Tendo City

At least not until we invent wormholes. Have we invented wormholes? No? Then how the heck do YOU send packages? UPS? FedEx? Those guys are jokes.

I use UPS. Never had any cause to doubt my wisdom.

USPS's reliance on spam mail is not helping their bottom line.

Well they're a public service first and a business second, so maybe focusing on a "bottom line" is the problem.

I hate UPS. Not only is their "minimum" package size (for sending, say, old instruction manuals) ridiculously expensive, they tend to never deliver a package properly. I've been using USPS for all my package delivery and never once had an issue.

I'm curious as to what prompted this rant.

Is the USPS a public service people actually need? The average person doesn't do a whole lot of sending letters these days. Most mail carried comes from groups, organizations, businesses, etc., and why should the public subsidize that? If sending unsolicited credit card applications, collections statements and other kinds of junk mail becomes significantly more expensive, it will force a curbing of activities nobody really likes anyway. It will be more expensive for the average person, too, but how often do you actually send mail? A few times a year?

Paper mail is something that needs to die anyway, it's slow, unnecessary and absurdly wasteful.

Um, what? Of course the postal service is something we need. People need to be able to get mail. The internet can't replace all physical products, not unless we all had cheap 3d printers (that could make anything) or something! And even then, for some things paper mail would make sense.

I mean, sure, the internet has hurt the postal service a lot -- the death of the personal letter is the main reason why they're in trouble now -- but they still provide a vitally important service. The problem is, how can we keep that going, when they're losing so much money? Honestly, my first thought is "we should just subsidize it more", because the plans I've seen -- closing huge numbers of post offices, ending Saturday service -- are pretty radical, the no Saturday mail one particularly, but there certainly is a problem, and they can't solve it by just raising rates more. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but the fact is that even if people aren't sending mail as much as before, the postal service is still very important and we can't let it die, or let all rural/non-profitable post offices close, or something like that. That would be destroying a vital American service.

Weltall Wrote:Is the USPS a public service people actually need? The average person doesn't do a whole lot of sending letters these days. Most mail carried comes from groups, organizations, businesses, etc., and why should the public subsidize that? If sending unsolicited credit card applications, collections statements and other kinds of junk mail becomes significantly more expensive, it will force a curbing of activities nobody really likes anyway. It will be more expensive for the average person, too, but how often do you actually send mail? A few times a year?

That's ridiculous, all mail isn't junk mail.

Dark Jaguar Wrote:I hate UPS. Not only is their "minimum" package size (for sending, say, old instruction manuals) ridiculously expensive, they tend to never deliver a package properly. I've been using USPS for all my package delivery and never once had an issue.

Yeah, and they can just put those small packages in the mailbox, too. No need to deliver it in person or any of that annoying stuff. Quite handy.

Weltall, I'm not talking about letters. I'm talking about packages. FedEx and UPS simply don't do nearly as good a job at package sending as USPS.

Also, addresses exist because of USPS. Where will those other two send things if addresses and mail boxes cease to exist? ALSO, I happen to like services like PO boxes and so on.

This rant is "prompted" by crazy people saying "let the postal service die and let us become the only first world nation without such a service". Again, until we have worm holes, we'll need some system of addresses and shipping packages to said addresses. Fact is, FedEx and UPS are piggybacking on USPS's great work.

A Black Falcon Wrote:Um, what? Of course the postal service is something we need. People need to be able to get mail. The internet can't replace all physical products, not unless we all had cheap 3d printers (that could make anything) or something! And even then, for some things paper mail would make sense.

Why is mail vital?

I've pretty much cut out all paper mail from my life. I get perhaps three or four pieces of mail per month that are actually of interest. Almost everything else comes to me electronically. Which means I get informed immediately and there's no chance of things being lost. Of course, I do get about seventy piece of mail, total, each month. It ends up in the trash. Along with millions of tons from other people.

It's an antiquated relic of a time when better options simply didn't exist. Instead of subsidizing a service which is failing because people don't want to use it, we should subsidize services people actually need and do want to use, like improving our woefully-inadequate broadband infrastructure.

Quote:That's ridiculous, all mail isn't junk mail.

I'll bear that in mind when I throw away 95% of what comes to me in the box this month.

Quote:Weltall, I'm not talking about letters. I'm talking about packages. FedEx and UPS simply don't do nearly as good a job at package sending as USPS.

So, let the USPS become a courier to compete with the other major couriers. It will survive if it really does provide adequate service. If they culled down most of the mail service, they could streamline and improve, even further, their package delivery capacity.

And, of course, there will always be some margin for the existence of paper mail, but make it a premium service. It will be more profitable in the long-term than to devote huge amounts of resources to keeping it around as a base-level system used almost exclusively by large groups (who are the only ones who benefit, because they get to flood the world with shit mail for a modicum of expense. If companies had to hire courier services, bulk mail would almost certainly cease to exist, and how can that be anything except awesome?)

Quote:Also, addresses exist because of USPS. Where will those other two send things if addresses and mail boxes cease to exist? ALSO, I happen to like services like PO boxes and so on.

I'm not sure why you think addresses would cease to exist if the postal service disappeared, as if street addresses existed only to ensure mail delivery and not for any of a hundred other vital categorical functions. The postal service was responsible for the concept of street addresses being conceived, but to think that it is necessary for the concept to continue existing is just silly. Do you really think your house will cease to be 877 Diddlepoop Lane, Godhelpme, OK if the USPS went away tomorrow? You should know better than that.

Quote:This rant is "prompted" by crazy people saying "let the postal service die and let us become the only first world nation without such a service". Again, until we have worm holes, we'll need some system of addresses and shipping packages to said addresses. Fact is, FedEx and UPS are piggybacking on USPS's great work.

We don't need a national postal service. The very idea is as obsolete as the telegram. We're long past the point where such a service is vital to anything except the circulation of junk mail. Propping it up because you're the most conservative liberal ever (ABF) or because it just happens to be your favorite parcel service (DJ) just isn't adequate.

The USPS should be restructured into a service which primarily focuses on package delivery. It has all the infrastructure needed to pull this off, and they can still float some mail service along for the minuscule fraction of mail which actually serves a purpose. Keeping P.O. boxes around would serve the few people who actually care, but mail could still be delivered. It would just have to become more expensive. Bearing the burden of cheap mail in huge bulk is why the postal service is hemorrhaging money as it is; it doesn't return a profit. Do you really want your tax dollars to go towards the continuing proliferation of junk mail (and all the environmental waste it creates), or would you rather spend $2 to send a letter the half-dozen times a year you actually need to send a letter?

So basically, because you get little mail, you've deluded yourself into thinking that most people are like you? That's completely insane, and I don't think it requrires a long response. It's just nuts.

Quote:It's an antiquated relic of a time when better options simply didn't exist. Instead of subsidizing a service which is failing because people don't want to use it, we should subsidize services people actually need and do want to use, like improving our woefully-inadequate broadband infrastructure.

No, people use it, just not enough of them to pay for the current size of the system.

Quote:Do you really want your tax dollars to go towards the continuing proliferation of junk mail (and all the environmental waste it creates), or would you rather spend $2 to send a letter the half-dozen times a year you actually need to send a letter?

Once again, sure a lot of it is, but not all mail is junk mail. One person is not a representative sample of the entire country...

I mean, sure, most of the mail I get is junk mail too. Not 95%, certainly (I pay some bills by mail, some other things come (magazines sometimes, etc.), and such), but most of it. I think that that's valuable, and certainly wouldn't want it to be inordinately expensive or unavailable.

Also, I would hope that junk mail would go in the recycling, not the garbage. :)

I get lots of mail, it's just that the vast majority is mail I don't want or need. I am dead certain most people are like me in this regard. Unlike most, I've taken active steps to reduce the amount of paper mail I receive, but the trend will catch on in time, of that I am confident.

I've already asked you, why is paper mail vital? You say this but in what way could you possibly quantify it? Who would suffer if that service was drastically scaled back?

If the service was vital, it would not be bleeding to death financially because people would use it. For reasons I certainly don't comprehend, you seem to want to prop up this service, just because. Saturday delivery will end, soon. Eventually, it will probably slip to three days a week. Nobody will do anything so drastic as shut it off entirely, but if you think mail actually has a future other than extinction, you're the one who's deluded.

I'm mad because it effects my Netflix account. That's really the only reason.

Weltall Wrote:I get lots of mail, it's just that the vast majority is mail I don't want or need. I am dead certain most people are like me in this regard.

If so, this would only be because most mail is junk mail, not because many people actually would agree with you. I highly doubt your position is shared by too many people, percentagewise.

Quote:Unlike most, I've taken active steps to reduce the amount of paper mail I receive, but the trend will catch on in time, of that I am confident.

I've already asked you, why is paper mail vital? You say this but in what way could you possibly quantify it? Who would suffer if that service was drastically scaled back?

If the service was vital, it would not be bleeding to death financially because people would use it. For reasons I certainly don't comprehend, you seem to want to prop up this service, just because. Saturday delivery will end, soon. Eventually, it will probably slip to three days a week. Nobody will do anything so drastic as shut it off entirely, but if you think mail actually has a future other than extinction, you're the one who's deluded.

-Netflix/Gamefly
-Magazines (they definitely still have some value...)
-Bills you pay by mail or want paper copies of
-Bank statements
-Other important mail (notices, etc.)
-Packages (and yes, turning into some package service would inevitably have to increase prices, if service was less frequent, etc...)
Etc.

There are many reasons why mail is still important.

Netflix is splitting its streaming and DVD service in a clear effort to, in time, phase out DVD deliveries. Magazine circulation has been in a steady decline, which will never recover. Many people pay bills and get bank statements online, and most companies (and banks) have themselves been pushing to eliminate paper for both because it's slow and costly. If you want or need paper copies, printers are cheap.

So, yeah, none of that really is convincing. There are more methods of communication and distribution available today than ever before, and snail mail is one of the slowest and most expensive forms left.

Quote:If so, this would only be because most mail is junk mail, not because many people actually would agree with you. I highly doubt your position is shared by too many people, percentagewise.

This doesn't make any sense.

And, if people didn't think the way I do, snail mail would still be a profitable enterprise.

Your argument is pretty poor, it's kind of hard to understand how you keep making it. Fewer people get magazines than have in the past, so nobody should in the future? (The same would apply to newspapers, but those of course don't go in the mailbox.) More people use online bill paying and banking, so no one will want paper for either in the future (as if all companies you might get bills from even have online payment, which is not always the case; my oil company, for instance, doesn't)? Just print things out instead, as if ink isn't expensive? What? Those are all ridiculous.

No, those are in no way good counter-arguments against my points. They're quite obviously wrong. You don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "less" and "none"... as in, yes it's less now, but it still serves an important purpose.

Quote:And, if people didn't think the way I do, snail mail would still be a profitable enterprise.

This is of course ridiculous as well. Most people see value in the mail, I'm sure, but don't use it for personal letters anymore. That's why the postal service has a problem now -- not because people don't see value in what it does, they do. It's because mail volume is down and dropping thanks to the internet. The two issues are not the same, and nor are their solutions.

Oh, as for Netflix, I don't think they want to get rid of the DVD business, they're just separating the two. Maybe in the long run they want to get rid of it, we'll have to see, but there'll certainly be demand for that for quite some time into the future. It's not like everybody has an internet connection good enough to stream from, after all, or the setup to stream from their TV as opposed to just a computer, or wants just streaming instead of actual DVDs... and of course the selection is more limited in their streaming service than their actual disc service, too, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I have no illusions that mail service will die in the immediate future, but the writing is on the wall: it's an obsolete service, used as much as it is because postage is far too cheap to support the operation. If postage rates were raised to a rate which would make the USPS solvent in theory, it still wouldn't work in practice, because people (and businesses) would simply send less mail. It's not just because personal letters are no longer in vogue, it's because snail mail is not a viable business model anymore, and it will only ever get worse.

You can deny the obvious all you want, but the writing is on the wall. Snail mail is going the way of the telegram and the landline telephone, and I want my tax dollars going towards funding infrastructure which will actually provide some future benefit. Give it another two decades at most, even if we spend money we don't have to bail out yet another service we really don't need, and you'll see, the future will bear my words out.