

“There is no longer enough mail to sustain six days of delivery.” - genepope
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2010/pr10_031.htm
Just one of many signs that say "Yes Martha, the internet really has changed a lot about our lives"
======
jonknee
> Ten years ago, the average household received five pieces of mail every day.
> Today, it receives four pieces and by 2020, that number will fall to three.

... And it would receive much less than that if the USPS wasn't mostly a
delivery network for spam.

~~~
ryanelkins
Here is what I hate about the USPS and spam. I opened a PO Box to receive
rental payments on some properties I owned. The only people who got this
address were tenants. It wasn't used for anything else. I'd check it once a
month and it would be crammed full of ads. By crammed I mean seriously tightly
wedged full of junk. I'd have to pick through it all to try and find my rent
checks and not throw them out with the ads.

That was a pain but here's the question: How did they (advertisers) know this
box was open and active? If mail was going to it before I opened it, what did
they do with it? I tried complaining but got the "we have to deliver every
piece of mail regardless of the originator". My best guess is mail was being
sent there from a previous user and while it was vacated they just threw it
away or something. Once the new user (me) opened it back up I just started
getting it all.

At one point I just let the junk accumulate to see what would happen. I'd get
the "real" mail but the junk (which could no longer really fit) stopped
showing up. Then I got a note that I need to clear it out more often or they
would close it though :(

~~~
cookiecaper
I'm pretty sure they just pay the Post Office to put ads in every PO Box
there.

~~~
dmhouse
Would there not have been an address on the mail?

~~~
Kaizyn
US Postal makes money delivering marketing materials from local businesses
(supermarkets and the like) to P.O. Boxes. They also offer no way to let you
opt out of this.

------
muerdeme
I saw the chairman of their board speak not long ago, and it turns out the
biggest problem is that USPS can't fire any of their union employees, who
consistently get awarded UPS salaries + 15-20% in arbitration.

~~~
Frazzydee
This is a _huge_ problem, and we need to shift the power balance away from
unions. The original purpose of unions was to compensate for the imbalance of
power. I don't have a problem to the extent that they merely divert executive
pay down to the workers, but where they significantly increase the cost of
doing business, unions are economically inefficient.

In Canada, we have a huge union called CUPE. They support an incredible
variety of workers (including health care, university staff, airlines, public
utilities, non-profit organizations, etc.). Each division contributes to a
"national strike fund."

In my mind, this allows unions to act as a cartel. It doesn't make sense for
workers in one company to be able to offset the cost of a strike in a
completely different one. Of course the workers will always be able to afford
a strike as long as they do it one company at a time, and wages will slowly be
pushed to unsustainably high levels.

If I'm wrong on this, please correct me, because although it seems completely
unintuitive, it is my understanding of the situation (Article XIV of the CUPE
constitution outlines revenue collection).

They also discourage innovation to the extent that they limit businesses'
ability to fire unneeded workers. There is little doubt in my mind that the
transit system in Toronto uses human fare collectors because they are not
allowed to replace them with machines. These folks can cost up to $40/hour. We
wouldn't have had the industrial revolution if we couldn't fire the people who
were no longer needed.

~~~
smallblacksun
There is very little difference between union strikes (especially in "closed
shop" states/countries) and the mafia extorting protection money from
businesses.

------
wallflower
The postal service derives a significant amount of its revenue from pitching
direct mail to businesses as an effective way to reach customers (4)

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...](http://www.usps.com/strategicplanning/_pdf/Ensuring_Viable_USPS_paper.pdf)

(2) <http://www.usps.com/postalhistory/PiecesofMail1789to2009.htm>

(3)
[http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/USPS_HDS_FY08_FINAL_...](http://www.usps.com/householddiary/_pdf/USPS_HDS_FY08_FINAL_PUBLIC_web2.pdf)

(4)[http://www.usps.com/directmail/resourcecenter/research.htm?f...](http://www.usps.com/directmail/resourcecenter/research.htm?from=directmailhome&page=researchwhydirectmailworks)

[http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=direct+mail...](http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=direct+mail+%2B+USPS+%2B+volume+%2B+billions&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f)

~~~
graywh
> Imagine UPS/DHL/FedEx's profits if they went from deliver-on-demand to
> deliver-to-everywhere-regardless-of-demand:

But UPS and FedEx already have something similar that occasionally leverages
the USPS for the final leg of delivery. The FedEx version is called SmartPost.

~~~
lanstein
UPS version of this is called UPS Basic. Don't mistake UPS Basic for UPS
Ground.

------
araneae
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.

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

~~~
araneae
Every place I've ever worked had people working on Saturdays. I'm sure there
are statistics on this somewhere, though.

------
hyperbovine
The real loser here is netflix. 17% increase in delivery time and not a damn
thing you can do about it. Ouch.

~~~
pxlpshr
Not really, I see mail as a temporary problem. If Netflix Streaming contained
all the top titles, I would use that almost exclusively. There really would be
no reason for mail, it's slow and inefficient.

~~~
jrockway
What's nice about mailing physical media is that the movie studios don't have
much control. You can buy a widget and do whatever you want with it, including
mailing it around.

You can't do this on the Internet, though, because computers are magical and
Someone Could Copy It!1111!!

~~~
funkdobiest
you would think they would catch on that physical media is easily copyable
where the instant downloads aren't so why not do instant for everything first
then DVD.

~~~
jrockway
If someone knew the answer to this question, the movie industry wouldn't be
driving itself out of business.

------
dpcan
Why can't I get/pay for a USPS.com email address of my physical address?

123MainSt.MyCity.State.Zip@usps.com?

Anything that is emailed to this address must pay postage, but the message
body or attachment can be printed, certified and delivered to my physical
location?

Maybe this isn't the perfect idea, but if the USPS would just embrace
technology and innovate a little, they could really increase their revenues.

~~~
aasarava
Agreed. The late 90s really presented an opportunity to the USPS, in that the
postal service could have launched an ISP service to profit off the mail that
was beginning to be sent online.

Today, most of the companies that send me bills or statements encourage me to
get e-statements instead of paper statements, which saves the companies money
-- money that used to go to USPS. If the postal service had innovated and come
up with smart business solutions for sending secure, certified email to
customers, they'd still be capturing that money (and possibly more.)

~~~
cookiecaper
It's dubious to rely on a company's electronic records for your statements
imo. They can delete or change anything they want. They can easily make an
accusation that your e-mailed statement was forged. It'd be harder to make the
same accusation on mailed statements, especially since most use paper with
special watermarks or letterheads.

I still get paper statements because it makes things less scary!

~~~
hga
And I've never _ever_ gotten such an offer that also includes a discount to
recognize their savings and the problems you point out.

Well, come to think of it my account with Consumer Cellular is 100% paperless,
that's probably their default and I'd probably have to pay to get paper from
them.

(They're a _great_ AT&T reseller for people who spend very little time using
their cell phones.)

------
cjoh
Amazing stats in their footer:

With 36,000 retail locations and the most frequently visited website in the
federal government, the Postal Service relies on the sale of postage, products
and services to pay for operating expenses. Named the Most Trusted Government
Agency five consecutive years and the sixth Most Trusted Business in the
nation by the Ponemon Institute, the Postal Service has annual revenue of more
than $68 billion and delivers nearly half the world’s mail. If it were a
private sector company, the U.S. Postal Service would rank 28th in the 2009
Fortune 500.

~~~
kscaldef
Keep in mind that they also have a government-granted monopoly. They probably
wouldn't be a big otherwise.

~~~
cjoh
_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)

~~~
kscaldef
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 that assertion.

~~~
hga
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?

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

~~~
hga
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),

------
zephyrfalcon
When I saw the title, I first thought it was another April Fool's joke. Like
it currently takes six days on average to deliver something, but there is not
enough mail anymore to keep that up, so they're forced to deliver it in five
days...

OK, so I didn't have my coffee yet... =)

------
leelin
Isn't their logic confusing latency and throughput?

Not enough mail to deliver suggests less mail volume, so less need for
throughput, therefore we can hire fewer postal workers per post office.

Cutting out one day of deliveries reduces throughput and increases latency.
For example, Netflix becomes a worse deal. A power user could once cycle 2
roundtrips of DVDs in one week and is now down to 1.5.

~~~
rationalbeaver
It's hard to address throughput that way when the Throughputers are in a
union.

------
orblivion
> _The five-day delivery proposal is part of comprehensive plan announced
> March 2, “Delivering the Future,”_

Government program names just kill me sometimes.

~~~
hga
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.

------
mhb
This made me wonder whether it was a good deal to buy "forever" stamps:

<http://www.slate.com/id/2166475/fr/rss/>

------
jzimdars
This wouldn't be such an issue if the postal service operated like a business
instead of an institution. Why not commercialize it more? Where are the Coke
stamps and IBM Express Mail envelopes? Why isn't the mail truck wrapped with
an American Idol promo? Seems like the USPS could be a huge advertising
vehicle. Why is this sacred?

~~~
Perceval
Because the Postal Service is provided for in the Constitution:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause>

Can't have a Constitutionally-mandated service wrapped in third-party
advertising.

~~~
hnal943
Reading this it just seems to grant the congress the right to create a Post
Office. Is this the same as a mandate to provide this service?

------
jrockway
Hopefully UPS and FedEx will make up the difference by delivering on Sunday.

The only stuff I get in the mail these days is some envelope warning me that I
will go to jail if I don't tell the government my phone number.

~~~
orblivion
If the USPS would make it legal to deliver small pieces of mail.

~~~
jrockway
Do you receive small pieces of mail?

Personally, all my bills come online. If I lose my credit card, I get it via
FedEx or UPS. When I order some physical goods, it's a package (so "small
piece" is not relevant).

Basically, there is not much value is sending small pieces of mail anymore. I
just want to order stuff from Amazon on Friday and have it on Sunday :)

------
noodle
interestingly enough, for a while i lived in a place that didn't have mail on
saturdays.

i now live in a place that delivers and picks up mail twice a day, including
saturdays.

i don't notice any difference.

------
cwan
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...](http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-
are-worse-at-the-post-office-than-i-thought/38356/)

~~~
tsally
Every time the US postal service comes up in discussion, someone invariably
mentions how life would be so much better if the service was privatized. I
think this argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of public
services; the post office is perhaps the canonical example of an extremely
important service that only can exist in the public sector. As others have
mentioned already (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1236487>), delivering
a piece of paper from California to Maine for under a dollar is not something
the private sector can provide.

As a rule of thumb, if your gut tells you that a particular service is
essential to a civilized society the service belongs in the public sector. As
a nation we've decided the ability to affordability correspond with others
around the country is such a service. Education is another. These two examples
are extraordinarily complex problems which the US public sector solves well,
all things considered. Yet every time we discuss these services someone always
wants to privatize them.

For the most fundamental components of our society, privatization is never the
answer.

~~~
hnal943
The essential service here is mail delivery, not mail delivery "under a
dollar."

~~~
tsally
No, the essential service is mail delivery under a dollar to anywhere in the
United States. That is a fundamentally different service than what is provided
by Fedex or UPS.

~~~
hnal943
Simply because it's different doesn't mean it's essential. Is there an
inalienable right to mail delivery whose rate structure ignores distance? Why
doesn't the same right protect people from paying a premium for mailing heavy
objects?

~~~
SapphireSun
Think of how revolutionary the internet is. The post office is the old version
of the internet.

------
smokey_the_bear
Maybe if this went through I could have home USPS delivery. The town I live in
apparently adds enough new addresses to add two routes a year, but they can't
hire that quickly. So half the residents have to use a PO Box for their
address, and stuff shipped to their physical address gets returned.

Even one a day a week home delivery would be better for me. Stuff is rarely
time sensitive, and we don't make it to the PO Box that often anyway.

------
jasonlbaptiste
Privatize the system and outsource it to UPS/FedEX,etc. (I know easier said
than done). If I ever need to send snail mail, I just send it via those guys.

~~~
sachinag
The problem is the mandatory requirements for full service in unprofitable
areas. The USPS literally has a plane that goes weekly to the most isolated
part of Idaho: <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/30idaho.html>

There's no way a private contractor could/would do that.

~~~
orblivion
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.

~~~
chancho
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_.

~~~
orblivion
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.

------
singer
Most of the important packages I receive from USPS don't come on Saturdays
anyhow. If I'm like most people, the 6th day won't be missed.

------
petercooper
Awesome. I never saw why the mail system should work longer than the normal
working week anyway. Hopefully the UK will go the same way sometime soon. The
threat of having mail turn up on a Saturday (that you might need to wait in
for) isn't worth it.

~~~
metachor
And this is opposed to the threat of having mail that needs to be signed-for
turn up at your house only on a weekday while you are at work. Currently I can
tell USPS to just deliver it again when I know I will be home (on Saturday).

~~~
petercooper
_And this is opposed to the threat of having mail that needs to be signed-for
turn up at your house only on a weekday while you are at work._

Surely this is a universal and solved problem though? Most couriers (e.g. for
most larger/heavier items you'd buy online) will not deliver on Saturday
unless you pay quite a bit extra, so weekday-only delivery is already an
institution of sorts.

That aside, maybe your issue is, secretly, USPS's primary motivation. If they
don't have a Saturday service _at all_ , people like you can't request
Saturday delivery and will need to go pick up your packages from the depot.
That'll save them a _lot_ of time and money.

------
Mc_Big_G
_"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.

~~~
mikek
They still deliver 177 billion pieces of mail a year. By raising the price of
delivery by 2 cents, they could make up the difference.

~~~
hexis
Raising prices by ~4.5 percent will probably reduce the flow of mail.

------
dustingetz
_"Ten years ago, the average household received five pieces of mail every day.
Today, it receives four pieces and by 2020, that number will fall to three."_

It ain't linear, buddy.

~~~
garply
Why not? I could see mail sending / receiving to be highly correlated with
age, which is linear.

------
SuzyQT
Plus most of the mail (bills) get delivered digitally

