The thread about cruise tickets in the mail reminded me that the USPS has announced that they plan to raise the price of a stamp to 49 cents next year. That doesn't bother us because we use so few stamps, and I actually think that even a half a buck is a bargain for first class mail as a value proposition.
Of course, it's still true that postal workers have some of the sweetest pay rates, health coverage and pension plans around, and the USPS is continually in the hole. Raising the rates won't change that either.
Remember all the talk about bagging Saturday delivery that got knocked down by Congress on the grounds that seniors wouldn't get their mailed meds in time? Of course, what other sound reasoning would you expect from Congress?
I'd be more than happy with getting postal mail twice a week, and I'd settle for once a week. Three times would be a luxury, but six is ludicrous. I once proposed that residential customers be divided into A and B groups, with A getting delivery on M-W-F and B getting T-Th-Sa. Fire half the route people instantly and save a ton of money. Of course working against this is the fact that these people have no-fire contracts, so you'd have to work that out.
As for the pills-in-the-mail silliness, I get maintenance meds delivered to the house too. In my case they come UPS, but I know some pharmacies use USPS. So I wonder whether I'm unusual: for many years, my fresh 90-day supply has arrived somewhere around three weeks before I need it. It works like clockwork. My doctor re-ups the script at my annual physical, and that's that. I've never not gotten them on time, or had anything resembling a close call. I just don't understand this "beat the clock" scenario that seems to qualify as the reason for six-day-a-week mail delivery. I mean, if the doctor gives you something you need to take right away, you just go to the drugstore, right? I don't get it.
Of course, business addresses are obviously a different story. But how many times a week would you say is OK for residential delivery?