scrubbedexpat099

500 years?

Pulaski

That's not entirely true, or at least not the entire answer, as I have mentioned in several other threads over the past year, the eventual answer is a phased reduction down to once a week deliveries, and thirty years from now, or maybe sooner that is where we will be.

The five day a week delivery argument is a red herring, and IMO we should move within 1-2 years to an every other day delivery schedule, either M-W-F or T-T-S halving the delivery cost at a stroke, at some point moving to every three days before dropping to weekly deliveries.

scrubbedexpat091

Once a week delivery would destroy the mail order business, I don't think its reasonable to only have once a week or every other day service.

Who would send something via postal service with just once a week service?

Michael

USPS wants to go to 5 day delivery but is stopped from doing it since congress won't approve.

A reduction to once per week everywhere isn't likely the answer since the mail service is very profitable in the cities and reducing city deliveries to once a week would likely significantly reduce it's usage and therefore reduce profits. Also it would eliminate USPS from the profitable package delivery service which subsidizes it's mail service since it is just an extra package on the truck. They are also very profitable off of "FedEx Smartpost" which also subsidizes the mail service which is ridiculous since it takes FedEx Smartpost 8 business days to get a package from Los Angeles to San Jose but as soon as it arrives in San Jose, it is delivered by USPS.

Currently in major cities, USPS trucks are fully loaded and several reloads are required each day for multiple routes per truck. In many rural areas, the truck is half empty and it is used the full day for the route.

Currently other carriers want to compete with USPS in mail delivery (currently not allowed by congress) but only want to compete in areas that are profitable. So the other carriers want to perform mail service for large cities only leaving the money losers to USPS.

Currently you can't beat the price and speed of delivery (2-3 days) for USPS Priority Mail for small packages which would cost at least 3 times the price with UPS which would also takes 5 or more business days for delivery. Recently I wanted to use USPS Priority Mail for their $5 box but I didn't have a box (I could print up a label on the internet) and it was Saturday and the post office was closed so I couldn't get a free box so I went to UPS and they wanted over $20 for the same size package so I waited until Monday since Priority Mail was faster even mailing it two days later.

Pulaski

I didn't say much but you managed to misinterpret most of what I said, or impute things I did not say.

(i) deliveries should be reduced as the amount of time sensitive / non junk mail declines, and I would not advocate otherwise, but I get my mail delivered once a week and it is just one fist full, of which literally all but one or two items are junk mail, which is why I have it delivered once a week. I have one weekly magazine subscription.
(ii) I said nothing about parcels, and most are not delivered by the regular mail carrier (not round here at least). I know parcel delivery is profitable and you did not add to my knowledge by your lengthy explanation

BTW Aren't post offices unlocked in California? I can walk into my nearest post office at any hour of the day or night seven days a week and help myself to a fixed rate mailing box. ..... That may (only) be because there are PO Boxes in there.

Michael

The area where post boxes are at is unlocked but where materials are kept are kept is locked. Since the time I had the problem of not having a box, I now keep them in my house in case I need them and just drop them in any mail pickup box.

For me, I only check my mail about once a week unless I am expecting mail order prescription drugs or a package through USPS. The rest of my mail is electronic except the annual DMV registration, property tax bill, and my monthly VA medical co-pay bill (VA currently doesn't have the ability to post it on line). If I could get all those electronically, then I don't need the mail service except for packages.

Pulaski

Which is exactly my point : I suspect that you and I are both fairly typical and have relatively little need for daily mail delivery, once a week is sufficient and people would soon adjust to only having weekly deliveries, even today.

Twenty or 30 years from now we probably look at daily mail deliveries like kids today look at the idea that a family would only have one phone in their life, kept in the entrance hall tied to the wall, and rented from the phone company. I tried to explain that to my six year old daughter the other day, and she just laughed, and I fully expect that her children will laugh too when she tells them that they used to deliver paper documents, bills and advertisements daily when she was a child.

Ash UK/US

I agree with Pulaski, it does not make sense to run the mail service the same way as it was pre fax/email days.

scrubbedexpat099

My Grandparents never had a phone, my Parents line was on a shared line. Not that I remember using it as a kid.

I have a PO Box, no deliveries here. However the PO is a few minutes walk. I go and get my mail a couple of times a week.

Odd to get anything that I both want and needs urgent attention. We have both UPS and FedEx coming by however some stuff comes the final bit to the Post Office.

The PO is a contract office, I know how much they pay, not something I would take on. The truck comes twice a day, also contract.

Steve_

Well Canada Post already has destroyed the mail order business here simply by being crap, and they deliver M-F.

"Oh Amazon [or insert name of other mail order company] here is so crap compared to the States."

We are talking about a country where one of the most popular carriers is called: Purolator. 'Cos that's when you're going to get it - much later.

Steve_

I don't think it makes a jot of difference, a monopoly is a monopoly. Okay yes, USPS has been hobbled by the requirement to fund retiree benefits to an idiotic degree by the Republicans, but even without that they are still losing huge amounts of money.

Mexico has lots of monopolies, both private and non-private and they all have problems. Think about all the crappy state-run companies there were in the UK before privatization. And stupid subsidies pumped into BL for example.

As for AT&T, well the Mexican phone market is just as bad and it's not exactly stellar in Canada, with an oligopoly of three companies.

How much money does the DoD waste on endless boondoggles because they can only get whatever it is from a single company, lost count.

Monopolies are just a generally bad idea except in a very, very limited number of circumstances. I was going to say minting money but it's not a monopoly is it, look at the UK, you can use BoE notes in Scotland, NI, Channel Islands, etc. And the US dollar is widely used internationally even in places where they mint their own money, like The Bahamas, Euro is made in lots of countries.

I did think once this would be a solution to all the stupid political problems in the US, have another tier of govt between Federal and State, i.e. privatize most of the functions of the Federal Govt.

scrubbedexpat099

I would be hard pushed to think of any service the Government provides that is value for money.

Bob

Education, fire protection, police?

Pulaski

Quite!

Fire protection in a country of wooden frame homes appears to mostly comprise ensuring everyone is out, then damping everything down to stop the fire spreading.

Policing, for much of the country, appears to comprise recommending you get your own gun for protection then arriving in time to apportion blame for any shootings that have occurred, or showing up and ensuring that a minimum of one person is shot, or arrested, or both.

On a British expats web site I think that further comments on the quality of education in the US are unnecessary.

RoadWarriorFromLP

If the Republicans have their way, then yes, it will be sold off to their cronies.

That's the GOP's game plan -- intentionally destroy things, then blame "the government" for it, when it was their wing of the government that did the destroying.

The post office has been subsidized since the 19th century. Rural areas have their costs covered by the metro areas. It's supposed to be a public utility, not a business.

The deficit would vanish tomorrow if they would just charge as much for a stamp as they in other countries, but the Congress' postal commission won't approve such increases. Of course, if it does get privatized, then we'll see those increases and then some, since the new operators will all want to make a profit.