20 ms·

when the cost of his letter is 10x more than he was charged, and the of mine is 10x less than i was charged, i don't pay more? seriously you don't understand?

when the cost of his letter is 10x more than he was charged, and the of mine is 10x less than i was charged, i don't pay more? seriously you don't understand? wow. we go to dinner. you get a side salad, and i get a steak and some wine. we split the bill down the middle. cool? i'm not trying to diss you. i want to be friends with you.

gameswithgo 6y ago
you are bot forced to use the usps, you are not actually using it, so you are not paying the rest. these sort of imbalances generally disappear in aggregate (sometimes your letter goes to a farm) and/or are worth the simplicity anyway, should you ever choose to take part.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Literally no one else on earth can ship first class mail aside from the USPS. It is a federal crime. The USPS has a government enforced monopoly on the delivery of mail which is why UPS can only deliver packages.
- dungdang 6y ago
  you know litetally nothing about this. we are literally, by law, forced to use usps for letters. this is what people have been fighting against for 150 years. letting private services deliver mail. the last time a company tried this, in 1854 i think, they were shut down for breaking the the law - procecuted by the government. it's not 'worth the simplicity' to me, living in a high rent city. literally every piece of mail in an urban area is 10x it's actual delivery cost, which pays for the farmer's mail, and him getting all the spam, which actually costs 10x more than he pays. exponentially more people live in cities. every time you get your bank statement delivered in a city, you and 20 others just paid for a single letter to be delivered to a farmer. through shittier interest rates in your savings account. yes, i rarely mail letters. like 10 times a year. and same goes for the 3 million other people in my city. and yet because of low farmland population, urbanites still mail many more total letters vs farmers. we're not paying for it? whi, pray tell, do you think is paying for that farmer to send a letter? he pays half a dollar for a stamp. the post office spends about $10 to deliver it. my letter costs a penny to deliver. i pay half a dollar too. so no, it is not 'worth the simplicity' to me, to pay for that farmer. but federal law forces me to.
quickthrowman 6y ago
It’s more beneficial to have a flat postage rate that doesn’t price people out of living in certain areas simply due to postage rates. First class mail is an essential service.
- dungdang 6y ago
  it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service. soo how that works? locations have different expenses. farms have cheap land. they have expensive delivery cost. taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. it's benefitial to farmers. how about everyone pay their own expenses, and we don't shuffle around other people's costs. it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    > it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service. All first-class letters of 1 oz or less are identical. Housing is not identical, which is why it’s fine to have varying prices for housing. Many places have rent controls in place. The utility of having flat rate letter postage for every citizen outweighs any benefit realized from privatization. > taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. This has been done for quite a while in the US, as crop subsidy payments. People in cities benefit by having stable food prices. > it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week. You’re not paying for it, hope that helps.
    - dungdang 6y ago
      you don't know it's a federal crime for anyone but usps to do letter service. you don't know a company was shut down by the feds for trying. you don't know the whole argument people have been debating now and for the last 150 years is to allow private companies to handle letters. so you looked it up, saw you were wrong, and changed your argument to 'parcel service' = 'letter service.' you were given examples of why people want letter service from private companies, and how urban citizens pay for rural letter costs. your argument at that point us 'you don't pay for it, the money to cover costs comes from a magic place, but if you do, quickthrowman has determined it's worth it, so case closed.' thank you for the entertainment.

gameswithgo 6y ago

you are bot forced to use the usps, you are not actually using it, so you are not paying the rest. these sort of imbalances generally disappear in aggregate (sometimes your letter goes to a farm) and/or are worth the simplicity anyway, should you ever choose to take part.

missedthecue 6y ago
Literally no one else on earth can ship first class mail aside from the USPS. It is a federal crime. The USPS has a government enforced monopoly on the delivery of mail which is why UPS can only deliver packages.
dungdang 6y ago
you know litetally nothing about this. we are literally, by law, forced to use usps for letters. this is what people have been fighting against for 150 years. letting private services deliver mail. the last time a company tried this, in 1854 i think, they were shut down for breaking the the law - procecuted by the government. it's not 'worth the simplicity' to me, living in a high rent city. literally every piece of mail in an urban area is 10x it's actual delivery cost, which pays for the farmer's mail, and him getting all the spam, which actually costs 10x more than he pays. exponentially more people live in cities. every time you get your bank statement delivered in a city, you and 20 others just paid for a single letter to be delivered to a farmer. through shittier interest rates in your savings account. yes, i rarely mail letters. like 10 times a year. and same goes for the 3 million other people in my city. and yet because of low farmland population, urbanites still mail many more total letters vs farmers. we're not paying for it? whi, pray tell, do you think is paying for that farmer to send a letter? he pays half a dollar for a stamp. the post office spends about $10 to deliver it. my letter costs a penny to deliver. i pay half a dollar too. so no, it is not 'worth the simplicity' to me, to pay for that farmer. but federal law forces me to.

quickthrowman 6y ago

It’s more beneficial to have a flat postage rate that doesn’t price people out of living in certain areas simply due to postage rates. First class mail is an essential service.

dungdang 6y ago
it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service. soo how that works? locations have different expenses. farms have cheap land. they have expensive delivery cost. taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. it's benefitial to farmers. how about everyone pay their own expenses, and we don't shuffle around other people's costs. it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  > it's more be'efitial to have flat rent that doesn't price peoplenout of living in certain cities simly due to housing rates. housing is an essential service. All first-class letters of 1 oz or less are identical. Housing is not identical, which is why it’s fine to have varying prices for housing. Many places have rent controls in place. The utility of having flat rate letter postage for every citizen outweighs any benefit realized from privatization. > taking money from people paying high rent to subsidize farmers is not 'benefitial' to people living in cities. This has been done for quite a while in the US, as crop subsidy payments. People in cities benefit by having stable food prices. > it's not benefitial to me to pay for a farmer getting fifty junk mail catalogs a week. You’re not paying for it, hope that helps.
  - dungdang 6y ago
    you don't know it's a federal crime for anyone but usps to do letter service. you don't know a company was shut down by the feds for trying. you don't know the whole argument people have been debating now and for the last 150 years is to allow private companies to handle letters. so you looked it up, saw you were wrong, and changed your argument to 'parcel service' = 'letter service.' you were given examples of why people want letter service from private companies, and how urban citizens pay for rural letter costs. your argument at that point us 'you don't pay for it, the money to cover costs comes from a magic place, but if you do, quickthrowman has determined it's worth it, so case closed.' thank you for the entertainment.