I guess maybe you haven't enabled electronic statements for your accounts or something, but for me 99% of what I get from USPS is junk mail or online shopping deliveries. Not clear why either of those need to be subsidized.

They're not subsidized. USPS is required by law to pay its own way. This is a common misconception about USPS that is simply not true.

When people talk about International Mail being "subsidized" they're talking about EG treaty negotiations with China that force the USPS to receive international packages from China at significantly below cost. They then have to pass those costs onto the US consumer.

Except demanding that all people in the US to be reliant on the successful use and ownership of a sufficiently reliable computing device is a very real form of discrimination. Arguments of cheapening electronics can be made, but just the issues that many people are having with remote learning is pretty strong evidence to the contrary.

Subsidizing access to computing devices would be much more beneficial to society than subsidizing junk mail and online shopping.

Is it being subsidised though? Or is it actually the other way around?

I've not seen any citation which claims the junk mail part of the USPS is unprofitable.

To be clear, I hate junk mail. I've just seen this claim made a few times without citation.

What is your problem with the USPS? You've been refuted several times in this thread, but you keep repeating blatant falsehoods.

USPS is not subsidized. It has always been required to pay for itself through delivery fees.

> USPS is not subsidized. It has always been required to pay for itself through delivery fees.

The USPS was founded in 1792 and became self-funded under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 almost 200 years later, so, no, it hasn't “always” been required to pay for itself.