Gyrfalcon wrote:TacAir wrote:williaty wrote:raptor wrote:The USPS has an un-sustainable business model.
That's what happens when the USPS's boss (Congress) won't let it be run like a business and won't let it be run like a charity/infrastructure.
The Post Office isn't a business, or even a charity. It is a requirement.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution, known as the Postal Clause or the Postal Power, empowers Congress "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" - yup - it's in there.
This is something that I have really given some thought to - as did the Founders. A Postal system is a requirement for any kind of growth or commerce in a Nation. A working Postal system is a plot point in two of my books.
The cost of a working postal system is a driving factor. For years, the FedGov subsidized the postal service. I can remember twice a day delivery, and once on Saturday.
Now, well, it's different. The FedGov doesn't want to subsidize the service. I won't go into what I think are the core problems faced today, but with at least 100K workers looking at layoff/termination, I can only guess it is going to get a lot more expensive without some major changes.
Now, if CONgress would stop the freebies (free mail service for Federal prisoners, franking for .gov and so on) it would help, a little.
I have a dog in this fight. If I order an item from an on-line vendor, it can be mailed for under a few bucks, the same (small) item coming FedEx of UPS will cost at least 35 USD. Even from Seattle.
Example - a $14.95 kerosene lantern. Cost to ship UPS, 39+ dollars. UPS has a goofy UPS to mail service that is only slightly less expensive and horribly slow I've used out of necessity of no other choice Seems once Big Brown gets its hooks into a vendor, they are not allowed to ship via USPS..
I'll skip the frustration of "We don't ship to AK" outlets, owing mostly to thier being married to FedEx or UPS.
Do you believe that if the U.S.P.S. did not have a statutory monopoly, that FedEx and UPS would not find it profitable to retool their system for more economic delivery? Who in the free market would bother to compete with an institution that is allowed to flush the "customer's" money down the toilet and still continue in existence? Speaking of toilets, it allegedly costs the government $100 to procure a toilet seat. Somehow, the free market is magically able to ship one to my door via UPS for 25 bucks, shipping included. I assure you, that would not be the case if the government had a monopoly on providing toilet seats because the Constitution said it could have a monopoly.
But even so, the Constitution does not, in fact, enumerate (as all powers of the Federal Government must be, or else they are not powers) the power of the Postal Service to have a monopoly. Amendments IX and X actually say that private companies have the right to carry mail.
Furthermore, do you actually believe that a "company" that is $1,300,000,000,000 (that's 1.3 trillion dollars) in the red is actually covering the item's delivery by charging a mere "$4.95?"
Because it's not.
I assure you that if the U.S.P.S. could actually turn a profit, you'd be paying them $40 to ship your lantern.
Please don't force me to subsidize your life choices.
I have some really, really bad news for you or.... good news depending upon your point of view.
You paid nearly twice as much for your toilet seat then the government did, listed here at $13.99:
https://www.gsaglobalsupply.gsa.gov/adv ... 9&sk=D360F
What is surprising is that you did not even click the links I posted that show the profit loss of the post office. Maybe not too surprising...