Slashdot Mirror


US Postal Service Discontinuing Saturday Mail Delivery

Hugh Pickens writes "The Postal Service has been losing billions of dollars each year as Americans increasingly rely on online communications that drive down mail volumes. Now, Reuters reports that the Postal Service plans to drop Saturday delivery of first-class mail by August, saving $2 billion per year. 'The Postal Service is advancing an important new approach to delivery that reflects the strong growth of our package business and responds to the financial realities resulting from America's changing mailing habits,' says Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe. But the Postal Service is already facing some pushback for moving forward with delivery schedule changes. 'Today's announcement by Postmaster General Donahoe to eliminate six-day delivery is yet another death knell for the quality service provided by the U.S. Postal Service,' says Jeanette Dwyer, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. 'To erode this service will undermine the Postal Service's core mission and is completely unacceptable.' Package deliveries will continue under the new plan and were a bright spot in a bleak 2012 fiscal year, with package revenue rising 8.7 percent during the year. Donahoe says the changes would allow the Postal Service to continue benefiting from rising package deliveries as Americans order more products from sites such as eBay Inc and Amazon.com Inc."

582 comments

  1. Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only there were some article of the Constitution that could be used as an argument to convince conservatives that the Post Office is a vital national service and that it is okay to pay for it in much the same way as it is okay to pay for a navy.

    I guess one can only wish.

    1. Re:Man, oh man! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If only there were some article of the Constitution that could be used as an argument to convince conservatives that the Post Office is a vital national service and that it is okay to pay for it in much the same way as it is okay to pay for a navy.

      I guess one can only wish.

      Why is Saturday mail delivery a vital national service? Will people die if they don't receive their Victoria's Secret catalog on Saturday?

    2. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      What? Really? All I can say is finally! Waaaaaaaaaayyy less junk mail will get to me and everyone else now (99% of mail I get is junk -- goes right from my mail box straight into the recycling) Sure, there's probably some poor people who depend on this extra day of mail (I know we kinda did as I was growing up), but too bad...

    3. Re:Man, oh man! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? Really? All I can say is finally! Waaaaaaaaaayyy less junk mail will get to me and everyone else now (99% of mail I get is junk -- goes right from my mail box straight into the recycling) Sure, there's probably some poor people who depend on this extra day of mail (I know we kinda did as I was growing up), but too bad...

      How will this affect the quantity of junk mail?

      It's not like the post office is going to throw away all of the mail on Saturdays instead of delivering it. Instead they will hold it and deliver it on Monday. So you'll still get the same amount of mail.

    4. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Preparing to get a Wooosh! but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7. The enumerated powers of the Federal Government include establishing Post Offices. Same section establishes paying for a Navy. The privatization of the postal service was either a delegation or abrogation of the responsibilties of Congress, depending if you take your politics straight or with soda. I'm in the abrogation camp, myself.

    5. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      They should offer that as a service.

      Charge $5/month to act as a spam filter. Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

    6. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's what I don't understand. Was raising the price for junk mail not viable? Part of the problem is that the 1st class mail is being used to subsidize bulk mail and as a result as 1st class mail gets sent less and less the subsidy has become insufficient to cover the cost. I'm somewhat unclear as to why they're not raising the rates on bulk mail.

      Anyways, it's a relatively moot point as USPS tends to do a better job in terms of cost control than UPS and FedEx anyways. USPS is just required to do something that aren't profitable. And surprise, surprise, it's the same greedy rural folks that expect their lives to be subsidized who aren't willing to pay the real rate of delivering to them.

    7. Re:Man, oh man! by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can make this happen right now! I realize this will amaze you, but it's actually simple to implement. You can do it this week, it doesn't even cost anything.

      Are you ready for this amazing technique? It's used by the wealthy and powerful, but I'm exposing their hidden tricks. Again, at no charge to you!

      Don't check your mailbox on Saturday or Sunday.

      Mind blowing isn't it!

    8. Re:Man, oh man! by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Mail doesn't need to be delivered more than once a week. 10 years, yes. Today? No.

    9. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read an article a month ago, about how the US Postal Service could boost the USA economy. It was on qz.com I think.

    10. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      Yet, they will always vote R and complain about those darn inner city welfare cheats when they go cash their SSI checks.

    11. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Then Netflix would have to seriously cut its rates.

      We could of course just make it legal that you may stream any disc you own as a form of rental and that would make me happy. The MPAA would surely complain though.

    12. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Charge $5/month to act as a spam filter. Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

      It will cost more because they'll have to manage the opt-in or opt-out selections for each recipient, and have many someones at each sorting center to actually sort the mail into "spam" and "not spam".

      And this would create yet another spam filter that is not under the control of the recipient, meaning someone else gets to decide for you if you really did want that catalog or not.

      Under email, it was bad enough that my local ISP did this, but they had a way of turning it off. Now they've outsourced all the spam filtering to google and I have to go read the spam email (at least the from and subject) to see if any real email got misclassified (and google is having an unacceptably high false positive rate, IMHO). What good is a spam filter if you have to go read all the spam anyway?

      Imagine trying to find out where that $100 gift certificate that was sent to you via USPS and they filtered into the "round file" for you went to.

    13. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The list can be in a database and the sorting can be done by machine. Just junk anything sent bulk rate.

      Gift cards are going to be sent first class not bulk rate.

    14. Re:Man, oh man! by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Informative

      Part of the problem is that the 1st class mail is being used to subsidize bulk mail and as a result as 1st class mail gets sent less and less the subsidy has become insufficient to cover the cost.
      Ooops, you got that backwards. Bulk Mail prices subsidize first class delivery. But other than that, yes I agree that the prices on bulk mail should go up.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    15. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but they could die (or at least suffer harm) if the mail was something like insulin or heart medication.

      Merrly being snarky does not make a convincing argument.

    16. Re:Man, oh man! by wstrucke · · Score: 1

      Or just pay your kid or your neighbor's kid the $5 to sort your mail. Hell, they'd probably do it for $1.

    17. Re:Man, oh man! by smg5266 · · Score: 0

      Ya and the constitution didn't say anything about a free and open internet either! Dumb nerdy hippies

    18. Re:Man, oh man! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      5 bucks for a USPS spam filter..or free to throw it away.
      yeah, brilliant plan you got there, slick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Man, oh man! by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Charge $5/month to act as a spam filter. Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

      They'll never do that. Companies paying for that crap to be delivered is probably their best source of income for the Post Office. If they offer the receiver a way to opt out, those companies will be less likely to keep sending the stuff.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    20. Re:Man, oh man! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but they could die (or at least suffer harm) if the mail was something like insulin or heart medication.

      Merrly being snarky does not make a convincing argument.

      Being dumb doesn't make a convincing argument either. You don't count on the mail for time / mission critical things. It wasn't designed for it and cannot support it.

      If you have prescription medications that are filled by mail order you're supposed to have a buffer supply. Shit happens. Even Saturday delivery doesn't change that.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    21. Re:Man, oh man! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Think about this for a moment. Suppose its successful and many people hand over $5/month. Thats great they got some new revenue, but even less mail then needs to be delivered, so the downsizing continues at an even faster pace.

      The reality is that fewer and fewer people use the snail, and downsizing is an inevitable and rational result if we care at all about efficiency. If the bulk mail service is being offered at or above cost, then there is no reason to terminate the service other than the hate for junk mail in your box. Thats a separate issue and certainly has merit, but if we are to discuss that issue we need to realize that even more jobs will be lost in the process.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:Man, oh man! by wganz · · Score: 1

      YEAH MAN!
      ARPANET was created by a beatnik that was tripping on acid.

    23. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Or just pay your kid or your neighbor's kid the $5 to sort your mail.

      Or do it yourself for free. It takes me about 2 minutes to sort my mail once a month to pull all the bills and magazines out and toss the rest. If something goes missing in my mail, it's either because I tossed it out by mistake (my fault) or it wasn't delivered at all (major PO fail). If the PO starts throwing my mail away for me, then it will become routine for things to be thrown away by someone not the recipient. You don't want to create that mode of operation as the standard, you want missing mail to be the exception, not the rule.

      As for automatically tossing all bulk mail, that includes those catalogs you really did want, and some of the other mass mailings. It will still not save them that much on delivery, considering the added costs to do extra sorting by recipient. (And there is no guarantee that the gift card will be first class.)

    24. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Thats great they got some new revenue, but even less mail then needs to be delivered, so the downsizing continues at an even faster pace.

      Downsizing due to a lack of volume is fine. Downsizing because the volume is the same but the management can't handle the money well enough to pay enough people to deal with it is not.

    25. Re:Man, oh man! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 4, Informative

      What? Really? All I can say is finally! Waaaaaaaaaayyy less junk mail will get to me and everyone else now (99% of mail I get is junk -- goes right from my mail box straight into the recycling) Sure, there's probably some poor people who depend on this extra day of mail (I know we kinda did as I was growing up), but too bad...

      What the......?

      This only means that a larger chunk of mail (AND junk mail) will arrive on Monday now.

      Need some coffee?

    26. Re:Man, oh man! by Seumas · · Score: 1

      They're not fucking discontinuing service. They're stopping service on ONE day out of the week. Frankly, they did it backwards. Mail should be delivered ONCE per week. Seriously, how much mail do you get via the USPS that is worthwhile? I get junkmail. That's it. Literally, that is it. Anyone who needs to communicate with me uses modern methods. Anyone sending me a package or any company I get something from uses reliable UPS or FEDEX or DHL. Bills are all online. The USPS is a fucking *nuisance*. I have a small trash can by the front door, so that I can get the mail once per week and dump it all directly into the trash. Once per week delivery service is a fantastic way to save a ridiculous amount of money and still provides enough service to facilitate the needs of the country.

    27. Re:Man, oh man! by smg5266 · · Score: 1

      WTF ARPANET isn't anywhere in the constitution, what's wrong with this country??

    28. Re:Man, oh man! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      They should offer that as a service.

      Charge $5/month to act as a spam filter. Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

      Flat price isn't lucrative enough. I see a damn auction coming...

      e.g.

      "Spam delivery is 5/mo, 5/mo, can I get 6/mo, 6/mo for non-delivery? That's 6/mo for non-delivery. Can I get 7, 7, 7/mo for delivery? That's 7/mo for delivery. That's 8 for non-delivery!! 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, can I get a 9 for delivery?"

      I'll pay $20/mo for no junk mail. Violators will have to pay $100 per violation. The USPS is born again! Ah, I'm dreaming. Back to work.

    29. Re:Man, oh man! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      What good is a spam filter if you have to go read all the spam anyway?

      You don't have to hear and/or feel your phone notify you every 2 minutes of an email coming through, 99% of which is SPAM.

      Yes, on my Google account, 99%+ is spam. Only get false positives on mass mailings from valid businesses I deal with, but hey... I'm not missing anything important. :)

    30. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      How will that save the USPS?
      That kid as far as I know is not employed by them.

    31. Re:Man, oh man! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      99% of all politicians send their crap via bulk rate. They will whine to high hell if they cant spam all americans cheaply.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    32. Re:Man, oh man! by Jaden42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, but they could die (or at least suffer harm) if the mail was something like insulin or heart medication.

      Merrly being snarky does not make a convincing argument.

      http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/06/16869665-wait-a-minute-mr-postman-new-mail-delivery-schedule-raises-eyebrows?lite

      The Postmaster General has already confirmed that mail-order medicine will continue to be delivered on Saturday.

    33. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't have to hear and/or feel your phone notify you every 2 minutes of an email coming through, 99% of which is SPAM.

      I already don't have to hear and/or feel my phone do anything when email arrives. Why would I want to? It's email, not voice.

      So, the point remains, why have a spam filter on your email when the spam filter is so bad at detecting spam that you have to read all the spam to verify that it is spam? AND you have to do it using a web browser instead of your normal email client because the only way to mark something as "not spam" and get it delivered normally is via the web interface.

    34. Re:Man, oh man! by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1, Troll

      Hey, hey, hey: it's important that we relive the 1930s, so that we appreciate the Depressing fullness of FDR's Greatness.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    35. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Free only if you don't value your time and the cost of your trash disposal.

    36. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a whoosh may be in order, but so many in the US don't know their own Constitution that someone actually did need to point out that it was sarcasm and not legitimate exasperation

    37. Re:Man, oh man! by Xphile101361 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So its okay to die on a Sunday then?

    38. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just pay your kid or your neighbor's kid the $5 to sort your mail. Hell, they'd probably do it for $1.

      In your dreams.

      Last time I hired a kid to do something like that, he tried to jack the price up to $20 in mid-job.

      I told him I'd finish it myself.

    39. Re:Man, oh man! by pedrop357 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Moron. Government military research invented the internet. BUT, the government does not provide or supply the internet, thus it's a crap comparison.

      Nothing in the COTUS gives the government the power to the things listed by the AC.

    40. Re:Man, oh man! by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      Are you referring to 'conservatives' as in the well-known political term or as in 'no changes?' Because the political conservatives have been pushing to totally privatize the postal service for many years.

    41. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since letter and package delivery is something the private sector already provides, there's no need for the government to be doing it. The defacto state-mandated monopoly the USPS enjoys on delivering standard mail has resulted in decreased service for higher cost and is clearly an unnecessary and inefficient use of the taxpayers' money.

      As would be expected, competition in the free market would provide taxpayers with the best service for the lowest cost, freeing up their hard-earned dollars to be used more efficiently in other industries. Then, if there were a market for people to receive standard mail deliveries on Saturday, a company would establish a service to meet that need, and they wouldn't go bankrupt in the process.

    42. Re:Man, oh man! by tattood · · Score: 1

      The companies sending you the junk mail is the only reason that the USPS is not losing more money than they are. The revenue from the junk mailers more than makes up for the relatively low cost to send a letter via USPS.

      In fact, the USPS wants to send you more junk mail.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    43. Re:Man, oh man! by Thorodin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US Postal Service does not get any money from the federal government and has not since President Nixon made it quasi-private. In fact, they have had to pay back to the fed's billions of dollars for pensions. That's one of the reasons they keep losing money. They actually overpaid by a few hundred million and Congress refuses to return the money.

    44. Re:Man, oh man! by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the other way around. Bulk subsidizes 1st class. That's what they told me when I worked for them.

    45. Re:Man, oh man! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Charge $5/month to act as a spam filter. Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

      They'll never do that. Companies paying for that crap to be delivered is probably their best source of income for the Post Office. If they offer the receiver a way to opt out, those companies will be less likely to keep sending the stuff.

      Companies paying for that crap ARE the best source of income for the Post Office, which, despite what some "small-government experts" think, is financed by that income, not taxes. The reason that the USPO is dropping Saturday delivery is due to exactly that reason. They can't just go to the government trough for more money and they don't think that jacking up the price of postage 25 cents will sell to their customer base. Just like a "real" business. Whodathunkit?

      And you can opt out. The catch being that it's opt OUT and not opt IN, so you have to notify the various companies yourself. Or, if you're lucky, you can find their list supplier and opt out of multiple companies at once.

    46. Re:Man, oh man! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Where are these mythical greedy rural folks expecting handouts you talk about? Cause I've never met a one living in such places my whole life.
      I have however met many a person in the city living on welfare with an escalade in the driveway and using a food stamp funded cell phone.

      and it may also interest you to know that Rural demographics arent that far different from city when it comes to votes. its not nearly so all red as you would like to believe. it has a bigger portion going red, granted. but if the nation avg is 50/50, and that fairly true over time, rural folks go maybe 60/40 and you the reverse in cities.

      point being: you need to pack up your extra wide jumbo brush of stereotypes.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    47. Re:Man, oh man! by GigG · · Score: 1

      It would cost more than the mere cost of filtering. They charge to deliver that junk mail and the best part for the PO is a lot of the work is done for them by the shipper.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    48. Re:Man, oh man! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      You don't have to hear and/or feel your phone notify you every 2 minutes of an email coming through, 99% of which is SPAM.

      I already don't have to hear and/or feel my phone do anything when email arrives. Why would I want to? It's email, not voice.

      So, the point remains, why have a spam filter on your email when the spam filter is so bad at detecting spam that you have to read all the spam to verify that it is spam? AND you have to do it using a web browser instead of your normal email client because the only way to mark something as "not spam" and get it delivered normally is via the web interface.

      If you can figure that out, you may have a salable product.

    49. Re:Man, oh man! by swillden · · Score: 1

      You get false positives on your Gmail spam filter? Weird. I don't think I've gotten one in years. Of course I don't check my spam box very often, but neither do I get people telling me they sent me stuff that I didn't get.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    50. Re:Man, oh man! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      It is vital... And highly profitable... They have pulled multiple BILLIONs out in prepaid benefits into the Federal general fund since 2006. Few private companies could survive such payments.

    51. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could of course just make it legal that you may stream any disc you own as a form of rental and that would make me happy. The MPAA would surely complain though.

      I think there's one more assumption that you've left out of your statement, because hey, you can stream any disc you own whenever you want. The stream comes out of your DVD player and into your TV.

    52. Re:Man, oh man! by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      I would have no problem with the idea of allocating a portion of tax revenue for a communist social service like a government-operated postal service instead of spending so much money on the Department of Offense.. err.. I mean Defense.

    53. Re:Man, oh man! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Free only if you don't value your time and the cost of your trash disposal.

      Err....it doesn't cost me a penny more or less on how much or how little I throw away...?

      I throw it in the can, put the can by the curb, and the garbage man takes it away twice a week.

      It takes all of about 10-15 seconds walking from the mailbox at the front door, to the kitchen to sort through the junk mail and toss it in the kitchen garbage can and set the bills in the bill pile on the counter.

      Just curious..what process do you do that take so long and cost extra money?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    54. Re:Man, oh man! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      The reality is that fewer and fewer people use the snail, and downsizing is an inevitable and rational result if we care at all about efficiency.

      Trouble is, largely due to the govt unions...the actual downsizing in PEOPLE will likely not happen to the extent it should.

      Hell, recently they tried closing down PostOffice sorting areas, and there were lawsuits preventing them from doing this as they saw they needed?!?!?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    55. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right. In fact, you are so right, why do we even have 5-day delivery? Lets just scale it back to 1 day a week. Or perhaps better yet, 1 day a month, or even 1 day a year. Afterall, the Constitution makes no mention of how a Post Office is to be run, only that running one is the domain of the Federal government. So lets just run it as shitally as possible and fuck how it may improve people's lives to have it run well.

      Nevermind that we're only in this mess now* because the USPS was recently (as in within the past few years) made to have to set aside funds to pay for the retirement of workers who have not even been born yet.

      *As opposed to the USPS gradually losing money over the years and being able to, you know, actually plan for the decrease in revenue well in advance.

    56. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have to get it out of my way since i do have delivery through my mail slot and until very recently I had to pay per bag of garbage.

    57. Re:Man, oh man! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What assumption is that?

      That I should be able to stream those disks to your house when you rent them from me?

      Because that is exactly what I am trying to say.

    58. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet insurance frequently requires you to use mail order for critical medications. Saturday delivery shouldn't affect that as you should order far enough in advance for that to matter, but I was still required to rely on mail delivery in order to pay less than $900 a month for a couple of the prescriptions I was on.

    59. Re:Man, oh man! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without junk mail you'd have to pay the mailman a lot more per envelope. Probably well over $1. Unlike Spam, junk mail PAYS the mailman to walk around to ALL the houses. Right now advertising is probably the only thing making per home delivery profitable.

      UPS and FEDEX certainly don't deliver to EVERY house, EVERY day.... And not for $.45

    60. Re:Man, oh man! by Wookact · · Score: 1

      I would pay 5 dollars if I was allowed to redirect my junk mail to an address of my choice.

    61. Re:Man, oh man! by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      No, but they could die (or at least suffer harm) if the mail was something like insulin or heart medication.

      Merrly being snarky does not make a convincing argument.

      Being dumb doesn't make a convincing argument either. You don't count on the mail for time / mission critical things. It wasn't designed for it and cannot support it.

      If you have prescription medications that are filled by mail order you're supposed to have a buffer supply. Shit happens. Even Saturday delivery doesn't change that.

      And yet

      Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.

      --
      blog
    62. Re:Man, oh man! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      And yet insurance frequently requires you to use mail order for critical medications. Saturday delivery shouldn't affect that as you should order far enough in advance for that to matter, but I was still required to rely on mail delivery in order to pay less than $900 a month for a couple of the prescriptions I was on.

      My mailorder meds come through priority mail (which will still be delivered on Saturday). Your provider uses first class mail? Without proof of delivery, how do they know you received them?

    63. Re:Man, oh man! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      For many things the Country is heavily subsidized. For instance my mailman delivers several hundred ones ON FOOT in the city. To deliver rural mail takes paying for gas to deliver half as many addresses. Same for electric or phone.... In town, homes are 70 feet apart (even closer in tall city apartment buildings) In the country they are 100's or 1000's of feet apart yet the utility companies are forced to charge the same per month rates inspire of more repair costs.

    64. Re:Man, oh man! by Frobisher · · Score: 1

      If I'm on top of it, I can get through 2 Netflix disks in a week with my single disk plan, but without Saturday delivery that's going to be a lot harder to do. Netflix need to implement some sort of Trusted Customer system. I get those occasional emails like "When did you receive X?", "When did you send back X?". They need to have a feature on the website where you can ALWAYS say "I sent this back in today's mail". 99% of the time they get it back the next day and send me a new disk. If, over the course of two weeks I send back 3 disks and TELL them that I sent them back, they'll know I was telling the truth because they'll get them back the next day. This should put me on a "Trusted Customer" status. That means then I send a disk back and tell them that, they should immediately ship out my next disk so I get it tomorrow. It might hurt their bottom line a bit, but it would be a serious improvement to the wait time. (Or, they should make everything streaming dammitt!!!!!!)

    65. Re:Man, oh man! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that the 1st class mail is being used to subsidize bulk mail and as a result as 1st class mail gets sent less and less the subsidy has become insufficient to cover the cost. I'm somewhat unclear as to why they're not raising the rates on bulk mail.

      If you believe the post office's numbers, it's actually the other way around - bulk mail is subsidizing first class mail. I've always been skeptical, but that's what they say.

    66. Re:Man, oh man! by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that the 1st class mail is being used to subsidize bulk mail and as a result as 1st class mail gets sent less and less the subsidy has become insufficient to cover the cost.

      Ooops, you got that backwards. Bulk Mail prices subsidize first class delivery. But other than that, yes I agree that the prices on bulk mail should go up.

      I'm going to doubt that they "make it up in volume"; for one thing, bulk mail is pre-sorted and bar-coded, and so has a lot less humans and sorting equipment involved in its delivery. Bulk rates can be as low as 3.1 cents per piece, which is less than 1/10th the cost of first class mail. Raise the bulk rate by half a cent per piece, and you've solved the "losing money" problem completely.

    67. Re:Man, oh man! by headcase88-2 · · Score: 1

      Canada Post does this for free. Make a message "I do not wish to receive unaddressed admail" and tape it inside your mailbox. You do still get junk mail that is addressed to you specifically though. US Post should have this if they don't already.

    68. Re:Man, oh man! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      It takes me about 2 minutes to sort my mail once a month

      Once a month? Why let it pile up at all? Just sort it as you're walking from the mailbox to your kitchen (or wherever).

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    69. Re:Man, oh man! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      No, but they could die (or at least suffer harm) if the mail was something like insulin or heart medication.

      Merrly being snarky does not make a convincing argument.

      Being dumb doesn't make a convincing argument either. You don't count on the mail for time / mission critical things. It wasn't designed for it and cannot support it.

      If you have prescription medications that are filled by mail order you're supposed to have a buffer supply. Shit happens. Even Saturday delivery doesn't change that.

      And yet

      Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.

      I'm not sure that a 2500 year old feel-good creed is an enforcable service level agreement, and certainly shouldn't be relied on. There have been many snow days when the mailman didn't make it out to my rural delivery location - and this was back when I actually cared about the mail.

    70. Re:Man, oh man! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      If only there were some article of the Constitution that could be used as an argument to convince conservatives that the Post Office is a vital national service and that it is okay to pay for it in much the same way as it is okay to pay for a navy.

      Yes, the Postal Service (and associated Post Roads, which, among other things, justify the Interstate Highways) is Constitutionally mandated.

      Alas, there is no specific Connstitutional mandate for daily delivery of mail, nor is there a requirement for Saturday delivery.

      Which was probably a good thing, since in its original form, daily delivery was essentially impossible - hard to do daily deliveries when one postman's route might cover 200 miles...afoot.

      Note, by the way, that I'd have little issue with the Postal Service vanishing into history - I get my bills online, I pay them online, I send and receive personal letters online, etc. And most of my packages come UPS or FedEx.

      About all I really get via the Postal Service would qualify as spam if it hit my email inbox. And gets treated that way when it hits my mailbox.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    71. Re:Man, oh man! by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      For some years I checked gmail for false positives, but I gave up any systematic checking (I check sporadically, a few times a year). If I am getting false positives, it is rare and only on mailing list material.

    72. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't experienced the joy of community mailboxes. At the last place I lived, my mailbox was 6 blocks away in the opposite direction I typically drove to and from work.

    73. Re:Man, oh man! by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      They will still be delivering packages on Saturday.

      But personally, if I relied on some medicine to live, I damned sure wouldn't have it sent by mail.

    74. Re:Man, oh man! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Downsizing because the volume is the same but the management can't handle the money well enough to pay enough people to deal with it is not.

      But they CAN handle the money well enough to pay enough people to deal with it.

      Problem is that "enough people to deal with it" is rather lower than the number of people they're paying to deal with it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    75. Re:Man, oh man! by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You might want to read that section and clause again;

      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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      ...

      To establish post offices and post roads;

      Section 8 sets out what the Congress can "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" and not what it has a responsibility to do.The enumerated power is not to establish Post Offices but to collect money to establish Post Offices. Nowhere does it say they have to establish Post offices.

    76. Re:Man, oh man! by Americano · · Score: 1

      Package deliveries will continue under the new plan and were a bright spot in a bleak 2012 fiscal year, with package revenue rising 8.7 percent during the year.

      Good to see you read the summary. Last I checked, somebody shipping heart medication isn't doing it as individual pills in envelopes sent by First Class Mail.

    77. Re:Man, oh man! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry... which conservatives made this decision to stop Saturday service, again?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    78. Re:Man, oh man! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Package deliveries will continue under the new plan and were a bright spot in a bleak 2012 fiscal year, with package revenue rising 8.7 percent during the year.

      Not even bothering to read the summary does not make a convincing retort.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    79. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get your internet connection to your house from the military?
      Or are you a dumb shit with no point to make?

    80. Re:Man, oh man! by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Downsizing is good?

      Layoffs are good?

      When even a gov't job is subject to layoffs and there is no job security ANYWHERE we have truly failed.

      These are PEOPLE and LIVES you are talking about getting rid of, not machines!

      Thank God we have Obama, since you Romney types would destroy so many lives if there wasn't anything to stop you.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    81. Re:Man, oh man! by operagost · · Score: 0

      That's because they already spent it, probably a decade before they got it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    82. Re:Man, oh man! by Americano · · Score: 1, Informative

      You have it *exactly* backwards. The Bulk mail is what subsidizes cheap first class letter delivery. Or did you really think that sending a stack of photos and a couple page letter from door to door across the country to your dear Aunt Martha ONLY costs 50 cents? The bulk mail is generally pre-sorted by the sender, and requires nearly zero processing by the post office - it is simply given to the carriers to deliver. Your hand-addressed envelope with chicken scratched addressing information, on the other hand, must be handled every step of the way, and costs the USPS far more than the 50 cents that you paid to send it.

      The USPS does a "better job of cost control" because it cannot raise prices without the approval of the Postal Regulatory Commission, and it has a legal obligation to provide universal service at "affordable rates." And that's why it's been hemorrhaging money - because the USPS provides services that cost FAR more than they can take in according to their rate charts, and they can't just raise prices to eliminate the shortfall like FedEx and UPS can.

      Given a budget of X and expenses of Y (for values of Y > X), your only options to keep functioning are to raise rates to offset the budget shortfall, or cut expenses so you're not overspending - and if you're the post office, one major way to cut expenses by eliminating delivery days.

      Raise money for junk mail, and you'll see the volume of junk mail decline rapidly, because it becomes cheaper to advertise online, or on TV, or on the radio. When that happens, I guarantee their shortfall will require a lot more than eliminating one day of delivery service.

    83. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww, those poor utility companies, with their government granted monopolies guaranteeing them massive profits in perpetuity in return for providing service to all customers at the same rate. My heart weeps for them.

      Is it opposite day today? Because I could swear that you're arguing we should de-regulate all kinds of industry and let the free market dictate prices based on market competition.

      This is not a point often argued by people criticizing rural conservatives, but I'm willing to accept the consequences of this policy, if you are.

    84. Re:Man, oh man! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Anyways, it's a relatively moot point as USPS tends to do a better job in terms of cost control than UPS and FedEx anyways. USPS is just required to do something that aren't profitable.

      So no, it doesn't do a better job of cost control.

    85. Re:Man, oh man! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well, they could always issue letters of marque and reprisal to Fed Ex and UPS.

    86. Re:Man, oh man! by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      Downsizing unneeded govt jobs IS a good thing, since it is a leeching job paid for by our taxes.

      YOu need private jobs, and these people can go to THOSE...and earn money and not be a drain on the system.

      So, yes....govt jobs do not help the economy like private jobs do, in many aspects. Sucking tax money sucks the life out of private jobs....free up tax monies and let the jobs come back into the private sector and everyone will benefit. A govt job for the sake of the job and not what it can provide is waste.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    87. Re:Man, oh man! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Downsizing is good? Layoffs are good?

      These things are neither good nor bad. They can be bad, and they can be good.

      Inefficiency is bad and efficiency is good.

      When even a gov't job is subject to layoffs and there is no job security ANYWHERE we have truly failed.

      Hey, lets have them dig holes this week, then fill up the holes next week. We can repeat this process forever and we can also parallelize it in order to give everyone a job. if we do this then we have truly not failed and there would be complete job security.

      When you are done with not thinking about reality, go ahead and post again.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    88. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution merely grants Congress the power to do those things, it is not a mandate of things they are compelled to provide.

    89. Re:Man, oh man! by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Downsizing due to a lack of volume is fine.

      You don't seem to realize that this is exactly what we are talking about. Cutting out the Saturday delivery enables cost savings by reducing the number of man-hours sunk delivering the mail. This is a downsize.

      Volume really is down. Fewer and fewer people use the postal service. The proposed idea ($5 opt-out) reduces demand even further by also reducing the volume of junk mail, so more downsizing would be inevitable unless we want to swallow increased inefficiency as a jobs program.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    90. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause I've never met a one living in such places my whole life. I have however met many a person in the city living on welfare with an escalade in the driveway and using a food stamp funded cell phone.

      1. You can't own a car over a certain value and qualify for food stamps or welfare.
      2. You can't pay for anything but food with food stamps.
      3. The claim that welfare people are driving escalades is a directly racist insinuation and you fucking know it so don't try to call stereotypes when you're using them yourself you fucking slack-jawed moron.
      4. You're obviously full of shit up to your ears so nothing else you say is of consequence. Go die you lying, hypocritical, redneck douche bag.

    91. Re:Man, oh man! by SchMoops · · Score: 1

      About all I really get via the Postal Service would qualify as spam if it hit my email inbox. And gets treated that way when it hits my mailbox.

      You eat your junk mail?!

    92. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually do receive a small amount of money from the federal government for the Mail For The Blind program. But yea... It's not why they exist. It's probably 0.0001%

    93. Re:Man, oh man! by doom · · Score: 1
      1. Essentially no mail is hand sorted any longer: they have machines that can read handwritten zip codes.
      2. The pre-sorted bulk mail rate shouldn't just be increased, the discount should be eliminated for commercial mail.
      3. Non-profits should still have a discount (though it doesn't matter if we say it's for "pre-sorting" mail). This is for practical reasons-- good luck getting a policy change across with *every* non-profit against you-- and also, perhaps, because (most of) the non-profits deserve the break.

      The US government is in the business of subsidising junk mail. Does that make sense to you?

    94. Re:Man, oh man! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Well lack of money sure does.

    95. Re:Man, oh man! by BobzNKazoo · · Score: 1

      So its okay to die on a Sunday then?

      Of course! Sunday IS the day of rest, ya know.

      --
      When in doubt: procrastinate, accelerate or turn left.
    96. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree, what retards modded you down for speaking the truth?

      If you run your meds out to the point you will be in shock and die in 2 days and you use First class mail you certainly deserve to die. It's called being a dumbshit and proof of darwin's natural selection.

        Lumpy is 100% correct here.

    97. Re:Man, oh man! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Members of Congress get it mailed free, assuming they can make it look like official business, and not campaign literature.

    98. Re:Man, oh man! by jbengt · · Score: 1

      60/40 is considered a big landslide margin.

    99. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they specifically said the medicine deliveries, and package deliveries would continue on Saturdays, so...

    100. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about.

    101. Re:Man, oh man! by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      I have never in my life seen a mailman walk

    102. Re:Man, oh man! by yotto · · Score: 1

      It takes me about 10 seconds a day (6 days a week, soon 5) to sort through my junk mail. That's probably rounding up. Most of the time I do it while walking back from the mailbox so it's time I'd have "wasted" anyway, but let's assume I devote 10 entire seconds every single day to sorting mail. At 4 weeks a month, 6 days a week, that's 240 seconds or 4 minutes of my precious, precious time wasted a month. I don't pay for my garbage (It's in my rent) and when I had a house I don't recall paying by the pound, so I'll ignore that cost.

      To make it worth spending $5/month to pay someone else to sort my junk mail, I'd have to make about $80 an hour after taxes. I guess if I was pulling in that kind of cash, I wouldn't balk at paying someone else to do this simple, simple task. Assuming I never doubted that they screwed up.

    103. Re:Man, oh man! by sdnoob · · Score: 1

      we managed to get the post office filter-out the junk mail -- they no longer deliver ANY bulk rate mail (standard mail class) to us that is not actually addressed to us by name. all it took was to leave all the junk mail behind when we picked-up the 'real' mail. we cleaned out (most of) the junk mail only when the mailbox got stuffed. it took many months, but they eventually quit trying to deliver it. been going on like this now for a number of years, and the 'filtering' has even survived a change in our regular letter carrier when ours retired.

    104. Re:Man, oh man! by Dasuraga · · Score: 1

      I had no false positives until maybe 3 weeks ago. It was something urgent and something sent from an adress I communicate with often. Luckily they re-sent a message and that brought it out of the spam bucket, but still... was quite shocked.

    105. Re:Man, oh man! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I have never in my life seen a mailman walk

      Visit any sizable downtown area. I grew up in a small town of ~30,000 people and all off the mail in the downtown business district was delivered by a mail carrier on foot.

      Now I live in a small city of ~800,000 and all residential delivery that I'm aware of is by foot. I'm sure there are some areas (like large apartment buildings) that are served by a carrier in a truck (and most packages are delivered by truck so the carrier doesn't have to lug them around in his bag or push-cart). There are brown carrier drop boxes on just about every other block throughout the city (they look like regular postal boxes, but without a letter slot and they are brown instead of blue) so the carrier can pick up the mail for that neighborhood and doesn't have to carry so muc mail around.

    106. Re:Man, oh man! by jbburks · · Score: 1

      If I were going to die (or at least suffer harm) if I received my prescription drugs on Monday rather than Saturday, I'd have them sent FedEx Express or UPS Overnight. My experience is that even 1st class mail may be delayed a day or two (and I have no recourse).

    107. Re:Man, oh man! by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      through my mail slot

      The only way to get mail. Very civilized, sir, very civilized.

      until very recently I had to pay per bag of garbage

      Well, shit, that sucks. What benighted tip is this, that I might avoid it in my travels?

    108. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because if it was in the Constitution, it would surely be followed.

    109. Re:Man, oh man! by meglon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Trouble is, largely due to the govt unions...the actual downsizing in PEOPLE will likely not happen to the extent it should.

      No.

      The trouble is, we have a large contingency of elected people who have been intentionally trying to subvert the proper functioning of government for 30 years, and this is just one more way they are trying to do it. No company funds 75 years worth of retirement payments ahead, and for conservative fucktards in congress to pass legislation to force the post office to do so is nothing more than an intentional attempt to destroy USPS' ability to function.

      At the same time, congress has refused to allow USPS to offer services that could generate more income because some of the truly fucking idiotic congress people are on this ideological bullshit meme of "privatization." Privatization always costs more money, because you add an additional layer of cost into the mix... called profit. Here's the rub: UPS and FedEx do not want to take over USPS' mail routes. It would be far too costly for them, and many times those services use USPS resources to move their packages anyway.

      So the "trouble" is: really stupid fucking idiots who don't understand basic business, and hate that our government does ANYTHING for the people of this country.... and the stupid fucking idiots that empower those stupid fucking idiots.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    110. Re:Man, oh man! by serbanp · · Score: 1

      It's probably not worth replying to such AC drivel, but yours is topping the worst I've seen on /.

      Beside getting the facts wrong (USPS does not cost the taxpayer a dime and it funds, through financial gimmicks, the very government that milks it), your pathetic belief in the free market always solving the world's issues is disgusting.

      Go f*ck yourself, useless bag of meat!

    111. Re:Man, oh man! by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I rather like the idea of delivery only one day a week. Makes my life simpler, and would effectively impose limits on all the fuckasses that send all the crap that comes in the mail.

      Deliver it once a week, preferably before trash day, and watch out quickly your physical mail box will see a reduction of spam.

      Seriously, why do we have things like CANSPAM when there are still businesses out there wasting real, physical resources on things that people don't even want?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    112. Re:Man, oh man! by pspahn · · Score: 1

      As an e-commerce developer that tests transactional emails fairly regularly, I can tell you that a majority of the emails I generate to send to myself for testing purposes get flagged as spam initially. Once I label them otherwise, nearly all are correctly delivered.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    113. Re:Man, oh man! by Myopic · · Score: 1
    114. Re:Man, oh man! by unitron · · Score: 5, Informative

      Those who don't believe you should Google "The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006"*, and anybody who doesn't know about it has no business offering an opinion on the current woes of the Postal Service.

      I will quibble that they actually aren't losing money. The 2006 act is taking it from them to fund pensions for employees not yet born.

      *Which really should have been known as "The Republican Plot to Murder the Postal Service in Slow Motion" of 2006.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    115. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      YOu need private jobs, and these people can go to THOSE...and earn money and not be a drain on the system.

      Have you seen what it's like out there? It's a shithole. Companies are holding onto their cash instead of hiring, because they got burned in the downturn and they're waiting to see what the tax picture will be like in the next year or two.

      Meanwhile, we job seekers are begging and crawling and being subjected to every kind of humiliating scrutiny from drug testing to background checks, credit reports, even looking at our Facebook postings, for fuck's sake. Employers act like they're getting fucking married instead of hiring help.

      If you do manage to squeeze through the sieve of qualification, you get shitty benefits (if any), health care insurance that will drop you like a rock if you dare to get sick, no bonuses, no vacation time, jump through hoops at review time every year to justify your measly existence, and even then you might get laid off because some manager made a spreadsheet error on the quarterly report.

      I'll take the government job, thanks. They may be bloated and slow, but they have yet to turn workers into peon cogs like private industry has (and always will, if unregulated). Phooey.

    116. Re:Man, oh man! by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Mine does in a neighborhood of ranch houses in Madison, Wisconsin. Our mailboxes are on our houses.

    117. Re:Man, oh man! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >Without junk mail you'd have to pay the mailman a lot more per envelope. Probably well over $1. Unlike Spam, junk mail PAYS the mailman to walk around to ALL the houses. Right now advertising is probably the only thing making per home delivery profitable.

      They could make more money by charging for spam filtering on mailboxes.

    118. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not being a mandate, it might (and probably should) at least be read as a recommendation.

      More importantly, it should be considered very carefully indeed before giving away the responsibility for those things to anyone else.

      So the parent's *point* holds. Whether you agree with that or not does not show in your post, so I can't (and won't) say anything about that.

    119. Re:Man, oh man! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which is still retarded. I don't understand why anyone would need a delivery on Saturday. If you're running your ship in a way that 2 days makes the difference between having life saving medicine and not having it then you deserve everything you get. If you rely on the USPS for this service then you deserve it even more.

      The only service I expect from the USPS is that any parcel will arrive in a barely serviceable condition regardless if it has a fragile tag affixed or not.

    120. Re:Man, oh man! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Gmail actually has two layers of spam filtering. First the outright reject anything from known 100% spam sources that spew mail in bulk at them, which are effectively DOS attacks. Then everything else goes through their other filters and either goes in your inbox or spam folder.

      Having a spam folder speeds up my ability to sort spam. Instead of trying to pick out mixed good/spam mails in a 25/75 ratio I have 99.9% spam and can scan for the few false positives. Maybe I miss one or two every year, but the alternative would be wasting hours of my life every week just sorting through that crap.

      Oh, and the Android Gmail client lets you mark messages as spam or phishing directly, don't know about other platforms.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    121. Re:Man, oh man! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We have the same problem in the UK. The Torys see any service that the government provides as a lost business opportunity for someone. Just think of all the profit that is lost when someone gets ill and the state healthcare system makes them well again at no cost!

      Privatization has also been a complete disaster here, but it doesn't always necessarily have to be so. The Japanese privatized their railways and they are still the best in the world. They heavily regulate them and make sure that the only source of profit is not just the passengers. Unfortunately I don't think the US or UK governments are capable of doing anything like that in the public's interest.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    122. Re: Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Neither rain nor snow nor glom of nit can stay these messengers abot their business"

      - Going Postal, Terry Pratchett

    123. Re:Man, oh man! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Where are these mythical greedy rural folks expecting handouts you talk about? Cause I've never met a one living in such places my whole life.

      Really?

      You've never met a person in the country whose mail cost more to deliver that the mail of someone living in a city apartment and yet sending mail to them costs the same? You've never a met person in the country who has used something funded via the RBS or the RUS? Never met someone who ever used the RHS? You've never met a rural person on food stamps?

      I have however met many a person in the city living on welfare with an escalade in the driveway and using a food stamp funded cell phone.

      I suspect you're lying or at least being deceptive. How large a number is "many"? You can't fund a cell phone with food stamps so you are just making that up (or it was criminal fraud - that happens in the country too you know and isn't relevant to subsidizing), or you misunderstand the lifeline program and have mixed it up with food stamps I guess (though if you can't tell the difference between food and telephones?).

      Given that a higher percentage of rural people are on food stamps than city people (see data at https://www.census.gov/sipp/), it's amazing you've managed to invert that in your meeting of people. Do you frequent the poor city neighborhoods and the rich rural ones?

    124. Re:Man, oh man! by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      I have never in my life seen a mailman walk

      Then move out of the subdivision. Mailboxes were mandated at the street in 1978. I have lived in four different USA houses that had the mailbox/slot on the door. The mailman did not drive up to my door, obviously.

    125. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got my ObamaJob!

    126. Re:Man, oh man! by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      People always say this: "Oh, I could do without the mail", but watch what would happen if it disappeared. You'd need to mail a letter at least a few times a year, trust me, at some point. And Fedex or UPS will be more than willing to do it. For $20, after you drive it down to their office across town, based in the old post office. At which point you'll say "WTF?? The post office was only 50 cents!" ang gripe about inflation.

    127. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't medications qualify as a package and therefore receive Saturday delivery?

    128. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither does the USPS, unfortunately. My wife often complains when she has to take a package to the PO when the postman doesn't even ring the first time but instead drives past the house up the hill. We believe he does it when he only has junk to deliver and so saves a few steps and a minute or so to stop by. Back in the day when postal agents had to carry their bags, they'd deliver everything all the time to lessen the load. Now the trucks carry them. What he does with the time he saves is unknown, but a lot of them end up spending hours "sorting" in the truck ... or ringing someone's bell two or more times ...

    129. Re:Man, oh man! by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Why have daily mail? Fast delivery is a premium priced item,(special delivery, etc) and make all other mail delivery once a week.
      The extra fee for special delivery will pay it's way.
      There are few things that I need daily mail for.

    130. Re:Man, oh man! by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Insulin and heart meds = special delivery if they were not ordered in time for weekly delivery.
      People do not wait until they have nothing left before ordering

    131. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently junk mail is NOT PAYING THE MAILMAN enough!

    132. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you are understating thee problem. the lame duck Congress in 2006 said that the USPS had to Pre-Fund the pensions of their employees for 75 YEARS. That's a lot of pre-funding by any measure. The usps competitors don't have that obligation (by a lot!), and they are bound by law to provide the same prices to all customers - so a letter sent next door has the same price as some RFD in the outbacks of Alaska... I don't think their competitors would do that - they would price it along the lines of their costs.

      as of December, FedEX (FDX) had $5,447,000,000 in "pension and healthcare obligations" .. And in 2010 they warned the markets that they "had been neglecting to fund such contractual obligations as their pension and health funds." Maybe Congress should tell FDX to fund their pension fund for 75 years in advance and see what services they cut... Unlikely.

      It is amazing that they can get away with this. Congress is trying to put the USPS out of business and privatize the operations...

    133. Re:Man, oh man! by rhalstead · · Score: 1

      Since when do conservatives or any other group see Saturdaty deliver as critical. I receive most of my medications by mail because it's cheaper and doesn't have to be renewed as often. /One day isn't going to make a difference for those who can remember to renew in a timely manner. USPS is mot for time critical delivery. It's highly dependent on the weather and just not reliable enough. Losing Saturday won't even be noticed except for those who's daily highlight is the mail delivery and they need to get a hobby..

    134. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but the senders of that junk mail are more of a customer to the post office than the receivers of the junk mail. They would be cutting off their most essential customers for a mere $5 a month.

    135. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to realize that this is exactly what we are talking about. Cutting out the Saturday delivery enables cost savings by reducing the number of man-hours sunk delivering the mail.

      No, cutting Saturday delivery will do nothing to the volume of mail. Anything not delivered Saturday will show up on Monday. I don't count delivering the mail as "man-hours sunk", it is a valid expense for a valid service. Yes, the man-hours spent delivering will be less, but the time to sort it all will still be the same. He's going to sort it on Saturday or sort twice as much on Monday.

      The proposed idea ($5 opt-out) reduces demand even further by also reducing the volume of junk mail,

      You think that having the local post office throw my email away for me is going to reduce the volume of mail overall? Of course not. The only way that the volume would go down is if that opt-out system was invoked before the junk mail hit the first processing center. I.e., it never got sent at all. By not sending it at all, the post office will lose much more in postage than they'll make in a $5 fee. (And they'll spend a bundle putting a means of collecting that fee in place, and managing the data that goes with it.)

      It will reduce the amount that is delivered, but it takes the same amount of time for the postman to deliver one letter or a handful. It's the sorting that takes the time, and he'll still have to sort it, and do it by individual option.

    136. Re:Man, oh man! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have, though I was unaware that they might be placed that far away. Furthest I've seen would be like.. 1 block from the furthest house it serves, if that.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    137. Re:Man, oh man! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The only reason the post office is 'losing money' is due to unions.

      Take away ridiculous union requirements that prevent them from, god for bid, firing someone and you'll find that the postal service does just fine on its own.

      The postal service will cease to exist before the unions stop raping it for all its worth.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    138. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The junk mail is what has been supporting our local post offices of late... As long as it's recycled paper I could care less how much junk mail comes to my house, it great for making ransom notes....

    139. Re:Man, oh man! by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Every Sunday I check my mailbox. I really don't remember when they stopped Sunday delivery. Who knows, in a few years we may be down to only one day a week. What will we do then?

    140. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my lawn.

      I claim the big distribution centers are highly automated. To make the tech work they intriduced zip codes. Big deal in the late 60's. We were all told we would NEVER be required to use them.

      Now. Serious question. In the day, first class DID substidize junk. But icannot not find a reliable analysis on the net or from my congressman on the current numbers.

      Prove me wrong please.

    141. Re:Man, oh man! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Plus they save on delivery by round filing junk mail for you at its origination point.

      Wouldn't it be considered fraudulent for them to accept postage from the junk mail sender then not delivering the mail? It's a nice fantasy but it's not going to happen.

    142. Re:Man, oh man! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      There is no way the UPS or FedEx would be able to deliver 1st class mail for $0.45 per piece. Probably more in the $1.50 or greater range.

    143. Re:Man, oh man! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You don't think that Congress forcing the USPS to put money away (to the tune of around $5 billion a year) for the retirement benefits who haven't even been born yet might have something to do with it?

    144. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were some article of the Constitution that could be used as an argument to convince conservatives that the Post Office is a vital national service and that it is okay to pay for it in much the same way as it is okay to pay for a navy.

      I guess one can only wish.

      ===
      I don't know of any other country that has Saturday mail service. Not for circulars, and not mail.

      Businesses and residents have adjusted. Residents are delighted that they may get an extra day to pay a Bill, and if the resident goes away for the weekend, there is no tale-tale full mailbox sign showing that the house is empty

    145. Re:Man, oh man! by jazphx · · Score: 1

      Your wish was granted! Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". Ha Ha! You have set a cunning trap for those fools who claim to be "Constitutional scholars".

    146. Re:Man, oh man! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Essentially no mail is hand sorted any longer: they have machines that can read handwritten zip codes.

      Well, yes, if you happen to be so big that you have your own zip code, then all of your mail will be machine sorted by zip code.

      The rest of us are all part of a large area covered by one zip code, and once the mail gets to the local post office the carriers still have to sort the mail by house.

      You don't think they stand at your mailbox and sift through their entire bag looking for stuff addressed to you, do you?

    147. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fully deserve the title of Miserable Insensitive Buffoon. Wear it proudly! I hope, when you call the paramedics for your impending heart attack, they aren't like you!

    148. Re:Man, oh man! by inHaliburton · · Score: 1

      Not likely to happen. Up here in Canada, we did away with Saturday mail delivery in the 1950s. Nobody dies up here because of no Saturday mail delivery...

    149. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planetary dissem org.

      This will reach the new public who will be told to call a 1-800 number or to go to a bookstore and get the book.

      When they call into the 1-800 number their name is taken and the names are then sent on to you.

      Now, all of these things are being done for one reason: to flood people into your org, your mission and get them on to the bridge.

      That means that you have to step-up your own dissemination actions about 500%

    150. Re:Man, oh man! by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      You know how Google is able to offer free service from advertising revenue? Well the postal service is able to keep postage low by making money from delivering junk mail. It's not like you are forced to open it or read it. Just throw it in the garbage.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    151. Re:Man, oh man! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is an enumerated power means that the Federal Government constitutionally _can_ do it. That does not, in itself, mean that they are _required_ to do so. (If you have questions about this, see the tenth amendment.)

      Furthermore, the word "establish" does not necessarily imply "subsidize". I don't know of anyone who is saying that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to enact legislation to subsidize the postal service, but it definitely _would_ require an act of Congress to do so; i.e., the constitution does not in any way require it.

      Additionally, plain common sense will tell you that the postal service lost a great deal of its importance with the introduction of pervasive residential phone lines then lost most of what was left of its relevance with the advent of the internet and pervasive cellphone coverage. Nobody (so far as I am aware) is advocating tearing it down the post offices and getting rid of them. They're still going to be there, for the forseeable future. Nobody is denying that having post offices around is good.

      Even if you take the postal clause as a mandate, however, there's absolutely no wording in it to indicate that delivery routes must reach every home. The establishment of "postal roads" implies delivery, but that could be fully fulfilled with delivery from one postal station to another. Technically, the existence of the post office box service would fully qualify, even if there were *no* residential delivery at all. Now, nobody (so far as I am aware) is arguing in favor of doing away with residential delivery. We're just saying it's okay for the postal service to save a little money by maybe delivering only a few days a week, which is still FAR more often than anyone expected they would do when the constitution was written.

      Five-day-a-week delivery to every household from coast to coast, including remote rural ones? Ben Franklin's jaw would be on the floor. That wasn't even remotely *possible* when the Constitution was written. Arguing that the Constitution requires six days a week is just silly.

      The postal service delivered six days a week in the twentieth century because there was a real demand for it. Today, more than 80% of that demand has shifted over to other services (most of which involve the internet in some way). The only way you can conclude that it is still necessary to do six-day-a-week delivery to every house is if you believe deep in your heart that the government must never ever ever discontinue any service that has ever been offered, no matter what.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    152. Re:Man, oh man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your comment made me wonder...

      Is there some sort of "Betteridge's Law of Headlines" for congressional acts? Something about the name being the exact opposite of the effects of the act?

  2. one less day of junk mail by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    most of my mail is paper catalogs i throw in the trash without looking at. bills get paid by computer or smartphone.

    i guess the old people will be complaining

    1. Re:one less day of junk mail by maird · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they only made those catalogs soft, absorbent and with dye that doesn't run then at least it would be possible to save money on toilet paper.

    2. Re:one less day of junk mail by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      My mailman hates me. First off, they were trying to deliver my previous tenants mail into the box before I purchased the place, so he was mad when he met me that I hadn't picked up the mail in like 6 months (when it was really like a week).

      My mailbox is gets 100% full within a week from all of the junk mail that comes in. It's pretty bad.

      I only have a handful of bills that still come in through paper-mail, and most of that is from places that offer e-billing but not to cancel the paper-billing.

      SOOO MUCH junk mail.

    3. Re:one less day of junk mail by JeanCroix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or people waiting for the next Netflix DVD...

    4. Re:one less day of junk mail by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Kramer: I got three Pottery Barn catalogs in one day. That makes eight this month.

      Jerry: Why don't you just throw 'em out?

      Kramer: Oh, no. I've been saving them up here in your apartment. And now, it's payback time. Pottery Barn is in for a world of hurt.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    5. Re:one less day of junk mail by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Depending on how it works, you might still get the junk mail, as it mentions only that they're stopping delivery of first class. Junk mail is sent Heck, at most it'll just be delivered on Monday.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:one less day of junk mail by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      And how exactly are you going to get your packages?. I've even seen Fed-Ex packages at local Post Offices that, for some reason couldn't be delivered by truck. And most services prefer to send small, Mail Box sized packages by Postal Mail anyway. Every time you young punks open your mouth you sound ignorant, and just don't you worry, you're getting older faster than you know, as am I. I may be young too, but I'm not ignorant of how the industry works.

      The fruits of the young will soon blossom, and oh what sour flavors they will produce.

    7. Re:one less day of junk mail by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Funny

      My father remembers that in the outhouse back on the farm, the black-and-white pages in the Sears Roebuck catalog always went first!

    8. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me and doubly so because I rip and return everything they send me.

    9. Re:one less day of junk mail by tilante · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, some of us actually read the whole summary, and thus see that Saturday package deliveries aren't being cut out. So it's not going to affect getting packages at all.

    10. Re:one less day of junk mail by alen · · Score: 1

      UPS and Fedex always comes in by delivery driver. nice thing about NYC is you can order diapers and they arrive the next day with regular UPS delivery

      any package sent by US Mail is so unimportant i don't care when i get it

    11. Re:one less day of junk mail by ApharmdB · · Score: 4, Informative

      https://www.catalogchoice.org/ - I've been using the free part of the service for a while now and I get vastly less junk mail than I used to. Not having the extra volume to deal with is worth the time it takes to use the website.

    12. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because you were being kind of a dick. If you don't want the mail, then you opt out. Most of them have opt outs online, for credit card offers, I've found that using the return mail envelops to send them my junk mail works brilliantly in getting me off their lists. Do that a few times and they get the picture that you didn't want to be contacted. I don't generally do that unless they've really offended me, like that outfit that was too lazy to even verify that my name was spelled correctly on the envelop.

      But, most of the time, something like https://www.catalogchoice.org/ will get you off the lists. They don't want to waste money sending to people who are less likely to buy their whatever as a result of getting the publication than if they sent nothing.

    13. Re:one less day of junk mail by gQuigs · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did http://www.optoutprescreen.com/ and it stopped the majority of the most annoying junk mail. The kind that might let someone start a credit card in my name if they intercept it....

      More options are here: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicited-mail-phone-calls-and-email

      I have yet to try dmachoice, has anyone tried it?

    14. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very nice. Thanks!

    15. Re:one less day of junk mail by Bumbles · · Score: 2

      This is false, depending upon your definition of delivery driver. In many areas, UPS and FedEx have been using USPS for the last mile delivery. UPS and FedEx accept the package, they ship it around, and then have USPS deliver locally. It is not used everywhere and also tends to be dependent upon the size of the package. I have received some items this way in the past year from both services. Thus, to say that UPS and FedEx always comes in by delivery driver is only correct if you mean the delivery driver may be employed by either UPS, FedEx, or USPS.

    16. Re:one less day of junk mail by DogDude · · Score: 2

      Sure, old people will be upset. But so will the people who live waaay, waaay out, off the grid. It won't make any difference to the average suburban/urbanite. The great thing about the USPS was that it enabled anybody to live *anywhere* in the US, and still have a connection to the outside world. Soon, if you don't live within reach of a cable company's lines, it'll be very difficult to live a modern life.

      But then again, most Americans are so short sighted, they won't consider this to be a problem.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    17. Re:one less day of junk mail by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's probably because you were being kind of a dick. If you don't want the mail, then you opt out. Most of them have opt outs online, for credit card offers, I've found that using the return mail envelops to send them my junk mail works brilliantly in getting me off their lists. Do that a few times and they get the picture that you didn't want to be contacted. I don't generally do that unless they've really offended me, like that outfit that was too lazy to even verify that my name was spelled correctly on the envelop.

      But, most of the time, something like https://www.catalogchoice.org/ will get you off the lists. They don't want to waste money sending to people who are less likely to buy their whatever as a result of getting the publication than if they sent nothing.

      Right. I like to spend random hours opting out of things I never heard of in the first place. Sounds like a great plan to give my email / phone to people that I neither like nor trust.

      Any more clever thoughts?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:one less day of junk mail by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      UPS and FedEx accept the package, they ship it around, and then have USPS deliver locally.

      In this area, we still have UPS and FedEx trucks driving around. The way I learned about the UPS-USPS link was when I went online to UPS to track a package, and they were actually crowing about this new delivery option. Yes, they were proud to say that "we can't handle the package all the way to your door anymore, so we'll hand it to USPS for delivery!"

      My first thought was, if I wanted USPS to deliver it, why wouldn't I just send it USPS to start with? All UPS is doing with this is flying USPS packages for them, essentially. And not even flying them -- the cheapest UPS rates are ground.

      Not that I try to ship UPS anyway. They're the guys who hide packages so you don't know they've been delivered.

    19. Re:one less day of junk mail by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      No Redboxes in your area? Here, they're more common than Starbucks.

    20. Re:one less day of junk mail by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      My mailbox is gets 100% full within a week from all of the junk mail that comes in. It's pretty bad.

      WTF? A Week? My mailbox is full EVERY DAY (that they deliver mail). Mostly just junk mail (when I live in a big city it seems I get more junk), but also a couple of magazines. Mother Earth News for her, and I still read Popular Science even though it's basically month old Slashdot article highlights. My brain's not that good, reminds me of things to follow up on. Yes, Digital Content, Smartphones & Tablets exist, but when they exist in the same vicinity as your own fecal mater you may switch back to inexpensive paper-based information conveyors.

      "Honey, why is your cell in the toilet?"
      "Obviously, because it won't flush. It is dead to me now, its water has been added to my own."

    21. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I did http://www.optoutprescreen.com/ and it stopped the majority of the most annoying junk mail. The kind that might let someone start a credit card in my name if they intercept it....

      More options are here: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicited-mail-phone-calls-and-email

      I have yet to try dmachoice, has anyone tried it?

      There is no way in hell I'm supplying a social security number online to some unknown entity.

    22. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most of my mail is paper catalogs i throw in the trash without looking at. bills get paid by computer or smartphone.

      Well the volume won't change. They'll end-up paying more overtime on Monday because the post man has to deliver all the backed-up mail that would have been dispersed on Saturday.

      So you'll still receive your catalogs, just later on a Monday and twice as numerous.

    23. Re:one less day of junk mail by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Run by our good friends at Equifax.

      Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my 80 year old dad doesn't even have a computer. But I don't pay but one or two of my bills over the internet because there's usually a charge for it. Most of my bills are local (rent, electricity) and I just drop a paper check in the night deposit as I drive past. The insurance company and credit card company get paper checks in the mail because it costs to pay them over the internet.

      As to banking, no way will I do any transaction over the internet that involves my entering my bank number; I know how insecure the internet is. The only internet transactions I'll do will be with a credit card, because my liability is limited with it.

      As to old people complaining, ALL LOWER CASE IS AS IDIOTIC AS ALL CAPS, YOU STUPID KID. Now get the fuck off my lawn.

    25. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they only made those catalogs soft, absorbent and with dye that doesn't run then at least it would be possible to save money on toilet paper.

      Pussy

    26. Re:one less day of junk mail by JeanCroix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plenty of them. And they all have the same 50 movies.

    27. Re:one less day of junk mail by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      I get very little junk mail, and it currently goes to a relative's house (I was moving about too much for a while). At my apartment, I got tons of junk everyday... but I collected it and tossed it without checking it like once every 3 weeks or so, and the post office finally killed off everything. Whoever moves there next can thank me.

    28. Re:one less day of junk mail by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Well, say what you want but I went from getting a couple of credit card offers each day on average to getting one every couple of months. It works. I did everything that "they" say to do to cut down on junk mail and it actually dramatically cut down my junk mail.

    29. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Bibles work better.

    30. Re:one less day of junk mail by yotto · · Score: 1

      Do your Redboxes have damn near every single DVD ever made? Mine don't.

      I use Netflix for hard-to-get stuff, and Redbox for new stuff. Come August, I may be dropping my DVD plan from Netflix though because it's only marginally worth it now.

    31. Re:one less day of junk mail by adolf · · Score: 1

      The service you speak of is called Smartpost, or Mail Innovations, or a variety of other terms depending on the shipper. It uses common carrier for the backhaul, and USPS for local delivery.

      It's optional. UPS and Fedex still deliver regular UPS and Fedex packages, but AFAICT it costs more than having USPS handle the last mile.

      Which, you know, is fine and good. The problem I have with it is that when I pay a vendor for UPS or Fedex shipping, I want regular-old UPS or Fedex -- not some bizarre interconnected "Mail Innovations" system that combines the worst elements of everything. FFS, I don't even want Fedex Home Delivery, a service that can apparently use any grubby discount courier for delivery, with drivers that aren't under the employ of Fedex or USPS or any other well-known entity.

      But the root of that problem is vendors who lie about what the shipping method they're using, not that such services exist. People can't make good, informed decisions if the information in front of them is a lie.

      Not that I try to ship UPS anyway. They're the guys who hide packages so you don't know they've been delivered.

      This is a good thing: A package that is cannot be seen is a package that will not be casually stolen.

      If you want to know when your stuff shows up just have them send you an SMS or an email upon delivery. It's easy to do, right from the tracking page.

      *shrug*

    32. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you are so hip and modern. Yeah those stupid people over 30 will complain b/c they don't know how to do all the intelligent clever things you do, like pay bills online.

    33. Re:one less day of junk mail by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Agreed! I use Catalog Choice, PaperKarma, and OptOutPreScreen. All of those are legit, and they all work. I was skeptical, but they work. I have stopped getting all credit card offers, have stopped getting all the catalogs I oped out of, and much of the spam mail too.

      Don't you wish you didn't have to go to so much trouble to tell advertisers to piss off? Seriously, just piss off.

    34. Re:one less day of junk mail by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. A few days after purchasing the place the mailman ran into me and laid into me about my mailbox and how I shouldn't be letting the mail accumulate. I explained that I just bought the place and hand't even moved in yet. That stuff isn't even addressed to me (it was to some woman) and I didn't have the mailbox key yet. Didn't stop him from flipping out.

      There was a lot of stuff in there: but the previous tenant didn't stop mail or ask it to be redirected. So it had just accumulated for months. So, dick move on HER part.

    35. Re:one less day of junk mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still do that. Why waste money on expensive toilet paper?

    36. Re:one less day of junk mail by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This is a good thing: A package that is cannot be seen is a package that will not be casually stolen.

      A package that I cannot see is one that I don't know has been delivered.

      Here's the full story behind my short comment. My pager company called me one day, said they were changing the system in my area in a couple of months, and could they send me a new pager. Sure, I said. It doesn't cost me anything, right? Nope. Ok.

      A couple of months go by. Nothing has arrived, as far as I know. I call them back. Where's the pager? No, I haven't gotten one. We initiate a lost shipment report. They say they'll send another.

      A couple of days later I'm coming home and I see my front porch screen door ajar. Just a tiny bit, almost unnoticeable. I almost didn't notice, and I had to think for a minute to realize what was wrong with the picture I was seeing. I go look, and sure enough, there is not just one UPS package there, there are two. Stuffed between the main door and behind the screen door that had been LOCKED. The first package was small enough that the door still closed after the UPS driver pried the door open to hide it. The second one didn't fit, by about 1/8 inch. That's the only way I found either one.

      They pried open a locked door to hide the package. I'm supposed to look behind locked doors how many times per week just in case UPS broke one open to hide something there?

      Previous example: someone sent me a string of dried fresh peppers as a surprise. UPS hid it around the corner of my house. I found it two weeks later after a few days of rain, with a wonderful coat of mold and fur on the peppers, in a soggy cardboard box. Surprise!

      If you want to know when your stuff shows up just have them send you an SMS or an email upon delivery. It's easy to do, right from the tracking page.

      If you don't have the tracking number you can't find anything on the tracking page. If you don't know it is coming, you don't know that you are supposed to have a tracking number to go to their web page.

      I NEVER have things shipped to my house for specifically this reason. Everything I get there is a surprise and something I didn't order. I don't have the tracking numbers for things I don't know have been sent to me.

      As for giving UPS my cell phone number so they can spam SMS me, sure. Right. They pry open locked doors so they don't have to deal with signatures on packages, I'm supposed to trust them with my cell number. Or email address for the same thing. Sure.

    37. Re:one less day of junk mail by adolf · · Score: 1

      So the door had pry marks on it?

      I've never seen a UPS driver carry anything but packages, a tablet, and a hand cart.

      And the screen door that was allegedly locked, how in the world would you ever know since you apparently never use that entrance?

      And even then, I have had screen doors on my own house which were allegedly locked open in a strong wind, or just by giving them a little tug. At least on mine, the latches are shit.

      Meanwhile: Spam. I routinely have shipping companies send me SMS messages with progress updates, and have never received anything from them that I did not explicitly ask for.

    38. Re:one less day of junk mail by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      So the door had pry marks on it?

      Yes.

      I've never seen a UPS driver carry anything but packages, a tablet, and a hand cart.

      Well, we know he carries a pen. He also carries a wallet with his driver's license in it, and probably a UPS ID of some kind. So, since a screwdriver that could pry open a locked screen door would fit in one of his pockets with all that other stuff you've never seen him carrying but we know he must be, then ... And there's probably a small toolkit in the truck to deal with simple breakdowns and fixes, so I imagine he could walk 20 feet back to the truck to pull a screwdriver out of that, instead of dealing with the paper work of a non-delivery notice and re-sorting the package for the next day.

      And the screen door that was allegedly locked, how in the world would you ever know since you apparently never use that entrance?

      Because I locked it. Doh! I locked both it and then the main door as I closed them from the inside the last time I used that entrance. Very simple.

      And even then, I have had screen doors on my own house which were allegedly locked open in a strong wind, or just by giving them a little tug. At least on mine, the latches are shit.

      Mine doesn't open with just a tug. If you pull on it, you know it is locked, and if you know it is locked, you know that you shouldn't break in and hide things behind it. Honest people know that, at least.

      Meanwhile: Spam. I routinely have shipping companies send me SMS messages with progress updates, and have never received anything from them that I did not explicitly ask for.

      I thought I dealt with that already. You can't ask UPS to send you progress updates for a package you don't know is coming, or don't know the tracking number for. If you know the tracking number and that it is coming, then you'll expect to find it and when the website says "delivered" you'll know you need to look for it. No tracking number, no ability to ask for SMSs or look for delivery.

      And spam? UPS has my email address, and they've actually sent me dunning notices for shipments that I had nothing to do with because ... I don't know why, really. Maybe you ask for dunning notices for other people's shipments, but I don't, so I can say that I've gotten things from carriers that I did not ask for just because they had my info on file.

  3. That's actually not bad... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

    It saves money (first-off) and more importantly, makes a weekend feel more like a true weekend.

    1. Re:That's actually not bad... by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 2

      The potential of mail in your box doesn't affect the "feel" of your weekend. If you get all OCD about it that's your decision.

    2. Re:That's actually not bad... by xclr8r · · Score: 1

      OCD only in the respect that some mail has sensitive private data (S.S., DOB, Address, CC Info, Phone #, kids names) and I don't want that sitting there overnight or even more than an hour really. The real question is when are they going to bump up business spam mail rates.

      --
      Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
    3. Re:That's actually not bad... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      More than an hour? Talk about white people problems.

      Cut a mail slot in your door and install a flap. Then all your mail will be in your home, just like the rest of your stuff.

    4. Re:That's actually not bad... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      The potential of mail in your box doesn't affect the "feel" of your weekend. If you get all OCD about it that's your decision.

      I don't understand how the feeling of a weekend (less weekday events and responsibilities involved) is correlated with OCD.

      If I feel good because I'm driving down the road at a good rate and everyone else is acting responsibly, am I having OCD feelings of safety?

      On the weekend, I can wake as I please, eat as I please, engage in whatever activities I choose, and now not have to remember to get the mail. It's sort of like two Sundays. Unless you're all religious and factor the church thing in.

    5. Re:That's actually not bad... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Cut a mail slot in your door and install a flap. Then all your mail will be in your home, just like the rest of your stuff.

      That only works in an area that has door to door delivery.

      More than an hour? Talk about white people problems.

      So only Caucasians have curbside delivery? Everyone else gets their mail delivered directly to their door?

    6. Re:That's actually not bad... by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Playing Post Office on Saturdays are some of my fondest memories.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:That's actually not bad... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Where do they not have door to door delivery and no locking mailboxes? You do know you can have a locking mailbox right?

      No, it means it is trivial concern. A problem that those with real problems would not notice.

    8. Re:That's actually not bad... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Where exactly do you live? The US Post Office stopped delivering mail to individual addresses decades ago. I suppose there are a couple of places with olde thyme mail carrier but now it's tiny, leaky, insecure aluminum boxes in an inconvenient place.

      Progress, as promised.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:That's actually not bad... by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Playing Post Office on Saturdays are some of my fondest memories.

      So this feels like Fred Rogers dying?

      Or are you talking about ANOTHER kind of play? :)

    10. Re:That's actually not bad... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      OCD only in the respect that some mail has sensitive private data (S.S., DOB, Address, CC Info, Phone #, kids names) and I don't want that sitting there overnight or even more than an hour really.

      Holy shit, your mail gets stolen if it's in your mailbox for an hour? Remind me never to live in your neighborhood.

    11. Re:That's actually not bad... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Where exactly do you live? The US Post Office stopped delivering mail to individual addresses decades ago.

      Well, I know that they were still delivering to my individual address as late as the end of last week. I know they delivered to my Mom's individual address as late as the day after Christmas, because I was home to pick up my presents and she got mail that day. She lives a couple of miles out of town.

      I haven't gotten anything since last Friday, so maybe they did stop and just didn't tell me about it. In either case, that's much less than "decades ago".

    12. Re:That's actually not bad... by bobthecow · · Score: 1

      No. You must live in a giant subdivision with little boxes made of ticky-tacky.

    13. Re:That's actually not bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame him for posting from Stalingrad, circa 1943. His mail has many uses - you can use it as a scratchy toilet paper; you can weave it into paper jackets and pants; you can boil it for delicious first class soup; and you can dry it out and burn it for warmth.

      Given the privations of the average Stalingrad resident, it's a wonder his mail lasts even an hour!

    14. Re:That's actually not bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut a mail slot in your door and install a flap. Then all your mail will be in your home, just like the rest of your stuff.

      Yeah that doesn't work in neighborhood's where the mail carriers merely delivered to centralized boxes instead of walking to each house

    15. Re:That's actually not bad... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      What, you've never seen a curbside mailbox? At my house, I have to walk a block to pick up my mail, (or pick it up from the car on my way in or out). They won't drive up my 1- lane street and my driveway to get all the way to the door. Most of the people in the general area I live only have to walk a few dozen feet to get from their front door to their mailbox, though. Only in apartments and a few of the older neighborhoods do they deliver all the way to the door.

  4. It doesn't help... by moosehooey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It doesn't help that Congress is basically stealing $5 billion a year from the post office. They're making the USPS fully fund retirement plans over a very short time, and that money is going into government bonds, which ends up in the general fund. If it wasn't for the budget shenanigans that Congress pulled, the Post Office would be doing fine.

    1. Re:It doesn't help... by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Add to this that, without them having to spend the last few years in massive debt trying to figure out how to fund these pension plans, they might have been able to spend the time and money reinventing themselves as a common carrier capable of surviving in the internet age.

      I'm pretty sure that half of Congress - ironically the half that prefers a strict interpretation of the Constitution - wants the Constitutionally-mandated postal service to go bankrupt and go away because it interferes with the profits of several other private businesses. (The vote on the bill in the House in 2006 was done by voice, so there's no official record of who voted for it.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on - thanks republicans...~

    3. Re:It doesn't help... by Ryanrule · · Score: 5, Informative

      The usps was set up by the govt, it didnt go asking for funds. Jackass.

    4. Re:It doesn't help... by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, you're misunderstanding the purpose of that move by Congress: it wasn't about gaining $5 billion a year, it was about gutting the USPS. There are many people in Congress (mostly Tea Party types) that want the USPS to be a relic of the past, some because that would benefit FedEx and UPS and other companies, and some because their philosophy is that the federal government can't possibly do anything useful so the USPS must be by definition useless.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:It doesn't help... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

      And they lost $15 billion last year. So they would still be $10 billion in the hole per year.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    6. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much this. I'm at USPS NHQ and people that grasp the situation are flabbergasted by the insanity of it.

    7. Re:It doesn't help... by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Its the combination that burns me.

      Once someone pointed out to me (here I think) that fully funding retirement funds is....what every other organization (outside of the gov) is made to do, it makes sense to force them to fully fund, and I would even say...they should ALL be doing it.

      It is also kind of bullshit that what triggered these changes was a Postal Service budget surplus.

      However.... that the money would get funneled into the general fund like that? Thats just corrupt to allow congress to pull tricks to turn a quasi-independent system into their own revenue source.... based on the dubious argument that an IOU direct from the treasury is "fully funded" when the same by the postal service isn't.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well where the hell did they lose it? Did they check the mail?

    9. Re:It doesn't help... by DaHat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There are many people in Congress (mostly Tea Party types) that want the USPS to be a relic of the past

      Really? Name... 10.

      Not ones who say "I don't think the Post Office is run well" or "Lines at the DMV or Post Office are too long... just wait until Obamacare is in full force"... but ones who have actually said "Death to the Post Office!!!" or been similarly explicit.

      Go on... I dare you.

    10. Re:It doesn't help... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      and some because their philosophy is that the federal government can't possibly do anything useful so the USPS must be by definition useless.

      There is a certain elegance in stupidity, isn't there?

    11. Re:It doesn't help... by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      It's true that the Post Office is required to pre-fund its pensions in a burdensome way. That doesn't change the fact that their current setup is not economic. First class mail is declining in usage, but direct marketing through the mail has consistently, and for a long time, increased as a source of revenue. Face it, letters have diminished in importance. People are weeping over a shell of a former institution. The Post Office is just chasing the advertising dollars like everyone else seems to be.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    12. Re:It doesn't help... by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The really amazing part is that in spite of Congress doing it's very best to crush the postal service, they're able to get by by stopping Saturday delivery.

    13. Re:It doesn't help... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Gotta say it: citation? TFA says Obama supports this too.
      Personally, I will miss Saturday deliveries, if I'm waiting on a package; otherwise, meh.. But aren't you progressive types supposed to be all about moving forward and whatnot? Like so many other posters here pointed out, more and more people pay their bills electronically, and the only people who will complain are the geriatric crowd. Now who's being conservative? ;-p

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    14. Re:It doesn't help... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, more to the point, they want to believe that the U.S. government can't do anything useful, so they must kill any contrary example.

    15. Re:It doesn't help... by Algae_94 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is the point you're trying to make. If the post office was not forced to pre-fund its pension plans, it would be making money. Regardless of the volume of first class mail, it would be making money.

    16. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Bull crap. In case you were ignorant (and it sadly appears you absolutely are) the post office is a GOVERNMENT institution. You may say "so what" but to those of us with brains, this means two things. First, it is unacceptably inefficient. The post office costs too much money and wastes it on too much inefficient crap. Second, why should taxpayers have to subsidize yet another useless government agency when we ALREADY have UPS and Fedex and hundreds of other delivery services all providing better service at a lower cost thanks to, you know, a little thing called the "free market"? The existince of the US postal service is just another useless old tradition that sucks dollars from taxpayer pockets to give it to the poor, stupid and lazy. If the USPS disappeared tomorrow we'd all be better off, but the statists, liberals and leftists are too stupid to understand basic economics to let that happen.

      Ron Paul 2016

    17. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that half of Congress .... wants the Constitutionally-mandated postal service to go bankrupt

      What they want is the crazy ass huge pensions + health bennies aligned with reality. Bankruptcy is the mechanism, because negotiating with government unions is never feasible.

      Same thing had to happen with the auto workers unions in 2009. Same with the teachers unions, police, fire fighters, city managers, etc. in all these bankrupt municipalities.

      This is the reality of a debt funded de-industrialized anti-energy la-la land economy. While the means of everyone else shrinks the relative size of the plow that must be pulled to fund government workers gets too big. Free people aren't going to pay to fund gold plated benefits they can't afford for themselves.

    18. Re:It doesn't help... by XopherMV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Post Office has successfully paid this $5 billion bill every year since it was passed in 2005. I'd say their business model is still wildly successful. Their problem, as previously pointed out, is that since the Republicans in Congress saddled them with these payments, the Postal Service has been unable to invest in further modernization.

    19. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama supports it and he doesn't.

      That makes him racist.

    20. Re:It doesn't help... by XopherMV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Prefunding retirement accounts for 70 years is NOT what businesses do. That would include prefunding the retirements of people who aren't even born yet! The point was to put this burden on the USPS in order to use the burden to justify shutting the USPS down. That's just ridiculous and stupid.

    21. Re:It doesn't help... by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      It's true that the Post Office is required to pre-fund its pensions in a burdensome way. That doesn't change the fact that their current setup is not economic.

      In a rational world, the post office would be allowed/encouraged to become the source for "all things communication" in a town. Data storage, ISP, public access terminals, fax machines, printers...

      The fact that they aren't doing these things is just more evidence that Congress is keeping them in the buggy whip business. For-profit Kinkos/FedEx does some of these, but they aren't as common.

    22. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who can name ten people in Congress just off the top of their head?

      Much less 10 people who have the same exact opinion.

      Hey, you wouldn't be one of those people in Congress who makes unreasonable demands in the belief that it somehow proves you to be right, would you?

    23. Re:It doesn't help... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      While I understand your apparent need to "blame Republicans", there is a fairly fundamental principle involved here.

      The US Constitution art 1, sec 8 specifically authorizes the government to "To establish Post Offices and post Roads".

      Clearly, this was to both facilitate communication and raise revenue for the government. Further, it makes sense in principle; given the Fed's role in adjudicating interstate issues and this is quite essentially an interstate subject.

      HOWEVER...
      There is a critical and subtle point at which the government is no longer providing a needed universal service, but is instead competing with healthy commercial entities. When the government suddenly participates, that competition is no longer fair, as the government can use tax revenues, favorable law, and a whole host of competitive measures to which businesses don't have access.

      While it technically lies outside the mandate of the USC (which is, after all, limited to designating routes and offices), I agree that it is a valuable and necessary service for the Federal Government to provide basic postal service. (Personally, they could go to 3- or even 2-day-a-week delivery, as far as I'm concerned.)

      However, these services, as a function of government, need to be provided at-cost.
      The Postal Service should NOT be adding other services (urgent delivery, special handling, etc.), especially things that are already amply provided-for in the market.

      --
      -Styopa
    24. Re:It doesn't help... by Bigby · · Score: 1

      In the beginning, they were self sufficient too. (outside of the establishment of post roads)

    25. Re:It doesn't help... by DaHat · · Score: 1

      A specific claim was made about 'many people in Congress'... you'll excuse me if I ask for some supporting evidence.

      Should I have asked instead for 5 or even just 1? And here I thought I was being nice by asking for only 10, even though that is well under the threshold for what I would call 'many' in a body of 435.

      Note neither you nor the parent can support the rather fantastical claim being made.

    26. Re:It doesn't help... by jdmuskrat · · Score: 1

      who is the ignorant one? taxpayers do not "pay" for the PO. it is a separate entity that operates on it's own. it is controlled through congressional regulations that the repugniantcons have been increasingly making it impossible to keep ahead of expenses. and read your constitution -- postal service is in there.

    27. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if serious... or brilliant parody.

    28. Re:It doesn't help... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      They would be now without the republican depth charge dropped on the,

    29. Re:It doesn't help... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You're not even close.

      I'm impressed, mods. Do any of you actually read news articles?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    30. Re:It doesn't help... by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      Making money on junk mail! That's hardly the romantic vision of an efficient, broad reaching government agency that binds us all together that people weep over now that the Post Office is in trouble. Sure, the post office could radically remake itself, as a poster downthread suggested. The old way of doing things 6 days a week, universal letter service, while employing hundreds of thousands of low skill workers is dead. We can save the brand, but not the old system.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    31. Re:It doesn't help... by nimr0d · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect.

    32. Re:It doesn't help... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Ask Congress to grant you a legal monopoly

      By which you mean, "be created by Congress as authorized by the Constitution," right?

    33. Re:It doesn't help... by explosivejared · · Score: 0

      The Post Office has successfully paid this $5 billion bill every year since it was passed in 2005. I'd say their business model is still wildly successful. Their problem, as previously pointed out, is that since the Republicans in Congress saddled them with these payments, the Postal Service has been unable to invest in further modernization.

      So, since they've been required to actually pay what they promised their employees, unlike a lot of other pensions these days, they now can't make money. Huh. That doesn't strike me as the model of success we should be pushing for.

      It might be a good investment to allow/encourage the post office to create a network of state issued email addresses, or whatever other scheme of modernization we might come up with. That's the kind of risky change that large bureaucratic organizations with massive legacy labor costs typically aren't good at. I'm all for letting them experiment. I'm not for throwing money at or trying to force a revival an archaic model of 6-day-a-week service for fewer and fewer first class mail and more and more direct marketing.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    34. Re:It doesn't help... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help that Congress is basically stealing $5 billion a year from the post office

      You're right that Congress is taking about $5.5 billion from the USPS each year.

      If it wasn't for the budget shenanigans that Congress pulled, the Post Office would be doing fine.

      Nope. It wouldn't be doing as badly, but it would still be losing tons of money. The USPS' 1st quarter deficit was 3.3 billion. If that continues (which projections say it will), the USPS will be losing over $13 billion this year. Ignore the $5.5 billion in pre-funding the pensions, and it's still an $8 billion dollar loss.

      The USPS needs to get its house in order quickly. Their move to confront congress is probably a good one. If congress won't allow them to cut services, then they need to start handing them money to pay for the services congress wants them to provide.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    35. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      >Really? Name... 10.

      Danny Davis
      John McHugh
      Henry Waxman
      Thomas Davis

      That's four. I could come up with a few hundred more, but unfortunately at the time it was a vocal vote and records were not kept (conveniently).

    36. Re:It doesn't help... by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      So, since they've been required to actually pay what they promised their employees, unlike a lot of other pensions these days, they now can't make money. Huh. That doesn't strike me as the model of success we should be pushing for.

      Its more like that they've been required to actually pay as much money as everyone who ever works for them might get if they stayed until 65 and then lived a very long time. That's not right either, but its far closer to the actual truth.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    37. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many people in Congress (mostly Tea Party types) that want the USPS to be a relic of the past

      Really? Name... 10.

      Not ones who say "I don't think the Post Office is run well" or "Lines at the DMV or Post Office are too long... just wait until Obamacare is in full force"... but ones who have actually said "Death to the Post Office!!!" or been similarly explicit.

      Go on... I dare you.

      Watch what they do, not what they say.

    38. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha, you think that politicians only believe things they state in public explicit statements?

    39. Re:It doesn't help... by thoth · · Score: 2

      I can name one off the top of my head: Darrell Issa, chair of the Oversight Committee. He definitely wants to gut the USPS.

    40. Re:It doesn't help... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      There are many people in Congress (mostly Tea Party types) that want the USPS to be a relic of the past

      Really? Name... 10.

      Not ones who say "I don't think the Post Office is run well" or "Lines at the DMV or Post Office are too long... just wait until Obamacare is in full force"... but ones who have actually said "Death to the Post Office!!!" or been similarly explicit.

      Go on... I dare you.

      Hell, let me make this easier - name one.

      Nobody wants the postal service to go away. Congress just needs to quit meddling with it. They need to can the pension system and move to IRAs like everybody else is doing and allow the postal service to price their service however they see fit. Of course, Congress wants to use their pension system as a cookie jar to fund other projects, so that will never happen.

    41. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      I regret to inform you that you have mistakenly named 2 Democrats (Henry Waxman and Danny Davis) in your list of "tea partiers who hate the constitution and the post office and want to destroy America before letting it become a progressive liberal state."

      As we all know, Democrats never engage in any political posturing like this, and so you must clearly be mistaken. Please strike them from your list of people having non-Slashdot-approved groupthink, and provide us with a list of 10 Tea Party congressmen instead. There will be a bonus if you somehow manage to sneak in George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove.

      Sincerely,

      Rachel Maddow and the rest of the Illuminati.

    42. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      per Wikipedia: Lower volume means lower revenues to support the fixed commitment to deliver to every address once a day, six days a week. In response, the USPS has increased productivity each year from 2000 to 2007,[44] through increased automation, route re-optimization, and facility consolidation.[43] Despite these efforts, the organization saw an $8.5 billion budget shortfall in 2010,[45] and was losing money at a rate of about $3 billion per quarter in 2011.[46]

      how about this (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-10/u-dot-s-dot-postal-service-posts-quarterly-loss-of-5-dot-2-billion): The U.S. Postal Service’s announcement yesterday that it lost $5.2 billion in its third quarter added to calls for Congress to help the agency that’s supposed to run itself like a business and in many ways can’t.

      The Washington-based service yesterday reported its 11th consecutive quarter of losses and said it may lose $15 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. The loss was more than any quarterly net deficit in the past 12 months among companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 and the Nasdaq Stock Market, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

      Would that they would do the same for Amtrak.

    43. Re:It doesn't help... by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The US Postal Service isn't the government, so what it does isn't a function of the government. It hasn't been set up like that since the 1970s. Unfortunately the government decided to keep tabs on it when it was cut loose, and they mess with it from time to time. It's like the worst parts of government stapled to the worst parts of business, which is really sad for something I really want to like.

      I think the opposite of your suggestions should be true. The USPS should be free to do what it needs to do to survive in the private sector as its own company. After all, it doesn't receive any funding from the government. All the government gives it is a mandate that it serve every address in the country, along with a monopoly on the (apparently unprofitable) first-class mail business. I can't imagine being saddled with that burden helps their other services at all.

      As another respondent to my original post suggests, letting the post office remake themselves as more of a FedEx/Kinkos or a local ISP or something else would have been the right way to save them in the past few years. Had they been able to make such a transformation in the 2008-2012 time frame, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in today.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    44. Re:It doesn't help... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Having the USPS involved in other mailing activities seems like a reasonable use of the elastic clause, considering changes in transportation and other shipping-related technology since the 1700's.
      I don't like the monopoly and flat price on letters, but I don't see it as particularly unconstitutional.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    45. Re:It doesn't help... by Comen · · Score: 1

      It seems to me with Amazon.com doing so well and only getting better, UPS is making more and more money and sense as a way to get goods to houses in as little as 2 days.
      I am not sure why the USPS jsut left this market alone, my they did not try to compete in this area.

    46. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (The vote on the bill in the House in 2006 was done by voice, so there's no official record of who voted for it.)

      Actually there is a roll call for the original house bill

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll430.xml

      After this vote it went to the Senate and was amended and passed by unanimous consent, and the changed version was passed by unanimous consent in the house before being signed by the president.

      Any decent to the unanimous consent might be in the transcripts but given he bill had support of nearly everyone I can understand speeding it along.

    47. Re:It doesn't help... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to fully fund the plan to the same degree any private company would and fund any shortfalls, PLUS FUND EVEN MORE. The PLUS FUND EVEN MORE part makes absolutly no sense unless you're trying to cripple the orginization, maybe congress wants the money but $5 billion isn't big enough in our overall budget to make that much difference thus most people seem to think it's about killing the USPS

    48. Re:It doesn't help... by Myopic · · Score: 2

      Here's more than 10:

      Baker, Richard [R-LA6]
      Barrett, James “J. Gresham” [R-SC3]
      Biggert, Judy [R-IL13]
      Capito, Shelley [R-WV2]
      Castle, Michael [R-DE0]
      Crowley, Joseph [D-NY7]
      Davis, Artur [D-AL7]
      Feeney, Tom [R-FL24]
      Ford, Harold [D-TN9]
      Harris, Katherine [R-FL13]
      Hart, Melissa [R-PA4]
      Hensarling, Jeb [R-TX5]
      Hinojosa, Rubén [D-TX15]
      Hooley, Darlene [D-OR5]
      Israel, Steve [D-NY2]
      Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
      Kanjorski, Paul [D-PA11]
      Kelly, Sue [R-NY19]
      King, Peter “Pete” [R-NY3]
      LaTourette, Steven [R-OH14]
      Lucas, Frank [R-OK3]
      Lucas, Kenneth “Ken” [D-KY4]
      Maloney, Carolyn [D-NY14]
      Matheson, Jim [D-UT2]
      McCarthy, Carolyn [D-NY4]
      Miller, Bradley “Brad” [D-NC13]
      Moore, Dennis [D-KS3]
      Ney, Robert “Bob” [R-OH18]
      Ross, Mike [D-AR4]
      Sessions, Pete [R-TX32]
      Shadegg, John [R-AZ3]
      Tiberi, Patrick “Pat” [R-OH12]

    49. Re:It doesn't help... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      That was my thought. Poe much?

    50. Re:It doesn't help... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The reason you got the Troll mod is because you don't know that Congress has required the USPS to fund it's pension liability (actually retiree health care benefits) in a way that no other business or government entity is required to. They are actually funding the benefits for the next 75 years which includes employees that haven't even been born yet. Tell me one other entity that is required to do that.

    51. Re:It doesn't help... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Not sure why I missed this comment before now. I agree with your assessment so far as the characterization is accurate. I have run into a few different discussions of this, and I think its skewed partially by the number of issuse.

      I understand the last part, but I have issues with it. It kind of.... assumes a buit much. Since when does something have to make sense or be significant for politcians to care? If anything, they care more, the less it matters.

      Seriously...every time budgets come up its nothing but fighting over issues that are too small to matter to the budget...so this one being special and being part of some concerted effort to do something specific.... seems like a lot to assume.

      As far as I can tell, being too small and devicive is exactly what makes politicians take notice, because they run screaming from anything approaching a real issue.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  5. But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by Kenja · · Score: 0

    All political BS aside, without saturday delivery wont a lot of people just go over to FedEX or UPS? Couldn't they charge extra for weekend delivery to make it economical?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Informative

      Err - that's the plan. Only first class mail is being stopped on Saturdays. If you want something delivered on a Saturday, you can still send it priority or express, and it will still be delivered on a Saturday. That's the second and eighth lines of the summary above.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by MrBippers · · Score: 2

      Article says they're dropping first-class Saturday delivery, no mention of priority or express. If you need something delivered ASAP, you probably aren't sending it first-class.

    3. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      All political BS aside, without saturday delivery wont a lot of people just go over to FedEX or UPS?

      Well, yes, if you need Saturday delivery then you'll have to use a different carrier.

      It's worth noting that very few shippers will deliver on Sunday, and the world hasn't come to an end. I would think that if getting things delivered on a particular non-business day was that important, somebody would have started offering Sunday delivery to keep ahead of the competition.

      Couldn't they charge extra for weekend delivery to make it economical?

      The same people who scream when they lose their Saturday delivery would throw an even bigger fit if you raised the postal rates enough to make up the difference.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 2

      Yeah. First class mail is really third or fourth class mail.

    5. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by fermion · · Score: 1
      The package delivery will continue on saturday, something you have to pay extra extra extra for with Fedex and UPS.

      The reason saturday delivery of letters is going to save money is because everyone pays the same for a letter. This means that some delivery guy may have to drive 20 miles and be paid an hour of work to deliver one letter to one person. This is why the rural people are so pissed off. They are going to have to pay scaled delivery charges if they want something on saturday.

      Pretty much we could live with monday-Wednesday-friday delivery for first class letters. This would not effect most of us, since increasingly we are not sending mail.

      And it would still be competitive with Fedex and UPS. Have dealt with rural delivery, I can tell you the USPS wil drive out a deliver a letter or package. Unless a letter or package is overnight or two day guaranteed, my experience is that UPS and Fedex will keep it int he office until they have a few deliveries in the area.

      The reality is that much of the money wasted has to do with rural delivery. At one time in the US history, when much more of us were rural, and mail was a prime way to keep us together, this made sense. Now we just need to adjust and let businesses that need frequent mail delivery pay for it.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by hondo77 · · Score: 2

      All political BS aside, without saturday delivery wont a lot of people just go over to FedEX or UPS?

      I don't know about where you live but UPS doesn't deliver on Saturdays over here. I think FedEx will if you pay extra.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    7. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      Couldn't they charge extra for weekend delivery to make it economical?

      Since the postage is paid by the sender, how will the sender know that what he sends will be delivered on the weekend and thus require more money? And what is to stop the post office from simply holding on to all mail until Saturday so they can charge more for delivering it? Cut back on postal workers during the week, rake in the money on Saturday.

      If you mean "pay more in advance for weekend delivery", then you'll simply create the same issue that exists in the overnight and two-day delivery system. That is, I've lost count of the number of times that I've paid extra to a company so they'll ship the thing I really need tomorrow by overnight express, and then find out that they weren't going to bother shipping it for a week anyway. In the USPS case, they'll happily accept money for weekend delivery, but claim that the parcel didn't get to the destination postal center until Monday so they couldn't have delivered it on the weekend anyway.

    8. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      Since when did "first class" become the worst? Around when women starting wearing negative sized dresses?

    9. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Pretty sad that we have gone from RTFA! to RTFS!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Well there's still media mail, if you want something to get there eventually, maybe.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    11. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how "top secret" isn't the top level of secrecy.

    12. Re:But how much money will they lose to FedEX? by backwardsposter · · Score: 1

      When I first started visiting as anonymous, people seemed to have trouble reading TFA, but at least would read the summary. What's next, are people going to start posting based on keywords in the title, without reading the whole title?

  6. Eliminating Unnecessary by mrcoolbp · · Score: 2

    Wow, didn't think it would happen but it looks like they may have actually saved themselves a ton of money without too much inconvenience. This seems like a good thing.

    --
    check out www.soylentnews.org a community-driven alternative
  7. Bout Time by slackerfilm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think this is way over due. Although, I like getting mail on Saturday, I don't see a point. It isn't like we can do business on Saturdays.

    Now if only Amazon would start letting us choose USPS over UPS for package delivery. As an apartment dweller, this would make my life much easier.

    --

    throw the baby out. The bathwater is cold

    1. Re:Bout Time by bjackson1 · · Score: 1

      Now if only Amazon would start letting us choose USPS over UPS for package delivery. As an apartment dweller, this would make my life much easier.

      Absolutely this, I am tired of trucking my way down to the local UPS distribution center to try to get my packages. Really reduces the usefulness of Amazon. USPS on the other hand delivers my package to the rear of my apartment building. UPS gives up and puts a note on the door.

    2. Re:Bout Time by enigma32 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah?

      I've lived in apartments in the NYC area and the LA area over the past 5 years.
      In both places, the USPS has screwed up almost every package delivery, almost always without apology. (Frequently resulting in packages going back across the country with me never having even seen a missed delivery notice.)
      There's not even a useful way to complain to anyone higher up the food chain than the local postmaster, who, based on the three I've spoken with, is useless 100% of the time.

      I, for one, am thrilled to see them dropping Saturday delivery of some items. They need to start running the operation like a business instead of a government agency if they intend to hang around much longer.

      I never have a problem with UPS or Fedex.

    3. Re:Bout Time by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I used to live in a town with no actual UPS office. they flew packages down from Portland, OR on a plane, and had a hanger where they would load the trucks. However, it was not staffed by office staff, and had no posted address.

      If you got the note on the door, you're only choice was to have them just leave it on the porch, because there was no office to go pick it up at. Made for some fun conversations with the call center.. Well sir, you just need to go to the office at .. oh, wait.. um, sir, there is no local office, i'm not sure what to tell you...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:Bout Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an apartment dewller (2nd floor of a 2 floor building, so I cannot be confused with a basement dweller), I check my mail roughly once a week. I understand that it used to be a primary means of communication, but the casual communication has been shifted to other mechanisms. Since I don't ever have things shipped to my home address, I only find bills, junk mail, and the rare postcard from friend or family who was on vacation a month ago.

      If something is urgent, it will be sent some way to account for that, often requiring a signature. If the USPS scaled back deliveries to "once a week or as needed" I expect that few people would even notice. Instead of five deliveries a week, deliver only on Saturday or when a given route has over half a truckful of mail. Or change route definitions, downsize (certain employees first) as needed, sell off excess delivery vehicles (or repurpose them as spare parts), and adapt to the reduced need of a postal service.

    5. Re:Bout Time by PRMan · · Score: 1

      In Orange County, I have the completely opposite situation. UPS often stops in our cul-de-sac for an instant and then drives off unless I physically force them to make a choice of stopping or running over me. This has happened at least 5 times (only twice did we run in front of the truck). Other times they leave the package on the driveway in plain view of the whole neighborhood (it's only a laptop...), even though our front door is through a gate and hidden on the side of the house.

      USPS and FedEx ALWAYS put the package on the front porch hidden from view, except for once when the postal worker wrote "dog" and took the package back because he was scared of a 3-month-old basset hound.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Bout Time by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I am tired of trucking my way down to the local UPS distribution center to try to get my packages.

      Try living in Italy. There, the mail carriers will tear a corner of your package so you have to go to the post office to collect it and ensure it isn't damaged, all while curious postal workers are looking over your shoulder.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:Bout Time by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I never have a problem with UPS or Fedex.

      Really?

      Well, I have. I ordered an item that was to be delivered via UPS at about the time my company moved office. The item was addressed to the new office. The UPS driver, went to the old address, saw that we have moved and took the item back to the UPS depot. I called UPS to tell them that if they could just, you know, deliver the package to the address that was on the package, all would be good. Instead, they delivered it to the address that my company had used a few years earlier.What's so hard about reading the address on a package and delivering a package there?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:Bout Time by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      This sounds like what I've experienced with USPS.
      Except I've had this sort of nonsense happen dozens of times with them.

    9. Re:Bout Time by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      USPS on the other hand delivers my package to the rear of my apartment building. UPS gives up and puts a note on the door.
      This depends on your delivery person. My USPS guy will not get out of his truck, so if he has a package for you, he will just drop a "sorry we missed you" note. It pisses me off that UPS and Fedex will come to your door, while the USPS guy, even when I am home, just leaves a note telling me to go pick it up at the post office. Even worse, it is not at my LOCAL post office, but at some sorting facility 5 miles away. In fact, I would bet that the driver doesn't even HAVE the package and probably prefills the "sorry we missed you" note.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:Bout Time by geoskd · · Score: 1

      UPS and Fedex will do this too. When you order from places online, put the following in the shipping instructions: "Shipper Release". This will force the carrier to leave the package, and you wont have to run over to the warehouse every time.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    11. Re:Bout Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if only Amazon would start letting us choose USPS over UPS for package delivery. As an apartment dweller, this would make my life much easier.

      Try Amazon Prime. 95% of the orders I get are UPS. 4% are USPS priority mail, 1% are FedEx 1-Day deliveries.

    12. Re:Bout Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've had both FedEx and UPS lose, destroy, or give away packages to my neighbors (literally) in the single year I've lived in Brookyln. USPS leaves a note and then holds the package if it won't fit in my mailbox. It's a bit of a pain to walk 2 miles to get to it, but at least I get the package in the end. By this point I specifically offer to pay the difference to use USPS instead simply because it's the only way I can actually get my delivery more than 50% of the time.

    13. Re:Bout Time by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I used to live in Juneau, Alaska, where they do have a local UPS office, with an actual human staff member. And it was conveniently open for one hour a week, Monday mornings, from eight to nine in the morning. On the other hand, the Post Office was convenient and fully staffed at all business hours. As a bonus, USPS service was less expensive, faster, and more convenient. I've never understood why anyone sane would prefer UPS or FedEx, but on the other hand I've never lived in a place where those options are operationally superior -- I've heard there are such places.

  8. Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering the spread of email, texts, and IM's, it has to come sooner or later. Considering the post office mostly funds itself with stamps, packages, and advertisements in the mail, the only thing that's still going strong are the packages and maybe PO's.

    So why not reorganize the whole thing? I actually like them for packages, so why not use that strength. I don't know how many people don't have access to computers or even want to see stuff in the mail. The only thing I get in the mail are important tax-related documents and paper statements from companies I hate (since I want them to pay for printing, stuffing, and mailing me my statement that gets immediately shredded).

    Simply reorganize the post office as such:
    1) create an opt-in system where people ask for mail to not be delivered or a monthly surcharge will be billed to them to cover expenses. Monthly surcharge is only applicable in urban areas and areas specifically chosen by the Post Office (ex: some strange mailing hub in the middle of nowhere).
    2) keep the package delivery service
    3) continue delivering mail to subscribers
    4) those that opted out would have to pick up their mail at the post office
    5) expand facilities to handle the additional traffic and retrain letter carriers to be inhouse clerks for the new pickup facilities
    6) sell PO boxes to people that want to pick up their mail only a few times a month vs. daily.
    7) educate people how to add bills online - set up a website where these companies show people how to add online accounts.

    I think quite a bit of people - tens of millions - who already get nothing but junk mail wouldn't mind going to the post office a few times a month to pick up the few actual letters they need. I bet lots of people in the cities who already have access to a computer probably won't need to get their letters every day. Heck, if they want to be fancy, simply scan every letter as an image, store it for a month, and give customers access to their account to see what kind of letters they have waiting for them so they can see letters from Grandma.

    Yes it's a pain and it'll be slow but it would be worth the wait to make sure your sensitive documents are stored in the facility and not waiting in an outside mailbox that anyone can access. Again, this would be for urban areas mostly where they get more mail than rural (population distribution) and they have more online access where they could be encouraged to switch online. Companies would like this too since it would add more online subscribers saving them money.

    1. Re:Restructure the USPS by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Now pretend I'm 85 years old, in a wheel chair, no driver's license, very little income, not enough for innernetz access. How do I get my mail now? Or is mail to become something for just the well-to-do?

      Mail is supposed to be for EVERYBODY. That means someone in a cabin that is a 10 mile boat-ride - the post office does this sort of stuff. This system is great for the well-monied living in urban or suburban areas, but I don't think it will well-serve everyone.

    2. Re:Restructure the USPS by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Senders already pay for mail delivery. If senders aren't paying enough to make delivery viable, then the postal service needs to raise rates.

      The post office is Constitutionally-mandated to provide universal service, at least for first-class mail. They could raise rates for junk ("bulk rate") mail, or drop rural service to a few days a week, and still maintain their universal service but save money on gas and salaries. (I say rural only because most suburban and urban service is probably dense enough to still be profitable, assuming the prefunded retirement debacle is fixed.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Restructure the USPS by owski · · Score: 5, Informative

      That means someone in a cabin that is a 10 mile boat-ride - the post office does this sort of stuff.

      No they don't. You don't have to be too far off the beaten track to require that your mail be picked up at the post office. You haven't lived in a rural area before, have you?

    4. Re:Restructure the USPS by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      That's the truth of capitalism. If it is not viable, it can be written off, no matter how unethical or inhumane.

    5. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post office likes for junk mail to be cheap as it consistently keeps their system lubricated.

      What I'd personally prefer would be for basic letter postage to be $1. I think it's pretty awesome that I can send a letter across the country for $0.42 (what postage was when I bought the "Forever" stamp a couple of years ago). You definitely can't do that with any other courier.

      If you increased the cost of postage, however, less junk mail would flow through the system, and people would be fired due to lack of work.

    6. Re:Restructure the USPS by enigma32 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry... are you implying that restructuring the USPS would be in some way unethical or inhumane?

    7. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You DO get your mail.

      Come on, they are dropping mail delivery on SATURDAY, not at all. 85 year olds in wheel chairs will now get their mail from Monday through Friday, with a break on Saturday and Sunday.

      Which isn't terribly much of a deal for most people. Therefore, it saves a lot of money for a service that is not needed much. Some businesses, and only some, really, need mail delivery on Saturday and they now have to look for other options or send priority mail.

      How can people get so worked up about this?

    8. Re:Restructure the USPS by deKernel · · Score: 1

      That is one of the stupidest comments I have read in quite some time. It is comments like that which make me stop reading Slashdot.....sheesh.

    9. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mugging someone on the street is unethical and inhumane.

      Wouldn't stealing from millions of people to keep the USPS afloat be millions of times more unethical and inhumane?

    10. Re:Restructure the USPS by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Opt-in won't save money unless everybody opts in or out. If you opt out of mail delivery, but our neighbor doesn't, then the mail still has to run, so they might as well do yours, too. Look at garbage collection. If you don't pay your wast collection bill (often tied to water service), but you put trash out, chances are they will take it. They don't have some computer in the truck telling them to skip this house or that house. It is far cheaper just to pick up everybody that put out garbage than to try to skip the ones who don't have service.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last two towns I've lived in offered no in town delivery, only rural.

    12. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 Questions for your 85 year old wheel chair bound (with no drivers license THANK GOD), that has no income or internet access.

      Do you die if you don't get mail every day?
      If so, how do you survive your first Sunday?

    13. Re:Restructure the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignore above; the AC that you were responding to was hidden by score 0. Since you responded to him, my score 0 will still show up to you; and the cycle of "you're an idiot" will continue.

      Original AC is a moron.

    14. Re:Restructure the USPS by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Well, said junk mail needs to at least cost enough to pay for the expense of delivering said junk mail. If that's not the case, I don't see how it "lubricates" the system at all. Were they able to pay for universal service through junk mail alone, then any remaining first-class service would be profit, as would priority, express, copies, ISP, and any other services they expanded into.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    15. Re:Restructure the USPS by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I know for a fact that they still do mail delivery by jet boat on the lower Rogue River in Oregon and on the Snake River in Hells Canyon.

  9. How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2

    It never made sense that I could send a letter down the street or Nome Alaska for the same amount of money. Just seems like I shold be paying more. Otherwise why not just deregulate mail delivery? UPS, DHL and/or Fedex may be able to do it more efficiently.

    1. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by 0racle · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It never made sense that I could send a letter down the street or Nome Alaska for the same amount of money.

      It does if the cost of the unusual (sending to Nome) is lowered because the cost of sending the usual (sending locally) is slightly increased.

      UPS, DHL and/or Fedex may be able to do it more efficiently.

      And yet they don't. Both UPS and FedEx use USPS for local delivery often because they're better at it. UPS and FedEx are a coin toss if they can find my house (2 miles from nearest town, 1 mile from highway, not exactly a mountain man), USPS gets it right every time. Unless it needs to be sent next day or so, USPS is far more reliable and cost effective.

      UPS and FedEx also don't deliver everywhere USPS does.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that graduated scales for first-class mail would make postage rates so complicated as to destroy the remaining business.

      People like predictable. Hell, the USPS flat-rate priority boxes are expensive but predictable, and many people I know prefer them over variable-rate boxes.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      This was the primary argument for being all-encompassing. They could tie the whole nation togetjer for one lowosh aberage price, in exchange for exclusivity of general letter delivery, which supported the goal of the Constitution. Graduated service is little different from the complaint that private companies would focus on high volume cities and between citoes and completely ignore Nome, Alaska.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cost to send a letter via UPS: $30
      Cost to send a letter via USPS: $0.46
      One of them's certainly more efficient, but it isn't UPS.

    5. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      100 years ago this made more sense, when sending a letter was often the only way to get the message to someone. Without affordable mail, you might be cut off from civilization. But you can send a lot of stuff electronically now (money, letters, etc). So there isn't really much of a need for people to send stuff for such a low price. 90% of the mail I receive is junk mail anyway. Which is basically the only way the postal system is able to maintain a business at all. If they had to support themselves on just letter mail and packages, they'd have no chance of staying in business.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    6. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Dan667 · · Score: 2

      financially, public roads and transit make no sense, but the number of benefit outweighs the cost.

    7. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >financially, public roads and transit make no sense, but the number of benefit outweighs the cost.

      Alas, the only way to know if the "benefit outweighs the cost" is to prove it by showing financial gains acquired via voluntary exchanges with willing customers.

      Quite often, the benefit proves to not outweight the cost, and the operation faces liquidation so its factors of production can be repurposed for more prudent uses.

      Of course, stealing other people's money is a great way to evade the financial failure and liquidation that would likely ensue.

    8. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Welcome to socialized mail. Out of all the things to socialize, mail seems to be one of the better candidates. Also roads, military.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can send a lot of stuff electronically if you have electronics. And an Internet connection.

      The Post Office is not "in business" any more than the US Navy is "in business". It's a Constitutionally authorized function of the Government.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, yet you are wrong. Private carriers aren't allowed to deliver standard mail, so they are prohibited from competing with the USPS. Therefore, you can't say private carriers are less efficient than the USPS. The rich history of free market economies, as well as a good dose of common sense, tells us that competition in the free market is what provides the best service for the lowest cost, not government-mandated monopolies like the USPS.

    11. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Private carriers aren't allowed to deliver standard mail, so they are prohibited from competing with the USPS. Therefore, you can't say private carriers are less efficient than the USPS.

      Actually, the people who have tried anyway had a rate half that of the USPS. Of course the government shut them down, because monopolies are efficient and virtuous.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never made sense that I could send a letter down the street or Nome Alaska for the same amount of money.

      It makes sense to people in Alaska, which like most red states gets subsidized by blue states.

      "This is bad news for Alaskans and small-business owners who rely on timely delivery to rural areas," said Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, who said the decision would slow overall mail delivery time for items, including Social Security checks.

    13. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Lost2Home · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the people who have tried anyway had a rate half that of the USPS. Of course the government shut them down, because monopolies are efficient and virtuous.

      Actually in that article the "American Letter Mail Company" did exactly what UPS, FedEx or any other private company would do if allowed to compete - pick large cities and only serve that market. USPS has the mandate of serving any address in the country for the same cost, regardless of whether it is the middle of Alaska or downtown Manhattan.

      It is easy to undercut USPS if you only serve New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.

    14. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Authorized is not the same as required.

    15. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's easy to undercut the USPS, or anyone else, when you can provide the same service for less cost. The universal service and price mandate and the expected poor results are arguments against state-mandated monopolies like the USPS, not arguments for.

      In the case of the American Letter Mail Company, the owner did indeed claim that he could serve the whole country for 5 cents a stamp (stamps from the USPS were 12 cents at the time), not just the large cities. Further, this short lesson in free market competition did indeed temporarily drive down the cost of USPS postage. That is, until the government eliminated its competition.

      . . . as he believed that five cents was sufficient to send mail throughout the country.

      If the USPS monopoly was eliminated and competition allowed again, I expect private carriers would start providing services in urban areas, where they currently have the largest footprint, and then branch out from there. Because they wouldn't be bound by artificial rules and regulations, the cost of delivery would vary depending on source and destination, primarily based on the amount of customers currently served in each. The more customers served, the less the cost. This, as opposed to the USPS socializing/redistributing the cost of delivery among all customers, which has proven again and again to be a failing model.

      If we simply allowed competition, the citizens would be able to see for themselves who the best carrier is for the cheapest price. A free marketplace where competition is allowed to flourish is the key -- always has been, always will be.

    16. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why don't they reinvent themselves? Instead of trying to force poor people to continue using paper mail and personal checks to pay the mail, why not offer them a very cheap & easy way to pay bills online, access email, etc?

      Boom, Post office just became an internet cafe. Partner it up with the local library, and you just eliminated a massive part of the need for the post office's paper-mail delivery services, and eliminated a lot of redundant facilities.

    17. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      your idealism does not work in practice. If you need an example see communism.

    18. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if someone in New York wants to send a letter to mom in rural Montana?

    19. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rich history of free market economies, as well as a good dose of common sense, tells us that competition in the free market is what provides the best service for the lowest cost, not government-mandated monopolies like the USPS.

      What rich history of the free market economies?

      You mean during the 19th century, where labor wages for certain peoples were distorted (read: pushed down) thanks to government (Jim Crow laws, Chinese Exclusion Act), and government subsidized the railroads?

      Or do you mean prior to the Civil War (prior to Abe Lincoln, praised for freeing the black slaves, actually enslaved EVERYBODY by introducing income taxes to the US)? You know, when "all men created equal" implied white, land owning males?

      Or prior to the US itself, where nations are usually ruled by kings and nobles?

      Or do you want to go back to ancient times, where the Romans brazenly had slaves (built a whole Colosseum where they threw those slaves in to fight lions for entertainment), Pharaohs were regarded as descendants of god, scholars were buried in China simply by decree of the Emperor, and a zombie who's his own father once walked the earth (and started a little cult that promotes a ton of anti-capitalist ideas like "render undo Caesar which is Caesar's")?

      Common sense tells us there has never been a "rich history" of free market economies. Almost all economies in the history of human civilization were controlled markets to various degrees

    20. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said all economies in history have been purely free markets. I simply said we have a rich history where competition in free markets has produced the best outcome for consumers. The proof of this is self-evident throughout history, as are examples of unfree markets and their ill effects, as you have cited.

      And, yes, freedom -- whether personal, political, or economic -- makes perfect common sense. Would you rather be in shackles, chained to a wall or free to travel where and when you please? Would you rather purchase goods and services in the marketplace or be mandated by government to purchased certain goods and services for your own good? Would you rather the price of something be determined by voluntary cooperation of free individuals in a free marketplace or through government coercion and mandate? Would you rather have the option to pay for Saturday postal service or have that service made unavailable by decree of government? The answer to these questions are the very definition of "common sense."

      The freer the market, the better the outcome. Therefore, we should move toward free markets not away from them by eliminating the state-mandated monopoly that is the USPS and allowing competition to produce the best service for the lowest cost.

    21. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Does it make sense to you that a resident of Seattle, Washington pays income tax on the same rate schedule as a person in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? The person in Alabama costs the government more, but we don't change tax rates based on geography. We also don't charge a person more for a passport based on how much background checking was required. Nor are court filing fees increased for complicated cases. Hawaii didn't charge Obama more for the copy of his long-form birth certificate than other people pay, despite Obama's cert costing Hawaii a lot to deal with.

      We could charge by geography. That would be ethical and constitutional, but in my opinion it would not be optimal. Universal service is, in my opinion, optimal for USPS rates. I feel the same way about universal telephone service, and I'd like to get universal internet service into the national policy, too. You don't see benefit in universal service?

    22. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I can offer a rate of only one penny! (so long as you only want to send a letter from an address back to the same address). Get your letter ready, and now keep it, and I have satisfied my letter-carrying duties. Go ahead and mail the penny to me using the USPS, and I'll show you that I am profitable.

      Thusly explained why universal service is an essential detail when discussing letter rates. If you aren't providing universal service, then you aren't a "person who has tried to deliver standard mail".

    23. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      UPS, FedEx or any other private company would do if allowed to compete - pick large cities and only serve that market.

      Except they already serve almost all of the country now, which disproves that hypothesis ... and the value of their service is a function of the Network Effect. Amazon wouldn't ship UPS if they only served major cities...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, the USPS is structured differently than the Navy. It is structured as a semi-private enterprise with heavy governmental oversight, similar to some public utilities. The Navy is a regular governmental department. But I don't think that pedantic detail changes your point.

    25. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Except the USPS was able to halve rates once the American Letter Company started competing. Why was that? They didn't go bankrupt.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    26. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, you wouldn't be profitable because your service is useless and would have no customers.

      Second, universal availability should be distinguished from universal pricing. Universal pricing is much more detrimental to the USPS than universal availability because they can't charge more for service that costs more to provide and less for service that costs less to provide. Instead, the cost of all service is averaged and charged to everyone. If the USPS was allowed to charge an amount that reflects the actual cost of a particular service, there would be no need to eliminate services, as they would be paid for by the customers that want them. Instead, whole days of service are eliminated to compensate for higher costs in certain areas. The worst part about it is no other entities are allowed to provide the service due to the government-mandated monopoly on standard mail.

      We need new legislation to allow the private sector to provide services the people want, at the time they want it, and for the price they want it. Continuing this government monopoly is absolutely unnecessary, it's un-American, and it's not what freedom is about.

    27. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Lost2Home · · Score: 1
      Except UPS doesn't charge a flat rate to ship a envelope sized package to anywhere in the country. There are distinct rates for business addresses, and also escalating charges based on where the destination is.

      Compare the cost to send a small package via UPS to a business in a major city near to you with the cost to ship something to a residence in Nome, AK and note that there is a significant difference in price between the two. That is something the Post Office is not allowed to do.

    28. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is something the Post Office is not allowed to do.

      Sure, but there's no good reason they couldn't, even if additional legislation was required to accomplish it. The artificial restriction that the USPS charge the same rate for services that incur vary different costs to provide is probably the biggest threat to their viability.

      Regardless, there's really no comparison between free market competition and government-mandated monopoly -- the free market will always provide the consumer with the best service for the lowest cost. The flaw you point out is one of the many reasons why.

    29. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Wrong again, retard; they have a monopoly on mailboxes for delivery by USPS. If FedEx wants to set up a mailbox system, they are free to do so.

    30. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are wrong. Aside from certain limited exceptions allowed by the USPS, the private sector cannot deliver letters to a USPS mailbox, another mailbox, or anywhere else. It's not about the mailbox, it's about the law. Try doing some basic research next time before running your mouth, insulting people, and exposing your embarrassing ignorance.

      18 USC 1696 (a):

      Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

      This section shall not prohibit any person from receiving and delivering to the nearest post office, postal car, or other authorized depository for mail matter any mail matter properly stamped.

    31. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you're comparing a priority delivery service (UPS) to standard mail delivery service (USPS). You aren't comparing like services. Not to mention, the USPS can hardly stay afloat and has to constantly increase the price and/or cut back services to continue operating.

      True efficiency and the best service for the lowest cost can only be realized through competition in the free marketplace, not through government-mandated monopolies.

      Try again . . .

    32. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      The Post is un-American? It's in the fucking Constitution! What next, you want to have competing Navies because the "government monopoly on national defense" violates your absurd notion of "freedom"?

    33. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I don't know the history as well as you apparently do. Did the Mail Company offer universal service? in every corner where the Post Office delivered? If so, then tell me more about the rates. If not, then the comparison is moot.

    34. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Constitution and all that is derived from it isn't perfect. That's why the founders were wise enough to add the ability to amend it.

      What's absurd is your attempt to equally compare national defense to letter delivery. I think strong arguments can be made to keep things like national defense within the control of the government. On the other hand, there's no good reason for the government to continue it's monopoly of letter delivery, but there are several reasons to discontinue it. If you are so sure the USPS is superior, what do you have to fear from competition from the private sector? The answer is obvious, as they struggle to survive even with no competitors.

      Unnecessary and detrimental government mandates are the exact opposite of freedom. They cost citizens jobs, wealth, and growth every day they are allowed to exist. That's not an absurd notion, it's a universal and undeniable fact.

    35. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Post Office is not "in business" any more than the US Navy is "in business".

      That's incorrect. The USPS does not receive taxpayer subsidies for general operations like most other government agencies, such as the DoD. They must operate on the revenues they generate. Therefore, they operate very much like a business.

      It's a Constitutionally authorized function of the Government.

      That's why the Constitution also has an amendment process built into it.

    36. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I don't think that pedantic detail changes your point.

      I disagree. Since the USPS must operate on the revenues they generate, rather than government subsidy, they are very much like a private business and very unlike most any other government agency. I would classify them as a highly regulated and protected commercial enterprise.

    37. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, as mentioned above, the owner of the American Letter Mail Company did claim that his company could serve the whole country for 5 cents a stamp (stamps from the USPS were 12 cents at the time). Further, this short lesson in free market competition did indeed temporarily drive down the cost of USPS postage. That is, until the government eliminated its competition.

    38. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd argue more people like cheap than predictable. And, the only thing predictable about the USPS is higher prices for less service.

      The cost of first-class postage changes so much a great deal of convenience from predictability was lost long ago. I think there's a reasonable and smart balance that's possible between graduated pricing and the complexity of any pricing scheme that would make the USPS more efficient, viable, and responsible with the hard-earned money of the consumer. The current pricing scheme is yet another example of the failure of Socialism and Socialized pricing.

    39. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are describing free market capitalism. Since when is "voluntary exchange" a component of Communism?

      Free market economies work best, always better than centrally planned economies, like those based on Communism. History has proven this time and again. The USPS is just the latest example.

    40. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, roads do make financial sense in many cases, and the government shouldn't be building them where they don't. In fact, before roads were commonplace, businesses would build their own as necessary to transport their goods. They only did so because it resulted in profit. Similarly, the government should only order a road be built if it can be shown to provide enough benefit to more than pay for its cost and upkeep. Otherwise, it's a bad investment that the people would have been better off without.

      While the government is justified taxing the general public for roads in many cases -- since having tolls everywhere would become too impractical -- the construction and maintenance of those roads should be contracted out to the private sector where competition can secure the best service for the lowest price.

    41. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it make sense to you that a resident of Seattle, Washington pays income tax on the same rate schedule as a person in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? The person in Alabama costs the government more, but we don't change tax rates based on geography.

      Yes, I believe each individual should pay the same percentage of their income to fund government provided all are benefited equally. That's not to say some localities shouldn't be taxed more than others, as needs vary by location. But, all that benefit equally within a given region, should be taxed equally. For example, if one state would need to collect funds from another state to provide a service, that's indication that the federal government should leave such services to the individual states to provide, as all are no longer benefited equally. In the same regard, someone who uses public roads or transportation more, should be taxed more.

      Therefore, services like national defense, which benefit all equally, should cost us all the same, relative to our income. Services like those provided by the USPS, on the other hand, should be based on whatever the cost is to send a letter or package from one place to another. For those sending something within the same town, the cost should be less. For those sending something to the other side of the country, the cost should be more. For those sending nothing, there should be no cost.

      You don't see benefit in universal service?

      The key to freedom, economic and otherwise, is to be as free as possible as an individual, while not infringing on the freedom of other individuals. Requiring one state or individual to pay for the benefit of another, unnecessarily infringes on the freedom of those paying more. This is one of the problems with all types of universal service. The other problem with universal service is that it doesn't allow the service provider to operate efficiently and provide the people what they want, when they want it, and for a price they are willing to pay. It creates artificial restrictions on the the service provider and it's customers, which results in unnecessary inefficiency. There is less service at greater cost for everyone, and for no good reason. That is, unless your "good reason" is to require one group of people to subsidize the cost of service of another group of people. We already have a mechanism for that, which respects the freedom of all involved -- it's called private charity.

    42. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said all economies in history have been purely free markets.

      I never said you said all economies in history have been purely free markets.

      I said all economies in history were controlled economies. By definition, controlled economies are not free markets, purely or otherwise.

      I simply said we have a rich history where competition in free markets has produced the best outcome for consumers.

      I repeat my question: which rich history is that?

      All markets in history involve some form of (government facilitated) control - aka oppression. People weren't free, they were only lucky that government was going after some other people

      In other words, there was no free market. You only THINK they were free because you're only looking at the groups who benefited from the government oppression.

      2-300 years ago, white male land owners competed with other white male land owners, and it created the best outcome for white consumers. That doesn't make it a free market.

      The proof of this is self-evident throughout history, as are examples of unfree markets and their ill effects, as you have cited.

      Other way around. History is self-evident proof that unfree markets can last for a very very long time, as many kingdoms and empires (unfree markets) lasted for hundreds of years (many longer than the US, especially the US as "it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers", according to those who think the US has long deviated from its roots)

      Even if we take the US as some pinnacle example of free market success, it is an exception, not the rule, in history.

      And, yes, freedom -- whether personal, political, or economic -- makes perfect common sense.

      You're conflating freedom and free market. Having freedom and having a free market are two different things.

      A tyrant has plenty of freedom, more freedom than anybody else, but he doesn't live in a free market (nor would his common sense tell him he wants one)

      For example:

      Would you rather be in shackles, chained to a wall or free to travel where and when you please?

      A tyrant isn't chained and can travel wherever he pleases. He probably brings an entourage of servants and slaves with him too.

      The freer the market, the better the outcome.

      Again, my point is there is no "rich history" of that happening. What happens in history is one group of people gets oppressed (by government), creating a favorable environment for the rest.

      The rest (who may very well have facilitated in the government oppression) naturally had "better outcomes" thanks to that favorable environment, and they falsely thought their environment was a "free market", and their success was because they were better and more competitive (well, I guess they are, in the sense they were better at violence and oppression)

    43. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      So, it didn't offer universal service. Thanks for clearing that up, now I can ignore comparisons between the two mail-delivery services.

    44. Re:How about graduated scale or deregulation ? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I sort of follow, but none of the premises are right. People aren't benefitted equally by government -- not at all. Certain people benefit disproportionately by wide margins. Consider a poor person who gets a transfer payment. Consider the person who lives near public roads, versus a person who does not. Even national defense certainly does not benefit everyone equally -- doubtlessly, rich people benefit much more from national defense because they have much more to lose.

      All government action, every last bit of it, literally 100%, is "requiring one individual to pay for the benefit of another". (Think about it, if private people buying things for themselves in private markets suffice for any given problem, then government doesn't bother to get involved.) If that violates your notion of freedom, then you aren't alone, you can quorum with the anarchists. I'm not an anarchist, but I don't really want to get into picking apart anarchy.

  10. Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 less day I have to clean the garbage out of my mailbox.

  11. This isn't going to fix things. by JayRott · · Score: 2

    Personally I don't really care if the USPS discontinues Saturday delivery, but FTFA the agency was down $16 billion last year and this will only save them $2 billion. $14 billion is a lot to make up each year. I would like to know what they plan to do about that.

    1. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by Shagg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's really not much they can do about it. The main reason the USPS is down $16 billion is because Congress is intentionally trying to bankrupt them.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    2. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I would like to know what they plan to do about that.

      They'll probably stop delivering on the other days of the week also. That would save another $10billion...

    3. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by vlm · · Score: 1

      As seen on zerohedge, cut another 7 days service per week and they're outta the red!

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by DaHat · · Score: 0

      The main reason the USPS is down $16 billion is because Congress is intentionally trying to bankrupt them.

      Obviously Congress isn't doing enough as the pension pre-funding is costing them only $5 billion a year.

      Care to explain how/where Congress is responsible for the other $11 billion as well?

      Maybe we should blame Al Gore... I mean, didn't he invent the internet?

    5. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Care to explain how/where Congress is responsible for the other $11 billion as well?

      The Post Office has been begging Congress for a decade to let it lay off extra employees and close sorting hubs that are no longer needed...things that are unpopular with voters. Congress turned the USPS into the world's largest welfare program instead of letting it run itself like a business and adapt to changes in consumer demand.

    6. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by bdleonard · · Score: 1

      $11.1 billion of that $15.9 billion loss are accumulated pension pre-funding payments that they have not been able to make. $2 billion is a significant portion of the $4.8 billion in operational losses. That change combined with Congress relaxing the pension pre-funding rule to something a bit more sane, and allowing the USPS to shutter facilities that the USPS itself has said they do not need, should take care of most the current fiscal problems with a relatively small impact on actual services provided.

    7. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by Xphile101361 · · Score: 1

      I believe that Congress has a hand in determining how much the USPS can raise their postal rates. So even though First Class Mail fell by 15% between 2008 and 2010, the USPS was only allowed to raise postage from 42 to 44 cents (5%). I know for a while that the USPS was making money or staying afloat and am unsure at what point it started to lose money. If the USPS could close what offices it wanted to and change its rate appropriately, it likely would not have an issue staying afloat at all.

    8. Re:This isn't going to fix things. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      USPS had to freeze some rates for years, and is only increasing stamps by .01 because of the US government's pretense that inflation doesn't exist anymore. Of course volume also fell a lot, and it's possible that raising rates too much would hurt it further, but they probably could be collecting at least a few billion more in revenue

  12. Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We could eliminate the DOJ's yearly anti-terrorism funding and not only save Saturday delivery, but put the USPS back in good shape fiscally.
    Somehow I don't think expanding the TSA, buying millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo and giving them automatic assault rifles to fight boogeymen is helping anything.

    1. Re:Yet... by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm not a fan our police state either, but the DoJ, flawed as they are, are the ones who *actually* prevent terrorism, and would be sorely missed. If you're looking for some useless, dangerous bureaucrats to defund start with the DIA, NSA, and CIA. Those folks create more terrorism than they thwart.

    2. Re:Yet... by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Somehow I don't think expanding the TSA, buying millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo and giving them automatic assault rifles to fight U.S. citizens is helping anything.

      FIFY

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    3. Re:Yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I have yet to be attacked by a boogeyman, so clearly they're doing their job.

      On a related note, this tiger-repelling rock I paid $100 for is absolutely phenominal! I haven't been attacked even once!

  13. proper tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if USPS offered proper tracking on par with fedex and UPS they could be competitive for parcels.

    As they are today, tracking is a joke.

    1. Re:proper tracking by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      They offer free tracking if you buy your postage online. Heck, they actually pay you for the tracking since postage rates online are cheaper than if you walk into a post office.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  14. Sooo. by adolf · · Score: 0

    I submit my billing on Wednesday. The check gets cut and mailed on Thursday.

    Before the USPS closed every useful nearby processing center, I'd always get it on Friday.

    Subsequently, since it now has to travel hundreds of miles instead of 30, I get it on Saturday.

    And by August, since delivering on Saturday is expensive, I'll get it on Monday.

    Thanks, I guess.

    1. Re:Sooo. by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Submit your billing on Tuesday.

    2. Re:Sooo. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Checks get cut on Thursday, no matter what day I submit the billing.

    3. Re:Sooo. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You live a blessed life if this is the level of concerns you are privileged to worry about. Lucky you. I myself am also blessed to worry about some extremely petty concerns. This is the enviable life of an American! Yay for us!

      I'm not sure what the parameters of your check-cutting are, but maybe you could contract with a check-cutter who cuts checks on the day of the week convenient to you. I'm not a check cutter myself, but my understanding is that printers work every day of the week. Also: electronic transfers; use UPS "urgent mail"; budget to wait two more days; apply other creative ideas to your small problem.

      All that said, I wonder why they cut service on Saturday? Why go two days in a row without mail? I say cut Thursday service.

  15. Post office should charge for delivery by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    $5/month if you want it delivered or collect it yourself at the post office.

    1. Re:Post office should charge for delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do charge for delivery, that's what the postage the sender pays for goes to.

    2. Re:Post office should charge for delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except it would cost more to have clerks give you the mail than have delivery guys stopping at every mailbox. And they'd have to rent offices with much larger parking lots.(Yes, almost all post offices are rented, not owned.)

    3. Re:Post office should charge for delivery by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Modify that idea somewhat, so that the SENDER pays a higher stamp price for home delivery, and a lower price for "pick it up at the post office" mail. I could get along with that... The PO would need to dramatically expand their PO boxes for people to come and collect their mail without bothering the postal workers, or having the post office be "open."

    4. Re:Post office should charge for delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the default preference would be for the bulk mail could be routinely "picked up" at the post office with convenient large dumpsters near the boxes and the human mail to be sent directly to my house?

  16. Re:Who could have guessed? by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    imagine that, a corporate whoring teabagger repeating the same old lies in an attempt at blaming the victims, yet again.

  17. Perfect job for robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Robotic mail and package delivery is possible, now that driverless vehicles are being legalized. I can find no downside.

    Robots have no interest in reading your mail.
    Robots have no need for the contents of your package.
    Robots have no need of unions or pensions.
    Robots would never be tempted to dump mail in their attic in order to take the day off.
    Robots could easily be programmed with alternative delivery instructions in the event that you need your item dropped elsewhere when you're on vacation.

    All postal willing postal workers could be retrained as robotic technicians. The transition could be a public works project of the future.

     

    1. Re:Perfect job for robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots would never be tempted to dump mail in their attic in order to take the day off.

      great, so you are saying i will get even more junkmail!

  18. Inconvenient by rally2xs · · Score: 2

    So, I get this note in the mailbox that I have a package that is too big for the mailbox, I have to pick it up at the PO. But, I leave for work before the PO opens, return after it closes, and it's 50 miles away so I can't sneak down there during lunch. Result: If the PO is closed on Saturday too, I have a real problem, having to take off work for yet another thing, getting a package from the PO. If it is open on Saturday, then there will most assuredly be a 2 hour line, out the door and into the snow, because everyone else is going to be doing the same thing.

    1. Re:Inconvenient by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do what they do in Canada. Place your "Post-Office" inside a pharmacy, and staff it as long as the pharmacy is open (usually pretty late). The staff of the post office is actually the staff of the pharmacy, who can do things like stock shelves during the times when nobody needs the post office services. The post office pays the pharmacy to run the service, but still saves a bunch of money, because they don't have to rent their own space, and pay employees full time when most of the time there's nothing for them to do.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:Inconvenient by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're talking about closing the PO on Saturdays, only cutting back on Saturday deliveries.

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    3. Re:Inconvenient by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Naturally, I have not read the article (this is slashdot), but in the past, the discussion was around not having deliveries, or sorting on Saturdays of first class mail, but Post Offices would remain open.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:Inconvenient by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. having business day only deliver is fine and all for businesses, but i am not a business! and i tend to not be available during business hours because i am working. and now i suppose i should stop browsing slashdot and get back to work...

      i would have preferred they cut wednesday delivery, which i think they had discussed doing at one point.

    5. Re:Inconvenient by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Well, then, its like I said - there'll be a 2 hour wait to get to the front of the line on Saturdays because of eveyone else doing the same thing. There's lots of people that can't necessarily get to the post office on lunch break to pick up packages, or registered mail, or things that need attention.

    6. Re:Inconvenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do what they do in Canada. Place your "Post-Office" inside a pharmacy, and staff it as long as the pharmacy is open (usually pretty late).

      Those kiosks aren't directly run by Canada Post, they're franchises. Note that Canada Post does not accept franchise inquiries: they scout areas of interest and approach businesses owners in that area.

      CP gets to keep offices and employees off the books, helping with costs. The businesses get a cut of the sales and extra traffic (hopefully buying other items while there).

      Not a bad arrangement.

    7. Re:Inconvenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wait time should be the same as always. Just because they'll only be delivering packages and not regular mail on Saturdays will not increase the number of people picking up over sized packages, or anything else, on Saturday.

    8. Re:Inconvenient by Xveers · · Score: 1

      As someone who worked in one of those post offices, there's a few more bonuses to go this way.

      First off, most local post offices in Canada (the govt operated ones) keep banker's hours more or less. Which means that if you have a real job then you probably won't have time to pick up your parcel or registered letter. Which means convenience for the actual consumers of the service.

      Secondly, the employees are paid at the cashier rate rather than postal employee rate. Even if you're a long term lifer, your pay is still less than almost any actual postal employee (which makes it cheaper for Canada Post and the local store to afford it).

      Thirdly, having a post office drives an impressive amount of foot traffic. People coming to pick up passport applications, mailing/collecting said, the same for parcels, even people just going in to drop off their letters inside a post office instead of a mail box (you'd really be suprised how much of a driving factor that is; people generally prefer a post office to a corner mailbox if only because they can find out when it will be picked up). All these people walk through your store, and some of them will buy something. You'll notice that these post offices are NEVER at the front of the store (not suprising either, since they need secure storage for postal supplies IE stamps, and inbound and outbound mail. Canada Post is pretty damn retentive about security in my experience).

      Oddly enough, from the store's point of view they aren't really money-makers themselves. 99% of your stock for them comes from Canada Post, and your margin for the stuff is at best 5%. Compared to perfume or house-brand products (which can go from 50% to 250% markup), selling a book of stamps dosen't make any business sense on its own.

    9. Re:Inconvenient by nothajan · · Score: 1

      So, I get this note in the mailbox that I have a package that is too big for the mailbox, I have to pick it up at the PO. But, I leave for work before the PO opens, return after it closes, and it's 50 miles away so I can't sneak down there during lunch.

      This was a problem until recently in Australia too.
      Now Australia Post have started using self-service parcel lockers. Works great.
      Sign up for the service, get a user id, then anyone can send a parcel to "John Smith, Parcel Locker <userid>, <mail sorting centre>, Australia"
      24hr access to the lockers. I get an email & an SMS when a parcel arrives, containing the code to open the locker.
      I have 48hrs to pick up my parcel, before they take the parcel away and file it in the office.

    10. Re:Inconvenient by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Looks like we could implement something like this too, pretty easy - mail carrier just leaves a message that it's in box 181, and the combination is, say, on a scratch-off on the note. Fooling with the mail is still a big-time Fed offense, so it should be pretty safe, as much so as it would have been to leave it in the mailbox had it been small enough.

    11. Re:Inconvenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do this in the US already. My closest branch is within a pharmacy, but they have a dedicated Postal Employee running it.

    12. Re:Inconvenient by Myopic · · Score: 1

      This is (or, used to be) exactly my problem with UPS/FedEx. To receive a package I had to take one or two days off of work, to wait all day long for the ten second visit from the package delivery person.

      I benefit from a front porch which the Postal worker never has any problem leaving packages on, but UPS and FedEx seem to refuse to do that.

  19. Makes sense. by Dzimas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here in Canada, we only receive mail on weekdays. It works just fine because the majority of letters in our mailbox are not extremely time-sensitive - the occasional municipal bill, magazines, and periodic greeting cards from around the world. They could reduce letter delivery to M/W/F without really causing any issues. Daily parcel delivery makes sense because they're larger dollar transactions and whenever a parcel is on the way, someone is waiting for it. I cringe every time someone suggests getting rid of the post office and relying on FedEx and UPS instead, because they tend to be far more expensive in Canada. As an example, UPS will charge a brokerage fee for surface packages coming from the USA that easily hits $25. Sending a 2 lb package to the USA by UPS Express (even 3-day) costs about $60. Canada Post runs about 25% of that.

    Back to the USA, there are already some interesting private/public delivery programs that promise to keep service costs low, too. As an example, Smartpost is an economical FedEx service that uses the USPS to deliver the last mile. Expect more of this stuff in the future.

    1. Re:Makes sense. by garcia · · Score: 1

      re: M/W/F - exactly. I check my USPS mail less than once a week unless I'm expecting something. Why? Because there's nothing in there anyway.

      All my billing is online, my paycheck is deposited automatically, and the only thing that appears in my mailbox is garbage anyway.

      I only look around the holidays and birthdays or if a package is on the way, otherwise I just let it pile up in there like the GMail spam folder.

    2. Re:Makes sense. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, In Canada, they're entertaining the idea of delivering mail every other day. So it would be Monday, Wednesday, Friday on week, and then Tuesday, Thursday the next week. That would be fine for me as well. The only thing of interest I get in my mail is bills, and that can usually wait an extra day. The pay-by date is usually a couple weeks in advance. I usually only pick up my mail a couple times a week anyway, since they don't deliver your my house, but actually leave it at the "community mail box", which I actually like better then having it left in my mail box. Way more secure.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Makes sense. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Of interest, Canada Post also used to do Saturday delivery. They almost exactly 44 years ago. The last Saturday deliveries were on February 1st, 1969.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Makes sense. by thoth · · Score: 1

      Back to the USA, there are already some interesting private/public delivery programs that promise to keep service costs low, too. As an example, Smartpost is an economical FedEx service that uses the USPS to deliver the last mile. Expect more of this stuff in the future.

      That last mile is where the bulk of the delivery expense is. Are you sure those other low cost delivery services aren't basically externalizing their unprofitable business expenses onto, I mean taking advantage of, the Post Office?

    5. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They take the trash away once a week. I think mail should be delivered once a week as well, the day before the trash pickup, preferably.

      Or, maybe they could combine the two jobs: the mail carrier brings the mail and takes away the trash while he's at it!

      I only check my mailbox once a week anyway.

    6. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but in newly-built areas Canada Post set up "super mailboxes" every couple of streets where you have to pick up the mail instead of having it delivered to your door. It's a minor annoyance, but far from a disaster. Annual delivery costs to those boxes is apparently less than half that of door-to-door. It's one of the cost-saving measures that Canada Post has used to not run huge deficits year after year. The US postal delivery is extravagantly expensive by comparison. No Saturday delivery for regular mail? A very minor loss that we in Canada already accepted something like 40 years ago.

    7. Re:Makes sense. by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Back to the USA, there are already some interesting private/public delivery programs that promise to keep service costs low, too. As an example, Smartpost is an economical FedEx service that uses the USPS to deliver the last mile. Expect more of this stuff in the future.

      That last mile is where the bulk of the delivery expense is. Are you sure those other low cost delivery services aren't basically externalizing their unprofitable business expenses onto, I mean taking advantage of, the Post Office?

      "Using the Post Office" can't be "taking advantage of" in that the USPS is selling a service. Using it to deliver things in-town is what every local person is doing. I doubt very much that Smartpost is underpaying for their use of the USPS. Last mile delivery may be where all the expenses are, but the USPS is already paying most of those costs every day anyway, even if not used by Smartpost for example.

    8. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some newer neighborhoods, mailboxes are set up with two mailboxes set a the property line for the two houses. Requiring existing neighborhoods to go to that set up would cut expenses in suburban areas significantly, since that would cut the number of stops to roughly 1/2.

    9. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the first few months of the year! Course, once I've got my T4 slip, the bank's RRSP tax forms, and anything else tax-related, I'd be hard-pressed to find something in the mailbox that I actually want more than once every 2 months.

  20. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Imagine that: emails does decrease demand for actual mail. Shocking huh.

  21. Cheating doesn't help by hort_wort · · Score: 2

    I bought a plant on ebay. The seller shipped it to me as "media mail" to save money, something that's supposed to be used only for textbooks. I guess it could become a textbook one day so that's alright?

    Later, also on ebay, I tried to sell a used game. When I typed in the upc, it told me the shipping information used by other sellers of that item, on average. The average listed weight was 6 oz. The actual weight when I measured it on my scale read 9 oz, not even close. It made a dollar difference in shipping.

    Little things like this add up.

  22. Not entirely true by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The post office was forced into this because their unfunded pension fund was a time bomb waiting to happen. They are only paying this increase till 2016 and have had it reduced when it was pressing. As of 2009 it was estimated their unfunded liabilities were over fifty billion dollars.

    No, where Congress gets a failing grade is similar to how base closings are done. Just like the military knows which bases are not needed the Post Office can tell you which sorting centers, distribution hubs, and which Post Offices, are not needed. When they go to close them then suddenly every Congressman becomes an expert and you end up with stories about how the PO wanted to close nearly 3000 offices and only got a little over a hundred.

    The PO operates under burdensome contracts combined with quickly shrinking sources of income. The number of pieces of mail handled has steadily declined but when the PO tries to downsize Congress interferes or their contracts block them. Trying to hire part time workers is another area they have difficulty with.

    So, no their problems don't stem from just having to pay for liabilities they should be paying for; if anything ask Congress why that rule ain't applied to the US as a whole; its from a myriad of items of which two largest are Congress and the unions.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Not entirely true by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Kindly point to ANY government agency, or private one, that has to keep enough funds in an account to pay for 70 YEARS worth of benefits if all employees retired tomorrow. (no, you do not get to count interest.)..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You fell for the numbers game. That 'unfunded liability' included projected pensions into the future for employees not even born at the time of the calculation (using the excuse that they were projected to need to hire those people in the next 50 years).

      That's like claiming you are $10,000 in debt right now because you have not yet fully funded your eventual funeral and any children you might have before that.

    3. Re:Not entirely true by lgw · · Score: 0

      If you don't have a plan to pay for your funeral, you're simply irresponsible. You know for a fact it is coming. You know for a fact that if you don't plan, you're simply putting the burden onto someone else, likely your eventual children.

      This is the same with most of the massive unfunded liabilities the government is carrying. It's certain the expenses are coming (or we fail to live up to our promises, one or the other), it's certain we're not actually putting the money aside we should be to cover those expenses, and it's certain our children or grandchildren will be quite burdened with these expenses.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 2

      So there's a heap of irresponsible babies that haven't yet lifted a finger to fund their funerals or their projected 2.4 children through college yet?

      You don't find it even slightly disingenuous to claim a pension for a theoretical employee who is not yet born must be funded right now in order to be responsible? Surely the earliest it would be reasonable to expect that pension to be funded would be when the hiring decision is actually made.

    5. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and most of the posters here have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    6. Re:Not entirely true by lgw · · Score: 1

      When the hiring decision for a given employee is made is beside the point. At the point when a business decision is made that entails future staffing levels (whether more, less, or the same), that business decision had better include how you're going to fund the pension plan associated with that staffing with your projected revenue, which may very well mean (if revenue per head is falling) that you must fund the penion plan more now, because you won't be able to later.

      Are those the facts here? No clue. But the idea isn't absurd of the face of it.

      This is why defined benefit penios plans need to be outlawed - they don't get funded realisticaly, if the do get funded they get raided, and so on. A 401K plan keeps everyone honest, including (and this is especially important) management during negotiations with unions. A great many local governments are bankrupt now because it was so easy 20 years ago to promise gold-plated penions to the public-sector unions, then not actually fund them properly, letting that liability be the next mayor's problem.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Not entirely true by sjames · · Score: 1

      At the point where a plan is made to hire, it is sensible to include planning for the pension cost, but really, moral/ethical (and financial) obligation attaches at hiring. Notably, in most cases, pension doesn't vest right away.

      The problem is organizations that for some reason think they can wait until actual retirement to fund the pension.

    8. Re:Not entirely true by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      If you don't have a plan to pay for your funeral, you're simply irresponsible.

      If you have kids, do you need to plan for their funerals, and their kids funerals (assuming they have 27 children), and their kids funerals (assuming they also have 27 kids), and so on until the heat death of the universe?

      There is this thing called time-value of money. I'd say that we're far too lenient on most pension plans in not requiring them to fund as much as they should. However, it seems like they've gone to the opposite extreme with the post office.

      My feeling is that all pensions should be defined-contribution, should be escrowed in the name of the employee, and contributions should be made in full at the time the benefit is earned (basically every paycheck, or at least annually). If the company goes bankrupt all the money can be transferred into an IRA or whatever - it is not a debt to the employee but money already paid. Essentially this just turns pensions into another form of 401k/etc. This is far more honest because right now companies can promise the world to employees and then simply fail to deliver.

    9. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the Post Office was forced into this because they were in serious danger of actually being a government agency that works. Under current Republican policies, NO government agency can ever be allowed to be a success. They deliver things as fast, and usually cheaper, than private alternatives AND they provide services that the other carriers do not. They are a check and balance on runaway price increases by privatized carriers as well.

      Absolutely none of that is in keeping with the conservative line that private is always better no matter what. Understand this: no private company would ever fund a pension program like that. No government agency would ever fund a pension program like that. We're talking about a funding mandate that is requiring the Postal Service to fund pensions of employees who aren't even born yet! This is absolute lunacy which has but one purpose, and it has nothing to do with pension benefits (and since when did Republicans care about pensions other than as piles of cash to be raided?). The only purpose of this is to force the Postal Service to cut service, cut employees, and generally provide an aritifical boost to private carriers. They can't get around the fact that the Postal Service is specifically constitutional and defined as a function of the federal government. They can't get around that they're generally efficient, and that most inefficiencies are political in nature. They can't get around that, while private carriers have their purpose and the world is better with more choices, some people kind of choose to use the Postal Service and they simply cannot tolerate that.

      If you believe this is about anything else, you're hopelessly underinformed.

    10. Re:Not entirely true by will_die · · Score: 1

      Please correct yourself the made up number is 75 years not 70.
      Actually the 75 year is not made up it is number of years that for ACCOUNTING purposes they have to figure future liabilities. It is NOT how long they have to fund benefits.

  23. Why Not Every Other Day? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    Why not just do "every other day" delivery for residential service? It seems like it would make for a much bigger savings with a similar impact to the recipient. How many residential delivery points needs to get mail every single day? And if people want their mail every day, charge a hefty fee.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    1. Re:Why Not Every Other Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Separating residential service and commercial service is tough these days. There are a LOT of home-based occupations that rely on the mail. I'm not opposed to the concept, but this is the kind of thing that takes a lot of time to plan.

    2. Re:Why Not Every Other Day? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

      It is not hard to do at all. All addresses are classified by the postal service already as residential, commercial, etc. *Everyone* at a residential address that wants daily delivery should pay for daily residential delivery. The USPS should not subsidize someone's home-based business. Also, the business can always get the delivery point re-zoned and re-classified or get a PO box.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    3. Re:Why Not Every Other Day? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      So instead of sending a truck out to deliver to everyone daily, we send a truck out along the same route to deliver to some addresses daily.

      How is this supposed to save relevant amounts of money?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Why Not Every Other Day? by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2

      Ask UPS and FedEx how well that model works for them.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    5. Re:Why Not Every Other Day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just do "every other day" delivery for residential service?

      Because they still have to deliver the same volume of mail, but in only half the time. How do you suggest they achieve that?

  24. Bummer by Experiment+626 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No more getting two Netflix shipments a week by sending the movie back the day after you receive it.

    1. Re:Bummer by Frobisher · · Score: 1

      If I'm on top of it, I too can get through 2 Netflix disks in a week with my single disk plan, but without Saturday delivery that's going to be a lot harder to do. Netflix need to implement some sort of Trusted Customer system. I get those occasional emails like "When did you receive X?", "When did you send back X?". They need to have a feature on the website where you can ALWAYS say "I sent this back in today's mail". 99% of the time they get it back the next day and send me a new disk. If, over the course of two weeks I send back 3 disks and TELL them that I sent them back, they'll know I was telling the truth because they'll get them back the next day. This should put me on a "Trusted Customer" status. That means then I send a disk back and tell them that, they should immediately ship out my next disk so I get it tomorrow. It might hurt their bottom line a bit, but it would be a serious improvement to the wait time. (Or, they should make everything streaming dammitt!!!!!!)

  25. Online communications is not the problem by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the reason for the post office woes is attributed solely on reductions of first-class mail? While this is true, the post office had no debt as late as 2005. It had a surplus. It would be solvent today if Congress didn't step in.

    Congress saw a great way to collect (ie steal) money from the post office and did so. They imposed a requirement on the USPS to pay ~$55 billion dollars per year into an account that can't be touched until Congress lets them. It is conveniently invested in Treasuries.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-morris/usps-budget_b_1545430.html

  26. What about Wednesday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it's personal opinion, but I'd rather have a one-day interruption in mail service twice a week rather than a two-day interruption that just happens to correspond to the work week.

  27. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that: unions

    let's reinstate slavery !

  28. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that: charging 46 cents to send a letter cross-country does make lose you money after all.

  29. The could cut back even further. by wcrowe · · Score: 0

    " 'To erode this service will undermine the Postal Service's core mission and is completely unacceptable.'

    Srsly? I get, perhaps, one letter per week that is even remotely relevant to me. Everything else goes in the trash. When it comes to letters, the postal service is just one big wastepaper distribution system. They could cut deliveries back to only three days per week, as far as I'm concerned.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  30. No first class, but.... by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1

    Does this mean they'll keep delivering junk mail on Saturdays?

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  31. Here's an idea for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you start increasing the price of people who send out spam in bulk?
    One of two things happen, you get more money, or we get less spam.

    1. Re:Here's an idea for you. by darjen · · Score: 1

      They would never do that. Sending us spam is how they make their living.

  32. Why not raise the rate on of bulk mail by guzzirider · · Score: 1

    It is possible that 5 day service is needed for economic reasons, but let's make sure bulk mail is not subsidized ...

    1. Re:Why not raise the rate on of bulk mail by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Because any changes to mailing rates requires Congress' approval, and they're busy trying to sabotage the USPS to benefit their benefactors at Fedex/UPS.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  33. Just close the post office already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1. Limit the hours of the local post offices so that they open after people get to work, and close before they get off of work to piss people off.

    Step 2. Close local post office

    Step 3. Cancel Saturday mail delivery

    Step 4. ......

    Step 5. PROFIT!!!

  34. Netflix by acoustix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Will Netflix lower the cost of DVD/Blu-ray rentals since I can't view as many movies per month now?

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

  35. Probably canceling my Netflix DVD subscription. by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

    Getting a DVD on Saturday is one of the things I look forward to.

  36. it is every Canadian's duty to save the USPS by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

    This is the only logical way for a Canadian consumer to buy American. Any other way only leads to extortion in "brokerage fees".

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:it is every Canadian's duty to save the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USPS doesn't charge brokerage fees. UPS does.

    2. Re:it is every Canadian's duty to save the USPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell me about it. I actually work in customs brokerage in Canada, and can tell you that the rates that UPS charges are horribly off from what it actually costs. It obviously varies from item to item, but most random crap will have 6.5% duty on it (course, that's usually separate from the "brokerage fees"), or otherwise should be duty free. It's extraordinarily rare that I see them rate anything as duty free, and how they rate it is horrendously incorrect, and in all actuality should lead to them being audited by Customs and paying ridiculously massive fines for such completely incorrect product classification.

      For them to clear the entry with Customs? I can absolutely guarantee that they're doing no more than 5 minutes of work on a computer, unless you have like... a hundred items in one shipment. Type in a handful of lines into a program, go on to the next shipment. Unless it's over $2500, it's clearing as a low-value shipment, and I can tell you right now that my average one-line LVS entry will take me approximately 90 seconds to key. If I'm going slowly, or there's several items. If I actually have to look up a tariff classification for an item that isn't in the database (and they will have a generic database of an absolute ton of random products), that's where it'll take me an extra MAYBE minute or two to look up and enter as a new part.

      So remember: Whatever they charge you for "brokerage fees", remember that this is closer to 2, MAYBE 5 minutes of work on the high end. Duty should rarely ever be over 6.5%, and a ton of crap is duty free anyway. If what they're charging you seems like highway robbery for the above, then it is.

  37. Re:Who could have guessed? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine that: unions, affirmative action and compliance with well-intentioned government programs do make you anti-competitive after all.

    The USPS is the most efficient system for moving things from one place to the other on the planet. Seriously. Its private competitors cost far more to move the same amount of stuff in a similar amount of time, and its international counterparts don't come close to dealing with the kinds of requirements the USPS has to deal with. Their systems and procedures are designed so that practically anybody can get hired, follow the manual, and do the job correctly, and are also capable of working under a wide variety of conditions ranging from tiny towns in the middle of Alaska to lower Manhattan.

    It's not that they aren't competitive. It's that the demand for their entire industry has dropped, and their bosses are actively trying to screw them up.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  38. Just raise the damn rates by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Just make stamps $1 each. Then you will not have to change it for a while.

    Also stop prefunding your retirement 75 years in advance.

    1. Re:Just raise the damn rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you are serious, but it is illegal for the post office to do either of those things. Congress has to approve any rate increases (they won't) and the retirement things is also passed down by congress. As others have mentioned, congress is intentionally trying to kill the post office.

    2. Re:Just raise the damn rates by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      unfortunatly it would take a moment of sanity from congress to do the second part of that.

  39. They should keep Sat delivery but drop Wednesday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to go 2 straight days without mail.

  40. Stop getting junk mail by spleck · · Score: 1

    A lot of people are using this as an excuse to complain about all the junk mail they get. Why don't you do something about it? Cancel all the catalogs and crap you're getting.

    Start here: http://www.optoutprescreen.com/

    If you get stuff with pre-paid return envelopes, send back a note asking to be removed from their mailing list.

    1. Re:Stop getting junk mail by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I would almost rather throw them out.
      Sure it it is not environmentally friendly, but it costs the sender something.

      What we really need is a way for me to bill them for the disposal of this waste.

    2. Re:Stop getting junk mail by Pyrotech7 · · Score: 1

      It would help if junk mail (usually 3rd class) was not subsidized by first class mail. If the rates were comparable you would have a lot less junk mail, lowered increases in first class mail, and maybe a postal service that can sustain itself.

    3. Re:Stop getting junk mail by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You do realize that industry insiders have admitted to using that list to send even more junkmail right? Perfect place to send spam stopping software adds and crap. It's just another datapoint for them to use.

  41. End their monopoly on first class mail by darjen · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if they can no longer do their job, Congress should consider allowing private companies to step in and do it for them.

    1. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Congress should consider allowing private companies to step in and do it for them.

      Well, the private shippers might consider it, if they weren't already contracting with the USPS to do their deliveries in rural areas, you uninformed retardate.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as congress makes those private companies prefund their retirement funds 75 years in advance. Fair is fair, after all.

    3. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      USPS Saturday delivery of packages (and weekend sorting/transportation of mail sent Friday) is basically what keeps Amazon from having a de-facto monopoly by virtue of being the only company in America with its own vertically-integrated logistics.

      Take it away, and it instantly becomes almost impossible for any small business (or even larger ones the size of Newegg, for that matter) to compete with Amazon Prime between Wednesday afternoon and Monday morning. Order from Amazon on Thursday, and you can get it shipped for free by Saturday & have it the same weekend. Order from anybody else, and getting the same item before Monday or Tuesday ends up costing a much as the item itself... or more.

      Amazon might be non-evil NOW... but let's face it: American corporations that manage to acquire some competitive advantage based upon vertical integration of semi-monopoly resources in a capital-intensive manner have a really bad habit of milking it for all it's worth at the first opportunity. The government should never have a MONOPOLY over things like mail delivery, but I see nothing wrong with allowing it to compete with and undercut (with subsidies, if necessary) private competitors, as long as it's open about it. If $50/year per American ($15 billion divided by 300 million) in subsidies to USPS keeps Amazon from having a de-facto monopoly, and forces UPS & FedEx to work harder at lower cost to compete, so be it.

      A better solution and compromise would be to have home delivery on Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday-Saturday (using the same vehicles and rotating work shifts to service half the addresses each day), combined with expanded late-night and weekend (including Sunday) hours allowing customers to pick up packages (if they know the tracking number) before even the first delivery attempt is made (and 7-day sorting/transportation). This would make everyone happy by eliminating much of the expensive "ground work", while reducing operating expenses to a level that's not much higher than their fixed expenses of just existing at all & enabling people who are dying to get some package on a non-delivery day anyway.

    4. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by darjen · · Score: 1

      oooo you called me a mean name. that must mean you know what you are right.

    5. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the USPS contracts out some of its operations to private industry doesn't bolster the argument for government-run USPS. Instead, it bolsters the case for eliminating the state-mandated monopolistic middle-man that is the USPS to allow citizens to purchase services directly from the private sector. It really couldn't be any more clear, as is who the uninformed retard is in this debate.

      Free market competition is what will bring the best service for the lowest cost, not state-mandated monopolies. It's a sad commentary on the times we live in that anyone could think any different.

    6. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private carriers aren't allowed to deliver standard mail, so they are prohibited from competing with the USPS. If competition were allowed, it would be more feasible for the private carriers to deliver to the more rural areas as well. The rich history of free market economies, as well as a good dose of common sense, tells us that competition in the free market is what provides the best service for the lowest cost, not government-mandated monopolies like the USPS.

    7. Re:End their monopoly on first class mail by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You do know, of course, that that is exactly what happend in 1971? The USPS is the best a corporation can do while providing universal postal service.

      Whatever you do, don't make the silly mistake of comparing the USPS to any other system which does not offer universal service. If you don't offer universal service, then you don't compare at all to the USPS. Thus nobody compares to the USPS.

  42. Yay! by pclminion · · Score: 1

    Awesome. One less day per week I have to park my car in a less-than-convenient spot in order to leave room for a dour-looking gentleman to bitterly deposit a six-inch thick stack of garbage in my mailbox. Maybe soon I won't need the freaking mailbox at all.

    1. Re:Yay! by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Keep talking like that and you're going to get a visit from the Postmaster General.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  43. There is a cool alternative not talked about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if US citizens could pay $nominal_fee yearly to have a firstname_lastname_number@postoffice.gov email account?

    I would love to have the Government - something established as a theoretically third party without a profit incentive (ha ha ha) - to handle my email needs. They do a pretty good job of snail mail, why not email?

    1. Re:There is a cool alternative not talked about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they'd have is an incredibly small user base. Who pays for an email account anymore? People will continue to do what they do now -- use gmail, or hotmail, or {whatever}mail.

  44. Banking by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    USPS should be doing something along these lines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_savings_system But, given that this would carve into the profits of the usurous payday loan pigs (in this 'Christian' country), not to mention the corrupt banks, this will never come to pass.

  45. Management is to blame. by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    There's a shortage of P.O. boxes in some areas, proving that the price of renting a box in those areas is too low. As a result, the post office loses money.

    There's a surplus of P.O. boxes in other areas, proving that the price is too high, and the post office loses business to Fedex, UPS, and Amazon Lockers.

    Clearly, the people in charge of setting prices are destroying the United States Postal Service.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Management is to blame. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      USPS is not a corporation. They need to service all people. Not 'customers' but everyone. SO that's why you see things like that. It's the price for a good mail system.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Management is to blame. by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      Shortages are the price of a good mail system?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  46. Raise the bulk rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they ought to do is charge the bulk rate morons the going letter rate. Make it so expensive to send junk that they stop. There would be a huge reduction in sorting and delivery required. Most days the post man wouldn't even have to visit me. I don't know when we accepted generally that just because I have a postal box or a telephone some marketer has the implicit right to use it to sling his crap. To me, if I don't want it, it's an unauthorized disturbance. For the folks that want it we could have an opt in system. If you're so sad and lonely that the only highlight of your day is the delivery of junk mail then I'd hate to rob you of that priviledge, but for the rest of us we'd appreciate the ability to just say no.

    1. Re:Raise the bulk rate by neurocutie · · Score: 1

      you don't get it... bulk rate (junk mail) mail SUBSIDIZES regular (e.g. 1st class mail), not vice versa. If you reduce or eliminate junk mail, USPS revenue would plummet and 1st class rates would probably have to jump by 5X just to break even...

  47. You still had mail on saturday?? by Kinwolf · · Score: 1

    As far as I can remember, we never had mail on saturday here(Quebec, Canada) And if they offered it I wouldn't take it, it's not really needed.

    1. Re:You still had mail on saturday?? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Canada Post did have Saturday delivery, but they got rid of it some time ago. The last Saturday mail delivery was on February 1st, 1969.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  48. Here's something the USPS should provide. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    Imagine a private messaging network like Apple's iMessage or Blackberry's BBMessage, but with the added legal protections and reliability you get by sending something through the post office. I don't think anyone except the USPS can even offer something like that.

    My friends and I all use iMessage since we all have iPhones, but a cross platform service would be better. No, not SMS, something that works across the internet and is accessible on all devices.

  49. They can't bail on them like corporate America? by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Corporate America used to offer pensions to their employees but as greedy, how-can-we-cash-out-today management thinking took over they stopped funding their pensions adequately, basically doing what USPS was doing, "borrowing" from the future.

    As management drains more and more from the company, they eventually file bankruptcy which gives them the green light to unload their pensions "under financial duress" to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, who then takes on the pension obligations.

    It sounds like a good idea, except that PBGC gets to meat-axe pension benefits and people who were expecting to live on pensions find that the benefits they were promised as workers are no longer enough to live on.

    While the whole story is sordid -- many workers accepted lower wages in exchange for generous pension benefits, and corporations who underfund their benefits for short-term profits get to hand the mess over to someone else, scot-free -- why can't the USPS play by those same rules?

    IMHO the USPS can't ever be a success; they have all the handicaps of a government entity, plus burdens that corporate America gets to escape from.

    1. Re:They can't bail on them like corporate America? by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      If you want to blame greed, then you also need to blame Actuaries and Economist.

      Pension’s and Insurance Annuities basically do the same thing – make a monthly payment until you die.
      The Insurance companies are heavily regulated requiring conservative estimates and high standards - because the state does not want to bail them out.

      Business and Labor Unions have lobbied for low standards. The contribution to the pension fund should be 25% (if the company wants to assume the risk of the stock market) to 40% (in they invest in safe, highly rated bonds). Nobody wants to pull that much money out of today’s paycheck so they you optimistic projections and sloppy accounting.

  50. Dropped the wrong day(s) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they were going to drop delivery day(s), I think it would've made more sense to get rid of Tuesday and Thursday. Then you still always get mail every other day (and a Friday bonus). Dropping Saturday creates a 2 day gap.

  51. Do this by geekoid · · Score: 1

    drop mail to 3 days a week.
    Allow people to opt out of advertisments.

    If they can't make money, then maybe it's time to shut it down.

    I say this as as some one who knows the mail service,s is proud of the USPS's work, and understands why we have the best postal system in the world.
    But, if not enough people are using it then maybe it's time for a radical change.

    In fact, if they got rid of junk, eliminated positions they would no longer need becasue they aren't processing junk, I would have no problem with them getting tax dollars to ensure rural mail service stays in tact.

    Allow seniors to pick up a few free mail envelopes a month. Maybe wind the system down for a couple of decades.

    alternatively, raise the price of sending advertisements 100 times.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  52. Ideas by no-body · · Score: 1

    are that
    The market is fixing it

    Privatizing improves things

    Taxes and government are bad

    Forcing the US postal service to act like a regular profit-oriented enterprise is a consequence along those lines.
    Can that be? Can a service being obligated to cover every remote side in the country adequately and always be profitable?

    What actually happens is diminishing of service quality.
    Postal employees apparently are forced to ask _every_ customer if they would like to buy more - stamps, insurance, return receipt, faster delivery. Personnel at the Post Office seems to be reduced with longer lines, delivery errors increase, many smaller communities loose their Mini-Post Offices. If the current trend continues, it will go much worse.

    1. Re:Ideas by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Taxes and government are not bad. The proper argument is just over the levels of each. But saying they're bad is like saying oxygen is bad.

  53. Re:Who could have guessed? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Imagine that: charging 46 cents to send a letter cross-country does make lose you money after all.
    Maybe they should lower the cost. They seemed to do okay back when it was a quarter.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  54. Re:Who could have guessed? by j-beda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow! If they're that good, then it makes me wonder why they have to have a government-granted monopoly on letters.

    The monopoly position is one of the reasons it works. If you were to cherry pick the easy to deliver stuff by starting a service without universal coverage, you might be able to do it cheaper, but if you want universal delivery, not so much.

    Are there any G20 countries without a monopoly postal system?

  55. Amazon and USPS vs UPS/FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is another factor that bugs me with Amazon. I use a P.O. Box for my mail due to my neighborhood postal box being robbed several times. I only use my street address when I have no other choice, such as when UPS or FedEx are used. Amazon will not say what the shipping method is, they will only say when you can't use a P.O. Box. I found out that this is due to them using UPS or FedEx to do the bulk shipping and then using the USPS to get it the last mile to our place! My street address is not in the USPS list of valid addresses! So neither address works when this method of shipping is used and I usually end up canceling my order!

    Using the USPS only for the last mile, the most expensive part of the delivery, means the USPS is getting screwed to the benefit of UPS and FedEx!

  56. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, it's a Constitutionally-granted monopoly.

    But you knew that. And you know it's not on 'letters', it's on post boxes. The same ones that fall under the universal service obligation.

    But, those would be adult arguments, and your tone suggests you want to have a different type of discussion.

  57. Two corrections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Canada Post pays rent for space inside places like pharmacies and book stores. It's a smaller place than a full post office so it's still cheaper.

    2) The pharmacy/store employees do not work behind the Canada Post counter. These are actual Canada Post employees, paid around $18 an hour to hand out letters and packages. Want to cut costs? Eliminate the union that demands this kind of pay for a job that MAY require a high school diploma.

    1. Re:Two corrections by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Whoa. Eighteen dollars an hour is not a high way, it's a very low wage. That's the kind of wage that high-school graduates should be making for labor which is unskilled but requires sobriety and attention. If it takes a union to get that low-but-livable wage for people, then by all means let's have unions.

  58. USPS renegged last 2-3 pension payments by peter303 · · Score: 2

    They called Congress's bluff and stopped making excess payments - no cash.

    Similar with Saturday mail. They got tired of waiting for Congress to approve their two year old restructuring plan, so they are acting unilaterally.

  59. 5-day service is not bad by CokoBWare · · Score: 2

    In Canada, we've always had 5-day a week mail delivery service. What doesn't get delivered on a Saturday will be distributed on a Monday instead. Yes, individual postal workers won't get to work as many hours during the week, but you'll all still get your mail. IMHO, Americans will get used to this, and it won't harm the quality of service of mail delivery in any real measurable way.

    1. Re:5-day service is not bad by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 2

      Being the old fart that I am, I remember when Canada had Saturday delivery too. It wasn't missed when it went away decades ago.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    2. Re:5-day service is not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably didn't have a netflix cd being sent on Friday back then.

    3. Re:5-day service is not bad by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Please this is the country that refuses to drop the penny, can't move to a dollar coin, and is still using the imperial system for measurement. Do you really think that they are easily going to switch to a 5 day a week mail delivery system? I can't wait to see some heads explode when someone brings up super mailboxes!

  60. Smart Post is bad for the USPS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using the USPS only for the last mile, the most expensive part of the delivery, means the USPS is getting screwed to the benefit of UPS and FedEx! It's one of the many reasons the USPS is in trouble!

  61. Saving $2 billion a year unacceptable... by cmuncy · · Score: 1

    'To erode this service will undermine the Postal Service's core mission and is completely unacceptable.' I'm sorry, your company is loosing its ass by not evolving and is on the brink of major failure and collapse and you are stating that, essentially, you don't want to try to cut costs to save the business. #FAIL

  62. Mod parent up +5 insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those who mod parent down are either delusional or complicit of the system, guilty of greed.

  63. It's about time by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

    Saturday delivery is a ridiculous luxury and a complete waste of money. The last thing I need is retail flyers delivered on Saturday. Those can wait.

    Get rid of the penny next.

    --
    The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
  64. Bank of England by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    Sure. Pick out any US or British annuity company. (a.k.a. the life insurance policy that pays out a monthly check until you die, which is effectively a pension.) (the 2 countries that I do know) . For example, AIG went down in a hail of fire during the finical crisis the fully funded annuity part kept on ticking. While not exactly spot on, state regulators have required this level of discipline from insurance company for decades.

    Is it easier to use the more flexible (and I would argue, sloppy) accounting standards most firms use? Yes. Is it easier for a overweight man to eat a jelly donut and promise to eat better tomorrow? Yes. Are these ideas good ideas? Probably not.

    Also, to be spot on, The Bank of England. IIRC they spend about 30% to 40% of their payroll buying inflation linked gilts, which is about as conservative as one can be.

  65. So pay for it Jeanette. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, it seems like people refuse to pay for it.

  66. Not so bad. by Nov8tr · · Score: 0

    I persoanlly don't have problem with them not doing Saturday deliveries. If this is what it takes to help save them. So be it. Don't get me wrong. I'm sad to see the weekend deliveries go,but I'd rather see that go than see USPS itself dissappear. I can't even imagine that happening. I do hope Congress will never be that stupid to allow that to happen. While the Post Office does not hold the importance it once held, it still does a valuable job. It's role has simply changed from what it once was. One of the rules of survival, you must change with the times or not survive. The Priority Mail service is a good example. Excellent idea. Excellent promotion. I use it a lot and will continue to do so as needed. So in closing, I don't have a problem with the Saturday no deliveries. In fact I applaud them for what may well prove to be a game saving idea.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  67. It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1, Informative

    The real problem is that the government is forcing the USPS to do the right thing—to fund their previously-unfunded pension liabilities—for the wrong reasons (ie. to abscond with the money and to replace it with another unfunded liability).

    If you follow the money, you will see that the federal government is forcing the USPS to "fund" their pension liabilities *now* and turn that money over to the federal government for "safekeeping". The USPS pension is therefore carried as a liability for the federal government, and the USPS money is used to offset part of the current year's deficit. Yes, that means the money is spent right away, by the federal government, on general budget items.

    Thus, the USPS is trading their previous unfunded liability (ie. their pension underfunding) for another (the ability of the federal government to pay out once these postal employees retire). The USPS money is already *gone*.

    It's the Social Security Trust Fund debacle in a microcosm. The SS Trust Fund doesn't really exist—it's merely a notional bookkeeping exercise that could vanish with the stroke of a pen. The special-issue Treasury bonds that form the SSTF (the debt the SSA eventually plans to redeem to pay retiree benefits) must be fulfilled by the federal government by raising general tax revenue. Right now, the SSA is rolling over that debt continuously as it matures. Eventually they will stop rolling it over and want it redeemed, which must come from general revenue, or selling more government debt to the Chinese/whoever. It's much the same issue with the USPS, because their pension is now backed by the future, worthless full faith and credit of the United States government.

    "We promise we'll give back the money we took from you, just as soon as you need it. It will be there, we swear... even though we currently spend 160% of our income every year and already spent all the money you handed over to us too. Sorry, we just can't trust you to be responsible with that money & responsibility. I'm sure you understand..."

    1. Re:It's a sordid tale. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If the Postal Service were to keep their money safe, it would be the only government agency whose retirement system wasn't a Ponzi scheme (which should inform people about all the rest). But even at that, they're being asked to pay now for future retirees who they will have to hire, but without the revenue to fund them. So it's a little bit too much. Then again, what is a defined benefits package other than a way to skimp on current expenditures and leave the payments to the next generation? Switch the whole lot to 401(k) systems and be done with it, I say.

      Regardless, the way Congress gets away with this is by having control over the postage rate. If USPS was charging the ~75 cents per letter that they need to, then people would get pissed off and call their Congressman, ostensibly creating a feedback cycle. But, being our all-knowing masters, they think they can decide the revenues and expenses based on wish alone, and make it all work, completely detached from the business itself.

      Personally, aside from Netflix and Christmas on Sunday every seven years, I don't really care about Saturday delivery. UPS and Fedex will do Saturday for more money, so that just leaves Netflix.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      I absolutely concur: every retirement plan should shift to a defined contribution plan (eg. 401(k)).

      However, unions bitterly cling to their gold-plated benefits, whether or not they will bankrupt their employer. Therefore, the idea of common-sense, defined contribution retirement plans for the USPS is likely a nonstarter. It's telling that government and para-governmental organizations like the USPS are essentially the only entities offering defined benefit pension retirement plans anymore. It essentially boils down to the putative "infinite supply of other people's money" they believe they have.

      Pension plans—especially government pensions—are destroying this country. It's a mess that the Boomers and their parents made but the subsequent generations will have to bail out. You know, because they paid into a Ponzi scheme, despite knowing it could never work, we're somehow supposed to feel obligated to be their salvation from their pernicious, willful ignorance of the mathematics of a pyramid scam. Not to mention they didn't even have the decency to breed at a replacement rate, which just makes our generation's burden that much greater.

      Why are we to blame for their failures? They have no right to be "made whole" in terms of the money they threw away on debacles like Social Security, especially when the cost to subsequent generations is so high. Raise the retirement age to 68+ immediately so people only draw benefits for the same actuarial length of time as they historically did. Hell, let's alter the program's foundation from being a pension to being "old age welfare", and therefore start means-testing distributions. This is a problem *they* made, and they should definitely bear a significant portion of the costs of fixing it... not us, our children, and our grandchildren.

    3. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Most of the pension problems are due executives raiding the pension fund and then ignoring the problem until it comes back to bite them.

      All means testing will do is burn up double the savings on bureaucratic paper shuffling while leaving people to fall through the cracks.

    4. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 0

      Most of the pension problems are due executives raiding the pension fund and then ignoring the problem until it comes back to bite them.

      All means testing will do is burn up double the savings on bureaucratic paper shuffling while leaving people to fall through the cracks.

      Let's start with Social Security then. It requires approximately 2.8 workers to fund a single retiree beneficiary:

      Some of the historical decline is related to the natural maturing of a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, but the projected future decline is due to the aging of the U.S. population. This ratio is of fundamental importance to the long-run fiscal health of the U.S. Social Security program. With currently scheduled tax rates and benefits, the system needs a worker-to-beneficiary ratio of about 2.8 to function at a pay-as-you-go level (meaning that tax revenue approximately equals benefit payments).

      We may have already fallen below that ratio by now. If not, we're right at the cusp, because the Boomers started to hit 65 in 2011. It's probably gauche to link a previous comment, but this explains why the $3 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is nothing more than a bookkeeping entry and does not represent any assets, per se, any more than if someone were to write themselves a check for a million dollars while having only overdrawn accounts in the bank.

      So, in order for Social Security to be as close to "pay as you go" as possible—which would be the closest approximation of fairness that can be achieved while retaining the pyramid scheme—it is imperative that the retirees make some sacrifices. Increasing the retirement age immediately to 68+ and means testing SS distributions (ie. turning it into a form of welfare rather than a pension) would be a good start.

      Something needs to change. The current working generations (and all subsequent ones) did not make this mess. Continuing to pay on a cut down, welfare-like Social Security would be an example of merciful pity our generation is taking on the older, mathematically challenged generations, rather than any sort of ethical obligation.

      It would be a great injustice if we, the next generations, have to pay more taxes than the Boomers did during their working years merely in order to pay them all the benefits *they* promised themselves that *we* would pay. It's only fair to make them work longer and to reduce the expenditures on the program to be something that's only given to those in need.

      As for the allegation that means testing would burn up the savings, I doubt it: we already have welfare means testing and people are generally required to file income taxes anyway. That should have all the data that's necessary. If it's a problem, it would be simple for them to institute withholding on the SS checks based on a W4-like allowances system. That hasn't destroyed the ability of working households to function during the ~70 years it's been in place.

      We have a moral obligation to break this vicious cycle, rather than passing it on to our children and the unborn.

    5. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 2

      If so, then your actual position is that it is literally impossible for SS or the PO to be fiscally responsible without destroying the currency?

      So the surplus is actually a deficit, up is down, black is white, back to front and you're all up tight?

      At this point, it might be necessary to raise the retirement age, but it may also be necessary to make sure older workers don't get the heave ho at 65.

      Remember, 'they' include your mom and dad and 'they' had about as much control over the government as you do. One day you will be one of 'they'.

    6. Re:It's a sordid tale. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with much of what you say, you do raise a bad argument that seems to be common - that money that goes into the general fund is somehow failing to be saved.

      Money is fungible. If the treasury receives money today that it needs to pay back in a decade, it can either just keep the cash in bills and stick it under a mattress, or use it to pay today's bills. If it does the former it has to borrow money to pay today's bills, which means it has to pay additional interest. If it does the latter then it saves money on interest, and just has to borrow money later if necessary to pay back the original source of the money (social security, whatever).

      This isn't like a homeowner who is sticking money in a bank account paying 1% interest to save for retirement, when they're making minimum payments on a mortgage at 5% interest. They would be far wiser to just pay off the mortgage faster (aside from a rainy day fund). Then they can just take out a reverse mortgage later if they need the extra cash back and in general they'll have more money on hand due to all the interest saved (assuming they didn't just spend more money - which is no different than not saving it in the first place).

      Why exactly SHOULDN'T the US spend that money now, vs socking it away and borrowing more? The only reason to save it is if you're afraid that the US won't be able to borrow the money later. However, if the US is unable to borrow the money later chances are those dollars that it saved will be worthless anyway. A dollar bill really has little value in excess of a treasury bill of equal value.

      That said, having the post office overfund its pensions is just dumb - but less dumb than the more common practice of letting companies underfund them.

    7. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      I think you will find that the Social Security cash flow surplus essentially doesn't exist anymore. The latest published data, for 2011, showed it at less than 9%.

      No one, including the SSA, is debating whether the program will cease to be "pay as you go" at some point, and that time is imminent. It's going to run a deficit. Permanently, structurally, as a matter of fact, unless taxes on our generation are increased and/or the program doesn't pay out what the previous generations promised themselves we would pay them.

      What they refer to as "the accumulated surplus" is the Trust Fund. That's nothing but government bonds, which is all it ever could be (by law). The federal government took the money and spent it. In order to redeem that debt to pay SS benefits out of the Trust Fund, the federal government would therefore need to either:

      1) Acquire additional revenue from the present working generation, more revenue than they currently are receiving (ie. increased taxes), or

      2) Sell new debt under "the greater fool" theory, where they find investors willing to buy bonds to fund the redemption of the Trust Fund debt. This is nothing more sophisticated than a credit card balance transfer. The issue with this approach is that eventually the bond market will freak at our deficit size and/or our debt-to-GDP and then the government will be forced to default in one form or another.

      From the SS program's standpoint, one major problem is the actuarial liability is increasing. People are living longer, which is great, except that means they will be drawing benefits longer if the retirement age is fixed. This is why the retirement age needs to increase to put it on par with the historical benefits. Yes, and that means the Boomers and all subsequent generations should work longer before they retire.

      Furthermore, it's essential that the previous generation share the sacrifice: how is it fair that our (and future) generations will have to work longer than they did before we can retire, and pay higher taxes than they did, merely to pay them what they promised themselves? I think you'll find that every politician who talks about "fixing" Social Security adamantly adheres to the platform that the previous generation "deserves" the benefits exactly as they promised to themselves, but all future generations will just have to suck it up to bail that out while also facing later retirement and reduced benefits.

      I am aware that "they" include my parents and your parents. However, "they" didn't fix anything during their time. Merely attempting to dilute responsibility among an entire society doesn't change the fact that the situation exists, is unjust, and needs to be fixed.

      If I were to open a joint checking account with my elementary age child, deposit $10,000, spend that money on a new car for the household, then write a $10,000 post-dated check for 30 years from today "to cash out my original savings deposit", how is it my child's responsibility to make me whole just because I put her name on the account? Because that's what the previous generations did: they told themselves they were "saving" money in the Trust Fund, but they spent it all on general budget expenditures (albeit via one layer of notional, bookkeeping indirection called the Trust Fund).

      Yes, perhaps one day I will live to be of retirement age. The reason I want us to break the vicious cycle is that I don't want to visit the ignominy of what our parents' and grandparents' generations did to us on *our* children and grandchildren.

      People should stop counting on government pyramid schemes to fund their retirement. Our generation has a chance to start accepting responsibility to save money on our own and break the cycle. Yes, it's too late for the mathematically-challenged previous generations, so we can give them some means-tested welfare if they need it.

      ...but we don't *owe* them merely because they decided we should, before

    8. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      In other words, SS was working just fine until the 'board' (Congress) raided the pension fund.

    9. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. Yes, Social Security's Trust Fund was "raided" because the money was spent. No, because there may not have been any other practical choice.

      Social Security is different than a normal pension by virtue of its size. If you followed the link to the current size of the Trust Fund from one of my previous posts, you saw that the current balance is currently $3 trillion. If you're familiar with the macro econ concept of money supply, the USA M2 is currently about $10 trillion. Actually, the comparison might be more valid against M0/M1, due to the fact that SS checks tend to get spent/enter circulation immediately, rather than get deposited into savings accounts. However, if that were true then it would just make the comparison even more starkly dire.

      Regardless, you can see how it could be incredibly problematic for our currency to be deflated, then inflated by $3 trillion (in addition to the money multiplier)... and remember, that $3+ trillion has been accumulating over decades (ie. a lot of it was contributed when money was worth more).

      So, the previous generations decided to spend the Trust Fund contributions to offset the general federal budget. Naturally, this reduced the other taxes they had to pay in order to fund their federal budget. You can't count it as savings if you spent it.

      You may ask what else could they have done instead to try to save this much money via one enormous pension entity. It's tough, again by virtue of the size of the Trust Fund. If the SSA had pumped $3 trillion into the stock market then that would have distorted stock prices and caused issues, not to mention the volatility risk of the stock market. If they had instead invested the Trust Fund in home mortgages that *might* have worked, due to the nature of the orderly payback of mortgages over a long period. However, look at what happened with Fannie/Freddie and subprime mortgages (where excess assets were pumped into the mortgage market).

      Basically, it boils down to the fact that SS is too large of an entity compared to the size of our economy and therefore has intrinsic problems that smaller pensions (like, say, the USPS) don't share. If the population all saved for retirement individually, in the same amount as their Social Security contributions over the years, then those contributions would have been diversified over the economy in a much more granular fashion.

      Anyway, that's not what the previous generations did; therefore, the present and future generations are left holding the bag. That's why I advocate a shared sacrifice solution to the problem: yes, we're going to have to pay higher taxes than they did in order to fund their retirement/bail them out, but they should accept certain cuts so we don't have to pay even more than we're already going to have to do. Means testing and increased retirement age are a start, and hard to argue against especially because that's almost certainly something that present/future generations are going to have.

    10. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's going to be the same amount of money whether it is saved up individually, in corporate pensions, or in SS. Otherwise, old people starve once they are no longer able to work. All SS did/does is try to make sure the money does get saved somewhere.

      So, if your argument is correct, we have no choice but to put people out of their misery as soon as they retire, like in Logan's Run.

    11. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      Again, I do not advocate leaving the older generations to starve or die. I also think there are workable solutions to fix the underlying problems.

      There are a few different scenarios at play at this point in our discussion:

      1) The unworkable, theoretical scenario where the SS Trust Fund were to operate like a savings bank account that sequestered $3 trillion over time, which would have caused massive deflation/inflation of the currency. This is academic, because this isn't how the program was setup; however, it represents the most simplistic approximation of what would happen if the Trust Fund were simplistically "not raided".

      2) The actual situation where they "saved" money and spent it all. They now expect present/future generations to pay more taxes than they did in order to give them better benefits than the present/future generations will be able to afford for ourselves. This is where shared sacrifice comes into play, in order to practically mitigate the disparity between generations.

      3) The theoretical situation wherein the previous generations saved individually rather than via an enormous single entity pension. My point here is that while 75 million people individually investing $40k totals to the same $3 trillion that's currently in the Trust Fund, there's much more granularity in the individual scenario. Contrast 75 million people individually choosing which mutual funds, bond funds, and/or real estate funds in which to invest versus a single pension agency trying to intelligently & responsibly decide where to invest $3 trillion in things other than "government debt".

      Effectively, we are discussing two main threads: the scenario in reality where present/future generations are left holding the bag because the previous generations decided to "invest" the money by spending it; we are also discussing "what might they have done differently that would not have resulted in this mess?"

      The first thread is important because it's the reality and addresses the fairness of the situation. The second thread is interesting in the sense that perhaps we might change course about retirement savings in this country in order to avert causing the same problems for our children in the future.

    12. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      Money is fungible. If the treasury receives money today that it needs to pay back in a decade, it can either just keep the cash in bills and stick it under a mattress, or use it to pay today's bills. If it does the former it has to borrow money to pay today's bills, which means it has to pay additional interest. If it does the latter then it saves money on interest, and just has to borrow money later if necessary to pay back the original source of the money (social security, whatever).

      Regardless: the money is spent. It's gone. I am asserting that the previous generations did not "save" any money at all—they merely told themselves that they did.

      In order to fund the promises they made to themselves, current revenue will have to be raised (ie. increased taxes on the current working generation). That, or they will need to roll over the debt from the SSA onto other creditors—which is equivalent to a credit card balance transfer.

      Why exactly SHOULDN'T the US spend that money now, vs socking it away and borrowing more? The only reason to save it is if you're afraid that the US won't be able to borrow the money later.

      My point is that Social Security, as a pension program, should not exist. The only way the debt to the SSA can be cashed out (in order to pay the Boomers) is by retiring the debt using current revenue from the current taxpayers (which would imply higher taxes for us, the current working generation) *or* by rolling the debt over to a greater fool.

      Do you presume that there's an infinite appetite for US government debt in the bond market? Our current federal budget expenditures are 160% of our income. Our debt-to-GDP is approximately 100%. At some point, the US government will default on its debt obligations unless we magically incur sustained post-WWII levels of growth without increasing our expenditures.

      As I have said elsewhere, I'm not advocating leaving the elderly to starve or die. That's why I propose a shared sacrifice solution to the problem: yes, we, the current working generation, are going to have to pay higher taxes than previous generations did in order to fund *their* retirement/bail them out, but they should accept certain cuts so we don't have to pay even more than we're already going to have to do. Means testing and immediate, increased retirement age are a start, and hard to argue against especially because that's almost certainly something that present/future generations are facing.

    13. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The second thread is where I cannot see your reasoning. It doesn't matter WHERE the money is saved, the same amount needs to be saved be it in SS, IRAs, 401k, or a corporate pension plan. Moving and/or dividing the piles doesn't change the problem. If it damages the currency as one big pile, it does the same in individual piles. Meanwhile, a lot of people's 401ks got wiped out in the economic collapse. SS is likely all they have left.

      However, we know retirement is possible since it has been the expected norm for quite a long time. A key is that as some are drawing their retirement out, others are saving for their future retirement. The total volume grows and shrinks primarily due to changes in population or when people's retirement goes poof in a banking and investment scam.

      As for the first, if we can convince ourselves to stop playing world police and to actually tax the 1% the way everyone else is, the money will be there.

      If we also actually address out of control healthcare costs, we take much of the economic strain off of everyone, and especially the elderly. That, in turn, grants us more liberty with SS without starving people out.

    14. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      I see that perhaps my use of the words "saved"/"savings" may have become conflated between theoretical scenarios.

      One use was in the context of an unworkable social security "lock box" system where money was taken out of circulation while SS ran a cash flow surplus (ie. up until "now"-ish). I suggested that was similar to a bank savings account. This wouldn't work, due to massive deflation/inflation. This was the "currency destroying" scenario.

      Another use was in the theoretical context of the SS contribution money actually being saved by purchasing investments (contrast this with the reality where they were spent on the general budget). This would *not* destroy the currency. This approach is where I was trying to draw a nuanced position, because I believe this is theoretically workable at an individual granularity. Much like capitalism is more efficient at distributing resources than centrally planned economies, millions of individuals making independent decisions are more efficient than a giant pension agency trying to decide where to invest $3 trillion. This isn't just hand-waving, because millions of people have been successfully saving in 401(k)'s and IRA's for decades. As for the giant, $3 trillion single entity being problematic: that's because their individual holdings/positions would be so large (there's a plethora of large investments causing market distortions, if you don't believe me). This issue would be compounded if the giant entity were constrained to investing solely in pension-grade investments.

      As for the first thread, we may be at an impasse: I am fixated on the injustice of the situation—that the presently-working & future generations will have to pay more taxes than our predecessors did, in order to give them better benefits than we are likely to receive. I'm certainly not in the 1% that you would prefer to tax to bail them out. I just dislike the unfairness of what they promised themselves we would do for them. Our generation is facing increased wage basis SS taxes, increased retirement age, and means testing for benefits when we retire; I fail to see why applying an increase in retirement age & means testing to the Boomers is unfair when it will be defined as fair for us.

      You may also misunderstand what I mean by means testing in the context of SS: you *do* realize that the 1% can currently draw full SS benefits when they retire, right? That's because it's defined as a pension rather than "old age welfare".

      As for healthcare: I am a libertarian, as you have no doubt surmised; however, because we as a society find it undesirable to embrace a free market in healthcare I wish we would fully socialize it. Right now we are paying more than any other country in the world (both in an absolute sense and in a percentage-of-GDP sense) merely to receive mediocre outcomes for our population.

      Besides, how much of our population is *already* on socialized health care programs that are firmly entrenched? Medicare is socialized healthcare for everyone over 65. The Veterans Administration is socialized healthcare for everyone who served in the military. Medicaid is socialized healthcare for poor people. Tri-Care is socialized healthcare for everyone presently in the DoD. Every local, state, and federal employee has socialized health care. These programs will never be abolished unless universal, socialized health care is instituted nationwide.

      It causes me a soupçon of cognitive dissonance to advocate socialized health care, but if we're going to have it anyway (and this truly is *not* up for debate) then can we at least spend less money on it? I prefer the NHS-style approach in the UK, because that allows a free market to exist alongside the socialized healthcare system.

    15. Re:It's a sordid tale. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Agreed on all, though I'd argue the problem isn't so much with social security existing so much as the fact that we've been on a massive spending spree in general for two decades. Whethering a baby boom if the US were currently debt-free and the promises were more reasonable and the funding tax less regressive would be a lot different than the mess we're in now.

      Alexis de Tocqueville suggested that democracy would fail when the average voter realized that they could pay themselves out of the treasury. Our politicians have turned that into an art - they get elected on PROMISES to pay taxpayers out of the treasury without even having the means to do it, and then they go ahead and pay the actual money to contractors who no doubt give them kickbacks.

    16. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      SS did invest the money. It bought government bonds. The wisdom of that investment is debatable, but government bonds are traditionally seen as a safe investment (provided the government in question isn't Somalia).

      Means testing can be a lot of things, but in the case of various safety net programs, it's actually used as a bludgeon to make sure people in the system never leave. Often it involves exactly the sort of thing that an elderly person in need of healthcare doesn't have the energy and wherewithal to provide. Quite often the added layers of bureaucracy piled on to make sure nobody cheats is more costly than the cheating would be. Ultimately, it runs hard up against the nature of logic itself. You can't actually prove a negative. By extension, you can't actually prove a lack of means.

      As for the market and healthcare, Yes. We simply will never have a free market in healthcare, and our current poor results show that what market we have is in a perpetual state of failure. We will never have a free market because that would require that powerful opiate painkillers be available over the counter, and neither Rs or Ds would ever permit a total end to all forms of prohibition. On a more practical level, it would also mean people taking antibiotics like candy when they get a cold and not only failing to treat the cold, but also breeding new superbugs.

      Currently, we have multiple socialized systems in the U.S. Of them, I would say the VA system likely works better since it has an actual hope of reducing costs. Yes, I have heard the horror stories, but I have heard just as many such stories from private and other public healthcare. I have also seen friends get excellent treatment at the VA with none of the usual anxiety about who will cover what (and IF it will be covered) and with none of the usual billing nightmares where various A/R and A/P departments battle it out with the patient (who has quite enough to worry about due to illness) caught in the no-man's land with no cover in sight.

      The rest take an insurance approach and so are doomed to fail. Insurance can spread risk, but it necessarily costs more than the average uninsured cost. It is absolutely not an appropriate way to manage typical and predictable costs. Agreed on an NHS style system. I do believe that a market can actually work so long as there is a strong public health system to keep it honest.

      To complete the picture, it should include dentistry. In the last 10-20 years, the entire field has done an 'admirable' job of screwing itself up as badly as the rest of medicine and dental 'insurance' has gone above and beyond (or perhaps below would be a better term) with over half of it being more scam than insurance.

    17. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      SS did invest the money. It bought government bonds. The wisdom of that investment is debatable, but government bonds are traditionally seen as a safe investment (provided the government in question isn't Somalia).

      We're essentially talking in circles about this. I don't consider SS as separate from the federal government. Regardless, to allow the SSA to redeem those bonds to pay the benefits to the previous generations, our generation will have to pay more taxes or balance transfer the trillions of dollars of redeemed debt to China/whoever.

      Means testing can be a lot of things, but in the case of various safety net programs, it's actually used as a bludgeon to make sure people in the system never leave. Often it involves exactly the sort of thing that an elderly person in need of healthcare doesn't have the energy and wherewithal to provide.

      We weren't talking about means-testing access to health care. As you will note, I am in favor of establishing a socialized, universal-access NHS/free market type health care system and abolishing the hodgepodge of socialized healthcare systems and the idiotic approach of getting health insurance from one's employer. Universal coverage for everyone and nothing to prove in order to have access. I am confident hand-waving the cost-control aspects because it seems like every other developed country is managing to do that with their socialized universal health care system (we can mimic some of their proven approaches).

      Quite often the added layers of bureaucracy piled on to make sure nobody cheats is more costly than the cheating would be. Ultimately, it runs hard up against the nature of logic itself. You can't actually prove a negative. By extension, you can't actually prove a lack of means.

      Means-testing social security benefits doesn't have to be any more complex than filing income taxes is. Somehow the elderly can manage that. If you don't make enough income to have to file an income tax return then by definition you have passed means testing. That's not the threshold I am suggesting, btw, but rather a demonstration of how simple the concept is.

      You stated that you are in favor of increased taxes for the 1%: that's implicitly a form of "means testing" for the increased tax rates. I am suggesting applying the same approach to SS benefits: phase out the amount the recipient keeps based on their annual income. The actual income thresholds for triggering this can be debated; however, there are already all sorts of deduction phaseouts, tax credit eligibility thresholds, AMT, marginal tax brackets, etc, etc in the tax code and the elderly seem to be able to handle that as applicable.

      Like I said: I am not in favor of leaving the elderly to starve. However, if an elderly person has hundreds of k worth of annual taxable income then they don't need an SS check. As a first-pass proposal, I suggest that SS benefits start to be smoothly phased out after a person filing as single has a taxable income that exceeds $45k and eliminated entirely once taxable income exceeds $90k. If the benefits claw-back happens as part of income tax filing then there's effectively no additional bureaucratic overhead.

    18. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Increasing taxes on the 1% doesn't involve proving a negative. The answer may lie there. Set no means test on SS benefits themselves, but claw it back in the form of a tax on SS benefits that is zero if your income is below 45K and progressive until it reaches 100%.

      That may seem backwards, but the practical difference is large, particularly to those who really need it.

    19. Re:It's a sordid tale. by jvonk · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain my usage of term "means testing" in this manner is an accepted definition, though perhaps there are other definitions as well.

      I am also placed in an odd situation of being to the left of today's NYT Op-Ed: Old and Rich? Less Help for You :

      It may surprise some Americans to learn that the United States spends quite a lot on the affluent, especially through the entitlement programs at the heart of the budget fight: Social Security and Medicare. Both programs move money from relatively poorer young people to relatively richer old people, and they are growing ever more expensive. Means-testing — allocating benefits according to need — might offer both sides a way out. The approach would require agreement on two principles. First, give less to the wealthy rather than take more from them.

      The reason I'm to the left is that the contributor wants to do the same means testing with Medicare, while I prefer a universal, equal-access socialized healthcare system. I also find the suggestion to means-test based on lifetime income to be intriguing and worthy of further consideration, proposed because it would reduce gaming the system. No doubt if someone made millions throughout their life, lost it all, and are now in need of taxpayer assistance they would still be able to draw benefits after proving so.

      In terms of the implementation of the "elimination of SS benefits based on income thresholds" (call it means testing or claw-back, whatever), many Americans lack the fiscal discipline to handle their wages/salary and still be able to pay their eventual income tax bill if they didn't have withholding from their paycheck. I know from being self-employed that it required careful attention to my spending to ensure I could pay the large tax bill due in April because I had no "pay as you go" withholding.

      This is normally handled with employment by filling out a very simple W-4 that estimates what your withholding from your pay should be. People who don't want to be surprised by a large claw-back "benefit elimination" charge when they file their taxes might prefer this kind of approach. As you probably know, no one cross-examines the allowances you enter on your W-4... it's your funeral (or your increased, interest-free loan to the government) if you fill it out incorrectly. Takes less than five minutes to fill out and doesn't need to be revisited unless you have major status changes in your life.

    20. Re:It's a sordid tale. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your use of "means testing" is correct by definition. It can be as simple and painless as you say. Unfortunately, given a few years of bureaucratic nonsense and legislators attempting to strategically sabotage things, it can easily become a nightmare. That can be avoided (at least to some extent) by granting it without question and clawing it back based on means. It puts the burden of proof on the agency that is well equipped to shoulder it and takes it off of individuals who are not.

      I do agree in principle with your proposal, I'm just arguing the actual implementation. I would also agree that in practice, the claw back should be in the form of voluntary withholding much like income taxes.

  68. Slippery slope by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    I knew we were on a slippery slope in 1950 when deliveries were reduced to once a day - dadgummit!

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  69. Irresponsible by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you don't have a plan to pay for your funeral, you're simply irresponsible.

    Uhhh, this is fairly dependant on the individual. An healthy 18-20 year old who hasn't planned for a funeral expense is much more of a concern than somebody 50+
    I certainly haven't *planned* for my funeral. If I died suddenly then there's enough money in insurance and the bank to cover it and then some, but it's not a plan per-se.

    1. Re:Irresponsible by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, at least you have a financial plan, which is something (BTW, typically insurance money and bank funds will be frozen for long enough to be a problem for covering burial expenses, but that's only really an issue if your family has no savings at all). Spelling out what should be done with your remains is stll good, of course, to avoid burdening your survivors with those decisions, but might be overkill for someone in his 20s or 30s.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  70. Oh Noes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I won't get junk mail on saturdays.

    Seriously, I get 100 pieces of junk for every important piece of mail. If it weren't for auto-warranty scams, credit card companies and political campaigns the USPS wouldn't have anything to do.

    Yes, it may be the cheapest way I can send a couple pieces of paper across the country, but why again do I need to do this anymore?

    The USPS as it is today is wasteful. Most of their deliveries are unnecessary and unwanted and the ones which aren't, many can probably be handled electronically.

    Cut down first class deliveries to M-W-F. Stop giving special rates to bulk mailers, in fact, charge them a premium. And realize that the world may have changed enough that a today's post office is no longer necessary. Much of what it intended to accomplish is certainly done via phone, email, etc, and it's no longer a source of revenue.

    And... the constitution does not mandate that a postal service exist nor that it operates on certain days. Congress has the power to establish post offices and post roads, not the duty. It's not mandated that congress borrow money, but they have the power to do so... Maybe we should tell them that.

  71. Junk mail - once a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they deliver junk mail once a week? They could deliver it on recycle day, and put it in your recycle bin instead of your mailbox.

  72. USPS budget problem created by congress by gordona · · Score: 1

    "The congressional notion was that the Postal Service was making lots of money selling its products and services, and so it might be a good idea to put those profits into pre-funding future retiree health care benefits for the next 75 years and do so in a decade. No one else, public or private, does this – but it would put the Postal Service that much more ahead of the game in terms of future liabilities. And so, in 2006, Congress mandated that the USPS do so, at a price tag of about $5.5 billion a year. " (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service039s_Finances).

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:USPS budget problem created by congress by Myopic · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I think pension programs are a total scam. They should be abolished by law. All retirement programs should be funded during the working life of the individual -- IRAs. So I'm theoretically with Congress, except for the fact that they singled out the USPS. They should pass a new law applying that same logic to every American company and citizen.

      Grab your duckets, workers! Don't believe The Man when he says he'll pay you later!

  73. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    truth well said.

  74. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stamps were 25 cents (more than half the current price) in 1988. Cost of gas in 1988? $1.08 - less than 1/3 the current price. The Post Office's costs have been rising much faster than congress allows them to raise their rates. Canada charges ~65 cents for the same service, and the UK ~90 cents (US). Exactly what do you think LOWERING prices will accomplish, when they're already below cost?

  75. Re:Who could have guessed? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Where do you read a monopoly grant in the Constitution? It merely gives Congress the authority to establish Post Offices and Post Roads - nothing about 'post boxes' or monopolies.

    Try the postal code (or the Comstock Laws which are only possible under such a monopoly).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  76. The Post Office is run by the Mo twins by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Mo-Ron and Mo-Lasses

  77. USPS Priority Mail - Free shipping supplies? by xanadu113 · · Score: 1

    How much does the USPS spend per year giving people free shipping supplies for Priority Mail...?

    I pulled up their financial reports for 2013, that information is probably buried within other numbers.

    I'm willing to bet they could be saving a ton of money by CHARGING small amounts for these materials... But what do I know...?

    --
    -Myke
  78. Bike Messenger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have lance Armstrong deliver all Saturday mail as his community service for lying to Postal Service as his main sponsor.

    He'd be a lot faster than my mailman too.

    (sg)

  79. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USPS is the most efficient system for moving things from one place to the other on the planet.

    I doubt that. I buy pens and knickknacks on ebay and I have gotten items shipped from China to US for the same price as local US mail (about 50 cents, reading from the stamps. The item itself was only $2, so I don't doubt it). They also have about twice the number of employees and serves 3 times the population.

    India post is also cheaper and has about 5 times the number of employees (though they do offer financial services etc.)

    If you are talking about mail volume/people as a measure of efficiency and not the cost, then arguably yes, it is more efficient.

  80. Pay More by hhawk · · Score: 1

    We need a postal service but we don't need one that is cheap or subsidized in anyway. All bills can be sent and paid for using a computer. Ditto letters.

    No one is ever happy to pay more, but starting tomorrow they should only charge what it costs to operate the system. They should deliver 4 days a week and anything else should cost even more. They should charge 100% plus 15% of what things cost. The profit should be used to pay back the tax payers all the money we have pumped into the system.

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  81. Netflix better cut my subscription price by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

    by 1/6 if I can only receive DVD's on weekdays.

  82. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the mail! What would a day on Earth be like without the mail?

    Probably a lot like Sunday.

  83. Prime free 2 day shipping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pay $80 per year an get my packages via FrdRx or UPS

  84. Lot 49. . . by jafac · · Score: 1

    We Await Silent Tristero's Empire

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  85. Having the power and exercising it are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between the people saying "Congress you must do this" and "Congress you have the power to do this". Congress is given various enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 ("The Congress shall have power to ..."). For example, Congress has the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"--that doesn't mean it MUST borrow, only that it can.

  86. Unnfortunately by DaveJ45 · · Score: 1

    I'm certain that come August I won't be getting a permanent 1/6th reduction of the junk mail that has to be carted off to the local landfill every week...

    --
    Differences between how you act when some one is watching, and how you act when no one is watching, define who you are
  87. Upper management know nothing about this company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USPS started losing money the day the started letting no bodies (brown nosers) move up into manager postions. Managers with no skills, care or education to be where they are. Turning their backs on disciplining employees who didn't put in a fairs day of work. Clicks, favorites, special individuals taking advantage of this business, which put morals down to good workers. Second online postage for customers to discount their pkgs by billion of $$$$ nationwide and employees being told to not take the time to catch these shoplifters. To see pkgs with 0 (zero) ounce postage paid on a 20# box. No one and I mean NO ONE cares about these shoplifters. I am from a small office and have found more than 60k in short paid postage by myself in a year,it is enough to tell me where problems exsists. Talk to a area poom and they were clueless and didn't even understand what station input was and why there is brm and postage dues in dps. How the hell does some one become high up in the ranks to not know simple terms. So we take rules and guideance from people like this. It's kiss your way, back stab your way, lie, fake, steal, sleep your way up. Face reality as to the real reason the usps has reached no deliver on Saturdays. Years of abuse, neglect, caring, misconduct, cheaters, liars that run this company.

  88. US Spam Service? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they stopped delivering bulk commercial physical spam mail, they'd be out of money and out of business in less than a year. I say good riddance. My important bills and legal notices all happen via email, and UPS/Fedex do a fine job delivering my packages.

  89. My mail situation by Gambit+Thirty-Two · · Score: 1

    I'm in a situation where I don't have local mail delivery, and I have certain hours I can pick up my mail. My work hours and drive time for work make it so i can ONLY get my mail on saturdays, by going to the post office. I need to make sure this won't effect me greatly, otherwise I am going to be in a TON of trouble when it comes to my bills.

  90. Loosing money by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    The Postal Service has been losing billions of dollars each year

    It is not loosing money, it is just that the user does not pay the full price of the service. The remaining part is subsided through taxes because a cheap postal service was decided to be in the general interest

    1. Re:Loosing money by Myopic · · Score: 1

      s/l(o+)s/o/g

    2. Re:Loosing money by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Shit I bonked the regex didn't I.

      Mod me down! Hide my shame!

  91. Re:Who could have guessed? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    Wow! If they're that good, then it makes me wonder why they have to have a government-granted monopoly on letters.

    Simple - that is the only way to have people in cities subsidize people who live in the middle of nowhere.

    It isn't exactly a bad concept - at least for its day (which I believe has passed). Having half the country be unable to so much as read a newspaper isn't all that good for democracy in the 1800s.

    These days I think these goals could be accomplished far more effectively by just having government-issued email addresses for official correspondence. There shouldn't be any kind of monopoly on communication, but rather there should be a set of mailboxes where:
    1. Costs of operation are billed to senders.
    2. Recipients are legally accountable for messages sent (like summons/bills/etc).
    3. Identity of senders/recipients is assured.
    4. Individuals can request to not receive bulk mail. Bulk mail would be licensed as it is with regular mail, and the fees would be sufficient to ensure it would not become burdensome.

    If you did all this then there is no reason to keep the post office - lots of money could be saved. For packages just use a commercial courier.

  92. Don't stop Saturday, Stop Wednesday service. by NeoStrider69 · · Score: 1

    I don't know about everyone else but 99.5% of my junk mail is delivered on Wednesdays. I was lucky a few years ago and convinced the postal carrier I had to use my second mailbox that was about 5 feet away from my normal one and was round for all this mail. Now on Wednesdays I get notices posted on my door from the local code inspector because of all the dang spam overflows the box and he calls it litter all over my property. I know it won't happen but it sure would be nice.

  93. Re:Who could have guessed? by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    I have gotten items shipped from China to US for the same price as local US mail...

    the thing is, when you get something from China, the "postage" or shipping cost that you are paying is just the part from China to a US port. Then the USPS is obligated to deliver it from int'l port to your US doorstep for FREE. No doubt sending mail within China is cheaper than within the US... the price of cellphones is cheaper in China too... but you can't simply compare the ebay shipping cost from China>US to US>US... it isn't a Chinese postman that delivers your Chinese pens and knickknacks to your US door...

  94. Re:Bummer, Netflix unlike to fix the problem... by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    ditto on the Netflix issue... no more 2 per week... Blockbuster had "solved" this problem in a similar way by allow you to drop off rentals at BB stores and that counts as a return -- new disc is shipped out the next day. I was able to do 3 per week with BB. It would be great if Netflix allowed a similar system, perhaps by the "trusted" method you suggest. But since Netflix is looking to kill its DVD-by-mail service anyways, I doubt they will lift a finger to solve this new problem...

  95. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I could have said "granted by a constitutional clause that is widely interpreted to mean that Congress can allow a monopoly and for practical reasons must implement a monopoly in order to provide service to all citizens, thereby making this distinct from the derisive-sounding 'government-granted monopoly' mentioned in the slightly trollish parent post", but that would have been a bit wordy.

    Similarly, it might have been too many words to substitute "post box" with "receptacle designated as an extension of a constitutionally-authorized post office". That would've been silly :-/ Now, using mailbox, postal box, or letter box might not have been as silly.

  96. I Want More Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recycling junk mail is easy and takes me little time. Where do I sign up for more spam so those annoying companies can help support our awesome post office on my behalf?

  97. Next Step = Alternative day delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternative day delivery would be the next step before eliminating mail altogether. Should happen in the next 20-30 years, The only mail that will be sent is packages that cannot be digitized. Fedex /UPs is good for that.

  98. Increase postage costs already! by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

    $0.55, really? Who here is willing to take my letter and deliver it across town for $0.55. Let's extrapolate that even further. Who here is willing to take my letter and deliver it to Alaska for the same price? I know establishing zone regions for regular first class mail would be a pain but there has to be marry better with the real world. But if we're not willing to do that, then at least double the cost of postage to $1.10 and it will be more realistic average cost. It will also reduce the crap spam I get too, I see this as a win-win no brainer.

  99. Re:Who could have guessed? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    These days I think these goals could be accomplished far more effectively by just having government-issued email addresses for official correspondence.

    There are at least 3 major flaws in this plan:
    1. You are aware that not all people in this country have easy access to email, right? There are millions of people who's only access to any kind of computer (including smartphones) is by going to a public library and waiting in line (potentially for hours) for a chance to use one.

    2. Email is never guaranteed to be delivered. You've set up a specific requirement that recipients are legally accountable for messages sent, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that they actually received the message, whereas there is with certified mail.

    3. Intercepting and reading someone else's email without being noticed is easy. Intercepting and reading someone else's mail without being noticed is much harder.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  100. Re:Who could have guessed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, all EU member states. However, most of them are still in some form of a transition phase. E.g. competitors may not offer mail collection but only accept bulk delivery.

  101. Facts suggest otherwise by concealment · · Score: 1

    It's not that they aren't competitive. It's that the demand for their entire industry has dropped, and their bosses are actively trying to screw them up.

    There's more package traffic than ever. What has dropped is the sending of junk mail (in letter and catalog form). What has increased is the sending of packages. USPS has now upped its rates on those, and can't even do that right. Amazon just changed our local delivery from USPS to Fedex, and according to the user support person I talked to, they'd had a lot of issues with USPS. Packages go missing on a routine basis, where they don't with UPS and FedEx.

    In the meantime, let's go down to our local post office. At any hour of the day, there is one person on duty at the desk. Laughter, music and conversation flow from the back room. Checking my PO box, I refile yet another two misdirected envelopes.

    The problem with USPS is that it can't reduce its cost. There are many anti-business factors here, but the two biggest are (a) unions and (b) feelgood government regulation.

    Here are mainstream published sources that agree with me and which would be voted -1, Troll here on Slashdot by the feelgood social emotions hive mind:

    Free the Post Office!, by Joe Nocera

    Postal Service To Default On $5.5 Billion Payment As Congress Heads Into Recess, by Dave Jamieson

    Notice how these are both consistent with what I posted.

    I realize that unions and affirmative action are sacred cows around here, but from a business standpoint, that's nonsense. Unions raise costs and make it impossible to fire employees who need to go. Affirmative action makes it impossible to fire employees who are from any protected group, which includes homosexuals, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, gender minorities (women/trans), and probably many more. Attacking affirmative action does not say "these people are incompetent," which would require all of them to be incompetent, but by the same token it says that neither are they all competent, and we need the ability to drop the incompetent ones.

    This society does itself a disfavor by producing myths and illusions that are then viewed as an attack on The People if they are broached. This makes us just as much lock-step conformist as a totalitarian regime, and makes us unable to view the realistic solutions we need to in order to save things like our Postal Service.

    1. Re:Facts suggest otherwise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first link directly contradicts your point:

      The easy temptation is to blame the lack of progress on the unimaginative bureaucrats who run it, or on shortsighted unions. But that's not really where the fault lies.

      The second link doesn't support your argument either.

      What's going on here? A demonstration of Poe's law, or simple insanity?

  102. Monopoly as protection by concealment · · Score: 1

    If they're that good, then it makes me wonder why they have to have a government-granted monopoly on letters.

    It's this same monopoly that got them in trouble. Figuring they were Too Big To Fail, they built their business on an inefficient model that required people literally throwing money in the door. Now that this situation has changed, they're unable to do what any functional business would do, which is lower costs.

  103. There is a majority of non-adult arguments here by concealment · · Score: 1

    And you know it's not on 'letters', it's on post boxes. The same ones that fall under the universal service obligation.

    But, those would be adult arguments, and your tone suggests you want to have a different type of discussion.

    The details of the monopoly matter less than that it exists, but it's interesting how it was implemented.

    I think this whole thread is a non-adult argument. I raised legitimate business concerns, and then the chattering busybodies out there had a tantrum about it because it offended their sacred cows.

    Slashdot is a few leaders, and a lot of nobodies who follow around demanding that we keep their illusions intact so they feel good about themselves. If such people died, society would be much healthier.

  104. The Chinese postal system by concealment · · Score: 1

    The Chinese postal system is inexpensive because your packages are delivered by dissidents, who are then executed with a bullet at the base to the skull, and made into delivery food for clueless Westerners.

    Try the pork. It's definitely tender. Just watch for fragments of 7.65mm projectiles.

  105. Blame the victims! Is that a trope now? by concealment · · Score: 1

    imagine that, a corporate whoring teabagger repeating the same old lies in an attempt at blaming the victims, yet again.

    Which victims are being blamed, and what are they victims of?

  106. The Post Office hasn't been losing Billions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because of digital Communications.
    The Post office was required to pay about 20billion dollars into a retirement fund 70 years in advance...(that's paying for people to retire that aren't born yet) over like 20 years. The "Debt" was called after about 6 years...

    That's about the same as you buying a house for $300,000, getting a 20year loan from the bank and them telling you after 6 years, Pay up the full amount.

    That is the ONLY reason the postal service is "in trouble"...Don't believe all the crap you hear on CNN and Fox "News"

  107. Natural monopolies by concealment · · Score: 1

    Well, I could have said "granted by a constitutional clause that is widely interpreted to mean that Congress can allow a monopoly and for practical reasons must implement a monopoly in order to provide service to all citizens, thereby making this distinct from the derisive-sounding 'government-granted monopoly' mentioned in the slightly trollish parent post", but that would have been a bit wordy.

    You call his post trollish because you disagree with it, not that it's any different from the tone in this thread.

    Also, most natural monopolies are made into government-subsidized monopolies, and whether that's done by constitutional interpretation or statute is irrelevant for the end-user (or the business dynamics that make those monopolies fail).

    In that sense, we should look at the post office as being no different from any other utility. How are other utilities succeeding while the post office fails?

    1. Re:Natural monopolies by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      In that sense, we should look at the post office as being no different from any other utility. How are other utilities succeeding while the post office fails?

      The demand for most other utilities hasn't dropped off precipitously in the last two decades and other utilitied haven't been called on to operate at a loss for many years (if you think that they're not running at a loss, try getting any other company to deliver a letter for 46 cents in any time frame, much less in the usual time for the post). Also, the USPS is cutting back on Saturday delivery, which is a far cry from failing. Are you proposing that a for-profit business has never trimmed back less productive hours to save money?

      Virg

  108. Saturday mail delivery. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a resident of Canada, I agree with this. We have never had Saturday delivery. It just makes sense

  109. Re:Who could have guessed? by Myopic · · Score: 1

    What competition? Does the USPS have competition? Who else will take my postcard from Barrow, Alaska to Tallahassee, Florida for thirty cents? I don't know any other organization that does that.

  110. Re:Who could have guessed? by Myopic · · Score: 1

    American libertarians don't want to live in a G20 country. They prefer places like Afghanistan, Darfur, or Antarctica -- you know, small-government self-reliance types of places. So, if you share their vision for an America that looks like Darfur, then by all means support the libertarian platform. Yay for small government!

  111. Re:Who could have guessed? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Along with that monopoly is a government mandated delivery to all sort of out of the way places. Like delivering letters to extremely isolated communities.
    What does it cost to send a letter via Fedex?

  112. Well, I Learned One Thing from this Article by pmcizhere · · Score: 1

    ...that there is such a thing as a National Rural Letter Carriers' Association. Wow, there's an association for everything, isn't there?

  113. Not losing Billions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is pathetic do you know how much a billion is or are you some dick that cannot count?

    Too many zero's for you and you are on cloud 9!

    Fence posts 10 feet apart how many do you need? The USPS has been raped of all their money to fund wars. Ah well that is the US of gay!

  114. Why not approach it like private enterprise? by tgmarks · · Score: 1

    When a big company looses money, they don't react by cutting their services. They adapt by changing their product and cutting their costs internally. The postal service has a huge amount of work to do internally.

  115. Africans start invoking Obama to do their whims ca by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cause lookalikes. So if you are not the President... you do not want to compete with the President, you cannot act like the President, the President, the President, and it is Bama and Ama and Oba and Obam, and that is why the President and the President and the President... so they can do whatever they want because they *hear* and you *speak*. To you. This danger was there but not it is second period and much less opposition so they have the power by the handle... Beware, it is a pattern we know and it is NOT stopped at the Peak.

  116. USPS Saturday delivery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in a rural area, and don't see Saturday delivery as essential, even for packages; more something we are used to. Canada has never had Saturday mail delivery; they manage. Maybe we could do without Wednesdays, too.

  117. Want to KEEP the USPS? Here's the thing..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Grampa was a postmaster. Others in my family were USPS employees too. I'm not, never wwuz, and no one in my family now is, or will be, so I have no reasons to post this beyond the fact that I LIKE the USPS, and feel they've been screwed. Screwed largely by US, you and I.
          The thing is, we're depriving them of business they NEED to keep going, revenue they lose to others. Largely it's to UPS, FedEx, and the like. When you order something online, do you ever ask them to send things by USPS? DEMAND it? I do, and I've had some places tell me they CAN'T mail things. Mail is often cheaper than other delivery options, but the ones that WILL mail stuff often don't even charge you just the actual cost of postage, instead they get their usual "shipping and handling" price.
          Many say they cannot send things by mail, but they see a mailman/woman regularly. Thay CAN, if they want to, if they will, if you ask, demand it. I've always done so. If you want to keep Saturday mail, if you want to keep postage costs from growing even faster, if the slow demise of the USPS troubles you, there's two things you can do.
          The first is to contact everyone that represents you in government, tell them that you expect them to support the USPS. Tell them that there are companies that won't even mail the things they sell, and that MAIL, plain old snailmail, should be a default thing for any business that gets things to you. They should be required to offer that option, and let you decide how soon you want things and for how much.
          The second is to ask, to demand, that your items be sent by mail. Ask, demand, that they charge you the same price they pay for postage,
                    You have to ask for what you want, folks, and demand it if necessary. If you want to see the USPS continue, this is the best thing we can do. USPS won't deliver your mail when the Post Office closes, people.
          Just a thought..............

  118. Re:Who could have guessed? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    There are at least 3 major flaws in this plan:
    1. You are aware that not all people in this country have easy access to email, right? There are millions of people who's only access to any kind of computer (including smartphones) is by going to a public library and waiting in line (potentially for hours) for a chance to use one.

    I can't believe that the cost of giving everybody a free (low-end) computer and (low-speed) internet connection is higher than the cost of having somebody walk to their house every day to deliver paper. This could of course be means-tested as well.

    2. Email is never guaranteed to be delivered. You've set up a specific requirement that recipients are legally accountable for messages sent, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that they actually received the message, whereas there is with certified mail.

    This would have guaranteed delivery. The servers would be government-owned - they could issue a token when accepting mail. You could of course not actually check your mail, just as you can with the mailbox, but that doesn't eliminate your legal responsibility. The reliability of a government-run email system would certainly be higher than that of a paper-based system where short of getting delivery confirmation there is no way to know a message was delivered, and you could have that for free on every message with email.

    3. Intercepting and reading someone else's email without being noticed is easy. Intercepting and reading someone else's mail without being noticed is much harder.

    There is no reason this couldn't be reasonably secure. It would not be sent unencrypted over the internet. Most likely the servers would not accept mail except via authenticated connections from the original sender, and would not deliver except by authenticated connections to the recipient (which might be via a web client/etc in many cases).

    This is meant to be a replacement for paper mail, not a replacement for what is defined in the RFCs as email today. It would most likely not be free (to send) either, perhaps with an exception for official government correspondence (you shouldn't have to pay a fee to respond to a summons - like you do today).

  119. The USPS is profitable, except for... by concealment · · Score: 1

    (if you think that they're not running at a loss, try getting any other company to deliver a letter for 46 cents in any time frame, much less in the usual time for the post).

    With $140 billion in annual cash flow, it doesn't look like the problem is their prices. It looks like their overhead is too high, starting with many of the Congressionally-imposed costs mentioned in the article.

    Other companies do not have many of the legal advantages the USPS has that were created specifically to allow it to be solvent but inexpensive.

    The service last year projected it would save $7.1 billion a year by managing its own benefits.

    ...a $5.6 billion payment due to the U.S. Treasury for future retiree health-care costs...

    Look to the causes here, not some comparison of apples and oranges.