5 ms·

"The mail hasn't changed over the last two years in some fundamental way that makes it disruptive" COVID has very fundamentally changed the equation. Also, so

"The mail hasn't changed over the last two years in some fundamental way that makes it disruptive" COVID has very fundamentally changed the equation. Also, some institutions are more adaptive than others, some are more resilient. I suggest the USPS is very low on 'adaptiveness', but probably fairly resilient.

jermaustin1 6y ago
What does the Patent Office have to do with the Post Office?
- ptaipale 6y ago
  I suppose it is obvious that the previous writer just used wrong abbreviation, and meant the postal service. Snail-mail is in trouble in most parts of the developed world, because online services have replaced so many processes that were running on paper. Providing an example from my country and neighbours, i.e. the Nordics. Look at the graph that has numbers of delivered letters in different countries - it has roughly halved in 10 years, and the trend continues: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11236284 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11236284 Parcel deliveries are growing, but there the postal services have competition. As the volume of letters decreases - particularly in businesses and offices but also in private lives - it becomes increasingly difficult to run the service without financial loss.
  - soco 6y ago
    Halving the number of envelopes does not imply increasing their transit time. If anything, it could actually speed them up... As for financial loss, it's a state-provided service. They are not created to make profits, but to provide a level of basic service. Just like primary schools, or local roads.
    - cipher_system 6y ago
      Assuming price stays the same that means half the revenue, almost the same fixed costs and probably slightly lower marginal costs. There is always a limit on how much money you can get from the government so they would have to save on expenditure with the decline. It's nice to have but it can't be considered critical anymore. Bills, paychecks and other important mail needs to be delivered digitally, there's no turning back. edit: parcels and legacy papers still need to work everywhere though and that is worth some public spending, but if you live in the middle of nowhere you have to accept longer deliveries on fewer days of the week.
    - ptaipale 6y ago
      Halving the number of envelopes implies halving the revenue. As much of the cost is fixed (dependent on the size of infrastructure such as premises and vehicles, and number of delivery people required to cover a geographical area with sufficient service), this creates a rather impossible equation to solve without any deterioration of service. A natural way in this situation is to make deliveries less often; we no longer need official letters urgently, except in quite rare exception cases that can probably be covered by parcel delivery services, with tracking (and much higher cost for the small number of deliveries). Over here, the postal service tries to solve this by arranging deliveries only three times a week, and in future perhaps once a week. I find that quite acceptable. If information needs to reach me faster, it'll come on-line anyway. A week's wait is OK for legacy services where someone wants a piece of physical paper with my signature, written on a pen, on it.
igorkraw 6y ago
The USPS has been legally blocked from adapting by anti-infrastructure ideologues (source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLyU1WCQQ8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLyU1WCQQ8A ) in order to set them up to fail. In addition to this, recent administrations have been actively dismantling their infrastructure. Any discussion of adaptivity or resilience is incomplete without considering these facts.
- fortran77 6y ago
  Why are you posting this same thing multiple times?
  - igorkraw 6y ago
    Because I originally wrote it on level 2 in a thread, then felt it was serviceable as a reply to the thread OP, as well as a top level reply.
dagmx 6y ago
Republicans changed the equation in their attempts to sabotage it. From requiring pre-funding retirements years ago, to DeJoy dismantling sorting machines just a few months ago. It's hard to know how adaptable a system is, when it's actively being torn down at every opportunity.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was both put forward by Democrats and a Republicans and passed with broad bipartisan support.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    The Democrats are pretty good at taking bribes, too. As long as it's not a wedge issue, the Dems are fine siding with the Republicans.
- JPKab 6y ago
  The politicized nature of discussing the post office in its funding has contaminated the brains of many people. The load that is distributed by the postal service has changed in nature dramatically to be far more packaged intensive and far far less letter-intensive than it used to be. The sorting machines that were being removed were letter sorting machines because nobody sends letters anymore except for junk mail. Room has to be made for more package sorting machines. That was the explanation for the moves but the timing made people suspicious and the suspicions were jumped upon by political actors in an election year. Nobody bother to ask themselves why the GOP would remove sorting machines in states that are definitely going blue if it was part of some grand scheme. Again I really don't like the GOP and have never even voted for a GOP candidate but I get fed up with politics bleeding over into reality via misinformation designed to create an emotional and stressful feeling in potential voters to ensure they cast their ballots because that's what this is.
  - bananabreakfast 6y ago
    "The timing made people suspicious" If they were not planning on dismantling and damaging the way the system functioned, then it would be overwhelmingly obvious that simply the optics of literally dismantling infrastructure in an election year that would be the most widely dependent on mail are atrocious. People were not "suspicious" of the timing. People refused to believe someone could be so stupid as to think they could do what DeJoy did in good faith, after being appointed by someone openly demanding the shutdown of the system, and not look like they were blatantly performing a political hit job. No good faith actor would possibly act that way.

jermaustin1 6y ago

What does the Patent Office have to do with the Post Office?

ptaipale 6y ago
I suppose it is obvious that the previous writer just used wrong abbreviation, and meant the postal service. Snail-mail is in trouble in most parts of the developed world, because online services have replaced so many processes that were running on paper. Providing an example from my country and neighbours, i.e. the Nordics. Look at the graph that has numbers of delivered letters in different countries - it has roughly halved in 10 years, and the trend continues: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11236284 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11236284 Parcel deliveries are growing, but there the postal services have competition. As the volume of letters decreases - particularly in businesses and offices but also in private lives - it becomes increasingly difficult to run the service without financial loss.
- soco 6y ago
  Halving the number of envelopes does not imply increasing their transit time. If anything, it could actually speed them up... As for financial loss, it's a state-provided service. They are not created to make profits, but to provide a level of basic service. Just like primary schools, or local roads.
  - cipher_system 6y ago
    Assuming price stays the same that means half the revenue, almost the same fixed costs and probably slightly lower marginal costs. There is always a limit on how much money you can get from the government so they would have to save on expenditure with the decline. It's nice to have but it can't be considered critical anymore. Bills, paychecks and other important mail needs to be delivered digitally, there's no turning back. edit: parcels and legacy papers still need to work everywhere though and that is worth some public spending, but if you live in the middle of nowhere you have to accept longer deliveries on fewer days of the week.
  - ptaipale 6y ago
    Halving the number of envelopes implies halving the revenue. As much of the cost is fixed (dependent on the size of infrastructure such as premises and vehicles, and number of delivery people required to cover a geographical area with sufficient service), this creates a rather impossible equation to solve without any deterioration of service. A natural way in this situation is to make deliveries less often; we no longer need official letters urgently, except in quite rare exception cases that can probably be covered by parcel delivery services, with tracking (and much higher cost for the small number of deliveries). Over here, the postal service tries to solve this by arranging deliveries only three times a week, and in future perhaps once a week. I find that quite acceptable. If information needs to reach me faster, it'll come on-line anyway. A week's wait is OK for legacy services where someone wants a piece of physical paper with my signature, written on a pen, on it.

igorkraw 6y ago

The USPS has been legally blocked from adapting by anti-infrastructure ideologues (source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLyU1WCQQ8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLyU1WCQQ8A ) in order to set them up to fail. In addition to this, recent administrations have been actively dismantling their infrastructure. Any discussion of adaptivity or resilience is incomplete without considering these facts.

fortran77 6y ago
Why are you posting this same thing multiple times?
- igorkraw 6y ago
  Because I originally wrote it on level 2 in a thread, then felt it was serviceable as a reply to the thread OP, as well as a top level reply.

dagmx 6y ago

Republicans changed the equation in their attempts to sabotage it. From requiring pre-funding retirements years ago, to DeJoy dismantling sorting machines just a few months ago. It's hard to know how adaptable a system is, when it's actively being torn down at every opportunity.

AuryGlenz 6y ago
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was both put forward by Democrats and a Republicans and passed with broad bipartisan support.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  The Democrats are pretty good at taking bribes, too. As long as it's not a wedge issue, the Dems are fine siding with the Republicans.
JPKab 6y ago
The politicized nature of discussing the post office in its funding has contaminated the brains of many people. The load that is distributed by the postal service has changed in nature dramatically to be far more packaged intensive and far far less letter-intensive than it used to be. The sorting machines that were being removed were letter sorting machines because nobody sends letters anymore except for junk mail. Room has to be made for more package sorting machines. That was the explanation for the moves but the timing made people suspicious and the suspicions were jumped upon by political actors in an election year. Nobody bother to ask themselves why the GOP would remove sorting machines in states that are definitely going blue if it was part of some grand scheme. Again I really don't like the GOP and have never even voted for a GOP candidate but I get fed up with politics bleeding over into reality via misinformation designed to create an emotional and stressful feeling in potential voters to ensure they cast their ballots because that's what this is.
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  "The timing made people suspicious" If they were not planning on dismantling and damaging the way the system functioned, then it would be overwhelmingly obvious that simply the optics of literally dismantling infrastructure in an election year that would be the most widely dependent on mail are atrocious. People were not "suspicious" of the timing. People refused to believe someone could be so stupid as to think they could do what DeJoy did in good faith, after being appointed by someone openly demanding the shutdown of the system, and not look like they were blatantly performing a political hit job. No good faith actor would possibly act that way.