Slashdot Mirror
Adapting the Post Office To the Digital Age
Hugh Pickens writes "Paul B. Carroll and Chunka Mui write in the Washington Post that with projected deficits through 2020 of $238 billion, the debate over potential changes at the US Postal Service is like a fight over the dessert bar on the Titanic: email has already supplanted letters, more people will send money via PayPal rather than mail checks, people will download their movies and books, check their bills online, and receive information about their investments electronically. Delivery volume for first-class mail fell 22 percent from 1998 through 2007, tumbled an additional 13 percent last year and was down 3 percent in the first half of this year despite heavy mailings from the Census Bureau. USPS's future lies in things that need to be delivered physically: shoes, computers and other objects, and the USPS has assets that could let it take on UPS and FedEx. 'USPS needs to start with the future and work backward to the present,' write Carroll and Mui. 'It needs to forecast volumes for all types of its business five, 10 and 15 years out and design a business model that will thrive under those scenarios. Only then can it figure out what radical changes need to be made now.'"
The first thing that needs to be done is to remove the artificial monopoly congress created for the USPS making it so they are the only ones that can deliver first-class mail, once this happens more people will use mail (USPS or otherwise) because the inefficiency will be gone because it will either be deliver or go broke.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I translate that into 'internet email tax' or 'online bill pay tax'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Some of us need an alternative to PayPal... Online only works for those who carry the mark of the beast (have a bank, or PayPal account, or a credit card)
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
That would be... a lot of people.
Last edited by: "GP, over on Slashdot. Nah-nah, told ya so!".
A lot of people here are whining that the post office charges too much. So why don't you call UPS or Fed Ex and see if they'll ship a 1 pound package from Supai, Arizona 86435 to Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 for the same $4.95 that the USPS will charge for flat rate Priority Mail.
And don't even get me started on first class mail. Even if they were allowed to carry it, I'd be willing to bet money that UPS or Fed Ex would laugh in my face if I expected them to deliver a letter just from one side of town to the other for 44 cents.
For some mail and packages, yes, UPS and Fed Ex can do it cheaper. But for *many* places and types of mail, USPS is a freaking bargain (and that's why it doesn't make money).
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
To my mind, that's just the trade-off you get in exchange for the advantages of living out in the middle of nowhere...
You get things like a larger house on a much larger lot, easy access to lakes, forests or whatever, peace and quiet, a lower crime rate, cleaner air, less traffic, and so on. I get broadband, culture, good restaurants, a nightlife, public transit, and other such services.
Imagine all the people...
The article starts from a false assumption: that the postal service must be profitable, or at least break even.
Framing the issue this way has nothing to do with what the USPS should or should not carry, or how much they should charge.
Why is that so for the postal service but not for the military, department of transportation, or most any other government agency that provides a service? Universal free mail delivery is something that the citizens of the US want -- or at least did at one time. As a government service, it's something taxpayers agree to pay for.
Now clearly the two authors of this article, management consultants, have a different view of that need. Perhaps they are ideologically inclined to expect that government services should break even or better, in which case, they ought to take on a real challenge and explain to the Pentagon how they can "save" the armed forces. Or perhaps they have a financial interest in private delivery services like FedEX and UPS, who knows? It's clear from early in the article, "Should the federal government continue to compete against the private sector?" that the authors have a sense that somehow there's money to made for UPS, FedEx, and other private delivery services if the postal service was forced to compete on the same level as them. I'm sure they wouldn't advocate for reforming USPS if they thought it would take money away from the private sector.
In any case, before people go trying to reform USPS, let's first decide if we want to continue to support the current expectation of free (for the recipient) door-to-door mail service for everyone in the country everywhere. If citizens clearly want that, then budget (and tax) for it, and shut up about billion dollar "losses" that pale compared to the "losses" racked up by other services we expect as a modern nation. On the other hand, if the country decides that hey, we don't need to deliver everywhere any more, then go ahead, revamp the postal service to be just another profit-motivated competitor.
Well honestly, why should you expect to live way out in the countryside and expect to have mail delivered to your doorstep, any time, for hardly any money? That doesn't seem realistic or efficient long term.
Indeed, which is why we've been doing it that way for a couple of centuries...oh, wait.
There's 2 options, either we consider mail to be a vital part of the infrastructure of the nation and treat it as such, or we keep following the path Reagan and Thatcher have laid out for us and eventually abandon it altogether except where it pertains to junk mail, which we'll collectively block through a sticker on the front door.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The problem is that any government agency or quasi-government agency that works well, that is popular with Americans and has a much higher customer satisfaction rate than any of its private competitors, is a stone in the shoe of the Anti-US Government Right Wing.
Thus, it cannot be allowed to exist because it endangers their world view.
Like evolution. Or global warming.
Basically, if Ronald Reagan, a third-rate actor with Alzheimers, didn't like it, it cannot be allowed to exist.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, I live in the heart of what could be considered fairly right wing territory, and I have yet to hear anyone dis the post office or call for its removal. I think you are classifying "blue" area urban rich people millionaires who are globalists anyway, not nationalists, in with the normal regular folks.
There's really a wide range of opinion here, it isn't all conservative or liberal, and globalists are neither, they are monetarists and fascists, they just latch on to whatever support they can get..like Hollywood "blue" liberal millionaires who still want all their profits private, but want government to protect them as well, ie, xxAA type folks. All for liberal causes, like you mention global warming, but it doesn't stop them running Ferrari, private jets, having huge energy hog mansions, etc. Are they the same "liberal" as some college student eating ramen living in a dorm and walking everywhere?
So you can't really generalize all that much. Heck, I am a rural person, socially liberal, and old time civil rights worker back in the day, but economically conservative, enough so that I think bailing out the banks and GM was a horrid idea, it made no sense from either a right nor a left wing view, but again, wanting some control on mega corporations so they don't usurp government. So, mostly hands off..but let them fail when their biz model fails. What does that make me, liberal or conservative? I like green power a *lot*, I think solar power is our only practical fusion power and should be widely adopted, all the way to 100% tax credits, am one of the few people here who bought solar panels instead of some gaming rig or three, but I also think carbon credits and cap and trade "to fight global warming"!! is not only wrong, but insanely wrong and won't do jack squat to save the environment any, just make wall street skunks like goldman sachs richer, like they really need it. To think they have so many greens faked out on this... Am I liberal or conservative?
I could go on with a lot of other examples, but this left/right deal the uber goons keep trying to force people into, like it is carved in stone you must be one "wing" or the other, is quite destructive and is playing into their hands and is part of their "keep the people divided and conquered" routine.
Left and right have no bearing in today's world if you really think about it, it is globalist billionaires who co-opted government versus their prey animals, which is everyone else. *That* is the real political divide, the one worth noting and working against, because it is so inherently unfair and outright criminal how much they control so called "elected" governments. That other crap is what they want to keep most people trapped in, because that means all the victims point fingers at each other constantly, instead of looking just one more step upstream where the real problems occur, and at that level, there is no "left versus right" that exists very much, they all look and act the same at that level, they are the new aristocrats, or what I call the technofeudalists. Back to the casino bank bailouts, when the shrubbery did it, it was a "right wing" gift to some "right wing" billionaires..but then later on mr. party animal did the same thing....see how it doesn't matter, those labels? All part of the big fake out, along with that ludicrous "don't waste your vote"! and only vote for some hand picked for you candidate from the short list of approved and compromised millionaire globalist candidates. Remember when our big fat choice was between skull and bones frat boy millionaire and skull and bones frat boy millionaire?
Anyway, the post office..most real old fashioned "paleo" conservatives (as opposed to neocons) I know support the Constitution and as such, are in favor of the post office and public roads, the "post roads". It's the globalist already billionaires who want privatized everything, and that notion flows downstream from the mega "blue" areas, like NYC and wall street (for the most part and I am really just generally speaking)