3 ms·

I agree with some elements of where you are going with this, but caution the general reader to not put too much stake in "new services" or "growth". The USPS n

by 001sky 14y ago

I agree with some elements of where you are going with this, but caution the general reader to not put too much stake in "new services" or "growth". The USPS needs to shrink, as over 40% of their business is <delivering junk mail>[1]. That was their latest "growth" initiative. Now they overexpanded their overhead, and are facing cuts. New services (not junk) should be added to replace declining 1st class, but the USPS needs to be radically re-scalled and made efficient. This does no mean closing branches, it means cutting overhead. US taxpayers should be subsisizing a communications infrastructure, not be subsidizing a direct-marketing operation. ________________ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_mail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_mail

toomuchtodo 14y ago
US taxpayers should be subsisizing a communications infrastructure, not be subsidizing a direct-marketing operation. Replace communications infrastructure with distribution network, and I totally agree. I can already communicate across the globe in seconds; USPS should be used for cost-effective, efficient local delivery across the country.
willholloway 14y ago
The junk mail operation needs to be reigned in. Right now the Post Office does not need subsidies, that may change in the future. Delivering junk mail is hurting the brand with the tax payers that may be asked to give the subsidy. The thrust of my argument, that services need to be added and not cut, is to say that the Post Office should be made more useful and not less. If the utility of the USPS dwindles, and we first cut Saturday delivery, and we close neighborhood Post Offices and make cuts to service so that you cant pick up the phone and get a local employee on to help you. If we go that route, and that is the direction we are headed now, the chorus of voices allied against the Post Office will be bolstered. The public will say, with some justification, that the Post Office is not that useful and therefore should be let go. A national, publicly owned and operated non-profit efficient distribution network: indispensable to our modern economy.

by 001sky 14y ago

toomuchtodo 14y ago

US taxpayers should be subsisizing a communications infrastructure, not be subsidizing a direct-marketing operation. Replace communications infrastructure with distribution network, and I totally agree. I can already communicate across the globe in seconds; USPS should be used for cost-effective, efficient local delivery across the country.

willholloway 14y ago

The junk mail operation needs to be reigned in. Right now the Post Office does not need subsidies, that may change in the future. Delivering junk mail is hurting the brand with the tax payers that may be asked to give the subsidy. The thrust of my argument, that services need to be added and not cut, is to say that the Post Office should be made more useful and not less. If the utility of the USPS dwindles, and we first cut Saturday delivery, and we close neighborhood Post Offices and make cuts to service so that you cant pick up the phone and get a local employee on to help you. If we go that route, and that is the direction we are headed now, the chorus of voices allied against the Post Office will be bolstered. The public will say, with some justification, that the Post Office is not that useful and therefore should be let go. A national, publicly owned and operated non-profit efficient distribution network: indispensable to our modern economy.