很不辛的是这块在美国也算是准垄断
而且USPS可怜的增长解决方案也基本和天朝如出一辙：
The problem, of course, is that the 7.7 percent increase in package deliveries comes with some serious implications for Post Office profitability. As The New York Times recently observed, "a large portion of the increased revenue in package delivery comes from contracts with FedEx and United Parcel Service." And unfortunately for the Post Office's fiscal health, delivering packages on behalf of FedEx (FDX) and UPS (UPS) may not be the best way for it to make money.
Meanwhile, the Journal notes that while FedEx and UPS both charge big package retailers such as Amazon.com (AMZN) $7 or $8 to deliver a package, they outsource the most labor-intensive leg of their deliveries, deliveries to customer mailboxes, to USPS -- for less than $2 a package on average.
然后他们还计划要更新车辆和物流设备，外加养老金支出，基本就是哭着要政府来买单的节奏，Too big to fall
According to the Journal, USPS CFO Joseph Corbett says accommodating the new flood of packages will necessitate USPS spending $10 billion over the next four years to "replace our aging vehicle fleet, purchase additional package sorting equipment and make necessary upgrades to our infrastructure."
Unfortunately, that's $10 billion that the Post Office doesn't have. In fact, Corbett says that money's so tight right now, USPS "will be unable to make the required $5.7 billion retiree health benefit prefunding payment to the U.S. Treasury, due by Sept. 30, 2014," according to the USPS news release. So the need to spend an additional $2.5 billion annually over each of the next four years is almost certain to bust the Post Office's budget.
然后继续提价，砍人：
Conclusion? The next four years are almost certain to be much like the last few for patrons of the U.S. Postal Service. A nonstop stream of complaints that the Post Office is going broke and pleas to Congress for permission to raise the cost of postage stamps, cut delivery days, lay off workers and close rural post offices.
[
本帖最后由 handsomeken 于 2015-1-3 13:49 编辑]