Or eighty cents or sixty or ninety, or whatever it takes to make the post office solvent. Why do we run this country from one crisis to another? Why is the Post Office always broke?
It seems to me that mail, as we know it, is something totally different than even ten years ago. In large part, we now support the USPS to support direct mail marketing. I no longer get my bills in the mail. I get them by e-mail. My business goes for days at a time, often more than a week, between real letters.
So what is the purpose of the Post Office. In my view, to send things that need to pass in hard copy form. I think that will go on forever. It isn't to support direct mail marketing though.
My view, raise the price of a stamp to the point of solvency for the Post Office. Volume will drop and the price of a stamp will have to go up again, but eventually there will be equilibrium. We will have a strong and stable post office for those times when you need to send a letter or whatever.
In the meantime, I won't have to read articles every day about how the Post Office is about to collapse.
USPS is too important to collapse. I'm not sure why they just don't set the prices to a level which will make them solvent. Even if they doubled or tripled their prices they would still be cheaper than the private companies.
Longwatcher
Posts: 3,634
Newport News, Virginia, US
They don't set them to a price that would make them solvent because THEY the USPS does not have control over their prices. Congress Critters do and some of them want to see the post office destroyed so their backers UPS and FedEx can take over and charge twice as much as the USPS would for the same service.
That or the congress critters are just stupid, take your pick.
The USPS has proposed raising rates to a profitable level on several occasions, but been shot down by congress.
First class postage should have gone to 50 cents a couple of times ago (and I seem to remember they actually asked for that amount).
And the small flat rate should be $6 and the medium $12 (one stamp for small, two for medium), large needs to be whatever it needs to be $18 maybe a bit much (or too little)
Those are the ones I care about and what I could live with.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
In the age where people can generally communicate electronically, the concept of trying to move paper is like trying to breathe new life into the age of dinosaurs. Newspapers know this....and have moved to the internet. Advertisers know this and have gone to the internet. The IRS even understand this and now returns are filed electronically.
The USPS is supported, almost exclusively, by "junque mail" and the creators of junque mail aren't paying enough to support the USPS.
Moving piles of paper is a lot like returning to the days of dial-up modems, typewriters, pagers, and quill pens with ink bottles. There are better ways. Let the dinosaurs die. We are in deep debt as a country...and things that don't work should not be supported, especially by people who don't use the service.
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Nope... That is higher than is likely needed,
What is needed is for congress to get out of the way of the reasonable and rational changes that the post office has proposed and needs.
AND...
the excessive retirement prefunding requirement that congress inflicted on the post office needs to be rescinded. (funding obligations at a reasonable level would be fine)
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Mike Kelcher wrote: In the age where people can generally communicate electronically, the concept of trying to move paper is like trying to breathe new life into the age of dinosaurs. Newspapers know this....and have moved to the internet. Advertisers know this and have gone to the internet. The IRS even understand this and now returns are filed electronically.
The USPS is supported, almost exclusively, by "junque mail" and the creators of junque mail aren't paying enough to support the USPS.
Ummm who do you think is sending this "junque" mail... hint... it's advertisers.
and they do so because it is effective.
Chris Macan wrote: Nope... That is higher than is likely needed,
What is needed is for congress to get out of the way of the reasonable and rational changes that the post office has proposed and needs.
AND...
the excessive retirement prefunding requirement that congress inflicted on the post office needs to be rescinded. (funding obligations at a reasonable level would be fine)
I have no idea what the real number is. You may be right, it may not need to be $1. What I do know is that Congress forces the PO to keep it artificially low meaning they are always on the verge of collapse.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Chris Macan wrote:
Ummm who do you think is sending this "junque" mail... hint... it's advertisers.
and they do so because it is effective.
Effective for the advertisers...yes...but not profitable for the USPS. If advertisers can find someone willing to lose money to serve their needs, they'll abuse them forever.
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
Mike Kelcher wrote: Effective for the advertisers...yes...but not profitable for the USPS. If advertisers can find someone willing to lose money to serve their needs, they'll abuse them forever.
Why do you think it's not profitable to the USPS?
Are you privy to their operational & delivery costs?
The advertiser does the presorting,traying, barcoding, address updating...
in many cases they even deliver it directly to the regional or local business unit
The post office has to do much less to got it to addresses they already visit every day.
Business class mail gets a discount because it is less work per piece and is paid for in mass quantities.
Back in the early 00's, the USPS was operating with a Surplus.
Being that it is a government agency, it's job is not to show a profit, so they decided to replace their entire fleet of gas operated vehicles with electronic ones, reasoning that most carriers go less than 20 miles per day.
This would have done major damage to the bottom lines of the oil industry, (a penny increase at the gas pumps cost millions of dollars to the USPS).
GW, with the help of a Republican Congress, passed the Postal Reform Act, which mandated that the USPS would have to front load it's retirees' health care in 10 years what it would have normally taken 75 years to do.
This, coupled with the management of the USPS waging a propaganda war against it's carriers, resulted in bad public relations for them in the public eye and provided cover for when they suddenly began to raise the price of postage which had been consistent for the prior decade.
It also depleted the money the USPS had in its reserves and put it in the hole for billions.
Keep in mind that the volume of actual first class mail has dropped but not as much as we have been led to believe. (Most internet e-mails are conversations that were once done over the phone).
They then reduced the number of routes, and combined routes into new ones (did you notice you get your mail much later or much earlier than you used to?) so that carriers were carrying 120-150% more mail than they once did, thereby forcing carriers to effectively take a pay cut and many now forgo lunch and their breaks to finish their new, longer routes on time for fear of losing their jobs.
Recently, the USPS has been hinting that Saturday mail delivery would be eliminated.
This caused a panic among businesses across the land and made companies start looking at alternative means for their Saturday mail delivery. (notice a lot of guys all of a sudden hand delivering single piece mail door to door?)
The sad part about it is, the USPS is the ONLY government agency that DOES NOT receive any tax money from the government.
It's entire budget is paid for from the sale of stamps and goods and services, such as Express Mail.....
It is, technically, a Privatized business, the only difference being, it does not operate on a for profit basis.
Finally, most homes in this country receive at least one piece of mail per day. That pays for everything, not your taxes.
That being said-----
There ARE some who see the profitability in the USPS and are using every means possible to make the public demand it become so.
The infrastructure is already in place (mailboxes, carriers).
The only way for them to show that profit, though, would be to greatly increase the price of Postage, and reduce the pay of every employee to just above minimum wage.
Aside from Wal-Mart, the USPS is the largest employer in the nation.
Think about that before you go on the internet complaining about the USPS.
Your Tax Dollar does not support the USPS in any way.
csjacksonphotography wrote: Think about that before you go on the internet complaining about the USPS.
1) Who is complaining about the USPS? This thread merely asks if the price of postage should be allowed to rise to the point where the USPS is solvent, whatever the issues.
2) Do you work for the post office?
I don't think anyone here has denegraded the USPS in any way.
GPS Studio Services wrote: 1) Who is complaining about the USPS? This thread merely asks if the price of postage should be allowed to rise to the point where the USPS is solvent, whatever the issues.
2) Do you work for the post office?
I don't think anyone here has denegraded the USPS in any way.
I wasn't talking to you when I said that.
That was directed at those who think it's cool to go around bad mouthing an organization based on lies.
No, I do not work for the USPS but I have family that does and I try to learn about things before I speak about them.
Jay Edwards wrote: Last I heard, USPS owed $5.5 billion in loans to the taxpayers.
Has that changed?
Last I heard, the USPS was forced to put many billions of dollars in a retiree healthcare fund for people who are not even born yet.
Last I heard, all of that money really went into the General Fund.
Last I heard, it is against the law for carriers to go on strike, no matter what the conditions they are forced to work under.
Last I heard, that 5.5B that you just quoted is less than the amount of money our government is "holding" in reserves for "future" retirees of the USPS.
Now, let's just say the USPS is dismantled and privatized before that money is paid out.
GPS Studio Services wrote: 1) Who is complaining about the USPS? This thread merely asks if the price of postage should be allowed to rise to the point where the USPS is solvent, whatever the issues.
2) Do you work for the post office?
I don't think anyone here has denegraded the USPS in any way.
csjacksonphotography wrote: I wasn't talking to you when I said that.
I would love to see a minimum charge of two dollars per item regardless. That would go a long way towards eliminating junk mail - which is a waste of paper, and a waste if my time to have to go through and recycle (or some times shred first)
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
The problem isn't the USPS per se.
The problem are right wing GOP fucktard politicians who are probably on the take from FED EX aND UPS to get rid of the US postal service.
They keep passing ridiculous bills that cause both undo hardship on the USPS as well as limit the services that the USPS can provide/compete with.
I know lots of artists and craftspeople who rely on the USPS for their delivery rates especially with flat rate service and why conservative GOP folks seem to want to increase the cost of doing business for small scale businesses is beyond me.
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
In Balance Photography wrote: I would love to see a minimum charge of two dollars per item regardless. That would go a long way towards eliminating junk mail - which is a waste of paper, and a waste if my time to have to go through and recycle (or some times shred first)
Because it's all about you.
Business mailers spend a lot of money at the post office,
at the rates that the post office sets and at a rate that should cover the cost of service
They also employ a lot of Americans and make it possible for a lot of American business to maintain a steady and predictable revenue stream.
And you want the post office to price gouge them because receiving business mail makes you sad?
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
In Balance Photography wrote: I would love to see a minimum charge of two dollars per item regardless. That would go a long way towards eliminating junk mail - which is a waste of paper, and a waste if my time to have to go through and recycle (or some times shred first)
lots of people still pay bills by mail.
you want them to suffer undo financial hardship because you're too weak to recycle paper??????
Patchouli Nyx wrote: lots of people still pay bills by mail.
you want them to suffer undo financial hardship because you're too weak to recycle paper??????
Recycling paper is still wasteful relative to digital data storage. It takes fuel and labor to move the recycled material from my house to the recycle center. It takes fuel and labor to recycle the paper. It takes fuel and labor to recreate crap that then takes fuel and labor to put back into my mail box.
Despite trying to get off junk mail lists, my mailbox is filled everyday with anywhere from a half dozen to dozen pieces of junk mail that go directly into the recycle bin. My neighbors are in the same boat.
It's just pure waste. And engaging in that type of waste is selfish, because those resources are fundamentally shared by us all.
If financial hardship is an issue for some, I'd rather see us subsidize what ever it took for those people to not use such a waste of limited resources (like oil for the transportation).
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
In Balance Photography wrote:
Recycling paper is still wasteful relative to digital data storage. It takes fuel and labor to move the recycled material from my house to the recycle center. It takes fuel and labor to recycle the paper. It takes fuel and labor to recreate crap that then takes fuel and labor to put back into my mail box.
Despite trying to get off junk mail lists, my mailbox is filled everyday with anywhere from a half dozen to dozen pieces of junk mail that go directly into the recycle bin. My neighbors are in the same boat.
It's just pure waste. And engaging in that type of waste is selfish, because those resources are fundamentally shared by us all.
If financial hardship is an issue for some, I'd rather see us subsidize what ever it took for those people to not use such a waste of limited resources (like oil for the transportation).
again, not everyone utilizes computers the way you do.
you want to force everyone into computerized transactions?
again, not everyone utilizes computers the way you do.
you want to force everyone into computerized transactions?
Force? No.
Encourage a behavior change? Yes.
Just like we encouraged a behavior change here in the US wrt to recycling. When I was a kid, recycling of bottles and cans was done by few, and it was mostly encourage by education. Then there was a deposit required, which encouraged more people to recycle. Then towns started offering bins for recycling - optional. Then towns started putting a limit on the amount of trash that they would take from a single household, which forced more recycling.
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
In Balance Photography wrote:
Recycling paper is still wasteful relative to digital data storage. It takes fuel and labor to move the recycled material from my house to the recycle center. It takes fuel and labor to recycle the paper. It takes fuel and labor to recreate crap that then takes fuel and labor to put back into my mail box.
Despite trying to get off junk mail lists, my mailbox is filled everyday with anywhere from a half dozen to dozen pieces of junk mail that go directly into the recycle bin. My neighbors are in the same boat.
It's just pure waste. And engaging in that type of waste is selfish, because those resources are fundamentally shared by us all.
If financial hardship is an issue for some, I'd rather see us subsidize what ever it took for those people to not use such a waste of limited resources (like oil for the transportation).
The postman is still going to use that fuel coming to you mail box,
The recyclers are still going to drive their pickup routes.
Building computers is chemical and energy intensive and the resulting junk is far harder to recycle than paper... Talk about wasteful... And an environmental mess.
Your argument is full of fail.
Killing off a large chunk of business based on you whim is foolish.
The postman is still going to use that fuel coming to you mail box,
The recyclers are still going to drive their pickup routes.
Building computers is chemical and energy intensive and the resulting junk is far harder to recycle than paper... Talk about wasteful... And an environmental mess.
Your argument is full of fail.
Killing off a large chunk of business based on you whim is foolish.
Ok - you are right, I am wrong.
For anyone else that's interested in reducing the junk mail sent to their postal mail
(While both sites support electronic transactions for opting out, permanent opt-out from www.optoutprescreen.com requires the submittal of a paper form via USPS).
(While both sites support electronic transactions for opting out, permanent opt-out from www.optoutprescreen.com requires the submittal of a paper form via USPS).
I fully support you and others opting out of mailing that you do not want.
It is in both your and the mailers interest to not waste time and resources to send you things that you just throw out.
But that is YOU,
Results show that other do respond to mail.
So I don't want to see a useful marketing and delivery channel closed for no good reason.
The resulting losses to the post office, marketers, retailers and the general public would be significant.
I fully support you and others opting out of mailing that you do not want.
It is in both your and the mailers interest to not waste time and resources to send you things that you just throw out.
But that is YOU,
Results show that other do respond to mail.
So I don't want to see a useful marketing and delivery channel closed for no good reason.
The resulting losses to the post office, marketers, retailers and the general public would be significant.
Thank you for your support. I know I'm not alone. And I know I'm not everybody either. I think everybody would agree that DM response rates of 90% would be a win for everyone (instead of the ~5% average).
Patchouli Nyx
Posts: 25,311
Santa Cruz, California, US
In Balance Photography wrote:
Force? No.
Encourage a behavior change? Yes.
Just like we encouraged a behavior change here in the US wrt to recycling. When I was a kid, recycling of bottles and cans was done by few, and it was mostly encourage by education. Then there was a deposit required, which encouraged more people to recycle. Then towns started offering bins for recycling - optional. Then towns started putting a limit on the amount of trash that they would take from a single household, which forced more recycling.
You still act like the PO is only about sending out junk mail.
Patchouli Nyx wrote: You still act like the PO is only about sending out junk mail.
It's NOT.
I received 21 separate pieces of mail at my studio today. Not a single one was first class. The last piece of first class mail I received was on Thursday. The rest has been junk mail.
I don't object to junk mail. It is fair to say though, that a good part of what the USPS moves now is marketing rather than traditional letters, invoices and bill payments.
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
GPS Studio Services wrote: I received 21 separate pieces of mail at my studio today. Not a single one was first class. The last piece of first class mail I received was on Thursday. The rest has been junk mail.
I don't object to junk mail. It is fair to say though, that a good part of what the USPS moves now is marketing rather than traditional letters, invoices and bill payments.
I received 4 pieces today,
one personal 1st class, two 3rd class and a stuffer.
yesterday I receive a decent stack with 4-5 first class letters, a bunch of 3rd, several magazines, a catalog and stuffers.
GPS Studio Services wrote: I don't think the need for snail mail will ever go away completely, but I do think that its traditional usefulness declines daily.
hard to say; with what can we compare? (...) maybe the need for a hard-line (telephone) in the home? time will tell.
csjacksonphotography wrote: No, I do not work for the USPS but I have family that does and I try to learn about things before I speak about them.
yet there's often a remarkable difference in the opinions expressed by postal employees: management vs non-management, positions held by the various craft unions, etc. would appear very few current USPS employees, much less folks outside the company, actual have the truth on their current status.
GPS Studio Services wrote: I received 21 separate pieces of mail at my studio today. Not a single one was first class. The last piece of first class mail I received was on Thursday. The rest has been junk mail.
I don't object to junk mail. It is fair to say though, that a good part of what the USPS moves now is marketing rather than traditional letters, invoices and bill payments.
Chris Macan wrote: I received 4 pieces today,
one personal 1st class, two 3rd class and a stuffer.
yesterday I receive a decent stack with 4-5 first class letters, a bunch of 3rd, several magazines, a catalog and stuffers.
Everyone and every day is different.
But which of those HAD to go by snail mail rather than electronically?
Chris Macan
Posts: 12,734
HAVERTOWN, Pennsylvania, US
GPS Studio Services wrote: But which of those HAD to go by snail mail rather than electronically?
In reality... probably all 4.
The first class letter contained physical check.
(ya ya... I know you can electronically transfer funds... but in this case it wasn't happening.)
and the other stuff was advertisements that I wouldn't even open in email.
(with all the spam and scams and the such) As traditional mail on the other hand I would and do respond to some.
The same is true of most of the mail I got yesterday.
Some is junk... some I want/need to receive.
| 
| 
| edu