Is Elizabeth Warren the Smartest Person in U.S. Politics Outside the box thinking emerges
#1
Posted 2014-February-14, 08:26
#2
Posted 2014-February-14, 08:42
Winstonm, on 2014-February-14, 08:26, said:
Yesterday, I had the following interaction with my Postal Carrier that was right out of Seinfeld
1. The carrier rings my doorbell and asks him to meet him up front
2. I put on pants and wander to the entrance hall (the joy of working from home on a snowy day)
3. The postal carrier complains that my box is full of mail and that I need to empty it
4. I ask him to show me what needs to be delivered. Upon inspection, it consists of a thick pile of junk mail, unwanted uncatalogued and magazines, and fliers.
5. The postal carrier explains that, be that as it may, my mail box still needs to be empty so he can deliver this
6. I respond that I fail to see that this is my problem and wander back inside.
#3
Posted 2014-February-14, 09:04
Winstonm, on 2014-February-14, 08:26, said:
In fact this is already being done at some modest level, so the proposal would expand this service rather than break entirely new ground. We sent some money to someone in the following way: Becky took money to the post office and indicated who was to receive it and where. The post office sent a message to the sister post office announcing the deposit of funds. The recipient went to the post office and got the money. Becky tells me that this is far cheaper and easier than wiring money. There was a bit of a glitch, the intended post office did not have the funds readily available so either there was a wait or a trip to a different post office. I imagine that the intended expansion would eliminate that problem.
Now is it a good idea to sharply increase the financial services available at a post office? Perhaps, perhaps not. No doubt there is already security at a post office but it is pretty low key. If we are going to be holding large sums of cash at every post office in the U.S. that could be a challenge.
#4
Posted 2014-February-14, 09:07
hrothgar, on 2014-February-14, 08:42, said:
1. The carrier rings my doorbell and asks him to meet him up front
2. I put on pants and wander to the entrance hall (the joy of working from home on a snowy day)
3. The postal carrier complains that my box is full of mail and that I need to empty it
4. I ask him to show me what needs to be delivered. Upon inspection, it consists of a thick pile of junk mail, unwanted uncatalogued and magazines, and fliers.
5. The postal carrier explains that, be that as it may, my mail box still needs to be empty so he can deliver this
6. I respond that I fail to see that this is my problem and wander back inside.
The guy has a job to do. With modest effort on your part you can make his job easier, or you can wander back inside and make his job harder. Seems like an easy choice.
#5
Posted 2014-February-14, 09:16
hrothgar, on 2014-February-14, 08:42, said:
In Denmark and the Netherlands, the post office hand out stickers to put on your postbox saying that you don't want junk mail. I suppose that you don't have such a system in the U.S. but maybe some postmen would respect it if you put a home-made sticker on your box?
#6
Posted 2014-February-14, 09:35
#7
Posted 2014-February-14, 09:35
George Carlin
#8
Posted 2014-February-14, 10:52
helene_t, on 2014-February-14, 09:16, said:
There are many houses in my neighborhood with signs saying "No free papers". With mail it might be trickier. Most of it comes from respectable merchants, they are simply advertising stuff that I don't want. But one person's junk mail is another persons great opportunity. I think we are stuck with it until we make it economically unfeasible. There is no reason that they cannot put up their ads online and, if the mailing cost were high enough, they non doubt would do so.
Or we could get a cat like the one above.
#9
Posted 2014-February-14, 11:08
helene_t, on 2014-February-14, 09:16, said:
If we did that, we would probably find that doing so is illegal. It is illegal in the US, or it was, I haven't checked it lately, for anyone other than a postal carrier (for things incoming to the residence) or resident (for outgoing mail) to put anything in a mailbox. It's also illegal (or, again, was) to write anything on mis-delivered mail. People nonetheless take mis-delivered mail intended for their neighbor out of their own box and put it in the neighbor's.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#10
Posted 2014-February-14, 11:12
#12
Posted 2014-February-14, 11:28
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2014-February-14, 11:41
blackshoe, on 2014-February-14, 11:28, said:
Yes, where there is a lawyer there is a way.They explain that they are not really sales calls, goodness knows, of course not, they are informational messages. Some government agency has reported that a home is broken into every x seconds and a good alarm system blah blah blah
#14
Posted 2014-February-14, 12:49
gwnn, on 2014-February-14, 09:35, said:
There was a dog in South Africa written up for being trained to fetch the mail for a treat when he started ripping bundles apart at the front gate and delivering them one at a time.
What is baby oil made of?
#15
Posted 2014-February-14, 16:17
Winstonm, on 2014-February-14, 08:26, said:
There is no doubt in my mind that basic financial services should be provided by the gov't to everyone, especially for underserved communities. I don't know if the post office is the right place for this, but they do have locations nearly everywhere so it seems to make some sense.
I expect there will be resistance to this with the usual 2 arguments that conservative politicians and talking heads make:
1. Any gov't run thing must be inefficient by definition and the private sector is much better at this sort of thing.
2. This is unfair competition as it isn't fair to ask the private sector banks to have compete with gov't run entities.
#16
Posted 2014-February-14, 17:18
People correspond online and pay their bills online so perhaps the Post Office is looking for something to justify its continued existence. Bringing us ads from Macy's will only take them so far, and I think even that service may be precarious if we ever get the will to price it properly. So we have all these buildings and I suppose we should find some use for them.
The article says that only 37% said they would never use it. But 8% said they would use it often. Not exactly a high demand.
#17
Posted 2014-February-14, 19:02
I don't use the post office much anymore. I get far more incoming mail than I send out - and I don't get much incoming, particularly if you discount the junk.
That said, if the post office finds a market for itself, and can compete without sucking up my tax dollars, more power to 'em. If they can't, well, so long, post office.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2014-February-14, 19:21
kenberg, on 2014-February-14, 17:18, said:
People correspond online and pay their bills online so perhaps the Post Office is looking for something to justify its continued existence. Bringing us ads from Macy's will only take them so far, and I think even that service may be precarious if we ever get the will to price it properly. So we have all these buildings and I suppose we should find some use for them.
The article says that only 37% said they would never use it. But 8% said they would use it often. Not exactly a high demand.
This link will explain the problem. (emphasis added)
Quote
The poverty tax? For all those scraping by on less than $20,000 a year—the assistant manager at a fast-food restaurant, say, or a Walmart associate or a home-health-care worker—that works out to annual poverty tax of at least 10 percent
#19
Posted 2014-February-14, 21:27
Quote
I don't doubt the truth of this, but how would having financial services in Post Office help? Are there henceforth to be no consequences for repeatedly bouncing checks? It seems unlikely that doing business at the Post Office will somehow change a person from check bouncer to careful money manager. So "They’ve bounced so many checks that no bank wants them as a customer." will no longer apply?
The question is not whether some people are in very bad shape. They are, of course they are. The reasons vary, but many lives are a mess. But how will having banking services in a Post Office help with this? In short, other than finding a new use for old buildings, what will be different?
#20
Posted 2014-February-14, 22:16