You pay for junk mail

[ApostateAbe]

This evening when I checked my mailbox, I got a credit card advertisement from my bank and a pile of political ads. As usual, I stuffed the political ads and excess garbage in the white envelope marked "postage paid by addressee" that came with the credit card ad, and I dropped it back in the mailbox. I do that to help teach them not to send me anymore frivolous mail.

But then I was reminded of a concern I have whenever I get junk mail nowadays. I have to pay for it. It is not just the 37 cents that mailers pay for each piece of garbage that I receive. It is also 1 billion dollars in yearly taxpayer subsidies, including a chunk of my paycheck. If the taxpayers didn't have to shoulder the cost of postage, I am almost entirely certain that we wouldn't get a lot of junk mail, and even if we did, we wouldn't have to pay for it. If we had to pay, say, two dollars instead of 37 cents for each postage, then it is much more likely that Wells Fargo and congressman Brian Baird would use their own money to advertise instead of mine.

I was curious about exactly how much of my junk mail is paid for by the junk mailers and how much of it is paid for by the rest of us, so I went to usps.com. That didn't help. So I did a Google search, and I found an article published by the Citizens Against Government Waste from the year 2000. I found out that there is no way to fulfill my curiosity, because the USPS does not keep track of its finances well enough to answer the question.

But there is much more than that. The article from CWAG is very scary. We pay much more for postage than we think. Although the USPS claims to be self-sufficient, the USPS is exempt from the costly taxes, regulations and fees imposed on businesses that normally help compensate for the public costs of maintaining such businesses. Furthermore, the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on parcel delivery, strangling the possibility of innovations that could make postage a lot more efficient and cheaper for everyone. The USPS even has the lawful power to decide how much their competition charges, and it uses this power to maintain the monopoly. And furthermore, there is wasteful spending around every corner of the USPS, from daily limousine rides for the executives to sponsoring sports teams (why do they need to advertise?). Those are the things we are paying for.

The best solution that comes to mind is that the USPS should be completely privatized. I no longer feel like paying for such public services that are overused and abused. How can anyone disagree with this?

[dave_a]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Furthermore, the USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on parcel delivery, strangling the possibility of innovations that could make postage a lot more efficient and cheaper for everyone. The USPS even has the lawful power to decide how much their competition charges, and it uses this power to maintain the monopoly. And furthermore, there is wasteful spending around every corner of the USPS, from daily limousine rides for the executives to sponsoring sports teams (why do they need to advertise?). Those are the things we are paying for.

The best solution that comes to mind is that the USPS should be completely privatized. I no longer feel like paying for such public services that are overused and abused. How can anyone disagree with this?

Occasionally I am outside when the mailman delievers the mail. One day he dropped off a bunch of nothing but junk mail for me and he commented that it is a lot of work to deliver all the junk mail. Then he thought about it briefly and said "But it keeps me employed so I guess I shouldn't complain."

I agree the USPS has it's share of issues.

My biggest personal complaint is that I go out and buy a mailbox, dig a hole to put the post in, mix and pour the cement to hold that post, set the mailbox on the post and drill in the screws and after all is said and done the mailbox I paid for and worked to put up says "Property of the US postal service" on it.

Gimme a fukken break, it's my goddamn property!

The law says that the folks who deliver my newspaper will be breaking federal law if they put that paper in my mailbox.

Excuse me? Shouldn't that be my call?

Just imagine the UPS folks telling me I had to install a box for them to put their deliveries in and nobody but them could use it or they would be breaking the law. How long do you suppose that nonsense would last?

I agree the USPS ought to be privatized. Then again I lean libertarian so I like privatizing stupid, obstinant, inefficient, ozymandian government monopolies. Socialists tend to disagree.

[Adora]

Since I don't pay tax, I only have this to contribute to the conversation.

[Dingfod]

Parcel delivery services such as UPS, Fedex, Airborne Express, and DHL have put a huge dent in the income of the USPS from their "monopoly on parcel delivery". Even though there have been inroads into letter delivery in some cities, nobody wants to get into letter delivery nationwide, it's not profitable, but by gawd, they do want the parcel delivery part of the business, and they've got it. At one point in the past decade the quasi-private-governmental entity was actually was producing a positive return. And now, internet email has cut into letter delivery big time. My family has been emailing each other for about six or seven years. I don't remember writing a letter to any of them since then. If not for paying some of my bills and mailing seasonal and birthday cards and gifts, the post office doesn't get my business any more. So, I pay for it anyway, $4 per capita, big deal. At least it's there if I need it.

[lisarea]

I've always had the impression that the USPS was one of the better run government agencies.

I believe they've gotten a few appropriations for things such as security, but for the most part, they've been self-sufficient for about twenty years now, their expenses covered by the cost of postage and other direct costs.

Taxpayer money goes to subsidies for private companies in exchange for providing what are seen as unprofitable services all the time. How are appropriations for the USPS any different?

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I've always had the impression that the USPS was one of the better run government agencies.

I believe they've gotten a few appropriations for things such as security, but for the most part, they've been self-sufficient for about twenty years now, their expenses covered by the cost of postage and other direct costs.

Taxpayer money goes to subsidies for private companies in exchange for providing what are seen as unprofitable services all the time. How are appropriations for the USPS any different?

The USPS is not self-sufficient if it gets 1 billion dollars in subsidies AND an untold bundle in breaks from taxes and regulations AND a government-enforced monopoly on the service they provide. Anyone who runs a business knows the advantage this provides.

And, my god, if they are one of the better government-run agencies, that is because every government organization is a shithole. Read the section of the article that describes labor/management relations at USPS, and it will tell you how the term "going postal" came about. I went to the website DisgruntledZone.com, where USPS employees post their frustrations, and it was one of the scariest websites I have been to (second only to the one with the haunted room where you look for the ghost, and you get blasted with an ugly screaming face after one minute).

I am the type of person who believes that every person should cover the cost of the public services they use. If they drive a car and live on a public street, they are the ones who should pay for the public roads. If they smoke, then they should pay for their own lung cancer treatment. And if they mail off a huge bundle of advertisements, then they should completely cover the costs it takes to deliver. I am opposed to every government subsidy that encourages this kind of abuse, but the USPS is an especially plain example.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The USPS is not self-sufficient if it gets 1 billion dollars in subsidies AND an untold bundle in breaks from taxes and regulations AND a government-enforced monopoly on the service they provide. Anyone who runs a business knows the advantage this provides.

Do you have a cite for the $1B in subsidies? From the way that article is written, it looks like they're referring to tax savings, not subsidies. I could be missing something, though.

The USPS is fairly unique in its structure, in that it doesn't have a direct tax base, but I believe it does have a fairly strict mandate for mail delivery (I won't argue they aren't inefficient--often, they are), so I can see the reasoning behind the price-fixing and the eminent domain issues and such. The USPS is required to deliver mail regardless of profitability, and the costs are spread among their base. If private businesses are allowed to compete, they would focus only on areas where they can make a profit, leaving the USPS with the Appalachian route, and maybe overseas servicemembers.

Mail delivery is considered a necessary public service, much like telephone connectivity. In areas where services are considered necessities, monopoly holders are provided with a mandate to provide services, and the way that generally works is that the costs of ensuring service to nonprofitable sectors is spread out across the customer base. Regulations and service level mandates are necessary to provide service to unprofitable sectors.

And, my god, if they are one of the better government-run agencies, that is because every government organization is a shithole. Read the section of the article that describes labor/management relations at USPS, and it will tell you how the term "going postal" came about. I went to the website DisgruntledZone.com, where USPS employees post their frustrations, and it was one of the scariest websites I have been to (second only to the one with the haunted room where you look for the ghost, and you get blasted with an ugly screaming face after one minute).

Is it really so much worse than, say, websites for disgruntled WalMart employees and so forth? I took a look at it, and it doesn't look substantively different from any other similar site.

I am the type of person who believes that every person should cover the cost of the public services they use. If they drive a car and live on a public street, they are the ones who should pay for the public roads. If they smoke, then they should pay for their own lung cancer treatment. And if they mail off a huge bundle of advertisements, then they should completely cover the costs it takes to deliver. I am opposed to every government subsidy that encourages this kind of abuse, but the USPS is an especially plain example.

Well, that's a whole new can of worms, isn't it?

I'm getting an urge to start talking about Jonathan Wild now.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Do you have a cite for the $1B in subsidies? From the way that article is written, it looks like they're referring to tax savings, not subsidies. I could be missing something, though.

I tried looking for source information that tells how much the USPS receives in subsidies, but it is a very difficult search. That CAGW article says, "Still, given this extraordinary leeway, armed with $1 billion a year in taxpayer-backed subsidies, endowed with carte blanche treatment by U.S. Postal Service's Board of Governors and the Postal Rate Commission, and backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayers, it still can't make any money!" Maybe they mean tax breaks, maybe they don't.

Originally Posted by lisarea

The USPS is fairly unique in its structure, in that it doesn't have a direct tax base, but I believe it does have a fairly strict mandate for mail delivery (I won't argue they aren't inefficient--often, they are), so I can see the reasoning behind the price-fixing and the eminent domain issues and such. The USPS is required to deliver mail regardless of profitability, and the costs are spread among their base. If private businesses are allowed to compete, they would focus only on areas where they can make a profit, leaving the USPS with the Appalachian route, and maybe overseas servicemembers.

Mail delivery is considered a necessary public service, much like telephone connectivity. In areas where services are considered necessities, monopoly holders are provided with a mandate to provide services, and the way that generally works is that the costs of ensuring service to nonprofitable sectors is spread out across the customer base. Regulations and service level mandates are necessary to provide service to unprofitable sectors.

There are not going to be unprofitable sectors unless some people aren't willing to pay a higher price for postage in rural areas. People in urban areas must pay a higher price for home rent and ownership. That doesn't mean that real estate should be managed by the government.

Originally Posted by lisarea

Is it really so much worse than, say, websites for disgruntled WalMart employees and so forth? I took a look at it, and it doesn't look substantively different from any other similar site.

I don't know, because I haven't seen the website for disgruntled Walmart employees. I am not sure there is one. You don't hear of Walmart employees going postal, do you?

Originally Posted by lisarea

Well, that's a whole new can of worms, isn't it?

I'm getting an urge to start talking about Jonathan Wild now.

Yeah, let's not talk about that.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I tried looking for source information that tells how much the USPS receives in subsidies, but it is a very difficult search. That CAGW article says, "Still, given this extraordinary leeway, armed with $1 billion a year in taxpayer-backed subsidies, endowed with carte blanche treatment by U.S. Postal Service's Board of Governors and the Postal Rate Commission, and backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayers, it still can't make any money!" Maybe they mean tax breaks, maybe they don't.[/font]

It's my understanding that the USPS has operated fairly independently for about 20 years now. I believe they do receive certain subsidies from time to time (they ask for them anyway), for purposes of security and the like, but I'm not sure the actual money they receive is any different from the money that private industries receive to fulfill various requirements, or just to prop up failing industries.

There are not going to be unprofitable sectors unless some people aren't willing to pay a higher price for postage in rural areas. People in urban areas must pay a higher price for home rent and ownership. That doesn't mean that real estate should be managed by the government.

The way it usually, or at least should usually work, is that certain services are considered essential to the public--things like energy, telephone and mail service, fire and police protection, and primary education--and because they're considered essential services, the government regulates and/or controls those industries so that the costs are spread out in order to provide services to all sectors.

I'll agree that, in some cases, certain segments of society get unfair special treatment. But as a society, we have decided that it is in our better interests to maintain some level of service across the board, so that poor hillbillies can get their bills just like the rest of us, people in poor urban areas get police protection and the phone service to summon it, and things like that. The same principle that applies to regularized rates for postal service applies, at least in part, to federal school funding, telephone service, gas and electric service, roads, law enforcement, etc.

I'd argue that, among those services, the US postal service fulfills its mandate more effectively than most, and with one of the smallest burdens to the consumer. In terms of direct taxpayer funding, again, I'm fairly sure it's pretty much independent.

I don't know, because I haven't seen the website for disgruntled Walmart employees. I am not sure there is one. You don't hear of Walmart employees going postal, do you?

There are numerous websites for disgruntled WalMart employees, actually. I think Walmartsucks.com is one of the big ones. Also try Customerssuck.com for general disgruntled service employees.

And the disgruntled USPS employee profile is at least somewhat media-fed. There are disgrunted employees in all kinds of industries, and some minority of them get violent from time to time. Remember that the postal service is a very large employer. How often has that really happened? I haven't heard a disgruntled mailman story in quite a while, really. It's really amazing how the media can make something appear to be a big burgeoning trend if they feel like it, just by selectively reporting things that fit into certain categories. I swear, sometimes I think they just do it because they already have those little title cards ready to go for stories about pit bull attacks, disgruntled mailmen, and kiddie porn rings.

That was another of my beefs with that article: They seemed to be relying pretty heavily on anecdote. Of course there are stories about rogue mailmen stealing, burning, and losing mail, but what percentage of operations are like that, and why? From my personal experience, it seems to be a localized phenomenon.

Yeah, let's not talk about that.

Thank you.

[viscousmemories]

I think lisarea's arguments are more compelling, but then I'm pretty much her bitch so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

This evening when I checked my mailbox, I got a credit card advertisement from my bank and a pile of political ads. As usual, I stuffed the political ads and excess garbage in the white envelope marked "postage paid by addressee" that came with the credit card ad, and I dropped it back in the mailbox. I do that to help teach them not to send me anymore frivolous mail.

Teach who? The USPS? The spammers? I'm pretty sure corporations who get "postage paid by addressee" envelopes pay a one-time only flat fee based on the quantity of items they mail, not a fee per use of the envelope. So I think all you're doing when you resend the mail is giving the carriers and processors more mail to carry and process, which isn't likely to have much affect on anyone.

[Dingfod]

The reason you don't hear of Walmart employees going postal is because they can't afford to buy the guns they sell. And "going postal" pretty much applies to anyone disgruntled enough to go to their workplace or former workplace and put the smackdown on their bosses and/or coworkers. The term was coined after an Oklahoma post office shooting in 1986. These days I hear of it happening a lot more at factories and offices than any post offices.

One more point made by Abe. Real estate and taxes are not higher in rural areas than in cities, at least around here. You don't have to go more than 20 miles away from Tulsa and land prices drop considerably. A 1/4 acre building lot in Tulsa would cost $20K-30K, you can get 10 acres on the outskirts of Mannford for that price.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Teach who? The USPS? The spammers? I'm pretty sure corporations who get "postage paid by addressee" envelopes pay a one-time only flat fee based on the quantity of items they mail, not a fee per use of the envelope. So I think all you're doing when you resend the mail is giving the carriers and processors more mail to carry and process, which isn't likely to have much affect on anyone.

Except to require more government subsidies of the post office or higher postal rates.

Or, maybe cause some overworked postal employee to flip out and "go postal".

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by warrenly

The reason you don't hear of Walmart employees going postal is because they can't afford to buy the guns they sell. And "going postal" pretty much applies to anyone disgruntled enough to go to their workplace or former workplace and put the smackdown on their bosses and/or coworkers. The term was coined after an Oklahoma post office shooting in 1986. These days I hear of it happening a lot more at factories and offices than any post offices.

You are right. The higher instances of violence in post offices is no more than a myth, as a postal commission study showed. Props to you and lisarea. Nevertheless, CNN reported "The new analysis noted that postal workers file an unusually high number of grievances and equal-employment complaints and said the backlog can take years to resolve, increasing tensions between labor and management." In response to the series of violent incidents in the 1980's the USPS did almost everything it could to stamp out the violence. But the root of the problem still persists.

One more point made by Abe. Real estate and taxes are not higher in rural areas than in cities, at least around here. You don't have to go more than 20 miles away from Tulsa and land prices drop considerably. A 1/4 acre building lot in Tulsa would cost $20K-30K, you can get 10 acres on the outskirts of Mannford for that price.

You are understanding me backward. I said, "People in urban areas must pay a higher price for home rent and ownership." And my point in saying that was that people living in rural areas should bear what is now the public costs of living in rural areas, just as people living in urban areas have to pay a higher rent.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Teach who? The USPS? The spammers? I'm pretty sure corporations who get "postage paid by addressee" envelopes pay a one-time only flat fee based on the quantity of items they mail, not a fee per use of the envelope. So I think all you're doing when you resend the mail is giving the carriers and processors more mail to carry and process, which isn't likely to have much affect on anyone.

I'm not ApostateAbe, but only because I haven't been able to guess his password so far.

But I think what he's talking about is using the prepaid postage envelopes to send spam back to the spammers.

Normally, the bulk mailers get a discounted rate on their services because they're presorted and require less processing. That's neither here nor there, but I think it came up earlier, and it remotely relates to the fact that they also, I think, get the same or similar rates on response envelopes, which have that little bar code thingy on the bottom, which allows them to be charged per response.

Some time back, though, in response to people taping those response envelopes to bricks and whatnot, they imposed some limitations on what they'll charge the addressee per envelope. I'm going to guess it's something along the lines of them paying a straight $.11 or whatever it would normally cost to process a compliant return envelope. So if your response is too big or too heavy or whatever to be sorted automatically, I think the post office eats the cost of processing, but the addressee still pays for compliant returns. Usually, just stuffing another ad in is perfectly compliant, so the bulk mailer does end up paying for it.

Does that make sense? I had to do this bulk mailing thing some years ago (it wasn't spam or anything), so I'm working on foggy memory, and I've definitely forgotten some of the terminology and probably some of the details.

[ApostateAbe]

Originally Posted by lisarea

It's my understanding that the USPS has operated fairly independently for about 20 years now. I believe they do receive certain subsidies from time to time (they ask for them anyway), for purposes of security and the like, but I'm not sure the actual money they receive is any different from the money that private industries receive to fulfill various requirements, or just to prop up failing industries.

Alright, does it make sense to you that 37 cents per mail is enough to cover the cost of every piece of mail that is picked up, sorted, stamped, shipped, and delivered, using vehicles, employees, facilities, postboxes, planes, and trains that all cost money? To me, 37 cents seems to be an absurdly small fee. That is because the taxpayers bear the rest of the cost for the USPS, be it through subsidies through congress or through tax breaks and lack of regulations (which really do save a bundle at the taxpayer's expense).

Originally Posted by lisarea

The way it usually, or at least should usually work, is that certain services are considered essential to the public--things like energy, telephone and mail service, fire and police protection, and primary education--and because they're considered essential services, the government regulates and/or controls those industries so that the costs are spread out in order to provide services to all sectors.

I'll agree that, in some cases, certain segments of society get unfair special treatment. But as a society, we have decided that it is in our better interests to maintain some level of service across the board, so that poor hillbillies can get their bills just like the rest of us, people in poor urban areas get police protection and the phone service to summon it, and things like that. The same principle that applies to regularized rates for postal service applies, at least in part, to federal school funding, telephone service, gas and electric service, roads, law enforcement, etc.

I'd argue that, among those services, the US postal service fulfills its mandate more effectively than most, and with one of the smallest burdens to the consumer. In terms of direct taxpayer funding, again, I'm fairly sure it's pretty much independent.

Just because that is the way the things are doesn't mean it must remain that way.

Like I said, the hillbillies just have to pay for the expense of living in a rural area. They won't miss out on mail if they are only willing to pay their fair share. When postage becomes privatized, there will be greater wealth and less money drained from the general public. There is no more reason for urban folk to shoulder the costs of postage for rural folk as there is reason for rural folk to help pay for the rent of city-dwellers (although having a home is a necessity).

Originally Posted by lisarea

There are numerous websites for disgruntled WalMart employees, actually. I think Walmartsucks.com is one of the big ones. Also try Customerssuck.com for general disgruntled service employees.

And the disgruntled USPS employee profile is at least somewhat media-fed. There are disgrunted employees in all kinds of industries, and some minority of them get violent from time to time. Remember that the postal service is a very large employer. How often has that really happened? I haven't heard a disgruntled mailman story in quite a while, really. It's really amazing how the media can make something appear to be a big burgeoning trend if they feel like it, just by selectively reporting things that fit into certain categories. I swear, sometimes I think they just do it because they already have those little title cards ready to go for stories about pit bull attacks, disgruntled mailmen, and kiddie porn rings.

OK, you are right, never mind.

Originally Posted by lisarea

That was another of my beefs with that article: They seemed to be relying pretty heavily on anecdote. Of course there are stories about rogue mailmen stealing, burning, and losing mail, but what percentage of operations are like that, and why? From my personal experience, it seems to be a localized phenomenon.

Yeah, that is my eperience too. The mail seems to arrive on time for me. But the important thing is the untold amount of money that is coming out of all our paychecks.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Alright, does it make sense to you that 37 cents per mail is enough to cover the cost of every piece of mail that is picked up, sorted, stamped, shipped, and delivered, using vehicles, employees, facilities, postboxes, planes, and trains that all cost money? To me, 37 cents seems to be an absurdly small fee. That is because the taxpayers bear the rest of the cost for the USPS, be it through subsidies through congress or through tax breaks and lack of regulations (which really do save a bundle at the taxpayer's expense).

It doesn't make sense to me, either. But Google's business model doesn't make sense to me, and they make the vast majority of their profit, as I recall, on those little AdWords things. It's got to be some kind of crazy volume thing I just have a hard time conceptualizing.

I realize they save money by not paying taxes, but again, they have a mandate to provide a certain quality and coverage of service, and they have to get approval to raise their rates, so I can understand why they, like other businesses with a government mandate, might merit some degree of special treatment. They really are pretty heavily regulated as I understand it, so I can undestand why they would merit special considerations, such as not paying taxes and licensing fees, in order to maintain their mandated level of service.

I'm reasonably sure, but not entirely, that their primary operating costs, at least, are paid through postage and other direct fees. (That is, they may get government money for mandated upgrades to their facilities or something, but I'm pretty sure that the actual costs of daily mail service isn't paid for with tax money.)

Just because that is the way the things are doesn't mean it must remain that way.

Like I said, the hillbillies just have to pay for the expense of living in a rural area. They won't miss out on mail if they are only willing to pay their fair share. When postage becomes privatized, there will be greater wealth and less money drained from the general public. There is no more reason for urban folk to shoulder the costs of postage for rural folk as there is reason for rural folk to help pay for the rent of city-dwellers (although having a home is a necessity).

No, they don't always have to be that way, but most people agree that there are certain services that are essential enough that we do bear the cost to ensure that they're available to everyone. Most people at least draw the line at police protection, which is why I was tempted to bring up Jonathan Wild earlier. It's just a matter of what services we deem essential enough to require that society bear some of the burden of providing it to those who otherwise would be priced out.

I see it as sort of a trade-off. If we want to make it illegal to build bonfires on the street, I think it's our responsibility to ensure that that isn't the only way people can stay warm. If we want to outlaw urban hunting, we have to ensure that poor inner city people have some other access to food. And if we want to ensure that Appalachian hillbillies at least file their tax returns, we have to ensure that they can afford to mail them.

I can certainly understand your argument, and I do believe that there are cases in which people make choices about their circumstances, and those people should, if possible, bear the costs of maintaining their own services.

Where you and I differ is that I would consider postal service important enough to bear the cost of guaranteeing it.

Now, I would be all for lowering the minimum service level, though. Mail delivery used to be twice a day, but we get by just fine on once a day now. I think it would be reasonable to cut USPS service down to a couple or three times a week for less populated areas*, even, if the cutoff was an objective one--like number of addresses per mile or something like that. I'm OK with providing some kind of limited centralized delivery, too. (Actually, I think they do that already to some extent, like in those rural areas where there'll be a big clump of mailboxes at the bottom of a dirt road.)

I do think, though, that mail service of some sort is an essential enough service that it merits some government intervention to make it available to everyone.

Yeah, that is my eperience too. The mail seems to arrive on time for me. But the important thing is the untold amount of money that is coming out of all our paychecks.

Where I'm having the biggest problem is the 'untold' part. I tried to find information on this, too, and I couldn't find any real numbers. I did find the USPS saying they're completely financially independent, and I found a couple of requests for funds for security measures and such, but nothing really substantial enough to draw any conclusions.

*I'd actually be OK with two or three times a week for me, too, but my point is that I do think it's reasonable to provide a slightly lower level of service for areas in which mail delivery is requires more resources.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You are understanding me backward. I said, "People in urban areas must pay a higher price for home rent and ownership." And my point in saying that was that people living in rural areas should bear what is now the public costs of living in rural areas, just as people living in urban areas have to pay a higher rent.

Sorry, I read rural instead of urban. That's the first time I've ever made a mistake in my life, I just don't understand how that could've happened.

By damn, them rural folk ought to pay for living out in the sticks. As if most of them are living there by choice. If rural folk had to pay the actual cost of getting roads, electricity and telephone service to their homesteads, a lot of them still wouldn't have those things we now consider essential services. We'd have a hell of a lot more third-world barefoot hillbillies farming via the old inefficient methods. Plus, transporting their products would take a lot longer and not at all during the rainy season because of the unsubsidized rural highway system that would't exist if people like you had their way. You'd pay more for everything if not for these subsidies. Subsidies like these ARE in the best interests of everyone.

The postal service, or rural electricification, never was about anything more than serving business interests or the government's ability to communicate with it's citizenry, which some would deem essential in a democratic republic, whether for election purposes, taxation, or to raise an army. Granted, it the postal service was more important in Ben Franklin's day than it is with today's technology, but just having the service available still is a necessary thing, and a real bargain at less than $4 per capita subsidy. I'd bet businesses are subsidized more by the postal rates not meeting actual costs than individuals are. And, isn't that what government is for, serving business interests? Sure seems to be.

[wade-w]

Another point on the "rural people should pay more" argument is that not all rural areas have the same level of service from the USPS that urban people do. I live in a semi-rural area, and the USPS does not deliver to my address. That's right, I am required to have a P.O. Box if I want to get any mail, including bills, etc.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Does that make sense? I had to do this bulk mailing thing some years ago (it wasn't spam or anything), so I'm working on foggy memory, and I've definitely forgotten some of the terminology and probably some of the details.

That does make sense, thanks. I wasn't aware that there were some return postage paid envelopes that are paid for per sending, and I didn't factor in the simple pest factor of sending junk back to junk mailers.

As for whether $.37 is unbelievably cheap for small envelopes I agree that it is. But I assume that the actual cost of processing mail falls somewhere between the cost of sending a postcard and sending a manila envelope with 10-12 documents. The former is like $.15 and the latter is usually in the $4-6 range I think. So I just figure the people who mail a lot of larger stuff cover some of the cost of mailing the smaller stuff.