- Banned
- #41
You and I must have a different definition of the word efficient. Because my definition in no way includes a potential $7 Billion loss. Simply because they do it "cheap", doesn't mean they do it efficiently.
efficient - Definition of efficient at YourDictionary.com
efficient definition
ef·fi·cient (e fis̸h′ənt, i-)
adjective
1. directly producing an effect or result; causative; effective the efficient cause
2. producing a desired effect, product, etc. with a minimum of effort, expense, or waste; working well
Number 2 above is about how I would define efficient and I don't see a $7 Billion loss as fitting the bill here.
That being said, I appreciate the service I get from the post office and suspect the problem lies in our belief that the government should provide services nearly free of charge and not in their inability to perform the tasks at hand.
If the post office is losing so much money then they should raise their rates. Would $2 for a First Class letter suffice? I don't know, but maybe it would cut down on some of the junk mail. The post office is not running efficiently. In fact, it is running extremely inefficiently.
Immie
I say they run efficiently because 99% of the mail gets to where it's supposed to go, on time, for very little cost, thus fitting definition 1.
Private companies that deliver packages do so at greater cost, and would never want to even try to take over what the Post Office does.
And I constantly hear stories of packages "falling off the back of trucks" with FedEx.
The problem is that non-package snail-mail is becoming obsolete, and by extension, so is the post office. That doesn't mean that they're not doing the job they are tasked with efficiently.