You pay for junk mail

[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.

[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.