5 ms·

Well, 75% to 90% of my daily mail is unsolicited junk. I estimate that we throw out five to seven pounds of junk mail per week. If this is typical of most hou

Well, 75% to 90% of my daily mail is unsolicited junk. I estimate that we throw out five to seven pounds of junk mail per week. If this is typical of most households this is a remarkable amount of stuff that is being thrown out on a daily basis. Our of memory, the majority of the legitimate mail we get is from government agencies (bills, voting packets, etc.), a couple of catalogs and companies who haven't gone 100% online yet. We switched to online banking and online bill payments a long, long time ago. Nearly every package delivery we receive is via FedEx or UPS. You have to wonder, if the USPS was not allowed to deliver bulk junk mail, what would their financials look like? According to this US census, there are over 132 million housing units (homes and apartments) in the US. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html If each of these homes is throwing out just TWO pounds of junk mail every week --just TWO POUNDS, not five like we do-- that represents TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY FOUR MILLION POUNDS of garbage per week and over FOURTEEN BILLION POUNDS (14,256,000,000) of garbage per year! I am NOT a crazy environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but, I'm sorry, but that's just-about criminal. That is a disgusting amount of trash moved by the USPS for no reason whatsoever. The problem doesn't end there. Besides environmental impact, think of all the fuel and waste by-products consumed by moving and having to deal with fourteen billion pounds of trash. Think of the USPS delivery pipeline, trucks, vans, airplanes and unnecessary people. Think of the additional capacity requirement in local trash pickup trucks and the fuel they burn. And think of the excess power, people, area and fuel required to process and recycle this trash. Based just on the the above I'd say that, yes, the USPS either needs to go away or seriously shrink down and stop this nonsense.

therobot24 14y ago
USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route. While USPS guarantees mail to small, forgotten areas.
- robomartin 14y ago
  > USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way? I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to. That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    Interesting theory. Why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and remove all services for anyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC?
    - robomartin 14y ago
      How can that possibly be a logical conclusion? Are you just being funny?
      - Turing_Machine 14y ago
        Your argument is that providing government services to outlying regions isn't justified because those people "chose to live there". You (presumably) chose to live somewhere other than Washington D.C. The exact same argument applies.
        cookiecaper 14y ago
        His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive, not that "no government services should be provided to anyone not in Washington DC". Sounds reasonable to me. The specifics of "cost prohibitive" and "out of the way" can be refined to prevent ideologically-charged, unrealistic reductions like yours.
hotbot2 14y ago
Ha. Say hello to the "1.3 trillion mailing industry" cited in the CNBC interview. Not to mention "8-9 million prvate sector jobs". If you do some research on the history of the US mail, specifically air mail, you might find some interesting details. Is it possible that "junk mail" was used as the justification for air mail service? What role does junk mail play in the economics of the mail system? The CNBC interview also says the US moves "40% of the world's mail". I wonder how much of the world's junk mail the US is responsible for? Vis-a-vis other countries, does the US produce more junk in proportion to legitimate mail? Does junk mail drive the US mail system?
- robomartin 14y ago
  It's an interesting reality isn't it? Nearly 600,000 employees who retire at age 50 and draw salaries and benefits for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's a formula for success. Guess who's going to be paying that bill. Also, 250,000 vehicles according to Wikipedia.

therobot24 14y ago

USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana where it would be infeasible for them to put it on their route. While USPS guarantees mail to small, forgotten areas.

robomartin 14y ago
> USPS cannot go away because FedEx/DHS/UPS have no obligation to deliver to po-dunk-town, Montana Who cares? Really. You are talking about keeping alive an organization that is now beyond obsolete just because people choose to live in these places? It's their choice. Their problem. Why is it my responsibility to subsidize people who choose to live in places that are challenged in more than one way? I don't have any problem with people living in the middle of a desert if they want to. Or 3,000 feet up a mountain in a cabin that is only reachable via helicopter and has no roads in or out. That's fine. As far as I am concerned, you are free to do as you wish and live wherever you want to. That said, it is YOUR responsibility to live with the consequences of the choices you have made in life. If this means that you have to drive twenty miles to pick-up your mail once a week, or pay for a helicopter to deliver mail and supplies, so be it. Your choice. You don't have to live there. Don't make it my responsibility. It isn't.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  Interesting theory. Why don't we take it to its logical conclusion and remove all services for anyone who doesn't live in Washington, DC?
  - robomartin 14y ago
    How can that possibly be a logical conclusion? Are you just being funny?
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      Your argument is that providing government services to outlying regions isn't justified because those people "chose to live there". You (presumably) chose to live somewhere other than Washington D.C. The exact same argument applies.
      - cookiecaper 14y ago
        His argument is that we shouldn't feel obliged to deliver mail to residences so far out of the way that said delivery is cost prohibitive, not that "no government services should be provided to anyone not in Washington DC". Sounds reasonable to me. The specifics of "cost prohibitive" and "out of the way" can be refined to prevent ideologically-charged, unrealistic reductions like yours.

hotbot2 14y ago

Ha. Say hello to the "1.3 trillion mailing industry" cited in the CNBC interview. Not to mention "8-9 million prvate sector jobs". If you do some research on the history of the US mail, specifically air mail, you might find some interesting details. Is it possible that "junk mail" was used as the justification for air mail service? What role does junk mail play in the economics of the mail system? The CNBC interview also says the US moves "40% of the world's mail". I wonder how much of the world's junk mail the US is responsible for? Vis-a-vis other countries, does the US produce more junk in proportion to legitimate mail? Does junk mail drive the US mail system?

robomartin 14y ago
It's an interesting reality isn't it? Nearly 600,000 employees who retire at age 50 and draw salaries and benefits for the rest of their lives. Yeah, that's a formula for success. Guess who's going to be paying that bill. Also, 250,000 vehicles according to Wikipedia.