6 ms·

Honest question... why not kill it off instead and push legacy users into the digital world? The USPS claims to have 230,000 vehicles. How much of that envir

Honest question... why not kill it off instead and push legacy users into the digital world? The USPS claims to have 230,000 vehicles. How much of that environmental footprint could be eradicated? https://facts.usps.com/postal-service-has-more-than-200000-vehicles/ https://facts.usps.com/postal-service-has-more-than-200000-v...

reom_tobit 5y ago
Even if everyone went fully digital, and letters became a thing of the past, you would still need a functional postal service. Packages obviously will still be sent for one, but also from a national security perspective it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire delivery logistics network. Lastly, if you see the government as enabling an economy for free markets, a state run postal service is a great backbone for that.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  >it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire delivery logistics network. When you consider how much of US logistics is done by private companies, I'd say we're pretty much there and always were. Even if you dig into the USPS by itself, how much is done by private contractors? ..especially upstream from the local office. That last mile of to-the-house delivery is a non-trivial thing but I'm not sure how essential it is. Restated: it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire electricity generation and delivery network. Yet here we are.
  - reom_tobit 5y ago
    > Restated: it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire electricity generation and delivery network. Yet here we are. I suppose this was a restatement to point out a flaw in my previous point, but I do agree with the notion that critical national infrastructure should not involve private businesses. Just because “here we are”, doesn’t mean it’s where we should be. There are different points of view on this so I don’t expect everyone to agree with this (market efficiencies, etc etc), but I just see it as a solution looking for a problem in many cases. Downsizing the USPS, putting increasingly more onerous rules on it, then turning around and saying “well look, the private market is already doing so much, let’s just go with that”, seems shortsighted to me.
    - kingsuper20 5y ago
      I think I worry less about government vs. private for things that are basically monopolies or oligopolies, both can be arbitrary and unfair (and abused), but that a lot of extremely important goods and services represent single points of failure. Single-sourcing electricity or package delivery or precursor raw materials always seems like a near-sighted move even if it is cheaper. There's a false economy to gigantism.
rhexs 5y ago
Useful union voting bloc seems to be the major reason. When they come out with PR pieces the biggest “reason” is veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered via mail, which seems like a rather tiny, solvable problem that doesn’t require flushing endless billions, but hey, here we are.
- catillac 5y ago
  You went from “useful union voting bloc” to “veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered by mail.” What a ride. In reality there are lots of reasons to keep USPS, being able to get packages to all among them. Parent commenters have done a great job outlining some. I would encourage you to think more critically about reasons we would want a state-run postal system that don’t involve pet causes like union voting blocs.
- HumblyTossed 5y ago
  "...“reason” is veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered via mail, which seems like a rather tiny, solvable problem ..." How is that a "tiny" problem?
jermaustin1 5y ago
I love when my parents send me new socks digitally for Christmas. Oh, and the girl scout cookies I buy, a byte of thin mints has never tasted so good. You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address. FEDEX and UPS don't deliver out to my wife's grandmother. FEDEX and UPS don't deliver to my Uncle's factory, in the middle of a medium sized town in north east Texas. But the Post Office does. When you get rid of a government service that has literally served the entire country, and replace it with a profit driven company, you will disrupt the entire country. As much as I dislike how crappy the delivery of the USPS has become (I still rely on them for a couple clients who don't believe in digital payments even if I discount their invoice, and my wife's and my prescriptions come through the mail), they have been much more consistent and on time than FEDEX or UPS. I'm actually still waiting on a package via FEDEX that has been out for delivery (in California not NY where I live) for about 3 weeks now.
- msla 5y ago
  > You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address. It doesn't, though. I lived ten years at an address they wouldn't deliver to. I had to rent a PO Box in the nearest town to get USPS mail, whereas UPS and FedEx delivered right to my door. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it isn't true.
  - jermaustin1 5y ago
    This does not compute. They have the legal obligation to deliver to all addresses. Do you have an address that has been assigned by your county? Have you registered the new address with your USPS? Your mailbox might not be at your drive way, or on your front step, but a mailbox cluster in a central location. From the USPS (emphasis mine): > We’re proud to provide secure, reliable and affordable service to every address in the United States, plus its territories and its military and diplomatic installations worldwide.
    - minitoar 5y ago
      The only situation I know of where the usps will refuse to deliver is if there is some sort of danger, eg a biting dog. A neighbor had to get a P.O. Box because of this.
JshWright 5y ago
Your use of the word "push" makes it sound like you believe people who don't have access to "the digital world" are there by choice...
faitswulff 5y ago
Not everyone has access to internet, high speed internet, or the devices or ability to connect. Think of the elderly and the impoverished. Pushing them off would push many of them out of connection with society and in many cases disenfranchise them. Furthermore, the infrastructure of the web is privately owned, unlike the interstate and other roadways.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
For the same reason we have land lines still. redundancy is a good thing.
truth_ 5y ago
Only an American will think about killing off the Post Office.
- nieksand 5y ago
  I doubt I represent a typical American. You can perhaps find comfort that I was down-voted to oblivion within fifteen minutes for posting such a naughty thought. Here is my distillation of arguments for keeping the USPS: * USPS is required to service areas which may not be covered by other carriers. A handful of commenters note, from first hand experience, that rural inhabitants may have to pick up mail from centralized depots away from their homes. * USPS transactional mail serves those without internet access. The internet is effectively controlled by a handful of private entities. If internet access was universal and treated like a public utility, it is unclear if this second argument still holds. Interestingly, nobody brought up mail-in voting and its importance to democracy. Nor is the environmental impact of the USPS apparently worthy of consideration. My biggest takeaway is that the USPS is a sacred cow. Like the topics of gender and race, it's unwise to ask questions.

reom_tobit 5y ago

Even if everyone went fully digital, and letters became a thing of the past, you would still need a functional postal service. Packages obviously will still be sent for one, but also from a national security perspective it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire delivery logistics network. Lastly, if you see the government as enabling an economy for free markets, a state run postal service is a great backbone for that.

kingsuper20 5y ago
>it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire delivery logistics network. When you consider how much of US logistics is done by private companies, I'd say we're pretty much there and always were. Even if you dig into the USPS by itself, how much is done by private contractors? ..especially upstream from the local office. That last mile of to-the-house delivery is a non-trivial thing but I'm not sure how essential it is. Restated: it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire electricity generation and delivery network. Yet here we are.
- reom_tobit 5y ago
  > Restated: it makes no sense to have private businesses running the entire electricity generation and delivery network. Yet here we are. I suppose this was a restatement to point out a flaw in my previous point, but I do agree with the notion that critical national infrastructure should not involve private businesses. Just because “here we are”, doesn’t mean it’s where we should be. There are different points of view on this so I don’t expect everyone to agree with this (market efficiencies, etc etc), but I just see it as a solution looking for a problem in many cases. Downsizing the USPS, putting increasingly more onerous rules on it, then turning around and saying “well look, the private market is already doing so much, let’s just go with that”, seems shortsighted to me.
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    I think I worry less about government vs. private for things that are basically monopolies or oligopolies, both can be arbitrary and unfair (and abused), but that a lot of extremely important goods and services represent single points of failure. Single-sourcing electricity or package delivery or precursor raw materials always seems like a near-sighted move even if it is cheaper. There's a false economy to gigantism.

rhexs 5y ago

Useful union voting bloc seems to be the major reason. When they come out with PR pieces the biggest “reason” is veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered via mail, which seems like a rather tiny, solvable problem that doesn’t require flushing endless billions, but hey, here we are.

catillac 5y ago
You went from “useful union voting bloc” to “veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered by mail.” What a ride. In reality there are lots of reasons to keep USPS, being able to get packages to all among them. Parent commenters have done a great job outlining some. I would encourage you to think more critically about reasons we would want a state-run postal system that don’t involve pet causes like union voting blocs.
HumblyTossed 5y ago
"...“reason” is veterans and the elderly not being able to get drugs delivered via mail, which seems like a rather tiny, solvable problem ..." How is that a "tiny" problem?

jermaustin1 5y ago

I love when my parents send me new socks digitally for Christmas. Oh, and the girl scout cookies I buy, a byte of thin mints has never tasted so good. You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address. FEDEX and UPS don't deliver out to my wife's grandmother. FEDEX and UPS don't deliver to my Uncle's factory, in the middle of a medium sized town in north east Texas. But the Post Office does. When you get rid of a government service that has literally served the entire country, and replace it with a profit driven company, you will disrupt the entire country. As much as I dislike how crappy the delivery of the USPS has become (I still rely on them for a couple clients who don't believe in digital payments even if I discount their invoice, and my wife's and my prescriptions come through the mail), they have been much more consistent and on time than FEDEX or UPS. I'm actually still waiting on a package via FEDEX that has been out for delivery (in California not NY where I live) for about 3 weeks now.

msla 5y ago
> You cannot dismantle the only mail service that is OBLIGATED to deliver mail to every address. It doesn't, though. I lived ten years at an address they wouldn't deliver to. I had to rent a PO Box in the nearest town to get USPS mail, whereas UPS and FedEx delivered right to my door. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it isn't true.
- jermaustin1 5y ago
  This does not compute. They have the legal obligation to deliver to all addresses. Do you have an address that has been assigned by your county? Have you registered the new address with your USPS? Your mailbox might not be at your drive way, or on your front step, but a mailbox cluster in a central location. From the USPS (emphasis mine): > We’re proud to provide secure, reliable and affordable service to every address in the United States, plus its territories and its military and diplomatic installations worldwide.
  - minitoar 5y ago
    The only situation I know of where the usps will refuse to deliver is if there is some sort of danger, eg a biting dog. A neighbor had to get a P.O. Box because of this.

JshWright 5y ago

Your use of the word "push" makes it sound like you believe people who don't have access to "the digital world" are there by choice...

faitswulff 5y ago

Not everyone has access to internet, high speed internet, or the devices or ability to connect. Think of the elderly and the impoverished. Pushing them off would push many of them out of connection with society and in many cases disenfranchise them. Furthermore, the infrastructure of the web is privately owned, unlike the interstate and other roadways.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

For the same reason we have land lines still. redundancy is a good thing.

truth_ 5y ago

Only an American will think about killing off the Post Office.

nieksand 5y ago
I doubt I represent a typical American. You can perhaps find comfort that I was down-voted to oblivion within fifteen minutes for posting such a naughty thought. Here is my distillation of arguments for keeping the USPS: * USPS is required to service areas which may not be covered by other carriers. A handful of commenters note, from first hand experience, that rural inhabitants may have to pick up mail from centralized depots away from their homes. * USPS transactional mail serves those without internet access. The internet is effectively controlled by a handful of private entities. If internet access was universal and treated like a public utility, it is unclear if this second argument still holds. Interestingly, nobody brought up mail-in voting and its importance to democracy. Nor is the environmental impact of the USPS apparently worthy of consideration. My biggest takeaway is that the USPS is a sacred cow. Like the topics of gender and race, it's unwise to ask questions.