USPS Complex | Fort Point

And while you're suggesting that USPS should be held to no more obligation than Fedex or UPS, maybe you can tell USPS to pay property tax and gas tax, and stop receiving gov't subsidies.

In addition to the public land they enjoy, those are additional benefits that might obligate USPS to serve a public interest -- reaching rural areas with the frequency of urban areas for example.

EDIT: Changed "whining" to "suggesting."
 
Last edited:
And what if I said cut rural AND urban service to M/W/F? All of you who say service should remain equal no matter how efficient delivery is in one area than another, still won't want to see a cut in service. Hard documents can be turned into PDFs, if they're not already being drafted up digitally to begin with, and alot of home printers are all-in-ones (fax machine included). If you don't have that luxury, fine, stick to mail, pick it up at the PO if its urgent, otherwise it will come in the same time, if not, then just one day later. I'm not advocating for sorting and mass shipping of mail to only be M/W/F, just the delivery. Grandfather in the same salaries for all I care, you can even pay new hires the same salaries, but still going to cut the gasoline expense in half and slash the mileage, wear, and tear down on the trucks too.
 
Any and all cuts would need to be across the line. If MWF were mail days. Cool.
Thursday is trash day. We get used to and understand these things.

To hell with salaries staying the same. Hourly can be the same, but paying someone for half the work ain't right. But, of course, that's where it gets messy.
 
^Seamus

My objection was only to USPS treating citizens, delivery addresses or regions differently based on profitability.

I have no problem with consideration of cost-cutting measures to ensure USPS exists.

Before moving to M/W/F, I'd like to hear more about current levels of subsidy for the direct mail industry and their powerful lobby in DC. As I understand, USPS loses significant revenue on subsidized pricing of catalogs and junk mail.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
And may I ask why that requires daily delivery?
Click to expand...

Actually, many large businesses have arrangements where the USPS delivers maile twice, and sometimes 3 times a day, and picks up twice or three times.

So claiming that daily is too much is lolworthy.


SeamusMcFly said:
Any and all cuts would need to be across the line.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

A single mailman in Boston can deliver to 150 addresses inside a single apartment building with one stop, in 30 minutes.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, Hawaii or Alaska, a mailman might drive for 2 hours to hit 5 different homes.

Run PO like a business. Cut the unprofitable areas. If Alaska wants mail service, then they should set up a state system. The USPS can drop off and pick up in Anchorage. Alaska mail should cover the rest of the state.

Meanwhile, places like Boston and NYC can be served profitably by the USPS 6 times a week. Thats where the economic engine is anyway.

It's ridiculous that we let these old yokels take us down with them. It doesnt make sense to serve a central Idaho suburb with the same level of federal service as a major city.
 
On the contrary...

Private carriers would do well in dense cities like Boston and could compete successfully in the 1st Class mail business. Let USPS deliver to the private carrier in these populated areas.

On the taxpayer dime, USPS could limit delivery only to rural (unprofitable) areas on a frequency that still enabled the population and its businesses to survive and prosper. That's probably daily, M-F, but could vary based on mail frequency.
 
Cutting mail frequency would cause real problems for newspapers that are delivered by mail (some daily and many weekly), as well as for magazines of all kinds.
 
Sicilian said:
On the contrary...

Private carriers would do well in dense cities like Boston and could compete successfully in the 1st Class mail business. Let USPS deliver to the private carrier in these populated areas.

On the taxpayer dime, USPS could limit delivery only to rural (unprofitable) areas on a frequency that still enabled the population and its businesses to survive and prosper. That's probably daily, M-F, but could vary based on mail frequency.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, profits for the private sector, losses for the public sector.

As american as apple pie.
 
You don't seem to undertstand the difference between government (the public sector) and business (the private sector).

The gov't collects taxes to fund expenditures that are in the common interest. The purpose of collecting taxes isn't to fund projects that pay for themselves, it's for projects that the citizenry agrees are critically important but would not happen through the private sector. And the benefit to society is indirect, not always in monetary terms.

Taxes pave roads. Those roads could have tolls on them. They don't. Why? Because there is a benefit to society by having a road network allowing people to move from point A to point B. The taxpayers don't place tolls or usage fees on every road to guarantee that the Transportation Department breaks even. It doesn't.

Taxes build public schools. Those schools could charge tuition. They don't. Why? Because America is a more competitive nation by educating those that otherwise couldn't afford an education.

And yes, USPS exists to perform a public service while achieving its mission. That means it may require taxpayer subsidy to deliver mail to rural areas. In my view, society benefits from having all citizens accessible by mail, and that probably requires taxpayer subsidy. If citizens can't agree on any public mission for USPS, it should cease to exist.
 
Last edited:
Sicilian said:
In my view, society benefits from having all citizens accessible by mail, and that probably requires taxpayer subsidy.
Click to expand...

But in the 21st century, replace the word "mail" with "broadband" ... If the mission of USPS is to maintain a citizen-accessible nationwide communciation/information network, then perhaps the subsidy should go to that instead, rather than to subsidizing a system that facilitates catalogs, spam and holiday cards.
 
Shepard said:
But in the 21st century, replace the word "mail" with "broadband" ... If the mission of USPS is to maintain a citizen-accessible nationwide communciation/information network, then perhaps the subsidy should go to that instead, rather than to subsidizing a system that facilitates catalogs, spam and holiday cards.
Click to expand...

As ubiquitous as we often think computers are, a good 20% of the population is computer illiterate and an additional 5% do not have a computer in the home. Some people are going to depend on paper for awhile yet.
 
^Shepard & ^Tombstoner

And this is exactly the type of civic dialog that should occur, as a transition inevitably moves from paper to digital. Clearly we are in a state of transition -- another reason to chill out about USPS not breaking even.
 
And some of us still like to get at least some of our news and entertainment on paper. I get the Atlantic Monthly, Mother Jones, The New Yorker, and The New York Review of Books by mail subscription, as well as the weekly Jewish Adovcate and Somerville Journal.

Any reduction in mail frequency seriously devalues the weekly magazines and newspapers.
 
How, Ron? If it was a daily, I would understand, but you'd still be receiving your weeklies weekly.
 
The weekly papers often include announcements about events that happen on the date of issue, or the following day. These announcements would have far less utility if the papers are delivered a day or two later.
 
Can we talk about how tall the towers on the land where the USPS Ft. Point facility now exists and drop the talk about frequency of delivery? Are there FAA limits in this area?
 
Ron Newman said:
The weekly papers often include announcements about events that happen on the date of issue, or the following day. These announcements would have far less utility if the papers are delivered a day or two later.
Click to expand...

Could the papers not change their publishing date in order to alleviate this? Could these announcements not be places online? Could these entire papers not be placed online?

I understand that daily mail delivery is ideal, but clearly the post office in its current state is not a sustainable model. This leaves two options. Either cut costs or fund it publicly. Do you feel that daily mail delivery would be a legitimate use of tax dollars?
 
Ron Newman said:
but shouldn't a mail processing facility be as close to the airport as possible, since that's how most mail gets to and from Boston from anywhere else?
Click to expand...

Maybe we should be looking at East Boston, then, for a postal facility. Is there anything going on at Suffolk Downs these days?
 
JohnCostello said:
Thanks, I guess my mail isn't as important as yours. With this logic, may I keep all my suburban tax money and stop funding urban housing projects so poor people can live in neighborhoods in which I used to be able to afford to live?
Click to expand...

I don't support the idea of a cut back, but we should be clear about your assertion regarding suburbs paying for city infrastructure. It's the other way around. Wealth creation in Massachusetts is driven by Boston. The fact that it accumulates in Wellesley doesn't change this fact.
 
jass said:
Ah yes, profits for the private sector, losses for the public sector.

As american as apple pie.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the whole theory and justification for government, all wrapped up in a nice sound bite. Government is constituted to take on societies necessary functions that would not otherwise happen by private means. Mail delivery to rural locations is a perfect example, as are police and fire protection. If it's something that can be done correctly at a profit, it should be done privately. An extreme libertarian will say that almost everything falls into that category, while most of the rest of us will acknowledge there are many societal goods that can not be provided by private enterprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top