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 'If the five-day delivery proposal is not withdrawn,' he added, 'we ask that Congress ensure that Saturday delivery be maintained.'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.'"
The difference between Amazon and Netflix is that Netflix product fits comfortably in a mailbox.
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.
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.)
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?
Monday through Friday, I leave for work before our local Post Office opens and leave from work after it closes.
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)
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
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
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]
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.
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.
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
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.