6 ms·

This is something that is very close to my family so I have a bit of experience with how the Postal Service is going. The big sell of the postal service is tha

This is something that is very close to my family so I have a bit of experience with how the Postal Service is going. The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer. The USPS is also required to deliver mail to even the most remote of places because if the mail system did not work for everyone then several things would start to break: collecting taxes or votes or anything that a normal citizen should require can be done through mail, at minimum. Really, the only way to replace mail is to provide the same level of reliability and free-to-receive service for another communication medium such as telephone or internet.

tnorthcutt 15y ago
The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer. No. They charge the same amount to send those two letters. It does not cost the same amount, however. Regular physical mail delivery at current prices is unsustainable. Period.
- ppereira 15y ago
  Just interpret "it costs" as "it costs the user" and use the plain English definition of cost as "asking price, market price, or selling price" and you'll arrive at the original poster's intended meaning. I assume that for the second part of your comment, you consider "Regular physical mail" to be letter post, because we will always need packages to be delivered.
- joezydeco 15y ago
  Regular physical mail delivery at current prices is unsustainable. But it was sustainable when bulk mail and junk mail made huge profits for the postal service and subsidized the first-class prices.
  - ohyes 15y ago
    It is still sustainable. The USPS is being forced to prepay its retirement benefits 75 years into the future (i.e. for people that aren't even alive yet or are just being born). It has been profitable to the tune of a couple hundred million a year. The issue is that it can't afford to pay 5.5 billion that congress mandated that it pay each year. It is 20 billion in the hole, but only because congress made a ridiculous demand of it that no other organization, public or private would be required to make. Citation: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service_s_Finances http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service...
jonknee 15y ago
> The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer. That's also true of the internet. It doesn't cost anything to email someone who's right next to you or who is across the globe. There is very little demand for mail these days and that's pretty obvious from watching the linked USPS advertisement.
- sp332 15y ago
  To send and receive USPS mail, you need... a mailbox. To send and receive email you need an internet subscription and a computer. Internet access can be impossible to find, or very expensive, in many areas that are serviced by USPS. Saying "It doesn't cost anything to email someone... who is across the globe" is only true if you both have the infrastructure, equipment, and service necessary.
  - fishtoaster 15y ago
    Well, to receive USPS mail you need an address. Permanent travelers, the homeless, people in the process of moving, moving- these people are difficult or impossible to reach by mail, but any time they pop into a library or internet cafe, they have an email address. I would say that /that/ is the great equalizer, more than remote people with mailboxes in this day and age.
    - timbre 15y ago
      Permanent travelers, the homeless, etc. can receive mail at the post office by general delivery. (Letters addressed to J. Doe GENERAL DELIVERY Anytown, Anystate 12345 are held for pickup at the post office for 30 days.) This was once common knowledge, but seems to be less so these days.
      - tsotha 15y ago
        Wow. I didn't know they still did that.
extension 15y ago
Nearly all my mail ends up at addresses from my past. If it wasn't for e-bills, I would never receive (my own) bills. And I have received mountains of mail from countless former tenants at every place I've lived, mail they will never see. The post doesn't seem very reliable to me.
- beambot 15y ago
  USPS needs to implement a form of indirect addressing. The basic premise: Assign recipients a unique ID. The physical address is then a single indirect lookup (ie. from a database, which can be altered by the recipient ad nauseum). For obvious reasons, SSN as a unique ID is out. Given the (relative) portability of phone numbers, these might be a good option. Alternatively, allowing users to employ their email address as the unique ID would be awesome! I'd pay an annual fee to USPS if senders could just write my email on an envelope and it would get to me (bonus points for selective digitization). I think this is one of the beauties of Google Voice service: It's indirect addressing for my phone number. If USPS took some initiative, they could really invigorate their service and bring it into the technical age.
  - sp332 15y ago
    a database, which can be altered by the recipient ad nauseum They already have this, of course. You can send USPS a change-of-address form and they'll send mail addressed to you at your old address to your new address. https://moversguide.usps.com/icoa/icoa-main-flow.do?execution=e1s1 https://moversguide.usps.com/icoa/icoa-main-flow.do?executio...
    - beambot 15y ago
      I did this just last month. The postal worker informed me that the forwarding only lasted for a period of one year -- that's not a very good long-term solution.
- DanBC 15y ago
  ...but that's less about the postal systems than it is about people updating addresses or forwarding mail on. I have some rubber stamps made with ADDRESSEE GONE AWAY RETURN TO SENDER and that seems to cut down the amount of repeated post. You can dump all the post for one person in a big envelope and dump that in a post box once a month.
xinsight 15y ago
I think you're missing the OP's point. He isn't suggesting ending postal service, but coming up with new and better services instead of trying to scare people away from email. For many people, the post office is just an incredibly slow, junk mail delivery system. If you care about the USPS, I'm surprised you don't agree with the OP that new ideas are needed. (One idea i'd like to see is a registered email service, so you know an email was received. The post office has the public's trust to pull this off.)
- Ihadtocomment 15y ago
  Slow it isn't. Go ahead and try having UPS or FedEx deliver a letter across the country in about 5 days--for $.41.So let's give credit where credit is due. USPS is screwed by the changes and they are doing what every business does, try to look better by a combination of making themselves look better and making their competitors look worse. I am not sure if USPS will manage, they have to do certain things by law, so the Feds will probably end up subsidizing them.
tsotha 15y ago
>The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. That's not a big sell if you're sending a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I don't see any reason for rates not to reflect costs - why am I subsidizing other people every time I send a letter?
- freehunter 15y ago
  1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. 2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :)
  - tsotha 15y ago
    >1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. Computers can figure this stuff out pretty quickly. People who mail 100 first class letters to 100 locations already either use an automated stamping system or they take the letters to the post office. >2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :) Well, okay, but how do you think they're going to plug that hole? I'll be paying for it eventually, either through income taxes or through higher postage rates.
- rubidium 15y ago
  Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day).
  - 15y ago
nate 15y ago
Right, I wasn't saying anything at all about replacing mail. I was saying quite the opposite. How can the USPS succeed at getting more mail sent? And I pointed out a bunch of examples of people improving mail and using mail to send tons of awesome things. If those businesses improve, the USPS will improve.
- lukejduncan 15y ago
  USPS needs to not define success as getting more mail sent. The only mail I receive is junk mail, and things from the government. If I could turn my mailbox off, I would.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > The only mail I receive is junk mail Guess what the USPS admits is subsidizing them now. How about this: "You send more legitimate mail, we can afford to send you less junk!" Nicest protection racket ever.

tnorthcutt 15y ago

The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer. No. They charge the same amount to send those two letters. It does not cost the same amount, however. Regular physical mail delivery at current prices is unsustainable. Period.

ppereira 15y ago
Just interpret "it costs" as "it costs the user" and use the plain English definition of cost as "asking price, market price, or selling price" and you'll arrive at the original poster's intended meaning. I assume that for the second part of your comment, you consider "Regular physical mail" to be letter post, because we will always need packages to be delivered.
joezydeco 15y ago
Regular physical mail delivery at current prices is unsustainable. But it was sustainable when bulk mail and junk mail made huge profits for the postal service and subsidized the first-class prices.
- ohyes 15y ago
  It is still sustainable. The USPS is being forced to prepay its retirement benefits 75 years into the future (i.e. for people that aren't even alive yet or are just being born). It has been profitable to the tune of a couple hundred million a year. The issue is that it can't afford to pay 5.5 billion that congress mandated that it pay each year. It is 20 billion in the hole, but only because congress made a ridiculous demand of it that no other organization, public or private would be required to make. Citation: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service_s_Finances http://www.cnbc.com/id/45049636/Fixing_the_US_Postal_Service...

jonknee 15y ago

> The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. In this, physical mail is the big equalizer. That's also true of the internet. It doesn't cost anything to email someone who's right next to you or who is across the globe. There is very little demand for mail these days and that's pretty obvious from watching the linked USPS advertisement.

sp332 15y ago
To send and receive USPS mail, you need... a mailbox. To send and receive email you need an internet subscription and a computer. Internet access can be impossible to find, or very expensive, in many areas that are serviced by USPS. Saying "It doesn't cost anything to email someone... who is across the globe" is only true if you both have the infrastructure, equipment, and service necessary.
- fishtoaster 15y ago
  Well, to receive USPS mail you need an address. Permanent travelers, the homeless, people in the process of moving, moving- these people are difficult or impossible to reach by mail, but any time they pop into a library or internet cafe, they have an email address. I would say that /that/ is the great equalizer, more than remote people with mailboxes in this day and age.
  - timbre 15y ago
    Permanent travelers, the homeless, etc. can receive mail at the post office by general delivery. (Letters addressed to J. Doe GENERAL DELIVERY Anytown, Anystate 12345 are held for pickup at the post office for 30 days.) This was once common knowledge, but seems to be less so these days.
    - tsotha 15y ago
      Wow. I didn't know they still did that.

extension 15y ago

Nearly all my mail ends up at addresses from my past. If it wasn't for e-bills, I would never receive (my own) bills. And I have received mountains of mail from countless former tenants at every place I've lived, mail they will never see. The post doesn't seem very reliable to me.

beambot 15y ago
USPS needs to implement a form of indirect addressing. The basic premise: Assign recipients a unique ID. The physical address is then a single indirect lookup (ie. from a database, which can be altered by the recipient ad nauseum). For obvious reasons, SSN as a unique ID is out. Given the (relative) portability of phone numbers, these might be a good option. Alternatively, allowing users to employ their email address as the unique ID would be awesome! I'd pay an annual fee to USPS if senders could just write my email on an envelope and it would get to me (bonus points for selective digitization). I think this is one of the beauties of Google Voice service: It's indirect addressing for my phone number. If USPS took some initiative, they could really invigorate their service and bring it into the technical age.
- sp332 15y ago
  a database, which can be altered by the recipient ad nauseum They already have this, of course. You can send USPS a change-of-address form and they'll send mail addressed to you at your old address to your new address. https://moversguide.usps.com/icoa/icoa-main-flow.do?execution=e1s1 https://moversguide.usps.com/icoa/icoa-main-flow.do?executio...
  - beambot 15y ago
    I did this just last month. The postal worker informed me that the forwarding only lasted for a period of one year -- that's not a very good long-term solution.
DanBC 15y ago
...but that's less about the postal systems than it is about people updating addresses or forwarding mail on. I have some rubber stamps made with ADDRESSEE GONE AWAY RETURN TO SENDER and that seems to cut down the amount of repeated post. You can dump all the post for one person in a big envelope and dump that in a post box once a month.

xinsight 15y ago

I think you're missing the OP's point. He isn't suggesting ending postal service, but coming up with new and better services instead of trying to scare people away from email. For many people, the post office is just an incredibly slow, junk mail delivery system. If you care about the USPS, I'm surprised you don't agree with the OP that new ideas are needed. (One idea i'd like to see is a registered email service, so you know an email was received. The post office has the public's trust to pull this off.)

Ihadtocomment 15y ago
Slow it isn't. Go ahead and try having UPS or FedEx deliver a letter across the country in about 5 days--for $.41.So let's give credit where credit is due. USPS is screwed by the changes and they are doing what every business does, try to look better by a combination of making themselves look better and making their competitors look worse. I am not sure if USPS will manage, they have to do certain things by law, so the Feds will probably end up subsidizing them.

tsotha 15y ago

>The big sell of the postal service is that it costs the same amount to send a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles as it does to send a letter from the bayou in Louisiana to Honolulu, Hawaii. That's not a big sell if you're sending a letter from San Francisco to Los Angeles. I don't see any reason for rates not to reflect costs - why am I subsidizing other people every time I send a letter?

freehunter 15y ago
1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. 2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :)
- tsotha 15y ago
  >1. You always know how much a standard letter will cost, no matter where it's going. If you're mailing 100 letters to 100 locations, they all cost the same. Standard exemptions apply for rate changes every few years and for heavy items. Computers can figure this stuff out pretty quickly. People who mail 100 first class letters to 100 locations already either use an automated stamping system or they take the letters to the post office. >2. Based on the cash flow of the USPS, you're not subsidizing anyone by buying stamps :) Well, okay, but how do you think they're going to plug that hole? I'll be paying for it eventually, either through income taxes or through higher postage rates.
rubidium 15y ago
Because, in theory, you care that they can vote and mail in their taxes at a reasonable price, even from places that are economically unfeasible to have a mail delivery system. Whether you actually care is up to you, but the US government has decided US citizens care. It's similar to the gov't money that was paid to run telephone lines to rural areas (ref: freeconference.com article from the other day).
- 15y ago

nate 15y ago

Right, I wasn't saying anything at all about replacing mail. I was saying quite the opposite. How can the USPS succeed at getting more mail sent? And I pointed out a bunch of examples of people improving mail and using mail to send tons of awesome things. If those businesses improve, the USPS will improve.

lukejduncan 15y ago
USPS needs to not define success as getting more mail sent. The only mail I receive is junk mail, and things from the government. If I could turn my mailbox off, I would.
- derleth 15y ago
  > The only mail I receive is junk mail Guess what the USPS admits is subsidizing them now. How about this: "You send more legitimate mail, we can afford to send you less junk!" Nicest protection racket ever.