3 ms·
I can be running around my block waving at people. Someone may be paying me $16bn per year to do this. The fact that this is a "$16bn effort" doesn't make it u
by HenryBemis 5y ago
I can be running around my block waving at people. Someone may be paying me $16bn per year to do this.
The fact that this is a "$16bn effort" doesn't make it useful.
Also consider that if this is a "$16bn effort" the loss is multiple of that. Think of the advertisers (and their clients money), the effort to discard/recycle this garbage etc.
The loss for humanity is greater than $16bn.
Is this 'type of business' is to be eliminated, then USPS will drop the respective fraction of their use-less resources (staff, trucks, sorting machines, etc.).
- tclancy 5y agoI have no idea what this means. Are you suggesting the delivery of paper mail in the US is an idea whose time has passed? There are both generations of people who would disagree with you and people in different circumstances that would as well.
- tene 5y agoGiven that they mention "$16bn" repeatedly, it seems pretty clear to me that their comments are regarding marketing mail specifically, not the full set of services USPS provides. I feel quite comfortable saying that there has been zero value to myself, or any other human, in delivering marketing mail to my home. I never look at it, I never read it, it just goes straight into my recycling as soon as I identify that a letter I've received is not from someone I have a legitimate personal or business relationship with. I have never made any purchase as a result of receiving an advertisement delivered to my home by USPS.
- throwawayboise 5y agoI think there's still a need for it, but it seems to me that if I got paper mail once a week that would be good enough (senders can still opt for "express" service for anything really time-sensitive). Most bills sent by mail have ~30 day payment due date, so getting them once a week would still be more than adequate. You could cut delivery staff and vehicle needs by close to 4/5 this way (keeping some capacity for the express letters).
- oceanghost 5y agoThe mail was delivered twice a day in most places until April 1950 when cuts made this impossible. This is to say-- there have been changes made to the delivery frequency historically and there will be again most likely. I like the USPS, but there is something odd about taking a piece of mail and dumping it directly into the shredder. You'd be surprised how many junk-mails contain a thick plastic card that can't be shredded-- I assume its to force you to open it. It has gotten to the point with all of my communication technologies-- I dread phone calls, I dread text and instant messages. I dread mail of any type-- it's always bad news.
- HenryBemis 5y agoI believe that the focus/point made of a 'parent' was about bulk (spam) paper advertisements arriving at our homes, not ALL snail mail. Perhaps I should have clearly stated it in my message.
- bottled_poe 5y agoYou are making the incorrect assumption that the remaining services would as profitable. The point is this $16b subsidises unprofitable (but expected) services which USPS offers. If they can’t depend on this income source, the subsidy needs to come from somewhere else (I.e. federal budget).
- uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh 5y agoGoogle and USPS both on that ad money eh
- _carbyau_ 5y agoThe question then is: 1. If the money did come from the federal budget. 2. And the practice was stopped -> Would society benefit by MORE than the money spent?