bailing out the U.S. Postal Service
Poll
 | 2 votes (8.33%) | ||
| | 6 votes (25%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 2 votes (8.33%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 11 votes (45.83%) | ||
| | 3 votes (12.5%) |
24 members have voted
September 10th, 2011 at 2:16:50 PM
permalink
As of 1971, American taxpayers covered 23 percent of the U.S. Postal Service's expenses, but this subsidy was phased out by 1982. Nevertheless, they still enjoy special tax-free privileges and a government-sanctioned monopoly on delivering 1st class letters. In 2006, Congress mandated that the USPS pay $5.5 billion annually to cover pension and health benefits for the agency 480,000 retired workers and 600,000 active workers. Due to falling revenue (partly because of email) the USPS doesn't have the $5.5 billion.
Elsewhere in the world, (especially in Europe) postal services are being de-monopolized. For example, the Netherlands has 4 major companies which deliver daily mail. Privatization has its benefits, but first class mail delivery is a low margin business: none of the 4 Dutch companies are prospering. (Might having 4 daily mail carriers make it more complicated for the consumer to track down an important lost letter?)
I don't relish the idea of the old pre-1971 model of taxpayer subsidization. On the other hand, it's surreal to consider that we're willing to spend $1 trillion on Iraq and $750 billion bailing out Wall Street, but we hesitate to spend $5.5 billion to rescue an American icon created by George Washington and originally headed by Benjamin Franklin himself.
What do you think?
Elsewhere in the world, (especially in Europe) postal services are being de-monopolized. For example, the Netherlands has 4 major companies which deliver daily mail. Privatization has its benefits, but first class mail delivery is a low margin business: none of the 4 Dutch companies are prospering. (Might having 4 daily mail carriers make it more complicated for the consumer to track down an important lost letter?)
I don't relish the idea of the old pre-1971 model of taxpayer subsidization. On the other hand, it's surreal to consider that we're willing to spend $1 trillion on Iraq and $750 billion bailing out Wall Street, but we hesitate to spend $5.5 billion to rescue an American icon created by George Washington and originally headed by Benjamin Franklin himself.
What do you think?
September 10th, 2011 at 2:26:48 PM
permalink
Add to the poll-- stop giving reduced rates to mass mailings and junk mail.
September 10th, 2011 at 2:46:54 PM
permalink
I think the government closed its pigeon breeding facility after the signal corps switched from pigeons to radio and teletype.
I see nothing wrong with closing the post office. FedEx and UPS will be happy to take over. No need to subsidize buggy whip manufacturers. Most service levels are low and who really wants all that junk mail anyway.
The post office has some Star Routes wherein the postage is double. Perhaps keep those but face it, its simply archaic. Think of all those private mailbox places. Would they even exist if the post office was any good?
Sell the real estate???
Most post offices are privately owned and leased to the post office, often by movie stars or movie star estates.
It was always easier to get leases through a budget process than purchases. Which is why Bob Hope and Bing Crosby owned so many post offices.
I see nothing wrong with closing the post office. FedEx and UPS will be happy to take over. No need to subsidize buggy whip manufacturers. Most service levels are low and who really wants all that junk mail anyway.
The post office has some Star Routes wherein the postage is double. Perhaps keep those but face it, its simply archaic. Think of all those private mailbox places. Would they even exist if the post office was any good?
Sell the real estate???
Most post offices are privately owned and leased to the post office, often by movie stars or movie star estates.
It was always easier to get leases through a budget process than purchases. Which is why Bob Hope and Bing Crosby owned so many post offices.
September 10th, 2011 at 2:55:23 PM
permalink
Here's the perfect government solution:
1) Ban email
2) Ban electronic delivery of financial statements of all sorts, including by fax, web, email and even by phone
3) Ban the delivery of bills by all sorts of electronic bills, including by fax, web, email and even by phone
4) Raise postal rates
5) Institute a tax on overnight parcel shipments
We can call it Obamapost :P
1) Ban email
2) Ban electronic delivery of financial statements of all sorts, including by fax, web, email and even by phone
3) Ban the delivery of bills by all sorts of electronic bills, including by fax, web, email and even by phone
4) Raise postal rates
5) Institute a tax on overnight parcel shipments
We can call it Obamapost :P
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 10th, 2011 at 2:58:20 PM
permalink
Sigh. Run the post office like a business and raise postage rates. Build supermailboxes to eliminate long delivery runs. Lay off a bunch of unskilled workers who will inevitably become unemployed or underemployed. Then they can collect welfare. Either way they're being paid by the government. Cut off their benefits as well. No free ride for them. Then they can live homeless on the streets of.... Portland!
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
September 10th, 2011 at 3:42:11 PM
permalink
The PO is failing because the employees are massively
overpaid. 80% of PO income goes to pay employees and
their benefits. About 55% of of UPS goes to this and I
think about 40% of FedEx. The PO will never get solvent
with those numbers, its a mathematical impossibility.
overpaid. 80% of PO income goes to pay employees and
their benefits. About 55% of of UPS goes to this and I
think about 40% of FedEx. The PO will never get solvent
with those numbers, its a mathematical impossibility.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 10th, 2011 at 3:46:55 PM
permalink
People in rural areas may be affected the most where private companies would likely charge higher rates for less volume. That's my guess.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:49:18 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwinePeople in rural areas may be affected the most where private companies would likely charge higher rates for less volume. That's my guess.
They wouldn't even try to serve many areas. I am in north Florida and I have no cable nor cell phone provider.
September 10th, 2011 at 3:55:52 PM
permalink
Let UPS or Fed Ex try charging a flat rate for anywhere in USA and territories, deliver to every house and apartment everyday before comparing those percentages. Not so much as the workers as the bureaucracy I mail a lot of stuff I sell at Amazon and the local PO now has to put 2 stickers on each package. The first has postage stamp and bar code for address. Second one is just to be scanned at the final local PO. Slows me and the clerk at this end and slows sorting at distant end. But the high level bureaucrat who came up with that idea will keep his jib. And probably get a bonus too.
September 10th, 2011 at 4:00:39 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffLet UPS or Fed Ex try charging a flat rate for anywhere in USA and territories, deliver to every house and apartment everyday before comparing those percentages.
They could do and do it profitably. They have a good
business model, the PO does not. Ever notice that PO
workers are in those jobs forever? They can't be fired,
they have to steal or kill somebody to lose their jobs.
There's a woman in my local PO who's been there for
30 years and is so fat she can barely walk. Everything
she does is in slow motion. The PO is full of incompetent
people like her.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 10th, 2011 at 4:03:58 PM
permalink
I understand the nostalgia, the history, but to quote my favorite book "the world has moved on since then". If someone can do it better, it should be done. If the USPS dies because of it, so be it.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
September 10th, 2011 at 7:04:13 PM
permalink
And your replacement would be ??
September 10th, 2011 at 8:54:06 PM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffAnd your replacement would be ??
Whoever or whatever is doing the work right now. What justification is there for continuing the GSE?
September 10th, 2011 at 8:54:39 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe PO is failing because the employees are massively
overpaid. 80% of PO income goes to pay employees and
their benefits. About 55% of of UPS goes to this and I
think about 40% of FedEx. The PO will never get solvent
with those numbers, its a mathematical impossibility.
From its very inception the USPS has been a repository of patronage and a cesspool of waste. You won't find me talking much politics, or taking sides against working people. But this is one situation where a system has been put in place that was actually DESIGNED to be inefficient, incompetent, and wasteful. Today's post office never had a chance.
I voted for a combination of above. Bid it out to private, but make it so that they pay a fee to run the thing.
A falling knife has no handle.
September 11th, 2011 at 5:01:30 AM
permalink
I am sure that most people who work for the USPS are hard-working individuals who really try to do a good job. That being said, I knew somebody who was a postal worker, and they make a LOT of money for what they do. I remember that he said that people were always trying to get on at the post office because of the pay and benefits.
I voted a combination. First, make junk mail and advertisers pay higher rates... enough of this bulk mail crap. Second, raise postal rates again. I'd make it a pretty big jump... I wouldn't mind paying up to a $1 to mail a letter if I knew it would arrive on time. Third, eliminate Tuesday and possibly Saturday delivery. You could still deliver to PO Boxes on those days (that would give some incentive to rent a PO Box). It would eliminate a lot of part-time positions, and Postal delivery people could do 4, 10-hour days.
I'm absolutely against privatization of the USPS. While FedEx and UPS do deliver packages more timely (in most cases), dealing with claims from them is a nightmare. As long as they have to compete with a government-ish entity, they must be competitive in prices and what they offer. If the USPS were to go private, rates would skyrocket to a RIDICULOUS level.
I voted a combination. First, make junk mail and advertisers pay higher rates... enough of this bulk mail crap. Second, raise postal rates again. I'd make it a pretty big jump... I wouldn't mind paying up to a $1 to mail a letter if I knew it would arrive on time. Third, eliminate Tuesday and possibly Saturday delivery. You could still deliver to PO Boxes on those days (that would give some incentive to rent a PO Box). It would eliminate a lot of part-time positions, and Postal delivery people could do 4, 10-hour days.
I'm absolutely against privatization of the USPS. While FedEx and UPS do deliver packages more timely (in most cases), dealing with claims from them is a nightmare. As long as they have to compete with a government-ish entity, they must be competitive in prices and what they offer. If the USPS were to go private, rates would skyrocket to a RIDICULOUS level.
"One out of every four people are [morons]"- Kyle, South Park
September 11th, 2011 at 5:13:28 AM
permalink
I think the first step should be mail reduction.
Force businesses and customers to do online billing. Direct Deposit for all entitlements, pensions etc.
Envelope addressing software should be more readily available.
Force businesses and customers to do online billing. Direct Deposit for all entitlements, pensions etc.
Envelope addressing software should be more readily available.
September 11th, 2011 at 6:36:48 AM
permalink
Agree with bits and pieces.
My 4 part solution:
1) Raise Regular Postage Rates to $ 0.50
2) Raise Rates for Magazines and Junk Mail ! ! !
3) Eliminate 1 day (or even 2 ! ) of mail delivery. I'd
go with M-T-TH-F-SAT service to start with.
4) Close the smallest, lowest volume stand-alone
post offices and offer those services at a
pharmacy / grocery store / etc.
My 4 part solution:
1) Raise Regular Postage Rates to $ 0.50
2) Raise Rates for Magazines and Junk Mail ! ! !
3) Eliminate 1 day (or even 2 ! ) of mail delivery. I'd
go with M-T-TH-F-SAT service to start with.
4) Close the smallest, lowest volume stand-alone
post offices and offer those services at a
pharmacy / grocery store / etc.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
September 11th, 2011 at 7:09:08 AM
permalink
I sell Books on Amazon. Mail 5lb book with USPS and it's $3.30 for anywhere in continental USA or states or possessions . New york to Hawaii even. That cost $76 on UPS. Similar story with bigger spreads on International media. Gee wonder why USPS loses money. TRY CONGRESS AND NOT THE WORKERS !
September 11th, 2011 at 7:32:52 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffI think the first step should be mail reduction.
Force businesses and customers to do online billing. Direct Deposit for all entitlements, pensions etc.
Envelope addressing software should be more readily available.
Since when has reducing the volume of a business made it more efficient? Likely reduced volume would not significantly reduce the costs given the union contracts and pension plan and therefore not reduce the losses. Raise the rates for letters 25 or 30% and bust the union to get a realistic wage and benefit structure and it could do fine. I send out a measly 1000 invoices a month and can only get about 15% of my customers to accept electronic invoices so having the government 'force' people to do another frigging thing they don't want is pretty socialistic. A government that would do that is unlikely to make it's workers accept a new realistic wage package.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
September 11th, 2011 at 8:04:41 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffI sell Books on Amazon. Mail 5lb book with USPS and it's $3.30 for anywhere in continental USA or states or possessions . New york to Hawaii even. That cost $76 on UPS. Similar story with bigger spreads on International media. Gee wonder why USPS loses money. TRY CONGRESS AND NOT THE WORKERS !
Comparing one of the Postal Service's most well-known loss leaders against a premium service of United Parcel serves only to demonstrate that the poster thinks his readers are not well informed and that he has a strong bias. Here are more realistic costs for a typical five-pound parcel being shipped from Chicago to Las Vegas. The readily available bells and whistles of each basic are well known to many of us.
" Media Mail
Media Mail is not sealed against postal inspection. Regardless of physical closure, the mailing of articles at Media Mail prices constitutes consent by the mailer to postal inspection.
Media mail is used for certain types of books, films, manuscripts, printed music, printed test materials, sound recordings, play scripts, printed educational charts, loose-leaf pages and their binders consisting of medical information, video recordings, educational reference charts, and computer-readable media."
---
Parcel Post®More info about Parcel Post®
Mon, Sep 19 $11.39
Media Mail®More info about Media Mail®
Restrictions Apply
Mon, Sep 19 $4.05
---------
Days In Transit: 3 Schedule by
8:00 P.M.
Monday
September 12, 2011 Billable Weight:
5.0 lbs. UPS Ground 9:00 P.M.
Monday
September 12, 2011
By End of Day,
Friday
September 16, 2011 15.52 USD *
Days In Transit: 4 Schedule by
8:00 P.M.
Monday
September 12, 2011 Billable Weight:
5
September 11th, 2011 at 9:32:16 AM
permalink
You infer that I think the forum members are not well read. I did not imply that. I am in Denver and mail 2 books to Hawaii this week
and priority mailed 3 books or Cd's to Australia. The taxpayers are subsidizing me.
and priority mailed 3 books or Cd's to Australia. The taxpayers are subsidizing me.
September 11th, 2011 at 10:06:18 AM
permalink
Quote: buzzpaffThe taxpayers are subsidizing me.
Why should we? Are you a special case deserving such magnanimous treatment?
September 11th, 2011 at 10:49:31 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe PO is failing because the employees are massively
overpaid. 80% of PO income goes to pay employees and
their benefits. About 55% of of UPS goes to this and I
think about 40% of FedEx. The PO will never get solvent
with those numbers, its a mathematical impossibility.
Yes. What's funny is that since the mid-1990s the Post Office has been whining about email eating its lunch, and used this as an excuse for repeated rate hikes. Problem is, with the explosion in Internet use since then, people are doing more mail-order shopping, thus the PO should be making more money -- but it's not due to mismanagement, and they keep wanting to blame email for it. Never mind that the "paperless revolution" actually generated more paper than we've ever used before. It doesn't bother me as much that the post office is in need of a bailout as it does that they keep trying to deceive us regarding just why it is that they are in need of the same.
I'm kind of reminded of the talking heads who occasionally pop up in the newsmedia encouraging higher tobacco taxes by claiming that raising the price of cigarettes will make young people less likely to smoke. Never mind that the actual data on teenage smoking suggests that the percentage of young smokers increases as the price of cigarettes rises....
September 11th, 2011 at 11:16:21 AM
permalink
Quote: heather
I'm kind of reminded of the talking heads who occasionally pop up in the newsmedia encouraging higher tobacco taxes by claiming that raising the price of cigarettes will make young people less likely to smoke. Never mind that the actual data on teenage smoking suggests that the percentage of young smokers increases as the price of cigarettes rises....
That statement doesn't pass my smell test and I would to see a link to the data. Canada has been increasing taxes like mad to discourage smoking and smoking rates including teenagers are at record lows.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
September 11th, 2011 at 11:30:10 AM
permalink
Exactly my point. And I am definitely a small part of the reason the USPS loses money.
September 11th, 2011 at 3:07:27 PM
permalink
Quote: TiltpoulI am sure that most people who work for the USPS are hard-working individuals who really try to do a good job. .
And why are you sure of that? PO employees are famous
for their lazy job performance and lackadaisical work
ethic. Once they get past the trial period, they have
lifetime jobs and everything goes into slow motion. Here's
an old joke about the PO:
"I remember when the Postal workers started a slow-down strike
for a pay raise. They had to call it off -- nobody noticed."
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 12th, 2011 at 9:03:06 AM
permalink
Quote: FleaStiffMost post offices are privately owned and leased to the post office, often by movie stars or movie star estates.
It was always easier to get leases through a budget process than purchases. Which is why Bob Hope and Bing Crosby owned so many post offices.
Do you have a source for this? A post office in Burbank was named after Bob Hope posthumously, but I'm unaware that Hope owned land leased to post offices. Bing Crosby worked as a postal employee before he was famous, but I can't find any source on the internet indicating that Crosby or Hope or any other celebrities owned multiple post offices.
September 12th, 2011 at 12:52:02 PM
permalink
Quote: kenarmanQuote: heather
I'm kind of reminded of the talking heads who occasionally pop up in the newsmedia encouraging higher tobacco taxes by claiming that raising the price of cigarettes will make young people less likely to smoke. Never mind that the actual data on teenage smoking suggests that the percentage of young smokers increases as the price of cigarettes rises....
That statement doesn't pass my smell test and I would to see a link to the data. Canada has been increasing taxes like mad to discourage smoking and smoking rates including teenagers are at record lows.
Sure. In 1996-1997 (the last time that I lived in my current state), the local paper reported teenage smoking at 25% of high school students. Cigarettes at the time were just over a dollar a pack, or ten to twelve dollars a carton. Today, I'm back in the same city reading the same newspaper and the percentage of high school students that smoke is being reported at 33%. Cigarettes currently cost over five dollars a pack, or forty-five to sixty-five dollars a carton. That's more data right there than I've ever seen anyone offer in support of the "raising the price of cigarettes makes kids less likely to smoke" argument, which I consistently see advanced without even the slightest innuendo at data supporting.
Canadians might be better at propping up their arguments, for all I know, however. I don't read Canadian newsmedia.
September 12th, 2011 at 1:29:29 PM
permalink
Don't forget that it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the USPS
September 12th, 2011 at 2:28:56 PM
permalink
Quote: renoDo you have a source for this?
The vast majority are privately owned and leased by the gov. Its
a very bad way to do business. By now they would own all the
land and buildings and be paying no rent. Instead they pay
rent up the wazoo and it takes away from profits. Henry Ford
owned every company that supplied material for his cars. Lumber
mills, rubber plantations, steel mills. He made a profit every step
of the way, thats how real business men operate.
Post Office
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
September 12th, 2011 at 5:09:04 PM
permalink
Quote: slytherDon't forget that it would require a constitutional amendment to get rid of the USPS
Not really. Congress could just refuse to fund it in the budget.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
September 12th, 2011 at 5:58:26 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe vast majority are privately owned and leased by the gov. Its
a very bad way to do business. By now they would own all the
land and buildings and be paying no rent. Instead they pay
rent up the wazoo and it takes away from profits. Henry Ford
owned every company that supplied material for his cars. Lumber
mills, rubber plantations, steel mills. He made a profit every step
of the way, thats how real business men operate.Quote:
And I am sure that the government would have been very efficient with the manintenance and upgrades to the buildings over the years and never spent a dime more than a private developer would have. The Post Office real estate department that would be created to manage all the buildings would be more efficient than any private corporation. ;)Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
September 12th, 2011 at 6:23:20 PM
permalink
Quote: heatherQuote: kenarmanQuote: heather
I'm kind of reminded of the talking heads who occasionally pop up in the newsmedia encouraging higher tobacco taxes by claiming that raising the price of cigarettes will make young people less likely to smoke. Never mind that the actual data on teenage smoking suggests that the percentage of young smokers increases as the price of cigarettes rises....
That statement doesn't pass my smell test and I would to see a link to the data. Canada has been increasing taxes like mad to discourage smoking and smoking rates including teenagers are at record lows.
Sure. In 1996-1997 (the last time that I lived in my current state), the local paper reported teenage smoking at 25% of high school students. Cigarettes at the time were just over a dollar a pack, or ten to twelve dollars a carton. Today, I'm back in the same city reading the same newspaper and the percentage of high school students that smoke is being reported at 33%. Cigarettes currently cost over five dollars a pack, or forty-five to sixty-five dollars a carton. That's more data right there than I've ever seen anyone offer in support of the "raising the price of cigarettes makes kids less likely to smoke" argument, which I consistently see advanced without even the slightest innuendo at data supporting.
Canadians might be better at propping up their arguments, for all I know, however. I don't read Canadian newsmedia.
Thanks for replying Heather. Those number are totally opposite of what is happening across Canada. British Columbia where I live is down to under 15%teenage smokers and none of the provinces are over 20%. A pack of cigarettes is around $8. All smoking is down a significant amount country wide.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:50:13 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedNot really. Congress could just refuse to fund it in the budget.
Oops I sit corrected. Art. 1 merely authorizes USPS, not requires it.
"The Congress shall have power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads"
September 13th, 2011 at 4:06:01 PM
permalink
The post office cannot operate as a private businees operates because congress, in my opinion, micro manages it for political purposes. It does not have control over postage rates, for example.
Keep in mind, we are not talking a small business. The USPS is the second highest employer in the US. 1st is wal-mart.
Congress in 2006 passed a bill that required the USPS to establish and fund a program for health benefits for retirees. Congress required that the plan be funded so that it was viable for 75 years, and the funding was to be done in ten years. This requires the USPS to come up with $5.5 Billion per year over and above their operating costs. I understand that if this charge did not exist, the USPS is profitable. This is the first year that it could not make the payment out of funds available.
It is important to note that at the time of the bill in 2006, two of the biggest lobbyists for the bill were UPS and Fex Ex. I suspect it was known at the time that the USPS could not make the payments for the full ten years. Now the current talk of privatization is exactly what these two companies wanted and expected. Money talks in Washington.
Keep in mind, we are not talking a small business. The USPS is the second highest employer in the US. 1st is wal-mart.
Congress in 2006 passed a bill that required the USPS to establish and fund a program for health benefits for retirees. Congress required that the plan be funded so that it was viable for 75 years, and the funding was to be done in ten years. This requires the USPS to come up with $5.5 Billion per year over and above their operating costs. I understand that if this charge did not exist, the USPS is profitable. This is the first year that it could not make the payment out of funds available.
It is important to note that at the time of the bill in 2006, two of the biggest lobbyists for the bill were UPS and Fex Ex. I suspect it was known at the time that the USPS could not make the payments for the full ten years. Now the current talk of privatization is exactly what these two companies wanted and expected. Money talks in Washington.
