Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

usps.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#171

Post by hga »

kscaldef wrote: post #115
cjoh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe -- but that's a tough conclusion. While the USPS is a government agency, we still don't have enough data about the agency, or any agency's efficiency to be an accurate judge. It'd be great, for instance, if we could see what the average price per employee at the USPS was vs. UPS vs. FedEx. Sick leave comparisons, purchasing efficiencies, etc. Lots of this data isn't available though (which is why I have my job)

That information isn't all that useful, since UPS and FedEx don't compete (and are forbidden to compete) in the marketplace for mail (as opposed to package) delivery. Regardless, though, I'm making a very modest claim: competitors would take away part of USPS's marketshare if they were allowed to compete. If you feel like there's a natural monopoly on mail delivery such that that wouldn't happen, you need to support…

Well, there's the cherry picking argument, something we can see with broadband build outs.

E.g. they'd offer low low low rates for delivering snail mail on Manhattan Island and leave it to the USPS to handle mail in Eagle Butte, South Dakota.

Hmmm, didn't AT&T do the same back in the bad old days?

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#172

Post by hga »

orblivion wrote: post #70

> The five-day delivery proposal is part of comprehensive plan announced March 2, “Delivering the Future,” Government program names just kill me sometimes.

Doesn't have to be government: when MIT had to tighten their belt in the late '80s or so they started cleaning a bunch of bathrooms every other day instead of daily (and that was largely OK, many have very little use (e.g. patterns changes as the Institute changed and grew)).

This new, improved system was called "Frequent Cleaning".

It's not the government types so much as the B Ark types.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#173

Post by kscaldef »

hga wrote: post #171
kscaldef wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That information isn't all that useful, since UPS and FedEx don't compete (and are forbidden to compete) in the marketplace for mail (as opposed to package) delivery. Regardless, though, I'm making a very modest claim: competitors would take away part of USPS's marketshare if they were allowed to compete. If you feel like there's a natural monopoly on mail delivery such that that wouldn't happen, you need to support…

Well, there's the cherry picking argument, something we can see with broadband build outs. E.g. they'd offer low low low rates for delivering snail mail on Manhattan Island and leave it to the USPS to handle mail in Eagle Butte, South Dakota. Hmmm, didn't AT&T do the same back in the bad old days?

So, you agree that competitors would take part of USPS's business. That's all I claimed.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#174

Post by jedberg »

dabent wrote: post #67
araneae wrote: post #47

Why Saturday? They should cut out a day in the middle of the week. This way, you'll have to wait up to two days longer for a given item. It's better to distribute that wait time.

Most businesses want delivery (and pickup) during working days.

So deliver to businesses on the five weekdays and homes on Saturday but not Wednesday.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#175

Post by hga »

kscaldef wrote: post #173
hga wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's the cherry picking argument, something we can see with broadband build outs. E.g. they'd offer low low low rates for delivering snail mail on Manhattan Island and leave it to the USPS to handle mail in Eagle Butte, South Dakota. Hmmm, didn't AT&T do the same back in the bad old days?

So, you agree that competitors would take part of USPS's business. That's all I claimed.

I claim your thesis has a critical corollary that goes beyond "competitors would take away part of USPS's marketshare if they were allowed to compete". Specifically that the competitors would cherry pick the most profitable business of the Post Office and force it out of business leaving much of the nation unserved, or into a business model we don't think would be good for our society (first class mail to Eagle Butte, SD costing, say, $10/oz).

There's also friction issues. If I'm going to send out every month a set of bills to my customers, I know the cost will be X customers * the rate I pay (which I can decrease by making things cheaper for the USPS),

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#176

Post by SwellJoe »

nitrogen wrote: post #156
SwellJoe wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've outsourced my snail mail spam handling to a mail forwarding service called St. Brendan's Isle (there are others like Paperless Mail). They shred and recycle junk mail for me automatically. I never even see it. I tried going through the process of unsubscribing and opting out of everything I could find, and while it slowed for a few weeks, it eventually picked up again (just like email spam, when you make use of…

How can you be sure they're only shredding junk?

They shred bulk class mail. If it's anything important, I'm sure it is not being sent bulk class. And if someone wants me to get something enough to pay full price, then I guess I'll look at the cover, and maybe have the service scan the contents (the way it works with non-spam is they scan the cover of the mail, and then I can choose to receive the actual item in the next forwarded batch of mail, scan it so I can look at the contents online, or shred it and recycle it). The most egregious and annoying stuff is bulk mail.

Though I did, apparently end up on a Nationalist organizations mailing list, somehow (maybe through one of the various libertarian causes I've supported over the years; somehow there are ultra-right-wingers who think libertarians are sympathetic to their BS), so that's an annoying letter I've gotten recently that made it into the "look at the covers" phase. Since the word "Nationalist" was in the from address, I knew I could shred it immediately without opening it.

Oh, I just realized you might be theorizing that they might censor my mail. What they do is regulated by the federal government, and it takes roughly the equivalent of a power of attorney to let them open my mail. If they were ever caught tampering rather than acting as an honest agent, they'd be facing federal mail tampering charges. I don't have any reason to believe they would do that; they've been extremely polite, responsive, and they have excellent reviews. I can recommend them.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#177

Post by ippisl »

ibsulon wrote: post #157
Dove wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a bit like driving a nail with a tactical nuke? If you want a government program to deliver mail to obscure locations at a loss, create a program to do that . There's no reason for the government to assume responsibility for delivering all mail, and especially no reason for it to make it illegal for others to deliver mail! And especially, especially no reason to protect the program from being cut as mail s…

It would be more expensive, not less. The post office currently operates as efficiently as it does because of the economies of scale, and as such is close to break even. It's not like the free market doesn't compete. UPS and FedEx are still around, for example, just not on bulk mail and first class. It also connects with other postal services in other countries, and reciprocity agreements are governed by treaties, ma…

It doesn't have to be more expensive. if they cooperate with the companies that the deliver the profitable part of mail, the gain access to those economies of scale.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#178

Post by orblivion »

chancho wrote: post #142
orblivion wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the long run I don't see that as a problem. People should pay a premium if their lifestyle takes up more resources like that.

You are not subsidizing their ability to receive mail from you. You are paying for your ability to send mail to them . It's the same rationale as the universal service fund for phones. A network like the phone or mail network reaches it's full potential only when it connects everybody .

Well fair enough, if you want to send a package to a far-off area, you should pay for that too. Pay a premium to sent to or from remote areas. That's what happens with UPS, right?

I haven't used a land line in a long time, especially for long distance, but aren't the rates different by state?

Perhaps, like with electronic connections, when the price difference becomes small enough, they can make one flat rate because the simplicity pays off more via customer satisfaction. But international calls, for instance, still cost extra.

Re: “There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”

#179

Post by krschultz »

mmt wrote: post #61
krschultz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I have equally aggravating anecdotes about issues with private companies' customer service. It doesn't prove anything. I'd take the people at my MVC (NJ's "new" DMV) and post office over the people at my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company in a heart beat. Those companies aren't doing themselves any favors but somehow they manage to make it. The Zappos in the world are few…

my cable or internet provider, my private healthcare, and my cell phone company These aren't exactly archetypes of free market competition, being oligopolies, at best. I can't speak for NJ, but, in California, I consider it telling that they all have a state regulatory agency. Number portability has improved telephony competition, but I don't think we're yet free of the effects of the old A/B cellular duopoly in the…

But the same can be said for UPS and FedEx. I actually have more options for TV, internet, and phone than for shipping. My point is that these anecdotes can not be extrapolated to a larger point. Really your dealings with these large corporations or government agencies are few and far between with a handful of people that may or may not be nice as people and may or may not be having a good day. Should we decide public policy based on that?
Post reply on HN