a pretty decent chance of getting Sunday delivery. The newspaper comes on Sundays, why not the mail? They would also be more efficient while doing it. The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.

    2. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument is that people will leave Amazon for a different source. But to a degree, Netflix faces the same problem. Come Saturday, if I want a movie and don't have one, I have to go to another source. Get stuck paying twice enough times, I'm just going to drop Netflix.

    3. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Eliminating the national post office would require a Constitutional amendment. Delivering the mail is in the U.S. Constitution.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by darjen · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would be a great first step if they simply removed the federal monopoly on first class mail. That certainly wouldn't require changing the Constitution.

    6. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would love to see UPS try to do what the postal service is able to do for 43 cents.

      And I would *much* rather see the price of a stamp increase by 16% than lose 16% of my mail service.

    7. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eliminating the national post office would require a Constitutional amendment. Delivering the mail is in the U.S. Constitution.

      No, Congress is empowered to establish a post office, and post roads, but they are not obligated to do so. The USPS could be eliminated without an amendment, but I hope it wouldn't be.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.

      I disagree. Any time I've ever had to use UPS I've gotten nothing but terrible service. Anywhere from boxes that look like someone was using them as punching bags (and the stuff inside being broken or damaged in some way), to packages being lost and delayed and the fact that they are too incompetent to just hold a package at the office so you can pick it up.

    9. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by localman57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      UPS isn't going to come to your house on a rural route in the backwoods of Kentucky and pick up a piece of shit you wrote, and put it on an airplane to Wyoming for $.44 . (credit to Jon Stewart for that quote). A properly functioning, reliable service that serves 100% of all residents everywhere is vital to a modern economy. Our post office is so good that the legal system considers proof of mailing (not delivery) as proof of service. Live in italy or mexico for 6 months, and you'll get some perspective.

    10. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by ragefan · · Score: 1

      Umm, no that would be the worst possible outcome. The reason that there is a monopoly on first-class mail is to help the USPS be profitable. The USPS delivers mail to everyone, not just to urban areas with high distribution area. For-profit companies would pick-and-choose their delivery area much like the cable companies as well phone companies do with Internet services.

      The higher cost of delivery for rural areas is subsidized by the lower cost of delivery and still costs less than 50 cents for most letters. I think it is unlikely FedEx or UPS could handle the volume the USPS does and make it as low cost for the consumer.

    11. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by raddan · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I agree, as someone who has to ship a lot of stuff around as a part of my job, we've tried a number of couriers, and I think we have a pretty good fell for the quality (timeliness, damage, convenience) of many of them. Here's what we found:
      1. FedEx, far and away the best, but expensive
      2. USPS, not always on time, but mostly reliable; premium services don't compare with FedEx; tracking isn't great
      3. UPS, usually on time, and has lots of premium services, but theft and damage are MAJOR problems. They will happily deliver a package to a wrong address (i.e., THEY got it wrong), and when that package is stolen, they will disclaim all responsibity. Their "insurance" is a fucking joke-- they have weaseled out of paying every claim we've filed.
      4. DHL is pathetic. They once cheerfully delivered a package to me that had a hole straight through the package and the contents inside. We had to request one our suppliers never use them again.
    12. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Funny. I've never had that happen with UPS, only with the USPS.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    13. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't. The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to establish post offices and post roads, not that it is required to do so. Congress is free to choose not to exercise that power.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by ndavis · · Score: 1

      I agree the big problem with the Post Office near my house is that they are terrible. They loose 5% of the mail they send from my calculations of sending 100 wedding invitations and then later I sent 100 Thank you cards I found they lost 5 each time which was unacceptable in my book. What is amazing though is some Post Offices are terrific and do a great job and I know use those to send mail rather then use my own mailbox.

      So I think they do need to run it like a business and close down the locations that have terrible service or move the Post office from external buildings into either Malls or Grocery Stores which will help lower costs.

      I don't claim to know all the problems they are having but I don't think eliminating Saturday delivery is a good idea.

    15. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by DinDaddy · · Score: 3, Funny

      USPS, not always on time, but mostly reliable; premium services don't compare with FedEx; tracking isn't great

      Shipped a package once USPS with a guaranteed delivery date (extra fee for the guaranteed shipping). Package arrived 5 days late. Attempted to collect my refund. Was told by USPS counter worker that they "did not guarantee their guarantee" and I would receive no refund.

    16. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Modern economy apparently doesn't give a damn about food production.

    17. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by godefroi · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      What we need is a directive. Maybe we'll call it, oh, I dunno, 10-289. It'll require the USPS to continue to provide the current service at the current rates, indefinitely.

      I mean, we don't want to give up Saturday delivery, right? And we don't want to give those fat cats any more money, so they can get richer while we suffer! Why should we have to suffer because they just want to get richer? Where's their sense of social responsibility?

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    18. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The USPS could be eliminated without an amendment, but I hope it wouldn't be.

      I'm sorry, but I fail to see why you hope we keep an inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, and slow delivery service when we already have multiple options that are much better, especially given the fact that people rarely send letters anymore.

      Just look at delivery times based on cost - there's no reason why a typical package should take 2 weeks to show up via USPS other than they want to charge you more money to get it shipped in 3-5 days, which is how fast it would be if they didn't intentionally delay things. Check your tracking the next time you have something shipped via USPS - you tend to (but not always) see it sit at a given location for a few days for no reason before moving on.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    19. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by bberens · · Score: 1

      It's not really Amazon vs. [someone else] unless it's meant that [someone else] is a brick and mortar store. Every other online retailer will have the same loss of Saturday delivery from the USPS. I can't speak for the masses, but I have never once considered Saturday delivery via USPS as a draw to Amazon. If I need something by a specific date then I'm willing to pay for FedEx or UPS x-day delivery or whatever.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    20. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know the USPS is given a monopoly on first class mail deliver to ensure rural service is as good as urban service, correct? Otherwise, you'd end up with what we have for broadband: Some options in urban/suburban areas, no options in rural areas due to the unprovability of servicing said areas.

    21. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Holy shit, did you even think when you typed your post?

      Screw rural residents:

      Why should people living in the backwoods of Kentucky be entitled to force me to pay for their mail service? It's their choice to live there. If they really wanted better or less expensive service they should move to a city.

      OMGS! EVERYONE EQUAL!

      Government should benefit everyone equally, not one class of people over another.

      Also, show me one farm of sufficient size to efficiently produce food for a substantial number of people. Fuck cities. They'd die overnight if food wasn't shipped into them like it's going out of style.

    22. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by spidrw · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, the postal service can't do that for 43 cents (or 44). They've been trying like hell to, but they can't. And here we are. As rarely as I mail things, I wouldn't be opposed to dropping a buck to mail a letter these days. That's me though. Lower income people and businesses that rely on mail would certainly have different opinions.

    23. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Ares · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I fail to see why you hope we keep an inefficient, unnecessarily expensive, and slow delivery service when we already have multiple options that are much better, especially given the fact that people rarely send letters anymore.

      easy. even though nothing requires congress to exercise the power to create post offices and establish post roads granted to it by the constitution, everybody knows that if you give congress the power to do something, they will exercise it.

    24. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by swb · · Score: 1

      The USPS delivers mail to everyone, not just to urban areas with high distribution area. For-profit companies would pick-and-choose their delivery area much like the cable companies as well phone companies do with Internet services.

      When I read statements like this I'm inclined to agree with them initially and them I start to wonder if we really should be subsidizing some percentage of the population that wants to live in a rural area.

      I'm not talking about people living in small towns necessarily, but people who choose to live in exurban areas. If they want to live there, then fine, but there's a cost to having everything you'd get easily in a concentrated living area (even a small town) and they should pay it rather than bitching that there's no high speed internet or mail delivery.

    25. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A: it would be substantially more expensive.
      B: A private company could do that right now.
      C: No corporation in the world is more efficient the the US postal service.
      D: The service is on par, if nor superior to fed-ex and UPS.
      E: The fact that there is no line indicates they are paying someone who isn't working,. how is that efficient?

      I have never waiting in line at the post office for longer then 5 minutes, even when the line is long. If there is even two people in front of me when I have to go to UPS I can count on being in line for a minimum of 15 minutes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by geekoid · · Score: 1

      the 'federal monopoly' is there to help ensure everyone gets mail. If private companies were so great at this, then I could get a letter anywhere in the country in 3 days via fed-ex for the mandatory rate plus 50 cents.

      I can not because they can not do it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, what's the better option? FedEx? UPS? Both have service as incompetent and as bad as the USPS, in my experience. Worse, I suspect, because the USPS handles an ungodly amount of mail every day and only screws up a tiny, tiny fraction of the time. Yes, it's fun to mock them when they mess up, but really, think about it and you'll realize how rarely it happens.

      I can honestly say I've had FedEx and UPS mess up a larger fraction of my shipments than the USPS has.

    28. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by darjen · · Score: 1

      That is simply not true. Rural service could be just as well by private competitors. By the way, broadband providers are also given a monopoly over a certain area by state and local law. The situation is hardly the result of free market competition.

    29. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, whenever you go into a UPS store there is no line!!!

      You're a moron.

      UPS stores are franchise run operations, there can be multiple UPS stores in a single zip code, but the USPS only has one per zipcode, they also, and I guarantee this, have WAY more parcels to process than the UPS does for a given area.

      I agree the UPS is more efficient, but you need to realize that the line being non-existent isn't proof of that.

    30. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Multiple private competitors wouldn't have the economies of scale to match nationalised postal services. if you got Sunday delivery you'd be paying close to Fedex or UPS rates. And forget getting decent service outside of major conurbations. And forget simply going down to the post office to collect a parcel, these private companies make you go twenty miles to an industrial estate in the middle of no-where.

    31. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by delinear · · Score: 1

      I would argue that tendering postal deliveries to whoever can do it cheapest will result in a poorer level of service, but then I remembered all the times my mail got wrongly delivered, or just dumped outside my front door for the whole world to see, or outright lost or stolen, or the one time we got a letter from the postal service explaining that they were investigating our postman for fraudulently disposing of mail and they were sorry but were trying to recover the mail (and then over the course of the next week we got a bunch of fire damaged letters - I kid you not, the guy had been burning our mail instead of delivering it - stuck through the letterbox, luckily we weren't waiting on anything important at the time) - it'd be pretty hard for even private commerce to top those levels of poor service.

    32. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I had a large, used, Origin 2000 server shipped strapped to a plastic palate delivered via DHL. I swear it had been tipped over, (nearly impossible as it weighs like 300 pounds and is a very evenly weight distributed square)- all the rails were crushed, and there were dents in the top. Its a freaking palate with several inches of clearance inside the palate edges to product. How hard can it be to keep it from getting damaged.

      I've also had UPS send me servers that look like they were sat on and/or drop kicked across the country. Forget drop shipping, you get drop kicking.

    33. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Darby · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I'm not talking about people living in small towns necessarily, but people who choose to live in exurban areas. If they want to live there, then fine, but there's a cost to having everything you'd get easily in a concentrated living area (even a small town) and they should pay it rather than bitching that there's no high speed internet or mail delivery.

      Eliminating all of the subsidies to rural areas (very much including small towns) would be the best possible thing that could happen in America. These are the people constantly whining about taxes (which they don't pay), and welfare leeches (which they are) and demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the most basic economic facts.
      If, for once,these leeches would actually pay their own way rather than leeching off of the productive, parts of the country then they might at long last start dealing with reality.
      If only these welfare leeches would grow up and act like responsible adults, then the Republican party would be gone in a day and we'd have a chance (however slim) at developing a responsible fiscal system and have actual honest debate about social policy.
      As long as we keep paying to maintain these delusional scum in their delusions, we'll keep seeing more of the same insanity and rabid hatred of America that defines them. From pushing religion into government to making up wars based on lies, this all comes down to allowing ignorant, bratty children to believe far out lies about who's paying their bills.

    34. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Your post is pretty much entirely wrong. Not sure how you got modded up as "informative."

      You do know the USPS is given a monopoly on first class mail deliver to ensure rural service is as good as urban service, correct?

      Removing the monopoly doesn't remove the USPS, and doesn't change their mandate to deliver to rural addresses. The worst-case is that rural addresses get the same service they do now while urban addresses get cheaper, faster service. That's the *worst* case scenario.

      Otherwise, you'd end up with what we have for broadband: Some options in urban/suburban areas, no options in rural areas due to the unprovability of servicing said areas.

      In the vast majority of the US, broadband service is a local monopoly legislated by the local government. So... you're entirely wrong here, currently broadband works more like the USPS monopoly than the free market.

    35. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      You could let other companies deliver first-class mail under the condition that they must accept all first-class mail and deliver it at a fixed cost regardless of point of origin or delivery. If a private company can do it more efficiently and charge less, by all means let them.

    36. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wrong. Removing the monopoly would mean that private companies could deliver urban mail cheaper than the USPS, and 90% of mail would move to these private carriers. The USPS, still required to deliver to rural areas (which the private companies ignore, or charge much more for) would then not have enough money to continue operating, so the rural areas wouldn't get any mail service at all in the end.

      Of course, there is a valid argument that rural areas should be required to pay more for mail service, instead of being subsidized by urban service as it is now. But allowing private companies to compete with the USPS, and not requiring them to deliver mail to rural areas while still requiring the USPS to do so, would result in the destruction of the USPS.

    37. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      All the produce at grocery stores these days comes from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Of course, it also frequently comes with e.coli contamination...

    38. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think my post is quite accurate thanks. As a business owner, I'm not going to provide service to a certain geographic region if it's not profitable. I believe it to be fact that other for-profit entities feel the same way (I don't include non-profits whose sole goal is to provide service to under-served areas). I'm sure you're aware of the Tennessee Valley Authority, which grew out of the need to provide electricity service to a majority of Tennessee residents due to the unprofitability of doing so.

      If the USPS can't provide service to both urban and rural areas while staying in the black, how do you expect private business to do the same thing (if mandated) while maintaining the same level of service? I'm sure there is cruft to cut in the USPS, but not enough to justify a health profit margin for a for-profit org.

    39. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by zenyu · · Score: 1

      FedEx, far and away the best, but expensive

      Hah!

      In NY and NJ at least FedEx is the absolute worst. The USPS at delivers 99% of the time, although it too often arrives shredded and mud soaked in a large plastic bag 9 months later. DHL mostly left the US market but they never lost or damaged a package, but the package was reliably a day later than it should have been. UPS delivers 100% of the time and usually early, the 0.5 % of the time that the item arrives damaged a few photos are sufficient for the insurance claim. Meanwhile, FedEx package delivery sends a different delivery team every time, they lie about having attempted delivery almost every single time, and things usually arrive 3-5 days late when you are lucky enough that they arrive at all. OTOH I've never had a problem with FedEx overnight letter delivery, and they are convenient and cheap so I do use them for that unless they are original documents; but for packages, never when I can avoid it.

    40. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Eh, it all depends on where you live as far as FedEx/UPS are concerned in my experience. For me, FedEx is usually at least a day later than UPS. And if I'm not home - FedEx tries once and leaves a note saying that if I want the package today I have to drive two hours to get it. UPS I've seen drive up and down my street 5 or 6 times in a day. They'll keep trying until it gets there. I can't comment on the theft/damage/insurance issue though, as the only carrier I've ever seen lose or damage a delivery is USPS.

    41. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by exhilaration · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you have a valid point but the framers of the constitution disagreed with you - and things were pretty rural back then, I'm sure it was PITA to deliver mail in the late 1700's.

    42. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by evilviper · · Score: 1

      The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.

      The situation around here is the opposite. While the USPS has long lines (because a larger number of people utilize them for numerous services) they normally have several people on duty to service them, and even at the worst of time, the wait time is short.

      With UPS/Fedex, they have tiny offices (to service a small number of people) and one or maybe two people behind the counter, they close for a couple hours in the middle of the day, and then charge $5 to deliver a letter... I'm not exactly in awe of that kind of service and efficiency.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    43. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by darjen · · Score: 1

      The USPS, still required to deliver to rural areas (which the private companies ignore, or charge much more for) would then not have enough money to continue operating, so the rural areas wouldn't get any mail service at all in the end.

      They could easily pass a law to subsidize rural mail delivery for the poor. Then let everyone else pay for it directly. Viola, problem solved.

    44. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by winwar · · Score: 1

      "...everybody knows that if you give congress the power to do something, they will exercise it."

      And the reason they exercise the power is because their constituents WANT it. If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it. But it is a political decision. People don't like it when their local post office is closed. They complain to their Representative. Who "explains" the situation to the USPS. So they are forced to operate inefficiently. The same happens with service days.

      It's easy to bash Congress. But Congress is only trying to give people what they want. It doesn't always make sense because those things are often in conflict.

    45. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Except that direct taxes like this are highly unpopular, plus it means entangling the USPS with the rest of the Federal government. As it is, the USPS mostly stands alone, and is self-supporting. It's not supported by taxes. If you start supporting it with taxes, it becomes extremely political, and the USPS's operation becomes entirely up to the whims of politicians, which change constantly. You'll also have everyone slightly right-of-center and beyond screaming to shut it down or change it somehow, because they'll resent paying taxes for rural people (including a lot of rich people who have nice rural estates) to get their mail cheaply.

      By letting the USPS manage itself with no taxes, no one can complain about it too much unless they send a lot of mail, which these days not that many people do.

      Personally, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be a bad idea to just eliminate rural delivery altogether, and give all rural people free PO Boxes at their local post offices. Just make sure there's plenty of local post offices, so that they don't have to drive farther than the nearest town. Then, if they want personal delivery, they could pay a monthly fee for the privilege. Rural living for a lot of people (other than farmers) is really a luxury, and it's a lot less efficient than living in a city or town. Land is cheaper, but that's it; everything else is more expensive, mainly because you have to drive so much. I look forward to moving to a rural place once I've saved up enough money and set up a home-based business, but I don't expect everyone else to subsidize it for me. I say charge people a monthly fee for mail delivery (or else have a free PO Box), and give a tax credit to farmers for it.

    46. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife is from the backwoods of Kentucky, and she lived on a rural route.

      Therefore, I feel qualified to say the following:

      What makes you think people in the backwoods of Kentucky can even write, you insensitive clod?

    47. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      Two things. First - it sounds like you're in basically the same boat as us. (Canada)

      CanadaPost/Purolator (Mail/Courier) are basically the best way to move stuff around up here. There is Fedex - but they cost a fair bit.

      UPS is on-par with Purolator's pricing, but offers sub-par service. Most packages look like they were drop kicked. In recent months, they've started subcontracting all deliveries to Purolator where I live. DHL is better than UPS, but that doesn't say much.

      Nothing beats Purolator for delivery condition (not even Fedex), and nothing beats Fedex for tracking.

      Unlike the US, UPS is really bad up here. A great example of how much private corporations can suck. A couple times they've tried to deliver 5-sided boxes with packing peanuts and items leaking out, while requesting $40+ in on-delivery handling charges, for orders that should've cost nothing extra. Fees like that make them more expensive than Fedex, so it's no surprise that CanadaPost, Purolator, and Fedex are top dogs up here.

      It's interesting that I've never received a DOA hard drive via Purolator. Newegg is full of DOA comments, so I wonder how much UPS and other sub-par couriers are thrashing your equipment?

      Second, wouldn't a 2-5% increase in postage costs solve all of USPS's money woes? This isn't like taxes, where if it goes up, companies get creative. USPS has to deliver service in addition to low rates - if quality service and cheap prices are at the right mix, companies use them. If either one falls or rises too far, companies find alternatives. Raising rates won't lose any customers, as long as service stays good or improves, and they're still cheaper than most couriers. Keeping rates stable but reducing service will lose customers, which starts the downward spiral of less mail volume, leading to higher prices.

    48. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and both end up being poor; well done

    49. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Live in italy or mexico for 6 months, and you'll get some perspective.

      Indeed. I second the fact about Italy. People complaining about the USPS have no idea how bad it can be.

      I lived in Rome for a while a couple years back. Just once, I went to the Italian post office. It was like the DMV, but worse. There must have been 100 people in there perhaps trying to get to 2-3 mail clerks -- total chaos. If I remember correctly, you had to get in "line" (actually a giant horde of people vaguely pushing in the same direction) to get a ticket, and then you waited about 45 minutes for someone to call your number, and if you had the wrong ticket, you had to start over. (In Italy, this sometimes meant that people got in shouting matches.) Usually when they'd call a number, no one would come up, presumably because they gave up and left.

      And this was on a weekday morning. Oh, and even in Rome, all the branches except the central one closed by 2pm, I think.

      I gave up after 20 minutes. I talked to a friend who successfully managed to mail a postcard after an hour under similar conditions at a different branch. He got the wrong ticket, because it wasn't clear what the tickets were for, but someone had mercy on him.

      Important tip -- If you're ever in Rome and need to send a letter, mail from the Vatican post office. They are relatively efficient and mail seems to get out speedily (sending a postcard from Italy is like mailing something into a black hole). And if you go there in the morning before all the tourists get up, you won't even have to wait in line. (As a bonus, you can see St. Peter's before it's mobbed as well, which is a much more pleasant experience.)

    50. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by darjen · · Score: 1

      The USPS does get tax dollars. You can go look that up online. It's already plenty politicized as well. Either way, it doesn't make much difference to me whether it is supported by tax dollars or government decree of monopoly. Removing the monopoly and allowing rural areas to be subsidized directly would allow plenty of competition in all the most populous areas, leading to better service over all. The only real reason it still exists, imo, is to be a junk mail dispensary.

    51. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      If eliminating something as small as a post office or a large as a day of service was merely a business decision, the USPS would just do it.

      No, they wouldn't because the USPS is unionized. Unions do what's good for the union workers in the short run, even if it harms the customers and the business in the long run - including many instances where the union workers were so focused on the short term that they ran the company into bankruptcy and ended up unemployed as a result.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    52. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      Can you prove that the USPS gets tax dollars? Because this says otherwise:

      http://www.google.com/search?q=usps+tax+dollars

      http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm

    53. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only service for which USPS guarantees the delivery date is Express Mail. And it's very easy for the sender to get a refund. Just print out the tracking information and take it to your post office.

      HOWEVER, if the USPS fulfills their delivery responsibility and the recipient isn't available to receive the item but picks it up 5 days later, don't blame the USPS.

    54. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by bsa3 · · Score: 1

      If there's a need to subsidize rural mail delivery, the government can just as well levy a tax on all postage and contract with privatized-USPS or someone else to provide service in areas where it would otherwise be uneconomical.

      In the current system, the USPS monopoly allows it to have hours that make banks look good and send men with guns to shut you down if you even think about sending a non-urgent document by FedEx.

    55. Re:Neflix != Amazon, and postal service == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly, until I moved into town, FedEx and UPS simply refused to deliver to my parent's house only 2 miles from town for a long time, or refused early/guaranteed/saturday deliveries. UPS and Fed Ex "cherry pick" the best routes and delivery schemes from USPS, but even slightly rural customers get screwed and have to drive to find the private pickup point for their "overnight" package.

  7. How does this affect me again? by microcars · · Score: 1

    I cannot recall ever getting anything from AMAZON via USPS, it is always UPS.
    what do they ship via USPS?

    --
    I like microcars
    1. Re:How does this affect me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always had the free super saver shipping come via USPS. Most everything else was UPS, esp if you are 'Prime' member. (oh I love thee free trials)

    2. Re:How does this affect me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I they use USPS for books, CDs, and DVDs. The rates for USPS media mail are considerably cheaper than for using UPS.

    3. Re:How does this affect me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever choose FREE Shipping? That always comes by USPS.
      But I have never had a parcel from amazon, or any mail order delivered via USPS on Saturday. I thought they didn't do parcel delivery on saturdays.

    4. Re:How does this affect me again? by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Everything I have gotten the last 2 years is USPS. I usually get stuff with "free" super-saver shipping, often faster than UPS ground. USPS is great at small to medium boxes (large boxes seem to be more domain of UPS and FEDEX and we're talking 2ftx2ftx2ft at least). USPS also offers a special rate on books, DVDs, CDs, etcetera called Media Mail and the rate can't be beat - for example: a 2lb package across the country at Parcel Post is $8.09 and with Media Mail it's $2.77. Library Mail is even cheaper but restricted to institutions...

      You also have to figure that on many products there are 3rd party vendors on Amazon and that they ship however they prefer with the shipping stipend Amazon gives them and they don't have the same UPS/Fedex deals Amazon has, so the USPS will be often the cheapest option to them by far.

    5. Re:How does this affect me again? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      But I have never had a parcel from amazon, or any mail order delivered via USPS on Saturday. I thought they didn't do parcel delivery on saturdays.

      I have. Specifically, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows when it came out.

      It was interesting looking how Amazon shipped that... they shipped it via UPS, which then delivered it to the USPS for local delivery.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:How does this affect me again? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I wondered the same thing, but then I realized that I pay for prime - which means I get everything 2 day, and since the USPS won't guarantee anything be delivered on time they won't use them (aside from it being horrifically expensive).

      The only time it matters is if you need a Sunday or Holiday delivery - in which case the USPS will deliver express mail on those days.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:How does this affect me again? by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Anything that fits in a padded mailer and isn't X-day shipping. Single books, small electronics, etc all come USPS.

      I am fairly close to a distribution center and I usually use the slowest shipping because it still gets here in 1 or 2 days, so I get stuff by way of USPS quite often.

      If you actually have to pay for speedy delivery, they just don't use USPS.

    8. Re:How does this affect me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was interesting looking how Amazon shipped that... they shipped it via UPS, which then delivered it to the USPS for local delivery.

      Which of course makes perfect sense, the USPS delivered to every address in the USA six days a week at the same price, while UPS delivers seven days a week but only to a limited area quickly with a competitive price. Thus in terms of time and money the best solution is to ship large batches of orders to the major population centers in each region of the country via UPS, and then have the USPS then break up the large shipments to into individual orders because they can do that more economically, and in some cases faster. Amazon was just using the relative strengths of each service provider to mitigate their respective weaknesses, yielding better overall service than either organization could have probably provided alone.

  8. Skip Wednesday instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's generally their junk mail drop with just flyers and other non-addressed answers.

    1. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by RotsiserMho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That stuff only comes on Wednesday because the backlog of mail from over the weekend has finally subsided by Wednesday. If they got rid of Wednesday delivery, you'd just get the same crap on Thursday.

    2. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that some other day should be skipped instead. That way, you don't have 2 consecutive days with no mail delivery. Also, I believe that there are plenty of times someone needs to get something in the mail for an event on a Sunday. So Saturday gives them that last minute chance.

    3. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd rather get your junk mail on Thursdays, eh?

    4. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. At my place, post office has the same exact hours as my work. The only way for me to pick up a `missed' package (eh, I'm never home during the day!) is to go to post office on Saturday.

      Heck, they could shut down the delivery on Wednesday AND Saturday, but keep the actual office open (where you can come in and send/pickup things).

    5. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree!

      Skiping Saturday would mean 2 consecutive days without delivery. If you skip Wednesday, then you wouldn't have 2 consecutive days. This issue that may prevent this is that Wednesday is generally considered to be a "Business" day, so businesses that rely on postal mail for sending business documents would not be happy. My father is a Lawyer, and he says practically everything comes by Fax now anyway though. It would be an interesting trade off.

    6. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      That stuff only comes on Wednesday because the backlog of mail from over the weekend has finally subsided by Wednesday. If they got rid of Wednesday delivery, you'd just get the same crap on Thursday.

      In that case, they'd better skip Thursday too.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    7. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This issue that may prevent this is that Wednesday is generally considered to be a "Business" day, so businesses that rely on postal mail for sending business documents would not be happy.

      Who cares? Fuck 'em. Besides, how many businesses still rely on the mail anyway, except those that send junk mail?

      If businesses care about it that much, maybe they could have business deliveries Mon-Fri, and residential deliveries can skip Wednesdays and keep Saturdays. Heck, I'd be happy if they only delivered mail to residences on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, if they kept the costs low.

    8. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's fine. I'm in no hurry to get junk mail.

      However, it would be nice to not go more than 1 day without mail service. Eliminating Wednesdays while keeping Saturdays would accomplish that.

    9. Re:Skip Wednesday instead by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      Was about to sat the exact same thing. With Wednesday dropped, there wouldn't be more than a day before service resumes at any point in the week. With Saturday dropped, there are two days with no service at all, which is much more of a disruption.

  9. I would make it even more drastic by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And just have alternating days. That way one postal worker can take care of two routes. Let's face it, mail is only going to decrease. So let them do M-W-F on Route 1 and T-Th-Sa on Route 2, and flip that the next week. Express mail can be an exception. Priority mail not so much, depending on logistics.

    The USPS has been good to me and my internet business, so I'd prefer them to do well in return. IMO, this is the only way to really future proof the service. People will bitch but the rest of society just has to adapt, imo.

    1. Re:I would make it even more drastic by IflyRC · · Score: 1

      The less they deliver, the less I'm going to choose USPS Priority Mail as a shipping option. When I order something online I usually want it as soon as possible because its not something I can buy locally (otherwise I would have bought locally). I understand people look for bargains online and are willing to wait. However, I'm one of the individuals who uses online ordering out of convenience coupled with necessity. I'll just choose Fed Ex or UPS which will cause the USPS to lose even more business as I'm sure I won't be the only one.

    2. Re:I would make it even more drastic by pavon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This makes the most sense to me, but I would add another exception - any mail that requires a signature, regardless of class, should be attempted on the next Saturday before requiring you to pick it up at the nearest post office. If it increases the cost of that particular service, that is fine with me.

      That said I don't think it is necessary to go so far right now, but if they are going to drop a day, it should be any day but Saturday.

    3. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just have alternating days. That way one postal worker can take care of two routes. Let's face it, mail is only going to decrease. So let them do M-W-F on Route 1 and T-Th-Sa on Route 2, and flip that the next week. Express mail can be an exception. Priority mail not so much, depending on logistics.

      The USPS has been good to me and my internet business, so I'd prefer them to do well in return. IMO, this is the only way to really future proof the service. People will bitch but the rest of society just has to adapt, imo.

      Postal workers have trouble with one route, what makes you think they can handle two?

      I suspect the crooks at Cash 4 Gold would love this policy. Then they could make returns even more difficult, if not completely impossible.

    4. Re:I would make it even more drastic by mrlibertarian · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, mail is only going to decrease.

      Is that why the USPS can't deliver on Saturday anymore? My guess is that it has more to do with their refusal to do layoffs. I agree with Obama: "It's the Post Office that's always having problems." We need to remove the laws that protect USPS from competition. If we did, maybe they would have some real competition. Maybe their competitors would start offering service seven days a week, without the junk mail, for the right price.

    5. Re:I would make it even more drastic by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      This was already mentioned in reply to another post:

      Current USPS prices are designed to subsidize delivery to all homes in the US, including the exceedingly rural ones that companies like UPS and FedEx won't deliver to.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    6. Re:I would make it even more drastic by MrLogic17 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unions won't allow that. The reason they are focusing on Saturday, that way [nearly] all full-time union workers can keep their jobs. Saturday has been an overtime / part-time job for the new guys on the route.

      Same argument wnet for the "Drop Wednesday" plan. Keep the same number of days (5), and nobody loses their jobs.

      Now those paying attention will notice that you don't save very much if you keep the same number of workers, with the same base pay rate, same benefits, and the same number of post offices open.

    7. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So.. express mail is exempted, thus requiring someone to run route 1 and 2 on its off days anyway. Thus.. instead of having 2 people run route 1 and 2 every day, your solution is to have .. wait for it .. 2 people to run route 1 and 2 every day. Only now both people have to know both routes.

    8. Re:I would make it even more drastic by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      While there are fewer letters and bill-payments being sent out, the growth of online sales and Netflix should have mostly offset any decrease. I think it would make more sense to close post-offices and install self-service machines. Of course increasing postage this year would eliminate any budget problems, but I guess as a semi-government agency USPS is required to pretend that there is no inflation.

    9. Re:I would make it even more drastic by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Is that why the USPS can't deliver on Saturday anymore? My guess is that it has more to do with their refusal to do layoffs. I agree with Obama: "It's the Post Office that's always having problems." We need to remove the laws that protect USPS from competition. If we did, maybe they would have some real competition. Maybe their competitors would start offering service seven days a week, without the junk mail, for the right price.

      While layoffs are hard (and even closing/consolidating offices), what is relatively easy in most cases is just a hiring freeze. Then, through retirements, the workforce gets reduced over time.

      So cutting Saturday delivery could be a step towards the every other day delivery.

      As a classical liberal, I never understood the libertarian antipathy towards the Post Office. I know the privatized post offices around the world and they are awful - ours is one of the safest and that's due to the PO workers being well paid and the stiff penalties for messing with the mail and special postal police.

      Besides, for all the focus on the Post Office needing support from the Federal Government from time to time, it's 90-95% self-sufficient with only needing a helping hand here and there. Compared to most government offices, that's damn impressive, and I contend they grease the wheels of commerce 1000x more than hinder it.

      And it's actually a Constitutional appointed obligation of the federal government, unlike the majority of the crap they do these days.

      Of course, for $17 a month, I get endicia and just label print my postage/tracking/optional_services and almost never have to deal with the Post Office counter (though they are friendly in my area) which makes them much more convenient.

    10. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've thought of this before and it it a good idea providing that PO boxes would still get 6 day delivery, pick up from boxes wouldn't be decreased and post offices would be open on Saturday. Most large businesses seem to use PO boxes already and the ones that don't can get one. It is either this or ever increasing postal rates.

    11. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I think it would make more sense to close post-offices and install self-service machines.

      The problem with this is that there's a LOT of morons who can't use self-service machines, and have to go to the counter for everything they mail. I see this at my local PO all the time; we have 3 of the self-service machines, but most of the people in line are there for things they could easily do on the machines, but are too stupid to. Then, those of us there to do things we simply can't do at the machines (international shipments, passports, etc.) have to wait forever in line behind these morons as they ship stuff by Priority Mail and take 10 minutes asking all kinds of dumb questions.

      The Post Office should charge an extra fee for people using the counters to do things the self-service machines can do.

    12. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but most of the people in line are there for things they could easily do on the machines

      Can the Automated Postal Centers take cash? No? Only debit and credit cards? Then I'm not using them.

    13. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What, are you one of those morons who doesn't have a bank account, and cashes checks at the check-cashing/title loan/payday loan stores? Or are you one of the tin-foil hat freaks who thinks the government is tracking all his purchases, and is intensely interested in who he's sending mail to?

      Not using credit cards is commendable. Not using a debit card is moronic.

    14. Re:I would make it even more drastic by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

      Not using credit cards is commendable. Not using a debit card is moronic.

      Just curious, in all seriousness, I thought it was the other way around?
      Given the rewards points that credit cards give, it seems wiser to always use the credit card to get rewards points and pay it off in full every month? This way you benefit from:
      1) a 1 month interest-free buffer for managing your savings (high interest) to checking account (low interest) flow.
      2) rewards from your credit card
      3) being able to file a claim if somebody screws with your card

      I'm not sure in what situation I would actually want to use a debit card?

    15. Re:I would make it even more drastic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you're disciplined enough to make that work, then great. But a lot of people aren't, and really shouldn't tempt themselves with it, because they'll just get in trouble. Just missing your grace period once means you'll pay interest that month and the month after, which will wipe out any value you gained by exploiting the rewards points.

      Also, you can file claims with debit cards, just like credit cards. They have all the charge-back privileges that credit cards have, since they go through Visa and Mastercard. They just don't have the rewards points features.

      So, in summary, if you don't trust yourself with a credit card, but want something safer and more convenient than carrying a pocket full of cash, debit cards are the way to go.

  10. Who runs this country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which corporation is going to win this battle?

  11. Why not a weekday? by cmiller173 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would prefer to see them drop say Thursday deliveries and deliver Mon-Wed, Fri-Sat.

    1. Re:Why not a weekday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded. Or just drop Monday deliveries.

    2. Re:Why not a weekday? by Jaxim · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'd rather have them deliver the mail when I'm actually home in case I need to sign for the package.

    3. Re:Why not a weekday? by yakovlev · · Score: 1

      I agree. I would much rather have two 1-day gaps in delivery than one 2-day gap.

      Businesses might be the opposite, so it might make sense to deliver to businesses M-F and residential M-W, F-Sa.

    4. Re:Why not a weekday? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      That's actually a very good idea. Never will get done though.

      At a minimum, if they're not delivering, I'd at LEAST hope they keep the office open on Saturday. My local post office is 8 miles away - in the OPPOSITE direction from where I work. For any package that they can't actually deliver and I have to sign for in person, I simply can't get it on a weekday. I have to go to the post office on Saturday mornings (assuming they've expended all in person attempts by that time) to pick the item up. I'm SOL if they close up everything on Saturday.

      That's the same reason I don't use UPS for most things anymore. Many of the items that I typically order require an adult signature in person. I'm not home during the week to take delivery, I can't make it to the UPS office at all during the week (it's too far away - 45 miles), and they're not open on Saturdays at all. Taking a day off of work to go pick up my packages gets old VERY fast. For those types of packages I've just switched to Fedex, who does thankfully open the local office for a few hours on Saturday mornings.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Why not a weekday? by SocialEngineer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this is the fact that it would greatly affect businesses who rely on mail services. No mail on Thursday means no bills going out, no checks coming in, etc. Also, that means people who get newspapers delivered via mail route (yes, they do that - I'm systems manager at a small locally focused paper that is doing quite well) will have to skip a day. Of course, if we lose Saturday, we lose a day, too. As far as receiving packages go, I always have mine shipped to work, anyway, so I don't have to worry about being there to sign for it.

      --
      "Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
    6. Re:Why not a weekday? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Making the weekend longer makes the outgoing packages pile up higher too. Monday's shipments can either have Sunday's and Monday's orders, or Saturday, Sunday and Monday.

      As it is, domestic package mail is pretty inexpensive relative to other services. UPS and FedEx charge something like $12 or more for special Saturday delivery. That's two thirds of what UPS charges for a 1 lb. express package, USPS doesn't charge extra for Saturday delivery.

    7. Re:Why not a weekday? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      And businesses who rely upon mail services will get it all the following day. Bills not going out will go out the following day, will be sat upon by people for weeks anyway, and will finally be returned. Checks coming in will come in a day later.

      Business is moving to an online payment space anyway. You can't sell to grocery stores in the northeast anymore without an automated infrastructure.

      Is waiting and extra 1/2 day really that much of a hassle, for stuff that wasn't important enough to fax?

    8. Re:Why not a weekday? by sorak · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is the fact that it would greatly affect businesses who rely on mail services. No mail on Thursday means no bills going out, no checks coming in, etc. Also, that means people who get newspapers delivered via mail route (yes, they do that - I'm systems manager at a small locally focused paper that is doing quite well) will have to skip a day.

      Of course, if we lose Saturday, we lose a day, too.

      As far as receiving packages go, I always have mine shipped to work, anyway, so I don't have to worry about being there to sign for it.

      Two comments:
      1. So, why not ship two papers on Friday?
      2. So, if you had to miss out on delivery, would you rather lose Thursday sales or Saturday sales?

    9. Re:Why not a weekday? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, with UPS, if your package can't survive a 30-foot fall into concrete and being treated like a soccer ball by the UPS sorters, it's going to arrive completely destroyed.

  12. Re:A better solution by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    In a communist State (there's never really been one that actually met the standard to be called that) there wouldn't BE a FedEx, UPS or DHL. Your point is moot.

    --
    End of Line.
  13. and I need sunday pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same reason, except that I work for 6 days a week.

    Or I guess I could settle with stocking up stamp (or printing it online) and droping it in the USPS drop boxes.

  14. BP to pay for Saturday delivery, loss in postcards by Orga · · Score: 5, Funny

    USPS filed suit against BP last Saturday in an attempt to get BP to pay for USPS Saturday delivery. The reasoning proposed is with the decrease in tourism in the gulf states fewer vacationers are sending postcards north. BREAKING NEWS: Consortium of postcard manufacturers expresses interest in joining suit.

  15. Just cut... by SonicBurst · · Score: 1

    the days bills come.

    --

    Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
  16. Minus one, just plain wrong by stomv · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Caetel · · Score: 1

      Then why is it proposing ending Saturday deliveries to cut its budget deficit?

    2. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by RotsiserMho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because conveniently, that (incredibly biased) site only shows data through 2007 after which presumably, they started losing money. In any case, the whole point of ending Saturday delivery is to remain self-sufficient.

    3. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it depends on your definition of self-sufficient. Sure the government isn't subsidizing it anymore however there is a projected $200 billion deficit over the next decade.

      That link seems to be skewing a lot of information.

    4. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Not paid for by tax dollars sure, but it's hard to say self sufficient when they're losing money hand over fist.

    5. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Cryptosporidium · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, let's revisit that idea. From the section titled "The Postal Service is self-sufficient" -- there are two columns. One is for 1942-1971 and one is for 1972-2007. Several things wrong. The most grievous is that the numbers have convenient grouped 35 years of operating costs and revenue together. The second is that your stats still show a net loss of $600 million dollars for those 35 years.

      But, addressing the more important point, the decline of demand for mail delivery services has happened in the age of the internet. Let's break those out by year instead of grouping them together in a three decade chunk. And instead of citing a website from the National Association of Letter Carriers, let's use the actual financial report from the USPS.

      Financial Highlights -- FY2009

      Observe net loss.

    6. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note there is no detail of their expenses. Last time I checked the USPO didn't pay for all kinds of things, such as property (ie, rent on their shitty facilities). It's far from self-sufficient in the normal sense of that term, they are heavily subsidized. It's possible this has changed but I seriously doubt it.

    7. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Although if you read down, it kind of looks like they're losing money thanks to a congressional mandate to pre-pay retirement funds. (They're losing a few billion a year and the fund seems to cost $5-6 billion/yr.)

      For that matter, if they're carrying around 150 billion pieces of mail per year (based on their numbers), it seems like raising the price of a stamp one lousy cent would more than erase a piddling $2 billion shortfall.

    8. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States Post Office is self-sufficient

      The National Association of Letter Carriers union wouldn't be biased, would they?

      Note that the numbers they give for the self-sufficiency claim is the total revenue and expenses from 1972 through 2007. So yeah, they approximately break even if you total everything over the past thirty-five years. But this doesn't really tell us anything about how the system has been operating recently, and how the system is likely to operate in the future.

      For comparison, here (PDF) is the USPS's financial statement for 2009. Note that in the last quarter, they lost about $2.4 billion on $16 billion in revenue. Over three quarters, they lost about $4.6 billion on about $52 billion in revenue.

      Any private company that posted such huge losses would try to restructure, renegotiate contracts, lay off workers, etc. to stop the money from hemorrhaging. But if you think GM had problems negotiating with the UAW, you should know that the federal union contracts are even more worker-friendly. So yes, of course the NALC wants you to believe the USPS is healthy. But the Government Accountability Office disagrees--they consider it "high-risk".

      In case you think I'm just spouting conservative/libertarian propaganda, here's an article from that bastion of right-wing thought, the New York Times.

    9. Re:Minus one, just plain wrong by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Er, sorry, 2-cent increase would erase it. Point is, the overall shortfall is recent (past two years) and in the few-percent range. That doesn't seem like much to panic about.

  17. Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by ilsaloving · · Score: 0, Troll

    I love it... They demand access to an external service that directly profits them, but they then turn around and say they shouldn't have to support that service.

    This cliche corporate attitude would be comical if it wasn't so harmful.

    Do they think important services like the post are run by magical fairy slaves or something?

    1. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Huh? I thought the cake was a lie?!

    2. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you get the idea that Amazon does not pay postage (support the service that the post office provides them)?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by garyok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because it's free to put things in the post.

      Oh, wait... The Postal Service don't do it from the grace in their fairy slave hearts, they expect to get paid to deliver the goods, even on a Saturday?! Unless they pay the staff extra on a Saturday, then I can't see what USPS's problem is.

      Dunno about the US, but in the UK about 40% (so I hear) of people are single and don't have anyone waiting in all week for a big parcel to arrive. Saturday's about the only day I can get a parcel delivered to my house. Any other day, and I have to wait a couple of days before collecting it from the depot a couple of miles away.

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    4. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by Enry · · Score: 0

      What nitwit made this insightful?

      Amazon is paying the USPS for delivery. As a customer, Amazon has every right to request that they not cancel Saturday delivery.

    5. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by Zarf · · Score: 1

      How do you get the idea that Amazon does not pay postage (support the service that the post office provides them)?

      Which raises the question... why aren't they just going to raise postal rates for Saturday delivery? I mean... they *are* a business.

      --
      [signature]
    6. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      They pay for delivery (which also pays for gas) and they pay federal taxes. And on the other hand, they don't have buildings or employees in those states.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    7. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      How does the person mailing the item know in advance when the USPS is going to deliver the package?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    8. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by maxume · · Score: 1

      They could just tack on a fee that made the package eligible for 6 day delivery, as opposed to 5 day delivery or whatever (I'd be pretty okay with 4 day delivery, I have approximately 0 highly urgent packages and letters each year).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I would have been a little more sarcastic, it seems sort of obvious that Amazon believes that the post office ships packages in exchange for money, they probably even have a few bills or an account with them or something.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      I am not sure how the US system works with regard to first/second class delivery, but in the UK there used to be such a set up when I lived there. First class ensures a faster delivery, so maybe bundled with a "On Saturdays we will only deliver first class mail" would be an option.

      That said, if you're going to send out delivery staff why not delivery everything you have anyway?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    11. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Well, it's maybe a little sarcastic to say so, but to get people to pay the fee.

      And round and round we go.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    12. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by RotsiserMho · · Score: 1

      While they don't have to pay the staff anymore on Saturday than the rest of the week, there's sizable overhead in managing 5-day work weeks when mail is delivered 6-days a week. By going to a 5-day delivery schedule, they can save on all of the overhead and assign one carrier to one route all week. This makes things easier and more efficient all around.

    13. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They just put the package on the front porch here. But I live in the US where the crime is low.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by garyok · · Score: 1

      While they don't have to pay the staff anymore on Saturday than the rest of the week, there's sizable overhead in managing 5-day work weeks when mail is delivered 6-days a week. By going to a 5-day delivery schedule, they can save on all of the overhead and assign one carrier to one route all week. This makes things easier and more efficient all around.

      Wow. The overheads needed to manage a rota must be fucking staggering

      --
      One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
    15. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'If the five-day delivery proposal is not withdrawn,' he added, 'we ask that Congress ensure that Saturday delivery be maintained.'

    16. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Oh, wait... The Postal Service don't do it from the grace in their fairy slave hearts, they expect to get paid to deliver the goods, even on a Saturday?! Unless they pay the staff extra on a Saturday, then I can't see what USPS's problem is.

      USPS's problem is that the additional day of delivery doesn't increase the money they bring in delivering goods (they don't get paid extra for it), and it costs more to spread out the delivery of the same goods over 6-days than it would over 5.

    17. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by RotsiserMho · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised. With vacations, overtime and the union all involved, it can get to be a real mess. The overtime especially as if it's not doled out exactly evenly/correctly, the whole schedule can be affected. Also, they simply have to hire one person for every 5 due to the 6-day schedule who works all the others' off days. They can cut a LOT of cost by eliminating this position altogether.

    18. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      That's "doorstepping" and that's officially not allowed in the UK. If a postie is caught doing it, he'll be disciplined.

    19. Re:Amazon wants their cake and eat it too... by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      Callers office (where you go pick up stuff) in most city delivery offices usually are open from about 6am til lunchtime. Rurals are a different story, but some are open from 6am. I fully understand your problem if your work hours matches your delivery office times exactly. However, you can get it redelivered to another address, or get it sent to a post office of your choosing for collection.

  18. Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not Canada Post, not FedEx, not UPS, not DHL, not Purolator. Nobody delivers on saturday except pizzerias.

    1. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      Not Canada Post, not FedEx, not UPS, not DHL, not Purolator. Nobody delivers on saturday except pizzerias.

      Swiss Chalet, FTW! :)

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    2. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      Not Canada Post, not FedEx, not UPS, not DHL, not Purolator. Nobody delivers on saturday except pizzerias.

      The Royal Mail in the UK deliver saturday. I'd bet other european services do as well.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    3. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and it sucks :(

    4. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Royal Mail used to deliver many times a day in London. And not so long ago (2004) it was twice a day. Sunday collection ended in 2007 :-(

    5. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not true; you can receive Saturday delivery from FedEx if you are willing to pay for it.

    6. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, Pizza Hut sucks!

    7. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was exiled from Grecoville, you insensitive clod!

    8. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I have NEVER had Fedex actually deliver anything to me. They punt it to Canada Post for final delivery.

      Purolator will hand deliver stuff, provided the shipper can figure out where I live.

      UPS takes a fun route through STC and 2 local couriers who will hand deliver on Tuesday or Thursday or I can pick it up at their office.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada you can't even get liquor on Sunday! And, you can't get heath care until you're nearly dead. Even then you have to wait six months.

    10. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by phorm · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true. I remember that *some* postal agencies in Canada will do Saturday delivery (offhand I can't remember which because I don't use it), but they charge an extra fee for Saturday/weekend delivery.

    11. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor do Australia Post.

    12. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by hackiavelli · · Score: 1

      The same for UPS.

    13. Re:Canada doesn't have any saturday deliveries by drkim · · Score: 1

      In the US (many years ago) mail delivery in the big cities (like NY) could reach 6 times a day; so people could sustain a post card correspondence, much like we do emails and texts.

  19. Re:BP to pay for Saturday delivery, loss in postca by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

    I just made a reservation for a campsite on a beach in Maryland. Your friendly neighbors from the north of the Potomac River would like to thank BP for all they're doing for helping you discover our beautiful state.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  20. Who asked Amazon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one, James No One

  21. Private Industry by Manip · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Amazon wants Saturday delivery for its clients then it can continue to offer it using third parties like FedEx. That is what happens in the UK - you get letters six days a week but only parcels five days a week; if you want parcels on a Saturday then you have to pay a private company to do the delivery which Amazon EU/UK offers.

    1. Re:Private Industry by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      Eh? I work for Royal Mail and have worked in several different sites and they most certainly do deliver parcels on Saturdays - no difference to weekdays (only Mailsort 2nd and 3rd class isn't delivered on Saturdays which is a significant amount of letters). It's only because Saturday delivery (either letters or parcels) aren't guaranteed, you pay extra to get your parcel delivered by a different company to get the guaranteed Saturday delivery. For example, if a parcel is posted on Friday first class via Royal Mail, there's a 99% chance it'll arrive on Saturday. You pay extra for that 1%. Stop your FUD.

  22. Re:A better solution by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US Constitution, motherfucker! have you read it?

    "Section 8 - Powers of Congress

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads

    ; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

  23. Re:A better solution by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    Delivery of mail is defined as a function of the Federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  24. They don't need to. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's 17% fewer movies sent and received by Netflix every week. I would expect them to also want more public holidays in a year as well

    They don't need to. From their current Terms and Conditions:

    We reserve the right to process orders and otherwise allocate and ship DVDs among our members in any manner that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine. In addition, we will, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine the quantity of DVDs we purchase for any particular movie, their location within our distribution network and the level of staffing and number of shipments to be processed at each distribution center.

    Every new Terms and Conditions, they're putting things in their agreement that allows them not to give you "unlimited" whatever ....

    There's verbiage in it that limits your "unlimited" online viewing too now.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:They don't need to. by DCheesi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, they can throttle you. But people get annoyed when they do that, and some even wind up canceling the service.

      Getting the USPS to drop Saturday delivery would be a way for them to reduce DVD volume without getting blamed for it.

    2. Re:They don't need to. by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      There's verbiage in it that limits your "unlimited" online viewing too now.

      And the day they start doing that to me is the day I exercise the verbiage the lets me terminate my account. BitTorrent is still free right? :-)

    3. Re:They don't need to. by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > they can throttle you. But people ... wind up canceling the service.

      Reportedly, canceling your subscription and resubscribing a month(?) later eliminates the throttling, as per past /. poster.

    4. Re:They don't need to. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew there was a reason I canceled NetFlix. Well, this is actually just another good reason.

      This, and their agreement to 28 day delays for new releases, are just two of the deal-killer things they have done since I left. No going back for sure now!

      That's 17% fewer movies sent and received by Netflix every week. I would expect them to also want more public holidays in a year as well

      They don't need to. From their current Terms and Conditions:

      We reserve the right to process orders and otherwise allocate and ship DVDs among our members in any manner that we, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine. In addition, we will, in our sole and absolute discretion, determine the quantity of DVDs we purchase for any particular movie, their location within our distribution network and the level of staffing and number of shipments to be processed at each distribution center.

      Every new Terms and Conditions, they're putting things in their agreement that allows them not to give you "unlimited" whatever ....

      There's verbiage in it that limits your "unlimited" online viewing too now.

  25. Re:A better solution by hargrand · · Score: 1

    Abolish the postal service completely.

    I don't think that's necessarily the way to go. However, as I understand it, Federal law is currently structured to give the USPS a monopoly on letter delivery. The Congress has the power to change the law authorizing non-government entities from directly competing with the USPS in that area. If it did so, then the USPS would have to compete on its own merits and it would either fail or succeed on those merits. Either way, we win.

    It is being subsidized by it's competitors FedEx, UPS, and DHL. Why should anyone have to subsidize there own competition?

    I agree in principle, but I think you've got your facts mixed up. While we all subsidize the USPS whenever we buy postage stamps and the like, and if Congress authorizes additional subsidies to prop it up, FedEx et al are all in the same boat, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here

    Oh, that's right the dumbocrats and rethuglicans prefer a large, communist style government rather than a constitutional government.

    Except that same Constitution to which you are referring gives Congress the explicit authority to establish a Postal service. I agree the way it currently exists is braindead, but they have the authority to do it. Oh, and I thought Dumbo was an elephant.

  26. Priority == First Class by crow · · Score: 1

    Remember, Priority Mail is just a marketing name for first class mail. There's no extra priority on it. It's just a marketing push to get people to send packages first class instead of 4th class.

    1. Re:Priority == First Class by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ".. send packages first class instead of 4th class."

      Apparently there is an extra priority.

      Did you even read what you wrote?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Priority == First Class by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Priority Mail is NOT First Class. Priority Mail has a guaranteed 3-day delivery time in the continental US. First Class has no such guarantee. Trust me, you'll be quoted a different price for Priority vs First class.

      As to 4th class - was that a joke?. It typically just goes from Priority, to First Class, Parcel Post, and then down to Letter Rate or Media Mail for items that qualify.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Priority == First Class by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Except technically, your statement doesn't seem to be quite accurate?

      I remember going to my local post office and trying to mail out small packages via "1st. class" instead of "Priority Mail", and depending on the size, both options were indeed offered to me (with 1st. class being slightly cheaper), as well as having the even cheaper "parcel post" rate (SLOW).

      I agree that they've done a lot to blur the lines between the services (larger boxes don't really have a "First Class" option anymore, because they claim it wouldn't be any cheaper than Priority anyway).

      But they do maintain both options as separate entities:

      http://www.usps.com/send/waystosendmail/senditwithintheus/firstclassmail.htm?from=home_mailandshipping&page=firstclassmail

    4. Re:Priority == First Class by Captain+Segfault · · Score: 1

      Media mail is (part of) what used to be called fourth class mail.

    5. Re:Priority == First Class by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      > Priority Mail is NOT First Class. Priority Mail has a guaranteed 3-day
      > delivery time in the continental US. First Class has no such guarantee.

      If you read the fine print, neither does priority mail.

      Heck, the USPS themselves advertise that 3-day time only for "most domestic destinations". That's not just "continental US excluding Alaska and Hawaii". (That would be understandable and is an easy and common enough exclusion to be explicit about.) That's "we'll get around to delivering your "priority" mail when we damn well please and you can eat it". I once had a package sent to me "priority" mail, and it took eleven days!

      And just try making a claim against the post office when you get your "priority" mail in four days or more. You'll get about as far as nowhere.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    6. Re:Priority == First Class by crow · · Score: 1

      No, Priority Mail is not guaranteed to be in a given time frame. Last I checked, it was advertised as "Usually 2-3 days," which happens to be the exact same as what they rate first class mail delivery as being.

      The price Priority Mail differently, but from a handling perspective, it's the same.

    7. Re:Priority == First Class by crow · · Score: 1

      Yes, the price and market Priority Mail separately, but the whole idea of Priority Mail is that First Class Mail is usually 2-3 days, and the USPS wanted to encourage people to ship small packages First Class. The whole thing is a marketing gimmick. So yes, in some cases, you are simply paying more for the name "Priority."

    8. Re:Priority == First Class by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      From what I was told years ago at a tour of a USPS location, Priority Mail is handled the exact same as First Class, except that it's sorted first. So, most of the time, it gets there just as quickly. But sometimes, it'll get there a day earlier if they had too much volume that day to sort. There's no guarantee of delivery time, however.

      Of course, there's another big difference between the two. First Class can only handle packages up to 13 ounces. For anything heavier, you'll need Priority or Parcel Post.

      From what I can tell, Priority is a good way to get a lot of people to spend $4.85 to ship something in the same time that they could have shipped it First Class for less than $2.

  27. End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Friday by Zarf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many USicans only have Saturdays free to run errands. Ending services on Saturday is a burden to them. Ending delivery on any other day of the week would be preferable.

    --
    [signature]
  28. It is so simple to solve this, but they will not. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that the USPS is SOOO slow in innovative thinking.

    First off, the bulk of their costs is in the cities. Why? Because so many of the routes are door to door. Simply have that changed to large postal boxes.

    Likewise, I found out that the majority of postal routes are about 25 miles. This is the IDEAL situation for companies that want to offer electric cars. Create a CJ type vehicle that gets about 40-50 miles on a charge (radio, heater, ac).

    It is really sad how little thought goes into solutions here.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Cushy job they got by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

    Yeah! That shows how hard those postal people work! What, working bankers hours with good salary, bennies and only high school diploma! Priceless!

  30. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I don't see how being free to ruin errands correlates to Saturday delivery.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  31. Bullshit. by pavon · · Score: 1

    That remark in the summary was completely irrelevant to the story. The USPS is entirely self funding - it gets all its money from postage and none from taxes, including all the money spent to support sparse rural areas as mandated by law. Since postage is paid on every item Amazon ships they pay their fair share of it's operating costs just like everyone else who uses it.

    Furthermore, I am paying taxes that pay for roads in my local state, Amazon is paying taxes that pay for roads where their warehouses are located, and gasoline taxes along the way are used to fund federal highway system. They are paying taxes on all the resources they use.

    You can criticize me for not paying sales taxes I owe but tell me again why a company on the opposite side of the country should fund our local parks and schools?

    1. Re:Bullshit. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      tell me again why a company on the opposite side of the country should fund our local parks and schools?

      I think there is a very good case for federalizing school funding because people often move from the state where they receive their education. If cheap states derive all the same long-term economic benefits from good schools in other states as higher-tax states that pay for those schools, it is a race to the bottom for states to defund public schooling, resulting in an overall poorer nation. (E.g. grow up in Rhode Island to get a good education, then move to Texas as an adult to pay lower taxes on the higher income your education helps you earn) In fact I think this has always been a handicap for public education in the US.

  32. Saturday Delivery = Washington Monument Strategy by russotto · · Score: 1

    The USPS has been periodically proposing to cancel Saturday delivery for years. It means they want something -- some subsidy, an increase in rates, whatever. In order to get what they want, they claim that as an alternative to getting it, they'll eliminate something highly visible and desired; Saturday delivery in this case. This ensures they'll get what they want.

    This is called the Washington Monument strategy after the (possibly apocryphal) story of the National Park Service claiming that if it didn't get a certain budget increase it would have to cut costs by closing the Washington Monument.

  33. Competition by zdzichu · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. If they are not satisfied with shipping company offer, they should just switch to another shipping company. Vote with wallet.

    --
    :wq
  34. Charge more for junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they want to make USPS more profitable, eliminate all the discounts for bulk/junk mail and make them pay first class rates.

  35. Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

    The post office is there to maintain good communication. The bigger your country, the more important it becomes.
    70 years ago you could get a letter that says:
    "Dear Son, Father is ill. Please come home as soon as you can make arrangement, Mother."
    Those days are gone. Any critical information you need comes vie electronic device.

    We no longer need Saturday service. Cut it. I would also cut Tues and Thurs, make smaller routes, and get postal workers out of the car and walking again. I would also have the carry a few stamps to sell. Mail 3 days a week is enough to get you everything you need. Emotionally Americans aren't ready for that. We have a lot of pride in the postal service, as it is the best in the world. Cutting Saturday won't change that.

    At some point we will only need package delivery service. Maybe then they won't be needed. That's still years away.

     

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Good by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Screw that, cut monday-thursday and deliver on fri/sat/sun when I'm actually home to sign for packages!

    2. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 1

      business need mail during the week. Plus, the amount of load to carry would probably be too much, so the would need to hire 2 or 3 times more people to deliver that volume.

      DO yo get a lot of packages for the USPS that you need to sign for?

      Maybe cut Mondays. If I was a carrier that's what I would advocate.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  36. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by damnbunni · · Score: 1

    If you need Saturday free to run errands, then you should be IN FAVOR of ending Saturday mail delivery.

    That way you can go run your errands, instead of sitting at the house waiting for the mailman to come.

  37. Who even understands the Post Office any more? by HerculesMO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The argument is common, and one that even Obama has poked fun at -- the Post Office loses money.

    Let's take a step back in history folks -- and realize that the Post Office was not *designed* to make money. It was designed to facilitate the communication between long distances in a organized, logical way. It's a great reason why we have become the powerhouse that we have, because we knew we could rely on legal documents being delivered, because contracts could be signed and sent back, and the legal code behind them was always upheld.

    Fast forward to today -- the need for the post office still exists in a large fashion. I am not arguing against or for Saturday delivery, but it's just a point of annoyance for me, so I am addressing it. What other service in the world can allow you to ship a letter from one remote corner of the country to another for mere cents? The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars. Until the time we go fully electronic, the post office will have a need. That time is not now. You are still "served" in person, you still have to sign contracts by hand, and a multitude of other things that have not yet caught up to the pace of technology.

    So when you think about what the post office has allowed the US to accomplish over the years of its service, take a moment to think that without it, our country would not be nearly as far along as it is, and we have a lot to thank for that. And to boot -- we still need it for the same reasons today.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by linear+core · · Score: 1

      I agree. I have no mod points to give, but this is an important point. Why do we assume the Post Office is supposed to turn a profit? Why does the Post Office think they should turn a profit? Are they a government-subsidized or -run institution, or are they a private industry? Governments and their institutions don't need to make a profit.

      --
      Human beings are the biological version of Von Neumann machines.
    2. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

      The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars.

      Do you think that Americans derive more benefit from sending and receiving packages than they're willing to pay? Why do you suppose that is?

      --
      -Dave
    3. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Because most people don't want to pay for the actual benefits they receive?

      Regards.

    4. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by Sinical · · Score: 1

      The ability for citizens to mail letters and rely on their ability to reach the destination is still hugely important, and one that *should* be subsidized by our tax dollars.

      I disagree. The function is important: the need to subsidize them by tax dollars is separate. I believe opening things to competition under the oversight of a rabid inspection service would lead to the same or better service for the same money: I think it likely there's a lot of waste that can be cut.

      Fedex and UPS are my precedents here, though they of course are not exactly analogous.

    5. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because most people don't want to pay for the actual benefits they receive?

      Have them pay anyway. Another difficult Slashdot problem solved!

    6. Re:Who even understands the Post Office any more? by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but then they will come here and whinge about it!

      I'm not sure which is worse, to be without essential services or that...

  38. How about they really save some money? by GigG · · Score: 1

    I've long thought they could really save some money if they only delivered mail every other day. I'd be more than happy to only receive both home an business mail on odd or even days. With no Saturday delivery at all. And if you really need your mail every day get a PO box.

    --
    Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
  39. Re:Be careful what you ask for? by cob666 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Q. Amazon, can you pay some taxes here? A. No way, we don't want to operate this way. Q. Amazon, what should be we do about the spending problem and the deficit? A. Cut your services. Q. Amazon, we are going to cut the services, happy? A. NOOOOOO!

    The USPS is funded solely by the sale of postage, not tax dollars and thus has NO impact on the deficit. .

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
  40. Amazon will need to step it up, then by Naznarreb · · Score: 1

    Just because Amazon's customers have come to expect Saturday delivery doesn't mean the USPS is obligated to deliver on Saturday for Amazon in perpetuity. If the Sat delivery is cut and Amazon still wants to provide that service, then they will just have to suck it up and use UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc. Cost of doing business.

  41. Re:Be careful what you ask for? by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

    of-course, and the social security money is not used for anything else ever, it just sits there collecting the interest.

  42. I already only don't get mail 2-3 days a week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not just my faltering social life, it's everyone in my apartment complex at the same time. I have also lost packages (but never from amazon), and had several incidents of Netflix DVDs that never arrived or arrived open.

    Yes I have complained. No, I have not seen any improvement. This has been going on since last year.

    Seriously, change the law so Fedex and UPS can stick envelopes in your mailbox. I'm beyond giving a crap about unintended consequences, I just want to get my damn mail on time.

  43. and I need midnight pickup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same reason, except that I work for 7 days a week from dawn until dusk.

  44. Physical World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everything in the world is available as bits on a disk. I hope they just raise rates.

  45. Re:A better solution by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

    Yes, Jules, I have read it. Maybe my reading comprehension just sucks but it looks to me like, when written out longhand it says: The Congress shall have Power To establish Post Offices and Post Roads. That's a grant of power, not a requirement to exercise it.

    I also think it's interesting that they have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, but are only required to uniformly apply duties, imposts and excises. Apparently it's OK to tax Mr. Samuel L. Jackson into oblivion if you don't like his tone.

  46. Re:Saturday Delivery = Washington Monument Strateg by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    The USPS has been periodically proposing to cancel Saturday delivery for years.

    Really? I'd heard that the USPS has been periodically proposing to cancel Tuesday delivery for years, as it's their slowest day.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  47. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Many USicans only have Saturdays free to run errands. Ending services on Saturday is a burden to them.

    How does a lack of Saturday delivery interfere with running errands? I find your comment confusing.

    For comparison, I offer the Canadian system. While delivery only occurs on Monday through Friday, postal services are often available on an extended schedule. Canada Post maintains a network of service counters (often in drug, convenience, and grocery stores) which provide parcel services, sell money orders, and supply copies of frequently-used government documents (passport applications, tax forms). These local outlets also act as pickup points for parcels which are too large for home delivery (the stuff that didn't fit in your mailbox while you were out).

    Many of these counters have extended weeknight hours (beyond typical nine-to-five business hours) and offer Saturday hours; some are even open on Sunday afternoons. (The retailers hosting the counters have probably realized that extended postal hours can attract customers.) In other words, Canadian Saturday-errand-runners have no trouble obtaining postal services, even in the absence of Saturday delivery.

    Letters and smaller parcels can, of course, be sent at any time simply by dropping in a post box.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  48. Re:Be careful what you ask for? by metallurge · · Score: 1

    You seem to be under a misunderstanding of how Social Security works. It has always been pay-as-you-go, namely current workers pay for current retired. People who retired just as the original system went into place paid nothing for their benefits.

    But pay-as-you-go doesn't handle so well a population bubble reaching retirement age compounded by increasing longevity.

    Privatizing SS would not simply be a matter of shifting resources away from government control into private control. It also would shift from pay-as-you-go, compounding the problem for the pay-as-you-go system.

    I don't know why people wish to believe that their tax dollars are being saved away somewhere for use when they retire. It has never been that way. That's simply not how the system works.

  49. Re:A better solution by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I hate to break this to you, wingnut, but the USPS is specifically chartered by the Constiution. You might want to read it some time before you go parroting Rush Oxycontin.

    Arrticle 1, Section 8:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Plus, the post office is self-supporting; your statement that FedEx is subsidizing it is just plain incorrect.

  50. Call me evil by ImABanker · · Score: 1

    But why don't they just raise prices on mail? The amount of junk mail I get seems to indicate that the cost of mailing things to me is too low. I'd much rather get less mail, more reliably.

    1. Re:Call me evil by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      I've seen junk mail sent for $.07. That's just wrong.

    2. Re:Call me evil by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      The problem with raising prices on mail is that it would reduce the volume of mail sent.

      While that theoretically isn't a problem - if there's less mail being sent, there's less cost to the Post Office to move it around, right? - in practice it is, because the USPS isn't allowed to downsize.

      It takes an act of Congress to change anything meaningful in the USPS.

      So while increasing the cost of sending junk mail, and therefore reducing the amount of mail sent, and reducing costs by that amount, might be more profitable... reducing the volume of mail won't actually permit that cost reduction.

      Also, part of the reason junk mail postage is so much lower than letter postage is that the junk mailers presort the junk mail for the post office ahead of time. (That's what CAR RT PRESORT on the labels means.) It's already divvied up in bundles for each mailman, by route. That cuts down labor and processing immensely, so they get a big discount.

  51. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    Actually they are one of the most innovative organizations, and the other delivery services adopt what the USPS does to a lesser degree.

    See this PDF: Postal Electric Vehicles

    In December 1899, a letter carrier tested a Winton electric automobile for mail collection in Cleveland, Ohio. He collected mail from 126 boxes along a 22-mile route in two hours and 26 minutes, during a snowstorm. With a horse and wagon, it usually took six hours.

    In 1901 gas were more useful.

    In 1911, they used electric in New York.

    As parcel post began and packages were heavier, more electric vehicles were needed.

    However by 1917 nearly all commercial vehicles made in the US were gasoline powered.

    I'm guessing you don't remember the 1960s, when they had some electric "mailsters".

    Then again in the early 1970s, the Cupertino post office switched their entire fleet to electric until 1983.

    I'll leave it to you to read the rest, as there's been a bunch of testing since then too, your preposterous criticism notwithstanding.

    However, getting back to the topic at large, eliminating Saturday delivery reduces their relevance, as a primary reason to choose them for delivery IS Saturday. If they get rid of that advantage, the only reason to use them is reliability, and they'll lose even more business to competitors.

  52. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I actually do remember the 60's quite well. However, where I grew up, there were no mailsters. The issue is that they WERE innovative. This current round (well since 2000) has been a joke. They simply do not take care of matters. Killing sat. WILL kill them. Instead, they need to switch back to electrics and lower their labor costs.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  53. Bullshit argument by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you miss the first day of economics? There's always downward pressure on prices. Any increased costs may be passed on to the consumer, but not always. The business that finds ways to absorb the tax increase without passing it on is the one that will probably sell more product.

    But since a quarter of large corporations - $50m in sales or $250m in assets - don't pay any income taxes at all due to loopholes and offshore sheltering schemes, you're right: if they ever started to pay taxes, prices might go up.

    And if corporations had to pay taxes for the infrastructure that enables them to be in business, I don't think that would be unfair. And if a business can't afford the burden of the infrastructure, guess what: they shouldn't be in business unless they serve to lower costs of vital services for the rest of the economy. And even then, since they exist entirely at the grace of tax payers, they should have no right to any amount of privacy.

    1. Re:Bullshit argument by jriding · · Score: 2, Informative

      And where would they be moving to??
      "Global economy" Fine sent from Europe. Guess what tariff on the goods coming in from out of the country would out way the "cheaper" cost of the goods. So consumers in the US would still by at a higher price then from another country. So the company that just moved would then close down.

      Why do you think in a global economy most companies that do business globally have an office or plant located in that country.
      So it can be made there and avoid the import costs.

      I always did love the straw man of "well then we will move and people will be out of a job".
      The Mining industry is claiming that big time if they are taxed they will move, and people will loose jobs.

      How does one move a mine to a different state and still have the product (gold, diamonds, silver, etc) at the bottom of the mine?

      --
      love the taste, hate the texture
    2. Re:Bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss the first day of economics?

      Did you miss the first day of economics? Whomever pays for price increases depends on price elasticity.

    3. Re:Bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your whole post is Fail because you missed the fact that Amazon is refusing to collect *sales tax* on behalf of consumers. By its nature, sales tax is passed down to consumers.

    4. Re:Bullshit argument by sco08y · · Score: 0, Troll

      Any increased costs may be passed on to the consumer, but not always.

      That's why I said "consumers and investors". Since you seem rather skeptical of corporations, riddle me this: when they magically "absorb" these increased burdens, do you think it's going to be due to some brilliant synergy discovered by an intrepid MBA, or do you think they just worked it into the next round of nickel and diming everyone on the bottom of the food chain?

      And even then, since they exist entirely at the grace of tax payers, they should have no right to any amount of privacy.

      Really? People don't have an inalienable right to the freedom of association?

    5. Re:Bullshit argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of problems. First, taxes are fairly indiscriminate. So you can't go to a competitor and avoid the tax hike. Because the competitor is subject to the tax too.

      Second, corporations can pass on the tax hike in ways other than a price hike. If they cut costs on QA in order to make up for the funds lost to the tax, that is passing the tax hike on to consumers without raising the price tag.

      Third, if the corporation passes the cost on to its employees through lower wages, fewer benefits or whatever, then the corporation has a correspondingly lower draw to potential employees. They end up with slightly less quality employees who generate slightly worse or slightly less product. Which.. is sent to retail for consumers.
      If they, instead, elect to pass the cost on to stockholders, that stock is less valuable and the company is valued lower, making it more difficult to raise funds for large projects. So they expand slower or do less R&D. Both of which are passed to the consumer in the form of relatively less availability or slower tech progress.

      You can monkey with the variables endlessly, but about the only thing you can't ever do is leave the consumer unaffected by the changes.

    6. Re:Bullshit argument by copponex · · Score: 1

      Since you seem rather skeptical of corporations, riddle me this: when they magically "absorb" these increased burdens, do you think it's going to be due to some brilliant synergy discovered by an intrepid MBA, or do you think they just worked it into the next round of nickel and diming everyone on the bottom of the food chain?

      There is nothing magic about it. If you have been selling your product for one price point - adjust for inflation, usually - and you have the choice between pricing yourself out of a certain volume or canceling the Catalina Wine Mixer, that's a choice you make. Either way, the taxes get paid.

      Really? People don't have an inalienable right to the freedom of association?

      No, a group of people who have formed a corporation that is insolvent do not have any constitutional rights to continue to be insolvent.

      I have a serious question: have you ever read anything that doesn't cater to your own preconceptions about business?

    7. Re:Bullshit argument by PsychoticSpoon · · Score: 1

      But since a quarter of large corporations - $50m in sales or $250m in assets - don't pay any income taxes at all due to loopholes and offshore sheltering schemes...

      Kudos on citing your source, but you're completely misrepresenting what the article says. The article states that, overall, two thirds of corporations don't pay income taxes, meaning that large corporations are actually better at paying taxes than other corporations. Furthermore, the article states that the "vast majority of the large corporations that did not pay taxes had net losses... and thus no income on which to pay taxes". Claiming that large corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes and sheltering schemes is patently false.

    8. Re:Bullshit argument by copponex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article states that, overall, two thirds of corporations don't pay income taxes, meaning that large corporations are actually better at paying taxes than other corporations.

      Those corporations barely make any money - they are created mostly for legal reasons. How are they going to pay taxes?

      Claiming that large corporations don't pay taxes because of loopholes and sheltering schemes is patently false.

      That's a parroted statement from the conservative think tank mentioned in the article, which has every reason to continue the charade about "net losses." Take a look at a more recent article:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011602602.html

      Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations -- including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery -- have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found.

      American International Group, Bank of America, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley are among the companies that are getting bailed out by U.S. taxpayers while having subsidiaries in locations where they can avoid paying U.S. taxes, according to the Government Accountability Office.

      Of the 100 largest public companies, 83 do business in tax-haven hotspots like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands, where they can move their income into tax-free accounts. ...The Treasury estimates that it loses $100 billion a year in tax revenue as a result of companies shipping their income off shore, and congressional leaders are vowing to introduce legislation forcing big companies to pay full freight.

      The GAO did not independently review company transactions to see if the companies purposely created tax-haven businesses to avoid U.S. taxes. But it said that historically, offshore subsidiaries are used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view.

      So, 83% of the Fortune 100 does a lot of business in "tax-haven hotspots.. historically used for reducing tax costs and shielding transactions from public view." Interested in evading US taxes through loopholes? You can even go shopping for holding companies: http://www.lowtax.net/

      Kudos on reinforcing your biases through sheer repetition of lies. Oh, and the credulity! I'll bet you're never out of stock of that, eh?

  54. Re:A better solution by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

    but are only required to uniformly apply duties, imposts and excises. Apparently it's OK to tax Mr. Samuel L. Jackson into oblivion if you don't like his tone.

    Not originally: "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

    Of course, the 16th Amendment got rid of the apportionment requirement.

  55. Postmaster General got $800k in pay plus perks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in 2008. From 2006 to 2008, his salary increased 40%. This despite the post office's constant budget woes, and dire economic warnings causing a freeze in postal employee pay. Life is good at the top!

  56. Start your own post office. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    It's about time that people realize that the Postal Service monopoly on the delivery of mail to mailboxes is a crime.

    Amazon has the resources to start its own delivery service. Or to partner with someone like FedEx to get it done.

    It would expand both of them, and kill the famously inefficient USPS system.

    1. Re:Start your own post office. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Oh please.
      the USPS move more mail more efficiency then any private company.
      It also gets the mail to more places.

      It's one of the MOST efficient systems in the world.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Start your own post office. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      UPS and FedEx are both better at it. And they're in the same industry, so the USPS's "efficiency" isn't impressive.

    3. Re:Start your own post office. by winwar · · Score: 1

      "UPS and FedEx are both better at it."

      No they aren't. I can send a document accross the country for 44 cents in a matter of days to ANY address. For an extra $2.80 I can get proof of mailing and receipt. For an extra $1.10 I can get a physical receipt sent to me. UPS and FedEx can't beat that.

      UPS and FedEx don't compete with the USPS to deliver letters because they can't deliver to mailboxes. They don't do it because it makes no sense from a business case.

    4. Re:Start your own post office. by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      USPS processes 584 million items per day (from USPS.gov)
      UPS processes 15.1 million packages and documents per day (from UPS.com)
      FedEx Express (ground is a separate entity) processes 2 million packages per day.

      You were saying?

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    5. Re:Start your own post office. by blair1q · · Score: 1

      UPS and FedEx sure can deliver anything anywhere "in a matter of days", and give you online tracking of it every step of the way, including a picture of the signature of the person receiving it.

      They get $20 for it instead of $0.40 because they're Better At It, and they know you'll agree with your wallet even if your mind doesn't externalize it.

  57. Simple solution by mordred99 · · Score: 1

    I sit here and read most of these responses, and wonder why this is a big deal. There are two things that come to mind. 1) Saturday delivery does nothing but add another day to get something in the mail. If it was a priority, it could have been delivered (via higher rate) on a previous day. If you need it on Saturday, pay for it to be delivered on that day. What you are complaining about is just you don't want to pay more for a service that typically has been provided for the cheap. 2) Post Office used to mean letters. In the last couple decades, it became packages, boxes of Christmas presents, books, DVDs from Amazon, etc. Let the companies that have infrastructure for that, handle that. There is a UPS and FEDex for large boxes. Now if you limit what can be sent, then you don't have to worry about trucks being full, and packages overflowing boxes, etc. Limit it to things that can fit in to a defined, mailbox. If they don't have to get out of the truck or go to the door, get rid of it. Then you have an efficient system and you have now shifted the burden to other companies and changed the definition of Post. Simple.

  58. Wednesdays by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

    IMHO, Wednesdays suck. It IS "hump" day, but that only counts at quitting time. I don't like mail on Wednesdays.

    I vote: Keep Saturday and turf Wednesday.

    That way the postie foot patrols have work weeks that average only 2.5 days. Who could possibly object?

  59. Why does this make sense? by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Why does suddenly not getting mail on Saturday make sense at all? What about the people who are too busy to send OUT mail and USPS packages except on Saturday? Are they going to close the post offices entirely for the weekend?

    For that matter, why does less than one tenth of one percent of online stores let you select the UPS/FedEx Saturday delivery option? I almost want to say I'd prefer that to USPS Saturday delivery, but really, anything I have coming USPS is often international and taking a god-long time to arrive anyway, so I kind of like having that extra day each week that it can show up... :(

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Why does this make sense? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Canada post has never (At least as long as I've been around) had Saturday delivery, but the post office is open 7 days a week.

      Seems like that would work fine for you.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  60. End it on Wednesday, not Saturday by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    If we have to go to a 5 day delivery, then we should make it MT-TFS-

    Making the two days we don't deliver in a row is RIDICULOUS. Yes, it simplifies the postal carriers time off, but they already have ways of dealing with that. Wednesday/Sunday off gives a MUCH better service than Saturday/Sunday. SS off means that a one day delivery sometimes take 3 days, triple the time, as opposed to a WS off schedule which only turns 1 dya into 2 days. This is a real difference.

    Or at the very least make it TWTFS.

    Saturday delivery lets people that work go to the post office on their day off. This can be very very important if you work.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  61. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by the+phantom · · Score: 1

    My guess is that original poster assumes that a lack of Saturday delivery also implies that post offices will be closed on Saturdays. Thus it would be impossible to pick up packages at the post office on a Saturday. Since many people only have the weekend off, they would be unable to pick up packages, thus anything requiring a signature would be very difficult to collect.

  62. Bingo! by davebarnes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The USPS is running a huge deficit and dropping Saturday delivery does not fix the problem.
    The problem is falling revenue and too many employees.

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
  63. Pick a different day by ionymous · · Score: 1

    From an average joe point of view, I think I'd rather have no mail delivered on a mid-week day like Wednesday versus Saturday. This would avoid having two consecutive days of no mail. But I guess businesses wouldn't like to receive no mail on a business day.

  64. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You really have no clue, do you?
    There is a lot of innovation done at the USPS. It's all in the tech you never see. If they didn't innovate they could not do the volume of mail they currently deal with.

    The bulk of their costs are rural areas, actually.

    Postal service has natural gas and electric cars. They have been at it for years.

    "It is really sad how little thought goes into solutions here."
    yes, yes it is.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  65. A modest proposal by PPH · · Score: 1

    Have the USPS skip deliveries on one weekday. Monday would be my preference.

    From what I've seen, many businesses use private postal delivery services anyway. These pick up the clients' mail from PO boxes and drop off outgoing mail. So the post office would only have to keep the office open.

    Residential customers are more likely to miss Saturday delivery anyway (when they're home) than a weekday, when it just sits in the mailbox until people get home from work. Critical outgoing mail could still be handled at the post office.

    In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence.

    I don't know what this has to do with anything. The USPS is a federal organization. It has nothing to do with revenue attached to individual states.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  66. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Yes, magic electrics, that will solve everything because they are free to operate and certainly don't require massive redesign of there parking structure to deliver all the power to charge the vehicles.

    Get rid of Saturday. It will not 'kill them'

    You are a complete moron to think the USPS doesn't run these numbers to use the most cost effective methods do carry out the congressionally mandated task.

    half a billion pieces of mail proceed every day, but clearly they don't know what they are doing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  67. Good by helix2301 · · Score: 0

    I am glad amazon is pushing for this I really do not want Saturday mail to go away.

  68. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    Yeah similar here in Australia (well, at least in my State).

    Australia Post only delivers Monday-Friday as well, but most things you can do at a post office you can also do at a newsagent (North America, as I have discovered, does not really have any equivalent to the stores we call 'newsagents' in Australia/NZ/UK - essentially a place you go to buy newspapers, cards, magazines, stationery etc. - these things are generally not in supermarkets unlike the US).

    And newsagents are a) open 7 days a week; and b) everywhere (as in, every second street corner in urban areas). So it's not really a big deal that the post office itself is closed. About the only reason to go to a real post office these days is if you want to set up a PO Box, or get a passport etc.

  69. How about a mid-week cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a mid-week cut? I'd rather not receive mail on a Wednesday than on a Saturday, especially for my Netflix. Just due to time constraints, we watch more movies on the weekends. The fewer movies that Netflix is able to send, the more likely I am to get the movies from other places, possibly canceling my Netflix subscription if they're unable to meet our needs.

    1. Re:How about a mid-week cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am never home mid-week to receive USPS packages; Saturday delivery for these makes much more sense than delivery on a Wednesday when (most) people are at work, not at home.

  70. But it's not "well functioning" by gerardrj · · Score: 1

    The US Post Office is fundamentally ill functioning and needs to be torn down from the inside out.

    The Post Office is not a corporation. It has no functional reason to "grow" each year like a for-profit corporation. Stagnation in the growth of revenue or business at the USPO has no negative effects on the organization, its customers or the government.

    The USPO doesn't "get" that. They are continually seeking ways to grow revenue. They advertise their services just like a for-profit corporation. They act like they need to grow or die.

    One major side effect of this mentality is that the Postal Service tries to show how necessary it is by increasing the number of mail pieces it handles. With the advent of the Internet the number of mail pieces started to drop as people elected to receive documents via email instead of as physical mail. The USPO saw their business decline. Instead of just working with that and scaling back operations, they decided to court more direct marketing mail. Of course to do this, they had to lower the price of the mailings to make it attractive to marketers, so the mass-mailers are subsidized by the users of first class and express mail services. Some argue the other way around, but they are wrong. If first class mail where to go away (due to customer's going elsewhere) the discounted direct-mail service could not survive on its own.
    One of the ways that the USPO gets mass marketers to use reduced rate bulk mail is by refusing to certify many new housing communities as urban delivery routes. See, if a community is on an urban route the sender must purchase, assemble and maintain a mailing list. Each address on an urban route must be unique on each mailing piece. By designating a community as a rural route the rules change and a simple address such as "ECR/RCW" is all the address you need as a mail marketer.

    If the Postal Service were to get back to its roots, stop courting junk-mailers, and simply exist and the government agency for allowing citizens to communicate with each other, the size would be much smaller, the costs lower and all this non-sense about no Saturday delivery would end.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  71. Er... Federal State / State ahm Federal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dunno why the idiot dragged in the state level commentary wrt sales taxes and other things, which I happen to completely agree with as this case revolve around a FEDERAL services, i.e. NOT a local state service. There's a very distinct difference here in areas of authority.

    Amazon does contribute to that service as do we all when we pay federal taxes and/or use USPS to mail letters and packages.

  72. Wimps by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Funny

    The difference between Amazon and Netflix is that Netflix product fits comfortably in a mailbox.

    This just tells me that USPS employees are wimps ;)

    Seriously, at one point, after getting used to ordering games and movies from Amazon and finding the DVD case in an envelope that just about fit through the mailbox slot, I order IIRC City Of Villains. The game was packed in one of those big cardboard boxes, instead of the DVD cases we've got for the last half a decade. It was easily twice as thick as the mailbox slot. The German post employee had obviously not been deterred by that, and had managed to actually shove the damned thing half-way through that narrow slot.

    I had gained proper appreciation for the awesomeness of said employee while trying to get it out. It was so firmly jammed in the slot, that it wouldn't go either forward or back at all, no matter how hard I pulled or shoved. I had to tear the box apart, partially working through the slot at that, and retrieve its contents piece-wise. It wasn't just that the cardboard box was thicker than the slot, but the sum of what was inside, you know, manual and CDs and all, was actually thicker on the whole than the slot.

    (And while I'm at being awed by employees, having to work through that narrow slot also gave me a new perspective and a deep respect for gynecologists;))

    I'm thinking it must have been the kind of guy who, when asked to fit various geometric figures through various shaped holes in kindergarten, thought it was a test of strength.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  73. Heh. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, most of us in the world outside the US have never had Saturday postal delivery. Where I grew up in the Channel Islands, we got it over the Christmas period, but that was it. And here in Australia, you usually won't even get a courier delivery on a Saturday. I guess it's the unions' way of telling us to take time to sniff the roses.

  74. Re:A better solution by sorak · · Score: 1

    Thank you for setting the record straight. I have been trying to come up with a non-troll response to this "lower taxes and we ain't doing shit for nobody! It's in the Constitution" rhetoric, but sometimes you just have to bring the facts.

  75. "Socializing costs, Privatizing Benefits" by assertation · · Score: 1

    Is Amazon willing to foot the bill of keeping those deliveries going?

    Pay attention to this phrase, you will here a lot of organizations who preach for reduced government involvement hypocritically ask for this:

    "Socializing costs, Privatizing Benefits"

    In other words, we the tax payers use our money to help a business run as it is and when they reap the benefits, they keep the benefits.

    1. Re:"Socializing costs, Privatizing Benefits" by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      something publicly subsidized AND privately profitable? no way! that could never happen in america. oh, wait..

      --
      ...
  76. Re:Be careful what you ask for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in this case:

      'If the five-day delivery proposal is not withdrawn,' he added, 'we ask that Congress ensure that Saturday delivery be maintained.'

    Happy?

  77. The Wrong Day by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Why not deliver on Saturdays and halt deliveries on Mondays and Thursdays? After all Mondays are frequently postal holidays already and we could have two days of non delivery. Saturday is another issue. Many working people are at home on Saturdays to sign for mail and packages and they are not at home during the week.
              But behind all of this is the simple fact that our economy is crushed. In a sense we have both inflation and deflation at the same time. For example if we inflation adjust wages most workers have not made a real gin since 1970. But look at the price of products and the degree to which it has inflated. The real deal is that we have a progressive income tax system and sales taxes also swell as product prices rise. So when the apparent wage of a worker rises he forks over more in income taxes. Then when a coke costs him over one dollar whereas he used to buy a coke for five cents the sales taxes collected are much higher as well. We really should have laws that auto shrink the income tax if inflation exists so that the government has a great reason to hold down prices. In the current mess the government can only be pleased as prices rise.

  78. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Likewise, I found out that the majority of postal routes are about 25 miles. This is the IDEAL situation for companies that want to offer electric cars. Create a CJ type vehicle that gets about 40-50 miles on a charge (radio, heater, ac).

    First of all, the USPS already runs tons of alternate-fuel vehicles.

    Secondly, the cost of gas is minuscule compared to the cost of labor. The budget problem is from labor costs, so unless those cars drive themselves and have long bendy robot arms that can reach mailboxes, your alternate fuel ideas are useless for solving the current problem.

    It is really sad how little thought goes into solutions here.

    You shouldn't type stuff like this. It's so hard to resist making the obvious cheap-shot...

  79. Liquor on Sundays? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Live in Ontario?
    In BC they allowed private liquor stores. In terms of privatization it's probably one of the few moves I've agreed with. The gov't stores are closed on Sundays, but the private ones are still open (though often close earlier).

  80. Expect? by MagPulse · · Score: 1

    How can Amazon customers expect Saturday delivery when they can't even know which of USPS/FedEx/UPS will be handling their package?

  81. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada has something like "newsagents" in malls (small stores that generally only sell newspapers, magazines, tobacco, and soda pop). I haven't really seen them elsewhere, though.

  82. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    *Facepalm*, my apologies, I was presuming young ignorance, not older stubbornness.

    Fully half of the article linked previously is 1990s and on. Do I really need to copy/paste the entire thing? Sorry, so not going to happen.

    Ford electrics, Jeep electrics, Solectria CitiVans, then after 2000, Daimler-Chrysler electrics, Ford Ranger electrics, heck even multiple versions of electric scooters from Segways to three wheeled versions with trailers.

    "Although electric vehicles represented only a small fraction of the Postal Service’s delivery fleet in 2008, together with other types of alternative-fuel vehicles they constituted nearly 20 percent of its 220,000 vehicles... ...representing the largest civilian fleet of alternative fuel-capable vehicles in the world"

    My condolences your assumption is inaccurate.

  83. cut military spending by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    perhaps if we cut down the welfarish jobs program that is the military-industrial complex, we could spend the money elsewhere. we do not need bases all over the place, and we don't need all of these arms manufacturers sucking on the government teet. seriously, we could cut it in half, and still be spending fathoms more than most other countries. too bad it would be political suicide.

    --
    ...
  84. just screw analog transfer by net28573 · · Score: 1

    I say just reduce the days and increase the rate of transfer by implementing a pressurized tube transfer system like on futurama. that would solve the delivery time and the cost.

    --
    RIP TRICERATOPS, YOU NEVER EXISTED
  85. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Alternative fuel is normally natural gas and/or ethanol. If you look at the expense of these, you will find that their prices are tied to gasoline. Gas/diesel go up, and so do the alternative fuel. OTH, electricity has an indirect relationship. More importantly, the USPS can buy the energy at night so that the cost per mile is a fraction of what gas is (see tesla's website). Heck, even at .25 kw/hr, it is still much cheaper than gas.

    In addition, you will missed the fact that I was addressing the issue with postal services high labor costs. In particular, a large issue according to a friend of mine that delivers in Ft. Collins, Co. is that doing door-to-door represents a VERY high cost. Therefor, by dropping the door-to-door they save a LOAD of money. It will not be the roughly 1/10 - 1/12 that cutting sat would save (and losing sat does not cut 1/6 of their costs as expected since they already have so many fixed expenses), but it would be sizable. My condeolences on your lack of having thought about this.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  86. The slippery slope? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know where this leads, because I have seen it. In Australia, we used to have a great postal system. Reliable, cost effective and with deliveries six days a week.

    Then they canceled Saturday deliveries. They removed many post collection boxes. More than half of the mail addressed to me started to never arrive. Sending a letter between major cities (say Sydney and Melbourne) typically took a week or two, should it ever arrive at all.

    Then I moved to Japan. People here thought I was strange because I would hand deliver documents rather than drop them in the post. You see, I'd been trained by many years of appalling service to *never* trust the postal service. It took me years to get over this, and start using the post again as a matter of course.

    The postal system in Japan is a great model. Deliveries 7 days a week, often twice a day. If a package needs signing for and I'm not home, I can call up and make an appointment for them to come back, and they'll always show up on time. The post office just down the road is open 24/7, all year and there are post collection boxes everywhere. Letters posted in the morning often arrive the *same* day.

    Amusingly, when I send tracked mail from Japan to major Australian cities, the mail usually gets to Australia in one day and then actually gets delivered about one to two weeks later. This, by the way, is what Australia Post calls "express" service. I guess they think "express" means delivered... eventually.

    Here's the deal. When the post office wants to cut just basic one service to "save money", it is really the top of a slippery slope. They will keep cutting just one small thing after another, over the course of many years, until the postal system is only good for junk mail. Society then pays the cost both in terms of propping up a completely useless postal system *and* paying private companies to do the post office's job.

    It would be a shame if the USA made the same mistake as Australia.

  87. deficit? by jwiegley · · Score: 1

    Easy. Stop carrying bulk mail. Raise envelope postal rates to $2 per message. I'll easily pay $50/year additional to not get junk bulk mail.

    But basically... they're screwed. We shouldn't be sending anything that can fit in an envelope anymore. Send it as a PDF or email instead. Then you could simply restrict deliveries to individual recipients instead of long routes. Turn USPS into UPS.

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
  88. Drop Tuesday and Thursday Home Delivery by tengu1sd · · Score: 1

    Home mail delivery could be dropped on Tuesday and Thursday. Maintain Saturday, which allow you to get that Netflix fix for the weekend. Home service to 4 days a week shouldn't present an issue. Business and PO Box delivery can be maintained on a 6 day schedule. This gets rid of the home route delivery twice a week. If you really need that daily mail fix, rent a PO box or a private mailbox at a business.

    I used to travel, frequently without much notice and have had a PO box for years. I check it 3 or 4 times a month. I know when bills come in, although that's generally internet based now. Any mail that comes to the house can be assumed to be junk mail, aside from Netflix. Does paper mail have time based significance any more?

  89. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by bsa3 · · Score: 1

    My local post office (Yakima, WA) is only open Monday through Friday, 0800-1730. Where US post offices are open on Saturday, they're almost never open late enough that you can actually pick up a package on Saturday after an attempted delivery on the same day. I'd go for weekday delivery only in exchange for the post offices being open a minimum of twelve hours a day, seven days a week.

  90. Poor sod. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mail all my stuff to my office. Failing that I redirect it to the closest Post Office and collect it there....

  91. Re:It is so simple to solve this, but they will no by RJFerret · · Score: 1

    Thanks! I appreciate your condolences, albeit not for my choice to limit the extent of our sidetrack... ;-)

  92. What's different? by slapout · · Score: 1

    They've delivered mail on Saturday for decades. Why can't they do it now?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  93. Not hypocritical at all by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 1

    | In the past, Amazon has argued that it should not have to help support public services in states in which it has no physical presence.

    I'm disappointed in the !nothypocrit tag and this piece of text in the story.

    Amazon pays postage, just like everyone else who sends stuff thru the USPS, at the same public rates as everyone else. They *are* paying for this particular public service.

    It seems to me that the editor is trying to spin the story, either for his own biases, or just to generate argument.

  94. Re:End mail delivery on Monday, Wednesday, or Frid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't work that way in the United States. The post office opens after I'm in my cubicle for the day, and I'm not at another one until after they're closed at 5:30 PM on weekdays. The extended weekday hours you mentioned don't exist. The only thing you can do when the post office is closed is drop something in a mailbox or, if you have a PO box, go and get your stuff out with your PO box key. Maybe buy stamps from an automated machine.

    I'd actually be plenty happy for mail not to move on Saturday if there was some better extended-hour availability for other services. I'd literally have to take vacation time to pick up a missed package at the post office if they weren't open on Saturdays.

  95. The answer is simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop using USPS. FedEx and UPS deliver on Saturday. That's probably not what USPS wants to hear though....