Granted, mail volumes have dropped by as much as 30 per cent since 1996, prompting those job losses and the eventual reduction of mail delivery to just a few days a week. That seems to make sense, but what's the bet that, before long, mail delivery will cease altogether, to be replaced by a system where mail boxes are hired at substantial cost from NZ Post and all of us have to traipse to a central collection point to collect our correspondence?
In the meantime, there is no doubt that we will all be paying more to send mail: the cost of a letter will increase, in an inverse relationship to the level of service and speed of delivery.
It is not as if NZ Post is going broke. It pays at least $5 million each year to the government, profits are soaring (up 18 per cent if the SOE's first-half profit growth is anything to go by) and its offshoot Kiwibank can only gain from the "rock star economy". Oh, and a big old Goldman Sachs report scheduled for the end of this month will undoubtedly identify new and wholly unexplored areas of fat for the trimming.
I suppose we can at least be pleased we don't live in a remote corner of Australia, where mail deliveries have been curtailed for years - a scenario now foreshadowed for urban centres - and all the while, Australia Post turns in phenomenal profits, like A$311.9 million last year, after tax.
Rumours continue to swirl that the Australian Government is planning to hive off Australia Post, hungrily eyeing up the $3 billion it is expected to make from such a sale. Would a future New Zealand government go the same way, selling off a bedrock public service for a bit of a boost on the balance sheet?
On present evidence, most probably.