1–10 of 179 posts
“There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.”
usps.com
"It also will save more than $3 billion a year"
If both of those are true, the change is reasonable.
While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...
Also - 39 cents to send a letter anywhere in the country? Still a pretty good deal.
"It’s five days of delivery, six days of service and Express Mail seven days a week" "It also will save more than $3 billion a year" If both of those are true, the change is reasonable.
This whole report from USPS (1) is worth reading but some notable excerpts:
"In 2009, 84 billion pieces of first-class mail and 83 billion pieces of direct mail were handled."
Invoices and bills constitute a large part of first-class mail (and they continue to move online, become paperless)
"One top marketing agency observed companies moving one-third of direct-mail acquisition spending online"
Imagine UPS/DHL/FedEx's profits if they went from deliver-on-demand to deliver-to-everywhere-regardless-of-demand:
"A key driver to the costs of delivering mail is the obligation to deliver to virtually every mail address, regardless of volume, 6 days a week... These costs are largely fixed so they grow with the size of the network, which has been grown by an average of 1.4 million addresses every year"
"Wages and benefits account for 80 percent of operating costs." (And they are directly tied to the people infrastructure required to meet the obligation to deliver mail to virtually every mail address)
Obviously, you can't make it up on volume alone:
"A First-class stamp costs 44 cents, while other major posts charge an average of 78 cents."
(1) http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/Ensuring_Viable_U...
(2) http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/PiecesofMail1789to2009.htm
(3) http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/USPS_HDS_FY08_FINAL_...
(4)http://www.usps.com/directmail/resourcecenter/research.htm?f...
While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...
If they can keep the USPS afloat by cutting expenses instead of using taxpayer money, I'm all for it.
... And it would receive much less than that if the USPS wasn't mostly a delivery network for spam.
While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...
Good criticisms. But a publicly-funded post office has some advantages, too. They will operate at a loss in tiny areas, which means you can still get mail to Grandma, even though there is only one traffic light in her town. Also - 39 cents to send a letter anywhere in the country? Still a pretty good deal.