4 ms·

But as recently as a couple of years ago it did its job much better: both more reliably and more rapidly. The reason people are writing about it now is because

But as recently as a couple of years ago it did its job much better: both more reliably and more rapidly. The reason people are writing about it now is because the new regime of routine delays is very recent, and probably the result of some very significant changes made by politically-appointed leadership. ETA: There is a relatively short window now during which these changes can be rolled back, or people will just get used to the idea that "the reliable Post Office is another of those fantasies my parents' generation enjoyed, oh well: at least I can use UberMail for $22 a letter."

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Let's not mince words: Republicans conspired to fuck up the post office because its successes serve as a counter example to their narrative.
- shiftpgdn 6y ago
  I've been shipping stuff online for 15 years. The post office has always been a huge mess. The only reason articles are getting written about it now is because A. Covid-era mail volumes have doubled or tripled. And B. You get to blame Trump.
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    DeJoy was literally having them tear mail sorting machines out of their facilities, having them discarded in trash bins, and then cut hours for workers. Try again.
    - shiftpgdn 6y ago
      The Obama administration had them remove a massive amount of sorting machines too. Those are letter sorting machines. Letter volume is down to literally the lowest it had ever been. There is a reason they are getting ripped out.
      - dsr_ 6y ago
        The letter sorting machines are faster and cheaper than manually sorting the same letters... and they were already paid for. You are correct that there is a reason that they are being ripped out, but it's not because letter volume is down.
        shiftpgdn 6y ago
        Letter volume is down and the machines need to be replaced with machines that can handle parcels. How are they supposed to replace them!?
        makomk 6y ago
        Manually sorting letters isn't actually the alternative here - what the US Postal Service was moving towards under DeJoy (and probably before him too) was sorting the same letters using the same kind of automatic machines, but a smaller number of them reconfigured to sort into a larger number of different piles using parts from the scrapped machines. This reduces overall capacity, but should be more efficient so long as they don't actually need the extra capacity.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    I've been reading articles about Republicans sabotaging the postal service by making it pre-fund its retiree health fund since well before Trump. In fact, the law was passed 15 years ago, just as you started shipping stuff. It's always been absurd to expect a government service to make a profit, and we've been talking about that for a long time, I don't think most people say it's Trump's fault.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      Any employer that promises its employees benefits in the future should have to set aside money to pay for them. Including the government, even though it has exempted itself from this common sense requirement that it imposes on non government entities. If anything, the rest of the government should have to do what USPS was legislated to do. Note that the law you are referring to required the USPS to set aside money for accrued benefits, just like any private company has to. Otherwise you end up with the situation that IL/CT/NJ and many other governments are subjecting their taxpayers to, which is raising taxes now to pay for labor performed decades ago. It’s nice for the taxpayers of decades ago, not so nice for the taxpayers of today.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - burkaman 6y ago
        I don't believe we have to choose between "act like a corporation" and "run up impossible debts for future generations". You are right that pre-funding benefits is good, but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". A government service does not need to make a profit, and talking about "profits" at all is nonsensical. How many billions do public libraries lose every year? How many trillions does the military? If it makes a profit, it's probably not doing its job.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
- tomcam 6y ago
  Citation?
maxerickson 6y ago
There has also been a pretty dramatic change in mail volume over the years. I'd rather service get subsidized than gutted, but I don't think politics are the only driver of change.
- slickdork 6y ago
  There has been a change in volume... but it's going down. 168 billion in 2011 vs 129 billion in 2020 [1]. [1] https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/
  - makomk 6y ago
    More specifically, letter volume has been going down and parcel volume has been going up. Basically, there's been a huge shift in what the US Postal Service actually does, and their ability to cope with it has not been helped by - for example - the media creating partisan conspiracy theories about reducing the number of sorting machines that can physically only sort letters to rebalance their infrastructure being an evil right-wing conspiracy to destroy the postal service.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

Let's not mince words: Republicans conspired to fuck up the post office because its successes serve as a counter example to their narrative.

shiftpgdn 6y ago
I've been shipping stuff online for 15 years. The post office has always been a huge mess. The only reason articles are getting written about it now is because A. Covid-era mail volumes have doubled or tripled. And B. You get to blame Trump.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  DeJoy was literally having them tear mail sorting machines out of their facilities, having them discarded in trash bins, and then cut hours for workers. Try again.
  - shiftpgdn 6y ago
    The Obama administration had them remove a massive amount of sorting machines too. Those are letter sorting machines. Letter volume is down to literally the lowest it had ever been. There is a reason they are getting ripped out.
    - dsr_ 6y ago
      The letter sorting machines are faster and cheaper than manually sorting the same letters... and they were already paid for. You are correct that there is a reason that they are being ripped out, but it's not because letter volume is down.
      - shiftpgdn 6y ago
        Letter volume is down and the machines need to be replaced with machines that can handle parcels. How are they supposed to replace them!?
      - makomk 6y ago
        Manually sorting letters isn't actually the alternative here - what the US Postal Service was moving towards under DeJoy (and probably before him too) was sorting the same letters using the same kind of automatic machines, but a smaller number of them reconfigured to sort into a larger number of different piles using parts from the scrapped machines. This reduces overall capacity, but should be more efficient so long as they don't actually need the extra capacity.
- burkaman 6y ago
  I've been reading articles about Republicans sabotaging the postal service by making it pre-fund its retiree health fund since well before Trump. In fact, the law was passed 15 years ago, just as you started shipping stuff. It's always been absurd to expect a government service to make a profit, and we've been talking about that for a long time, I don't think most people say it's Trump's fault.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Any employer that promises its employees benefits in the future should have to set aside money to pay for them. Including the government, even though it has exempted itself from this common sense requirement that it imposes on non government entities. If anything, the rest of the government should have to do what USPS was legislated to do. Note that the law you are referring to required the USPS to set aside money for accrued benefits, just like any private company has to. Otherwise you end up with the situation that IL/CT/NJ and many other governments are subjecting their taxpayers to, which is raising taxes now to pay for labor performed decades ago. It’s nice for the taxpayers of decades ago, not so nice for the taxpayers of today.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - burkaman 6y ago
      I don't believe we have to choose between "act like a corporation" and "run up impossible debts for future generations". You are right that pre-funding benefits is good, but the sabotage I'm referring to is pretending the postal service is a business, changing its financial obligations without changing its service obligations, and then complaining that it's "losing money". A government service does not need to make a profit, and talking about "profits" at all is nonsensical. How many billions do public libraries lose every year? How many trillions does the military? If it makes a profit, it's probably not doing its job.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
tomcam 6y ago
Citation?

maxerickson 6y ago

There has also been a pretty dramatic change in mail volume over the years. I'd rather service get subsidized than gutted, but I don't think politics are the only driver of change.

slickdork 6y ago
There has been a change in volume... but it's going down. 168 billion in 2011 vs 129 billion in 2020 [1]. [1] https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/ https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/
- makomk 6y ago
  More specifically, letter volume has been going down and parcel volume has been going up. Basically, there's been a huge shift in what the US Postal Service actually does, and their ability to cope with it has not been helped by - for example - the media creating partisan conspiracy theories about reducing the number of sorting machines that can physically only sort letters to rebalance their infrastructure being an evil right-wing conspiracy to destroy the postal service.