4 ms·

Here's a better idea for a USPS mail truck: End the USPS. All I get is spam. Why are taxpayers subsidizing advertisers?

maxerickson 12y ago
You think they offer bulk mail services at a loss? That seems like the mail they are best able to adjust prices on. It's also probably cheaper for the government to allow the USPS to fund it's pension system delivering junk mail than it would be to directly fund the pension system.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- stevesearer 12y ago
  I'd probably pay $5/month to the USPS for some sort of 'premium' mailbox to not get bulk mail delivery items to me.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I filled this out a long time ago: https://www.dmachoice.org/ https://www.dmachoice.org/ It seems to have had some effect, I don't get much junk mail. It's listed here, it is legitimate: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicited-mail-phone-calls-and-email http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicit... I probably filled out some others too. It won't stop local flyers and political ads and the like, but catalog companies don't actually want to spend $0.05 sending catalogs to someones garbage bin.
Sanddancer 12y ago
Advertisers are not being subsidized. In order for them to get the cheap rates people complain about, they basically have to do half the post office's work for them. They have to sort the mail into trays, in delivery order, barcoded. Advertisement mail is also the lowest priority stuff, so it'll hang out in the post office until there's room on the truck to send it out. Without all that "spam", postage rates, and parcel rates, would be significantly higher.
cpursley 12y ago
Interesting on the downvotes. Someone, please make an argument why governments should provide physical mail services in 2015.
- hchenji 12y ago
  Confidentiality. It is illegal to intercept and open USPS mail.
- johnny22 12y ago
  because not everybody has easy access to the internet. Plus, packages can't be delivered digitally.
  - cpursley 12y ago
    Why should government be in the business of delivering packages for private industry? Infrastructure already exists for this including UPS, Fedex, DSL.
- DanBC 12y ago
  You were possibly downvoted for repeating the myth that tax payers fund USPS.
chrisbennet 12y ago
Tax payers don't pay for the USPS. From Wikipedia: "The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters." In essence, they are a highly regulated business that is hobbled by requirements (pension funding, etc.) that make them uncompetitive. You want to make them profitable? Let them fund their pensions the way Fedex and UPS do. Let them dump the unprofitable services [delivery to Alaskan hinterlands? sorry] and charge what the market will bear.

You think they offer bulk mail services at a loss? That seems like the mail they are best able to adjust prices on. It's also probably cheaper for the government to allow the USPS to fund it's pension system delivering junk mail than it would be to directly fund the pension system.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stevesearer 12y ago
I'd probably pay $5/month to the USPS for some sort of 'premium' mailbox to not get bulk mail delivery items to me.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I filled this out a long time ago: https://www.dmachoice.org/ https://www.dmachoice.org/ It seems to have had some effect, I don't get much junk mail. It's listed here, it is legitimate: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicited-mail-phone-calls-and-email http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolicit... I probably filled out some others too. It won't stop local flyers and political ads and the like, but catalog companies don't actually want to spend $0.05 sending catalogs to someones garbage bin.

Sanddancer 12y ago

Advertisers are not being subsidized. In order for them to get the cheap rates people complain about, they basically have to do half the post office's work for them. They have to sort the mail into trays, in delivery order, barcoded. Advertisement mail is also the lowest priority stuff, so it'll hang out in the post office until there's room on the truck to send it out. Without all that "spam", postage rates, and parcel rates, would be significantly higher.

cpursley 12y ago

Interesting on the downvotes. Someone, please make an argument why governments should provide physical mail services in 2015.

hchenji 12y ago
Confidentiality. It is illegal to intercept and open USPS mail.
johnny22 12y ago
because not everybody has easy access to the internet. Plus, packages can't be delivered digitally.
- cpursley 12y ago
  Why should government be in the business of delivering packages for private industry? Infrastructure already exists for this including UPS, Fedex, DSL.
DanBC 12y ago
You were possibly downvoted for repeating the myth that tax payers fund USPS.

chrisbennet 12y ago

Tax payers don't pay for the USPS. From Wikipedia: "The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters." In essence, they are a highly regulated business that is hobbled by requirements (pension funding, etc.) that make them uncompetitive. You want to make them profitable? Let them fund their pensions the way Fedex and UPS do. Let them dump the unprofitable services [delivery to Alaskan hinterlands? sorry] and charge what the market will bear.