Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Financial Future Of The USPS  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19703 posts, RR: 58
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2221 times:

So the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish a post office and post roads. It does not mandate that the system be self-supporting or profitable.

What I'm wondering is: at what point does having a post office make it worthy of public funding? I think that post offices are very important. The fact that most information has gone electronic has really hurt the volume and the USPS is having trouble keeping up with the change.

Yet it provides an important service. I get a lot of important mail, and I sent a lot of important mail. There are some things that just don't work well electronically. The other thing is that everyone really should have an address. That means that the USPS needs to deliver to some pretty rural communities and, unlike UPS or FedEx, they can't simply not deliver to such locations because it's not profitable.

Times are changing and I think it's unreasonable to expect the USPS to continue to be profitable because it operates on a substantially different mission than the package companies. I think the USPS is going to have to go on the federal budget. Do you?



[Edited 2012-02-18 13:51:19]

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6293 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
unlike UPS or FedEx, they can't simply not deliver to such locations because it's not profitable.

I can't speak for FedEx but UPS delivers to every address in the US. Remote Alaska is done through a contract carrier.

I see one simple solution for the USPS, quit 6 day per week deliveries, close the post office counters on Tuesday and Thursday and change there work rules to more closely match the rest of us.

I just had a lovely argument with a friend of mine who works there and she is still convinced that the USPS is not a government entity despite the buildings and vehicles being federal property, the jobs civil service and the many paid holidays non governmentsal employees don't get.

All in all I think the USPS is a terribly bloated institution that needs to quit whining.



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

The USPS needs to cut salaries and benefits, especially the overly generous ones promised to retirees.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2176 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I think the USPS is going to have to go on the federal budget. Do you?

I don't think the USPS is insolvent because of any lack of funds. Any given company can't overstaff, overbuild and maintain a middle class lifestyle for everybody from cradle to grave. That's the unreasonable expectation placed on our USPS. I only expect them to deliver mail, not deliver a certain lifestyle and job security to its many workers. Or post offices where they are plainly not needed. Government offices tend to open freely, but rarely close, even when their original purpose is gone. So, they could work on that. It won't permanently cure USPS problems but it might push them back 50 years. We all have similar aspirations and shortfalls.... not just the USPS.

[Edited 2012-02-18 14:38:10]

User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 1):
All in all I think the USPS is a terribly bloated institution that needs to quit whining

To be fair, as of 2006 the main reason the USPS is struggling is because it has been required to pre-fund 75% of their healthcare benefits for future retirees, which is a 75 year liability, in the next 10 years. No other agency or corporation is required to do this. It is a truly massive expense for them to pay down, and it threatens the Post Office's future in general. They have every right to "whine".

[Edited 2012-02-18 15:12:01]

User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2738 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Here in Canada, The Canadian Post office (Canada Post) has turned a profit for the last 17 years and our country is even bigger and less populated than the USA. It means Canada Post is modernizing under a program called Postal Transformation. We'll have less people, electronically sorted and sequenced mail so lettercarriers spend more time on-street delivering and less time simply sorting mail. Yes they've only ever had 5-day per week delivery but Canadians have never seemed to find that a problem. Canada Post is "owned" by the Canadian Gov't who is their only stockholder, but in actual fact Canada Post operates as a fully independent company. Canada Post actually RETURNS several hundred million dollars per year in profits to the Canadian Government as their dividend.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 1):
I can't speak for FedEx but UPS delivers to every address in the US. Remote Alaska is done through a contract carrier.

That's pretty funny actually because the "contract carrier" for the final part of the journey is actually the USPS. Up here in Canada, Canada Post is actually the delivery agent for UPS and even FedEx for the last part of the trip to more remote destinations. How's that for irony?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
I only expect them to deliver mail, not deliver a certain lifestyle and job security to its many workers.

So what are you saying? That anybody that works for the Post Office shouldn't have any expectation of a decent life? Shouldn't be able to raise a family or afford a home? What do you want... a company that only employees poor people with jobs designed to see that they never can survive or get ahead? What an odd concept.

It's really got nothing to do with how much a worker is paid. It's the productivity of that worker, the amount of revenue per employee that is produced and the amount of value derived from that work.
Sure, mail volumes (letters, bills, etc) are falling due to the internet and electronic communications, but where there is loss there is also opportunity. The internet has brough us on-line shopping and a HUGE increase in parcel delivery. The USPS has to fight to capture their share of that market segment at a price/productivity point that makes them competitive with the likes of FedEx, UPS, etc. It's working smarter and creating more value that makes a company survive and be profitable.

Knee-jerk reactions from the uninformed who immediately think of cutting wages and slashing benefits and pensions is nothing more than a person who simply doesn't know how to change and adapt as the market changes. They only know how to cut and not BUILD value and honest wages for their employees. Hell, take a look at the German Post Office... you know, that company called Deutsche Post DHL. They took one country's post office and created a courier company as well and now that's DHL, even larger than FedEx. Of course as mail volumes fell, they could have just cut salaries and benefits and watched their company slowly fade away. Just like Survivor, a company today needs to Outwit, Outplay and Outlast their competition to succeed.

Now.... the only real question is, Can the USPS do this?


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

They just raised basic rates, to $.45 for a standard 1st Class letter and the USPS is looking for $ .50 probably sometime next year. Even at $ .50, that would still be a lot cheaper than postal services of many countries. For some places and point-to-point deliveries, that might be well over enough, but for some isolated areas, it may be more like $4.50 to make that single letter delivery. Perhaps if one is sending a letter to/from an isolated community, they they ought to charge a lot more like $1.00 or $1.50 each.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 4):
To be fair, as of 2006 the main reason the USPS is struggling is because it has been required to pre-fund 75% of their healthcare benefits for future retirees, which is a 75 year liability, in the next 10 years. No other agency or corporation is required to do this. It is a truly massive expense for them to pay down, and it threatens the Post Office's future in general. They have every right to "whine".

And if the politicians were to re-estructure it, it would mean less expected revenue to the government and higher deficits which is totally opposed by many of them.

Many rural and isolated deliver locations are vital as in many of those areas, they do not have high-speed Internet access for residents there or it might cost $100's/month to be able to offer it. In some areas 6 day/week delivery may be vital for medicine, parts for vehicles, or just to pay bills or do banking. In most rural areas, contract workers are used to actually deliver the mail. Some government subsidies may be suitable to allow those families and businesses in them to be able to stay there and not be forced to move.

One proposal by the USPS is to shut down a lot of offices where others are close by, especially in older suburban areas like where I live in Bergen County, NJ. That is very reasonably, they could consolidate several small size towns USPS offices to one in a strip mall, with plenty of parking, more staff, larger facilities, access to public transit and so on.

Perhaps in some small and isolated communities, or even in some urban/suburban areas, the 'village' agent system where the office would be operated by a local agent in a store (like in the old 'general stores' as done until the 1980's) or in a municipal or county building with some regular hours of service when the store or government office is open. Offer package holding services, so if not home when a package comes, it will be secured at the local USPS office and you go to it when you can. Currently that is a weakness for UPS and FedEx, if you are not home, then you may have to go to the 'hub' which can be many miles away or otherwise very inconvenient.

Some other ideas used in some countries: Operate passenger bus service that would deliver passengers along with the mail. Expand offering basic banking services from ATM's to basic checking and savings, pre-paid debit card accounts, check cashing services for a moderate fee to certain amounts and wiring money, as done in some grocery stores, Walmart and other stores. The USPS already offer some banking services, like postal money orders that are a valuable and reasonable priced service for those without bank accounts or don't want to pay the fees for them.

Clearly though, some adjustments as to compensation and benefits must be made. Make all USPS direct employees be in with Social Security and Medicare and pay for it. Shift to 401(k) like retirement savings plans to get the USPS out of the pension business. Contract out more work done in house, move to more part time workers, reduce the number of supervisors and managers.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
So the Constitution says that Congress has the power to establish a post office and post roads. It does not mandate that the system be self-supporting or profitable.

Or that we have to have a post office at all.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What I'm wondering is: at what point does having a post office make it worthy of public funding?

We passed that point in early 1990s. The problem is, we are a change-adverse society and it is damn near impossible for some people to envision a future that doesn't include everything that exists today.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 4):
To be fair, as of 2006 the main reason the USPS is struggling is because it has been required to pre-fund 75% of their healthcare benefits for future retirees, which is a 75 year liability, in the next 10 years. No other agency or corporation is required to do this. It is a truly massive expense for them to pay down, and it threatens the Post Office's future in general. They have every right to "whine".

Then they should have no problem being privatized and getting out from under the thumb of Congress entirely.

The company where I work is a case-study in how an organization can turn-around if they are cut lose from a neglectful owner and allowed to have self-determination. We had about 20 years of flat revenues and no growth. We brought in a new leadership team after being split-off in 2004 and have since doubled in revenues. We will double again by 2015. The USPS has enormous advantages they could leverage, but they will never be able to do so as a government enterprise. It would be a win for both sides of the political spectrum if they were privatized and able to make use of those advantages.


User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
The other thing is that everyone really should have an address. That means that the USPS needs to deliver to some pretty rural communities and, unlike UPS or FedEx, they can't simply not deliver to such locations because it's not profitable.

People would have addresses with or without the USPS. I can't speak for everywhere but at least here in WA addresses are given to you by the County or City Engineering department.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 1):
I can't speak for FedEx but UPS delivers to every address in the US. Remote Alaska is done through a contract carrier.

To add to that, my mother lives in a very rural part of Alaska. No one gets home delivery, everyone has a PO Box.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2042 times:

I know in my area there are many contract postal units. Not sure exactly how the financial arrangement works, but it makes more sense to me to combine post office functions with tag agencies and banks. The USPS can do the delivery work, but let the counter work be done in mailbox stores and other contract places.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2027 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 5):
So what are you saying? That anybody that works for the Post Office shouldn't have any expectation of a decent life? Shouldn't be able to raise a family or afford a home?

Our topic in this thread is not how people should be able afford their favorite lifestyle. The topic is how a sustainable postal system might work. Many people on a.net have participated in reorganizations of large transportation firms. Some of them quite successful. I think it wouldn't be considered an uninformed or inexperienced group here.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting trav110 (Reply 4):
It is a truly massive expense for them to pay down, and it threatens the Post Office's future in general. They have every right to "whine".

There were obviously some politicians who dislike the Post Office, or have contributors who dislike them. The point is pretty simple to me - there are many who want the government to shrink as much as possible, regardless of the costs, and the Post Office is simply one area where jobs can be drastically cut. Regardless of the increases in unemployment (and related government unemployments payments) and regardless of the other costs that we can face.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 3):
I only expect them to deliver mail, not deliver a certain lifestyle and job security to its many workers.

Here we go again - hatred of decent, middle class compensation. Some believe it is far better to return to serf level existence for others so THEY can supposedly have a "richer" life. Reality is simple, the more we diminish the middle class the more we diminish the country.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
Or that we have to have a post office at all.

While you may believe the US to be some "with it" society, but there is a massive level of demand for postal services in this country. Look at legal documents that have to me physically delivered and certified by the US Government as being delivered. Look at distant (rural) locations that don't have the ease of internet or commercial deliveries.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
The problem is, we are a change-adverse society and it is damn near impossible for some people to envision a future that doesn't include everything that exists today.

The US is actually pretty aggressive when it comes to change, especially in the area of technology. We have also gone through massive changes moving from rural to urban and suburban shifts.

If you want a real picture of change just look at the iPhone. Huge changes since its introduction, both in the use of smart phones by consumers and also huge changes in competitive products trying to match the iPhone's design.

Then look at how mobile this country is. People move around far more than a change-adverse society would. That's why companies like U-Haul are in business. Looking at the last Directory from our high school reunion there are graduates living all over the country, from New England to Texas to California. And overseas also, Africa to Hong Kong.

What we need to address now is the rip off by the politicians, stripping the Post Office of the ability to operate on a sound financial basis. We need to recognize that the Post Office is part of the US Government. And we need to look at reasonable cost reductions. Dropping Saturday deliveries for normal mail works for me, but shutting offices around the country, especially sorting centers, doesn't make sense. Most importantly, we don't need to cut the Post Office so private delivery companies can make greater profits.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

One of the ways the inefficient USPS is trying to earn money is an exponential increase in resource wasting junk mail. I wish there was a do not send junk mail opt out list. I'd be on this list in a NY. minute! If the USPS eliminates Saturday delivery what will happen whern there is one of those government paid Monday holidays? Will we just have to go from Friday to the following Tuesday to receive those rip off credit card offers and Geico car insurance trash can fillers?

Amazingly back in the day (probably before 1967 or 1968) there was mail delivery twice a day! Even beforer the ascention of UPS, Fed X and the Internet what caused the USPS to become the butt of jokes and tales of going postal?



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):
If the USPS eliminates Saturday delivery what will happen whern there is one of those government paid Monday holidays?

Oh, you didn't expect them to work President's day, did you?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
Here we go again - hatred of decent, middle class compensation. Some believe it is far better to return to serf level existence for others so THEY can supposedly have a "richer" life.

People who actually can keep a sharp budget and run organizations that thrive are the whole reason we're not all hunter gatherers currently. I think sharp business thinking has been good for the middle class, more often than not.

Certainly we are a democracy. Once we convert that into an argument that we should all be guaranteed a level of comfort, in our favorite manner of working, I don't think that is a middle class demand. That's privilege. It involves a rich daddy to pay for somebody's dreams. In any event, the free market depends on a threat of destitution. WIthout that, I'm not sure I would check in at the office very often. Maybe a 2 day workweek...  


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4022 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1995 times:

Ah, my favorite topic, the Post Office. If there is one thing I really, really, really, really hate to do is having to even get close to one. Will go without paying my bills if it somehow involves having to go to a post office.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 4):
To be fair, as of 2006 the main reason the USPS is struggling is because it has been required to pre-fund 75% of their healthcare benefits for future retirees, which is a 75 year liability, in the next 10 years.

Which is what every corporation and government agency (not to mention Social Security) should do - not 75% but 100%. You employed someone for a year, you need to put up cash not only for that person's salary but also for the present value of what it costs you to pay that person the promises you made to them in lieu of a higher salary. Not doing so is just kicking the can down the road and creating a GM - way too much room for fudging the numbers. Don't like the discount rate? Tell your buddy Bernanke to stop his war on savers.

Quoting trav110 (Reply 4):
No other agency or corporation is required to do this

Corporations in Brazil are required to have their pension funds 100% funded all the time - I guess the U.S. still has a lot to learn from other countries.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 6):
For some places and point-to-point deliveries, that might be well over enough, but for some isolated areas, it may be more like $4.50 to make that single letter delivery. Perhaps if one is sending a letter to/from an isolated community, they they ought to charge a lot more like $1.00 or $1.50 each.

That is why you get the problem of adverse selection (which the USPS actually tries to encourage with their stupid "Flat Rate" commercials). There are areas of the country where the mail needs to be delivered by helicopter, and yet a shipment there costs the same than sending a Christmas gift to your neighbor. No wonder there are some areas of the country where it actually pays to have the USPS deliver groceries / etc.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 6):
In some areas 6 day/week delivery may be vital for medicine, parts for vehicles, or just to pay bills or do banking

It is the same discussion every time the topic of EAS comes up... you want to live in the middle of nowhere? Fine, but don't expect me to pay for it. I have to live in a dirty, crowded city with over-priced real estate that is eating away at my soul to be able to have all the comforts within a few blocks. You want that as well, be prepared to pay $1,000 / sq ft for an apartment and have aggressive jerk-offs as neighbors.

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 7):
The problem is, we are a change-adverse society and it is damn near impossible for some people to envision a future that doesn't include everything that exists today.

Ironically enough, more often than not those people like to call themselves "progressives" (aka, the type of people who would be protesting in front of Henry Ford's factories complaining about the destruction of good, local, organic buggy-whip manufacturing jobs in only they lived in the early 20th century).

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
Here we go again - hatred of decent, middle class compensation

If it is so decent then why does everytime I go to the Postal Office I get the rudest, laziest people I have ever met? Not enough money and benefits, need some more?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 11):
We need to recognize that the Post Office is part of the US Government. And we need to look at reasonable cost reductions.

Wait, what? Since when can the words "part of the US Government" and "reasonable cost reductions" be uttered together?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2667 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 days ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
If it is so decent then why does everytime I go to the Postal Office I get the rudest, laziest people I have ever met? Not enough money and benefits, need some more?

Because you're going to the wrong Postal Offices.

I've always gotten excellent service...at Back Bay Annex in Boston, at the main downtown Minneapolis PO, at the Rincon Finance Station in San Francisco, that one on Mission Street in Coral Gables (y'all know the one, only I can't think of its Official name).

The only time I've gotten anything approaching rudeitude was at that contract post office in the basement concourse of Two Wachovia Center in Charlotte. Which, as a "contract post office" I guess isn't staffed by actual USPS employees, or what? I do not know how that works. And at all events, the guy wasn't actually rude, he was just groggy. It was between 7am and 8 (I only remember that because I was rushing, I had to meet my co-workers in the lobby of the Hilton by 8am and I got there at like 7:58. Score!   )



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlinecabso1 From Canada, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting photopilot (Reply 5):
Here in Canada, The Canadian Post office (Canada Post) has turned a profit for the last 17 years and our country is even bigger and less populated than the USA. It means Canada Post is modernizing under a program called Postal Transformation. We'll have less people, electronically sorted and sequenced mail so lettercarriers spend more time on-street delivering and less time simply sorting mail. Yes they've only ever had 5-day per week delivery but Canadians have never seemed to find that a problem. Canada Post is "owned" by the Canadian Gov't who is their only stockholder, but in actual fact Canada Post operates as a fully independent company. Canada Post actually RETURNS several hundred million dollars per year in profits to the Canadian Government as their dividend.

CanadaPost charges an arm and a leg for the most basic of services, hikes its rates up every six months and takes longer (and is more expensive) to deliver letters from Vancouver to Toronto than a similar service by the USPS. (4 business days for national letters as opposed to two for the USPS).

If the USPS was to offer a stripped down bare bones service and charge more for it, I'm sure it could turn a profit too.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1910 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):

One of the ways the inefficient USPS is trying to earn money is an exponential increase in resource wasting junk mail.

Funny thing about junk mail - it makes money for those who send it out. Other wise they wouldn't continue spending the money to mail it. That means we have this unexciting flow of business for the Post Office. But it's business and it helps pay the bills.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):
If the USPS eliminates Saturday delivery what will happen whern there is one of those government paid Monday holidays? Will we just have to go from Friday to the following Tuesday

So you miss mail for 3 days. The more the politicians cut various sorting and distribution centers the longer mail will take to arrive anyway, so that 3 days becomes pretty unimportant.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
People who actually can keep a sharp budget and run organizations that thrive are the whole reason we're not all hunter gatherers currently.

Sharp budgets are a pretty queer thing at times. It can mean cutting spending in the short term to make this quarter's numbers, or this years bonus, without regards to long term health of the organization.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
I think sharp business thinking has been good for the middle class, more often than not.

I believe that good business thinking addresses the medium and long term health of the company. Sharp business thinking means moving towards where the customers' needs will be in the future and being ready for them. Apple (my favorite example of a sharp company) has achieved outstanding success by focusing on what the consumer will want to buy in the future. No consumer research needed as consumers don't know what they will want in 2 or 5 years.

then we have the competition who run around trying to catch up with Apple.

Note that I am focused on products and services, not an approach of being obsessive about cutting costs.

Delta was the classic example of obsessive cost cutting. They over cut spending on customer service and got bitch slapped all over the place by their customers - especially the frequent flyer customers. Ended up having to public apologize to the customers as they urgently added personnel and infrastructure to get their standards back up.

So, IMO, "sharp" can many times be the last thing we need in business. My preference is that companies take the medium to long view, take care of customers and grow with a solid workforce that doesn't qualify for government subsidies.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
Once we convert that into an argument that we should all be guaranteed a level of comfort, in our favorite manner of working, I don't think that is a middle class demand.

Where the argument needs to be is on the minimum wage. As long as we allow that minimum wage then we will be spending taxpayer dollars providing government benefits. Food Stamps, Medicaid. You name it and we will be paying it. All because we are bowing down to companies that want to pay out poverty wages. It is corporate welfare and it costs this country a lot.

We really do have a queer setup in some areas. We praise overpriced employer nanny care for some, and praise welfare qualifying wages for others. And we call that "sharp"?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
That's privilege.

The Privilege Class is a bit different than you think. And they are paying out big money to Super Pacs to ensure they keep their privileges.

As for the middle class, that group is shrinking and their buying power if their labors is shrinking. That's the way it will continue until the pendulum swings back at some point in the future.

When you get down to Americans working for the Poast Ofice, the upper class in the US wants to diminish their positions, both in numbers and in compensation, because the Upper Class believes

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
It involves a rich daddy to pay for somebody's dreams.

Sorry, but the rich sugar daddy is funding politicians who will cut their taxes, regardless of the costs to the nation.

Just look at the campaigning for this years election. Super Pacs proving that we are moving to a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.

Big Daddy spending today and making a list of demands for after the election.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 13):
In any event, the free market depends on a threat of destitution

That is exactly the opposite of what a private market depends on. (Free markets don't exist, unless you are talking about the illegal drug market, which operates without government regulations.)

The private markets depend on the optimism of the customer to continually be a customer. Doesn't matter if the customer is a middle class worker or a large corporation the actions of the customer determine the economy's health.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
Which is what every corporation and government agency (not to mention Social Security) should do - not 75% but 100%

Companies today are not going to pay out their future benefits with today's money. First, the companies can look at governments when determining that it isn't that important. Secondly, corporations have moved pretty far from the concept of giving value to employees. Our obsession with quarterly results and other symptoms of MBAitis have diminished the concept of loyalty to employees (and having that loyalty returned) in Corporate America today.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
You employed someone for a year, you need to put up cash not only for that person's salary but also for the present value of what it costs you to pay that person the promises you made to them in lieu of a higher salary.

The best this country will be able to do is called Social Security. Employees match employer contributions via FICA payments for both Social Security and Medicare. The financial sector has been drooling for years when they think about taking that money and conservatives are happily supporting the privatizing of that very successful program.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 14):
I guess the U.S. still has a lot to learn from other countries.

We used to have reputable companies with pension funds, but then the executive levels realized that they could dump those plans and increase their own bonuses. Why fund a program that could cost them on profit related bonuses. So the billions go to the top executives and the working serfs get the shaft.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1893 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
at what point does having a post office make it worthy of public funding?

The ability to provide mail service to every address in the country, every day.

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 1):
I can't speak for FedEx but UPS delivers to every address in the US. Remote Alaska is done through a contract carrier.

Back in the rural reaches of Arkansas, I've seen both FedEx and UPS packages delivered by the US Postal Service. When the volume for an area was very low and the package was not overnight.

But the key item is that while UPS advertises package delivery to every US address, it does not do so, and provide mail pickup every single day. Only on demand.

UPS trucks don't drive the full rural postal carrier routes.

While the USPS definitely has some organizational issues and still needs to trim some fat, I cannot help but believe as long as the USPS is mandated to provide mail service to every address - the deficits will continue.

Daily delivery of bills, letters, etc - is low profit to no profit. While folks want to talk about FedEx and UPS taking the high profit business, a real loss of income for the USPS is advertising material - junk mail. Because of the internet.

I see six post offices in my home county back in Arkansas which cannot be doing $20,000 business yearly with all six combined. Yet they serve about 2,000 addresses every day, with mail carriers driving almost 1,000 miles per day to provide that service.

Consolidating them into one post office in the county seat might save about six salaries. Like that county needs another six people out of work, already running near 20% unemployment. They don't have an illegal immigrant problem because there are no jobs.

Multiply that county by probably some 50 others in Arkansas, 200 in Texas, - say 2,500 across the entire US - you can easily see a billion dollar negative business model.

Do we say the United States is too poor, too backwater a nation to provide mail service to its citizens?

I hope not.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1872 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):
While the USPS definitely has some organizational issues and still needs to trim some fat, I cannot help but believe as long as the USPS is mandated to provide mail service to every address - the deficits will continue.

That requirement is nothing new. Why is it suddenly a useful excuse for a handout.. I agree with the above - privatize the USPS. Our govt does not operate the phone companies or the airlines. Postal service is not necessarily a government competency. Anything the government runs will certainly require big infusions of cash, from China, to be paid by my unborn kids. Enough! We ought to slash what the government does by half. Even then, it would be massively bloated, but that would be a start.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Its seems to be the US mail needs to get with the times and do things much of the rest of the world has found was needed.

I'm rather surprised actually that America - the nation of innovation, strong business culture, and desire to do things as efficiently as possible is stuck with a postal service designed for the 1900s still.


Some good comments made above, and I would say the following:
1) Automate to the maximum and reduce need to staff
2) Remaining staff need benefits matching private industry. Postal service should not be a social security work program by the government. In same light employees should not be guaranteed jobs with poor performance. Like private industry, employees need to earn their jobs on daily basis.
3) Eliminate concept that mail is delivered to every door. Instead deliver to centralized call boxes. This can be done in both dense cities where each block might have a large box, but most importantly rural areas where a central box might serve spread out community over many kilometers.
4) Eliminate need for physical offices in many communities. No need to have post office with low usage. Enter into partnerships with private companies to sell things like stamps, or serve as drop off point.
5) Consider post office enter into other fields. For example in many nations post offices now also have successful banking business. Somehow diversify revenue.


As I said before, I am really amazed by the apparent poor state of US postal service. Reminds me of 3rd world nations in Africa or South Asia for example looking at condition of facilities, staff and service.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1817 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20):
Enter into partnerships with private companies to sell things like stamps, or serve as drop off point.

In some small communities, like my home town, the post office is the LAST business left in town.

I guess the post office could partner with the school, though the county is trying to consolidate those and shut the one in my home town down.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20):
but most importantly rural areas where a central box might serve spread out community over many kilometers.

Please, we are trying to keep my father and most other late eighties and 90 year olds from driving. He scares me when he gets in his car to check his mail at the post office when the weather is not good enough for walking.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1806 times:

To me the short term solution would be outsource, outsource, outsource. The Postal Service already does so with flights and rail, and there are more than enough decent trucking companies in the country that the USPS doesn't need their own trucks.

And I think they should contract out everything as much as possible: long haul trucks, local deliveries, operating local post offices. Put it all out for open bids and the lowest bidder gets the contract to operate a post office location in a given area, deliver mail in a certain area, etc. Obviously there would need to be accountability mechanisms and if no bids are less than the Postal Service could do the job for themselves they would have to retain the service. But honestly, is there really a need for a given subdivision to have trucks from FedEx, UPS, DHL, and USPS rolling through every day? (All the current delivery companies and new entrants should be eligible) Any reason why there needs to be a UPS Store, FedEx Kinko's, and a post office in the neighborhood?

And I think a lot of post offices should probably be closed too and replaced with a combination of internet services, curbside mailboxes, and possibly contract operated locations. That wouldn't be just rural, a lot of the cuts should be in cities. There isn't any reason why suburban dwellers can't go ten miles instead of five if they really must visit an actual, physical post office that badly.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):

To me the short term solution would be outsource, outsource, outsource. The Postal Service already does so with flights and rail, and there are more than enough decent trucking companies in the country that the USPS doesn't need their own trucks.

Outsourcing core business is giving away profit. The core of the post is to move things between places. They have more volume than anyone else and thus should be able to do it cheaper (per item) than everyone else. They should be ruthless in optimizing their routes and sorting. Other companies should be outsourcing to them.

If they can't justify operating their own trucks who can? Why they don't operate their own airplanes??? Trains is the only thing that makes sense to outsource and it makes a lot of sense to use it.

I know a lot of people will have problems to accept this but the next step is to remove the offices. There is very little added value in them. Contract with Walgreens, 7-eleven and a few other chains for those few things.


User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1761 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
And I think they should contract out everything as much as possible: long haul trucks, local deliveries, operating local post offices. Put it all out for open bids and the lowest bidder gets the contract to operate a post office location in a given area, deliver mail in a certain area, etc. Obviously there would need to be accountability mechanisms and if no bids are less than the Postal Service could do the job for themselves they would have to retain the service. But honestly, is there really a need for a given subdivision to have trucks from FedEx, UPS, DHL, and USPS rolling through every day? (All the current delivery companies and new entrants should be eligible) Any reason why there needs to be a UPS Store, FedEx Kinko's, and a post office in the neighborhood?

I don't know where you live at, but where I live, the Post Office is already contracting out all of it's long haul stuff; has been for many years;

Unlike almost everyone on this thread, I don't know what the answer is, but I think from just reading this thread, if the USPS had anyone with any sense running it, I think they could make enough changes to make it work.
As for "too many Post Offices".......I live in a small village, maybe a couple hundred people; our Post Office has been told that it will likely close sometime this summer; recently, they had a "meeting", where concerned residents could "ask questions"; the woman that the USPS sent out to "conduct" the meeting..........if she's representative of the USPS management, then all I can say is.........goodbye Post Office ! The "person" (calling her a "woman" would be a diservice to women everywhere) anyway, she was A. all wrinkled up; looked like she had spent the night in a back seat, doing what we used to do in back seats when I was "younger", (which has been a while) Also, she was rude, used terrible grammar, and had exactly ONE standard answer for every question asked, which was "I have no answer for that" ! Finally, one old guy stood up, and said, "then just what in the hell did we all waste our time and gas money coming down here for, to hear some wrinkled up floozie tell us every time someone asks a question, that you don't have any answer ? At which point everyone present chuckled ! I think TV Channel 10 in Terre Haute really missed out by not having a camera crew come out to cover that meeting; it would would have been the highest rated news show of the year.

So, I suppose I will be driving to Rosedale (7 miles down the road) about once a week to pick up the "important stuff"; did I mention, we ALSO have daily delivery, 6 days a week, to our box out front on our dirt road, which comes out of Rosedale. Not to mention, Fedex and UPS are on our road EVERY day. And the USPS wonders why it's going broke?
I can tell you one thing.............anyone employing "Miss Wrinkle-Pants" DESERVES to go broke!

In all honesty, I suppose I'm partly to blame for the USPS's problems. We buy more stuff on-line anymore than we do when we go to town; and about 75 % of the time, either Fed Ex or "Buster Brown" delivers it. I have two "front porch dogs.......a half border collie, half coyote mix, and a big old 100 lb black Lab; When the UPS guy stops, it's the highlight of their day.......he always gives them each a big dog biscuit; ( I'm surprised he wastes his dog biscuits on our guys though, because he knows by now that they just love him. )

At the end of the day, the USPS is just like a million other "businesses" that have fallen, or are about to fall by the wayside, because they just can't compete; you can argue all day long about the USPS isn't part of the Government; but it's a joke; not very funny at that; all my life, the Post Office has been "THE PLACE TO WORK"........great security, more paid holidays than anyone (except for members of Congress) Great pay,........hey. who wouldn't want to work there? The problem is, it's all made them a "target"; everyone else is jealous ! When I started driving for union trucking companies in 1956, there were THOUSANDS of union freight companies; last I looked, there are about a dozen left. I always have said, you just can't have two "groups" doing the same thing, and one group making twice as much as the other group; sooner or later something going to give; It looks to me like it is now "later".

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20):
Its seems to be the US mail needs to get with the times and do things much of the rest of the world has found was needed.

The Post Office is doing a reasonable job with product development. My son does a bit of selling on ebay and only uses the Post Office. First the pricing is good, then the PO delivers Priority Mail boxes to his door at no charge and the "If it fits it ships" motto actually works.

I've mentioned UPS to him before and he use says it's not a contest for him.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20):
Automate to the maximum and reduce need to staff

The PO has long had automation, but you can't totally eliminate personnel when it comes to handling the volumes that are processed. UPS and FedEx are in the same boat when it comes to automation.

Where the PO can trim personnel fat is at the mid management level. But that would probably require the ability to legally delegate

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 20):
As I said before, I am really amazed by the apparent poor state of US postal service.

The Post Office works just as well for me as UPS and Fed Ex does. I'm a customer in that i have deliveries from all three organizations delivered to my house. In comparing the three I see no justification in putting the private companies above the public Post Office.

If you take away the legalized sucking of cash from the PO by politicians you are left with an organization that can compete very well with the private sector and that, I believe, is an desirable situation.

And, while government workers tend to take a lot of hits when compared to the "private sector" the simp reality is that the private sector can deliver pretty bad performance as well, Look at Continental Airlines and their bankruptcies. Not a great example of comparing public and private operations. But a realistic one.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Most of what they deliver is sh!t anyways. Subsidized junkmail. Getting rid of the USPS would be an economic and environmental plus.

At a minimum, competition should be legalized in first class mail. These guys have a monopoly here and still lose money.

And if you live in the middle of nowhere, get a PO Box in the nearest town. Have someone go check it as often as you'd like. It's called ORGANIZATION. Use it and 95% of the inconvinence of not having delivery to your door (a luxury really) goes away.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinecanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2839 posts, RR: 12
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 6):
Many rural and isolated deliver locations are vital as in many of those areas, they do not have high-speed Internet access for residents there or it might cost $100's/month to be able to offer it. In some areas 6 day/week delivery may be vital for medicine, parts for vehicles, or just to pay bills or do banking. In most rural areas, contract workers are used to actually deliver the mail. Some government subsidies may be suitable to allow those families and businesses in them to be able to stay there and not be forced to move.

One proposal by the USPS is to shut down a lot of offices where others are close by, especially in older suburban areas like where I live in Bergen County, NJ.

I don't see a reason why a physical post office location has to be open 6 days a week. I've always thought that in areas where two POs are reasonably close to each other one staff could operate both locations on a 3 days a week basis rather than close one.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 12):
I wish there was a do not send junk mail opt out list.

There are companies already that do that for you:

https://www.catalogchoice.org/
http://thelivinggreensolution.com/junk-your-junk-mail/

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
Funny thing about junk mail - it makes money for those who send it out. Other wise they wouldn't continue spending the money to mail it. That means we have this unexciting flow of business for the Post Office. But it's business and it helps pay the bills.

A friend of mine works in the direct mail industry. Yes, she's the one that sends out all those unwanted offers. She told me once that their company considers it a successful mail campaign if they get around 1% of those offers returned. They literally send out millions of letters a day. Most are sent from centralized printing offices.



The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

It seems to me, that the concept that every address is served by the USPS need to be modified. If people are too isolated, or live in too rural settings they themselves need to figure out and venture to a larger community to access the mail.

Secondly, better cost recovery is needed. If the USPS will serve as a business as many desire, than the fee of services needs to better match to cost to produce them.

For an example, below is the charge for domestic letters in US Dollar in a host of countries which I found online.
For reference charge in the US currently is $0.45:

UK - $0.57 UK Isles, $1.07 mainland Europe.
Germany - $0.73 domestic, $0.99 Europe
France - $0.80
Japan - $1.13
Australia - $0.64
Brazil - $0.75
Canada - $0.61
South Africa - $0.65

It seems the US is hopelessly underpricing its postal mail rates.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 28):
It seems to me, that the concept that every address is served by the USPS need to be modified.

The USPS has rural delivery, but they don't drive up to every home. It's not uncommon to see multiple mailboxes at one location, covering those families in that location. It is a balance that actually works.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 28):
Secondly, better cost recovery is needed.

Cost recovery isn't the problem, the political rip off that demands abnormally high payments is the rip off. The Post Office has to make all these payments, but the other government agencies don't. How bloody queer is that? Right now the USPS is targeted by those trying to force a smaller government, regardless of the degrading of government services.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
but the other government agencies don't. How bloody queer is that?

All government agencies should fully account for their costs on a yearly basis. If it is too expensive, costs should be cut. The government will be around a long time. So, it is only prudent to book employee compensation as it accrues.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Cost recovery isn't the problem, the political rip off that demands abnormally high payments is the rip off.

Well if revenue is not the issue then lets focus on the operating cost. For instance, per story I read, over 80% of cost of USPS is employee cost. High civil servant pay and benefits must be adjusted to better match private industries.

I knew someone that worked as a courier in NYC and earned $12/hr which seems more reasonable than the average postal employee making $83,000 in 2010.

Something has to give. Either revenue increases, or cost decline.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 11 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 30):
All government agencies should fully account for their costs on a yearly basis. If it is too expensive, costs should be cut. The government will be around a long time. So, it is only prudent to book employee compensation as it accrues.

The political reality is that politicians might require the USPS to pay billions of dollars into funds (basically taking operating revenues from the USPS) but they are not going to require they they do it themselves. Not going to happen.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 31):
Well if revenue is not the issue then lets focus on the operating cost.

It is far cheaper to simply run the USPS as part of the federal government and avoid the cash games that politicians are playing.

The USPS is capable of operating at a level that covers costs and provides funding for the future needs, like new technology. It should not need to deliver a "profit". User funding of operations is all we really need.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 31):
High civil servant pay and benefits must be adjusted to better match private industries.

In terms of pay, I am against civil service going to the minimum wages that private industry uses. It is a poverty level wage requiring more federal funds for various welfare programs., Better known as corporate welfare.

I do, however, support moving all federal employees to a Medicare type health care program. It is totally ignorant to pay out massive sums of money to private insurance companies when the coverage can be directly delivered at a far cheaper cost. The federal government should't be in the business of providing private health insurance companies with profits, especially when we have such a huge deficit.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 9 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 31):
I knew someone that worked as a courier in NYC and earned $12/hr which seems more reasonable than the average postal employee making $83,000 in 2010.

From where did you get 83k average? Per http://www.fedsdatacenter.com/UspsPayRates/averages_by_state shows it is nowhere close.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
It is far cheaper to simply run the USPS as part of the federal government and avoid the cash games that politicians are playing.

The USPS is capable of operating at a level that covers costs and provides funding for the future needs, like new technology. It should not need to deliver a "profit". User funding of operations is all we really need.

I see. You prefer to take post office, and bury it inside as part of general government service.

But to me it seems this will only make financial quick sand more painful and bury problem even deeper.

I understood, that the mood in US by your President and other parties was to cut expenditures, not to continue even more money out.

The US can watch the examples of many nations now, that have turned civil service industry into efficient profit making enterprise. The concept of turning a 19th century dinosaur into an efficient enterprise is not a odd concept.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
In terms of pay, I am against civil service going to the minimum wages that private industry uses. It is a poverty level wage requiring more federal funds for various welfare programs., Better known as corporate welfare.

Well I think one problem is the average USPS employee makes about 3x the average US wage.

From what I understand there is no higher education requirement for most jobs in post office, unlike much of private industry which places importance on things like education.

Appears civil service is greatly overpaying for a service rendered by USPS employees.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
From where did you get 83k average?

See >>>>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/03/29/lost-in-the-mail.html

Newsweek story in 2010.

"Perhaps the biggest failure of the five-day delivery plan is that it ignores 80 percent of the Postal Service's costs: labor. Postmaster Potter has made headway in reducing work hours and the costs of benefits and pensions, but the average postal employee still makes $83,000 in salary and benefits a year, placing postal workers among the highest-paid government employees."


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 8 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
See >>>>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/03/29/lost-in-the-mail.html

Newsweek story in 2010.

"Perhaps the biggest failure of the five-day delivery plan is that it ignores 80 percent of the Postal Service's costs: labor. Postmaster Potter has made headway in reducing work hours and the costs of benefits and pensions, but the average postal employee still makes $83,000 in salary and benefits a year, placing postal workers among the highest-paid government employees."

How do you explain the big discrepancy between this and the public information?


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 35):
How do you explain the big discrepancy between this and the public information?

Lies, damn lies, and statistics is very likely the source of the difference.

I remember the lies of the UAW about how little their workers made back in 2008.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
It is far cheaper to simply run the USPS as part of the federal government and avoid the cash games that politicians are playing.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
You prefer to take post office, and bury it inside as part of general government service.

This is kind of the key question.

To most folks on this thread - the US Postal Service should be a business. In competition with others like FedEx and UPS.

However, to a great many of the voters of the United States - the US Postal Service is an essential government service, along the lines of police, fire protection, municipal water, streets and roads, etc.

Does anyone doubt that if members of Congress voted to completely privatize the US Postal Service, to quit funding postal buildings, to quit messing with USPS attempts to close under performing post offices, etc - that those members of Congress would be voted out of office?

The problem with those small towns with mostly older people who do not use the internet, UPS or FedEx is that they vote. And in much higher percentages than those 'concerned' young people in cities and suburbs who think the USPS should be a competitive business.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 37):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
It is far cheaper to simply run the USPS as part of the federal government and avoid the cash games that politicians are playing.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
You prefer to take post office, and bury it inside as part of general government service.

This is kind of the key question.

But it's also insane to bury it inside general government services. If you think the USPS financial situation is bad, it would have been magnitudes worse had it not been told to be run indepedently. Politicians would have been much more involved, improvements in productivity that have been untertaken would have been demonized as "job killers", and politicians would have capitalized on increasing it's payroll to the max to corner votes.

To subsidize this means taking more and more money out of the market, where it is used productively, and burn it all on something that doesn't produce anything extra.

The only good option is privatize to turn this insitution into a productive member of society that doesn't cost us more than we value it's services.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 37):
Does anyone doubt that if members of Congress voted to completely privatize the US Postal Service, to quit funding postal buildings, to quit messing with USPS attempts to close under performing post offices, etc - that those members of Congress would be voted out of office?

Privatization in other countries of varying assets has been followed by both re-election and lost elections depending on the case.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1413 times:

I am not sure that politicians voting to change things at post office will be punished. Some voters as seen on this website would welcome change, and would back their politicians.

What I find a bit amazing is, we are here talking about the US, not India, or former USSR. The US after all is the land of private enterprise, efficiency, development, etc but is stuck with a 19th century post office system which people are afraid to reform. Quite a contradiction in my view.

Even heavy pro labor markets like Europe have very successfully taken civil service function of post office, and turned them into world class enterprises. Why not America?


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
You prefer to take post office, and bury it inside as part of general government service.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
The concept of turning a 19th century dinosaur into an efficient enterprise is not a odd concept.
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
From what I understand there is no higher education requirement for most jobs in post office, unlike much of private industry which places importance on things like education.

Can there be promotion from within? No doubt about that. But you local mailman will not be transferred to a position in the IT Department where he will be programming for new sorting machines. Unless, of course, he has taken the courses and learned how to program those machines.

In terms of "management" positions, I believe we have fallen in love with the unnecessary needs for MBAs so show us the way. My personal opinion is that MBAs can be far too short sighted, especially when working towards a quarterly performance review, or this year's bonus.

Is there any reason why people can't work their way up the promotion ladder with experience, good judgement and hard work? Gotta have that MBA?

I believe that a lot of times managers promoted from within because of experience and judgement can provide for some very stable management.

Important comparison these days, Mitt Romney's father didn't have a college education, but he did achieve a lot. Far more than many of those glorified MBAs will ever achieve.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 34):
Appears civil service is greatly overpaying for a service rendered by USPS employees.

Like all jobs you first need to look at the take home pay and the quality of life that provides. I doubt if many mailmen are living in the elite areas of their town.

Then you need to look at other costs. It's no secret that I believe in ending the over priced health care provided to government workers. Dump the very expensive private health insurance and move those employees to a Medicare type system. That cuts tens of billions of costs for the tax payers while maintaining decent medical care for employees.

You can't complain about "overpayment" of public workers while at the same time fighting to support the unnecessarily expensive private health insurance provided to them.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1358 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 36):
Lies, damn lies, and statistics is very likely the source of the difference.

I wish it could explain the number you presented but not even that is enough to bring it to your astronomical number.


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 40):
Like all jobs you first need to look at the take home pay and the quality of life that provides. I doubt if many mailmen are living in the elite areas of their town.

Well consider average personal income is $27,334 for your American citizen per your census webpage, having mail workers earn average $83,000 or even $50,000 in my opinion seems to be unjustified.

While yes, some positions would require expert knowledge and education, the bulk of frontline employees and mail delivery folks hardly need more than a high school education per USPS employment requirement. To see such high earnings I think is crazy when one looks at the remainder of society. Many postal workers are equivalent to staff at fast food restaurants, and should get paid similar in a true market economy without inflated civil service pay regulations. This is a big reason US post office finances are sick, as you pay salary not commensurate with rest of happening in country in my opinion.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1316 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 42):
Well consider average personal income is $27,334 for your American citizen

All that amount shows is that the quality of life in the US is falling. I see no reason working hard to push more Americans down to that level.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 42):
To see such high earnings I think is crazy when one looks at the remainder of society.

As I mentioned above, I am against the over payments to private insurance companies when a Medicare type program delivers far more bang for the buck.

But that doesn't mean that I support the diminishment of Americans. I'm not a supporter of poverty level minimum wages so corporate executives can get larger compensation packages.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 42):
Many postal workers are equivalent to staff at fast food restaurants, and should get paid similar in a true market economy without inflated civil service pay regulations.

I have a hard time understanding your hatred of the USPS employees. Or your desire to push more people into the lower economic class.

When you look at the attacks on the middle class it appears to be an obsession to push working Americans down as far as possible. This is not making the country better - just the opposite.


User currently offlinekeagkid101 From Portugal, joined Mar 2010, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1314 times:

This is what needs to happen:

1. Cut down benefits for retirees-- make it decent but not extravagant and elegant. This includes cutting down insurance benefits because most people over age 65 can get Medicare.
2. Scrap Saturday delivery--everyone should get a weekend. Including the postal workers. This would save millions.
3. Eliminate all extravagant shipping methods--cut down to a few (overnight, 2-3 business days, priority 3-5 business days, standard, parcel post, etc.). There is no need to have a million and one different methods.
4. Cut down the number of post offices in one area--In my city, which only has 90,000 residents, we have 6 post offices. It is completely unnecessary. We should have 3--one for each end of the city


User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1281 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
I have a hard time understanding your hatred of the USPS employees. Or your desire to push more people into the lower economic class.

No hatred. They are human like all.

However I question wisdom in overpaying for a service provided by low skill/education profession.

With US having significant budget problem, and mounting debt, why over pay when you don't need to? Imagine how savings can be applied to paying debt, and building a stronger economic foundation for future, instead of pouring billions in a seeming deep hole today.

Again, nothing against people, just seems rather bizarre in America of all countries the desire to protect or avoid making hard decision regarding a dying entity as postal service. Even in Europe where unions in civil service is very strong, government realized that major changes were required in postal enterprises and function.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1269 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Other companies should be outsourcing to them.

But they aren't because the costs are too far out of control. The point of the post office is to make sure that mail can get to every address in the nation, which is an admirable goal. It doesn't really matter what name is on the side of the truck that delivers it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
When you look at the attacks on the middle class it appears to be an obsession to push working Americans down as far as possible. This is not making the country better - just the opposite.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could get rich flipping burgers? Or go play a round of golf at the country club after a long day flipping the sign between "Slow" and "Stop" on the side of the road?

Of course reality puts a bit of a damper on the workers' paradise. Paying mail carriers sixty or eighty grand a year isn't a formula to save the economy. That's a formula for really expensive mail. And I appreciate the efforts of the people who pick fruit all day long, but not enough to pay $10 for a grapefruit. As long as there is someone else out there who can put beans, rice, meat, sour cream, cheese, lettuce, and salsa into a tortilla just as well as the person currently behind the counter, there is not reason for me to pay $12 for a burrito that currently costs $10.

Not to mention that FedEx and UPS are not exactly known for exploiting their workers and yet they make a profit, so clearly something is broken in the Postal Service. Part of the problem may be public servants marking time, which is something that has no place in this century.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 47, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1271 times:

Meet the new and improved USPS where to earn back their solvency they feature "Going Postal weekend/re-enactment retreats!"

http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/going_postaltxcard21.jpg




I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 48, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1231 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 41):
I wish it could explain the number you presented but not even that is enough to bring it to your astronomical number.

Oh, but the UAW-GM numbers were off by what, 100%?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1190 times:

Quoting keagkid101 (Reply 44):
1. Cut down benefits for retirees-- make it decent but not extravagant and elegant. This includes cutting down insurance benefits because most people over age 65 can get Medicare.

Retiree benefits have been earned in the area of monthly retirement checks.

I have no problem, however, with eliminating the private health insurance coverage by moving the retirees to Medicare - regardless of their age.

Quoting keagkid101 (Reply 44):
2. Scrap Saturday delivery--everyone should get a weekend. Including the postal workers. This would save millions.

I'll agree with normal Saturday delivery, even when there is a Monday holiday. There is, however, a need to be competitive with FedEx and UPS, using specific Saturday Delivery rates. Not a big deal.

And we need to remember that, like UPS & FedEx, there is a lot of activity out of normal week day hours. That is going to continue to function.

Quoting keagkid101 (Reply 44):
3. Eliminate all extravagant shipping methods--cut down to a few (overnight, 2-3 business days, priority 3-5 business days, standard, parcel post, etc.). There is no need to have a million and one different methods.

The USPS uses trucks and planes. Maybe trains in some areas of the country. They compete with private competition on the services they offer. And I doubt if that is a million and one different services.

Quoting keagkid101 (Reply 44):
4. Cut down the number of post offices in one area--In my city, which only has 90,000 residents, we have 6 post offices. It is completely unnecessary. We should have 3--one for each end of the city
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 45):

You have a preference for limiting post offices to one per 30,000 instead of one per 15,000? Will those 3 you prefer need to be increased in size to handle double the load? How about the increased personnel working in those 3 spaces?

Obviously you have no problems if mail takes another day or two, but would businesses?

What about those with PO Boxes? How would you handle those customers who are cut off from their current access? Is your town small enough that there is no deterioration of services for them?

Looks like we are going to have a closing of a sorting center in Tulsa. Hundreds of jobs lost, but that can be covered with Food Stamps, Medicaid and a lot of other government services. As well as the government paying out unemployment.

The problem that is a concern is that all mail will go from TUL to OKC for sorting, then back to TUL. If I mail a check to my dentist it will travel 200 miles before being delivered within a half mile of my house. That delay (and extra costs) will not be a problem for me, but it also deteriorates performances for businesses in the area. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 45):
However I question wisdom in overpaying for a service provided by low skill/education profession.

Every job not requiring a university degree is low skill? Gotta keep them at poverty minimum wage? What a great way to lower the standard of living in America. Personally I believe this attack on the average American is a far greater risk to our future than any terrorist.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 45):
Imagine how savings can be applied to paying debt, and building a stronger economic foundation for future, instead of pouring billions in a seeming deep hole today.

Not going to happen. More people pushed down into lower economic levels takes away from the long term economic strength of the country and deteriorates our economic foundation.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 45):
regarding a dying entity as postal service.

The postal service has not been totally replaced by the internet, FedEx and UPS.

Companies still send out bills - I just got one today from the phone company. Companies still send out junk mail and brochures. The wife got those today. The Express Mail boxes are an excellent alternative to UPS for sending packages for the small businesses. Certified mail is still the legal standard for various legal matters. And the USPS is still delivering more material to my neighborhood than either UPS or FedEx.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Wouldn't it be nice if you could get rich flipping burgers?

Let's look at that minimum wage job. Poverty level wages (obviously) so the top of the food chain can make far more money. We let the business pay so little because we know that we can use taxpayer dollars to make up that minimum wage to a reasonable level with Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. We call it welfare, but in reality it is corporate welfare. Gets even worse for those in a job that has a reliance on tips. Their pay? About $2.50 an hour IIRC. But you sound like a guy who tips 20% or higher.

We don't need to worry about burger flippers getting rich. We just need to worry about the level of poverty they are kept at in order to boost corporate profits. We need to worry about the tax dollars that are needed to minimize the very real hazards of minimum wage poverty. And we need to worry about that this minimum wage poverty is increasing in America.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49):
We don't need to worry about burger flippers getting rich. We just need to worry about the level of poverty they are kept at in order to boost corporate profits. We need to worry about the tax dollars that are needed to minimize the very real hazards of minimum wage poverty. And we need to worry about that this minimum wage poverty is increasing in America.

I suppose we should outlaw low wage jobs in this country... so only affluent people can work?


User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2738 posts, RR: 18
Reply 51, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1167 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Not to mention that FedEx and UPS are not exactly known for exploiting their workers and yet they make a profit, so clearly something is broken in the Postal Service.

Duh.... take a look at the rates. A 1/20 lb envelope from New York to Los Angeles....

The absolute cheapest FedEx rate is $11.87 and that's for a 4 day delivery.
Two day delivery (roughly USPS) is $46.16.

And the USPS for a 1st class letter (which actually weighs more)..... $0.45 cents!!!!!!

So, maybe the way for the USPS to be competitive is to simply raise their rates to the same as FedEx. Want to hear the howls of outrage then? But then at least they'd have enough money to be profitable.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 50):
I suppose we should outlaw low wage jobs in this country.

What we should outlaw is the corporate welfare. Set a minimum wage that is above the poverty line, which means that people working don't need food stamps or Medicaid or any other federal welfare payment. Other countries can manage that so I can't see why the US seems incapable. Maybe it is the massive campaign contributions that keep wages so low.

Actually, the same minim wage should apply to those who have "tip wages".

If you don't believe employers can pay decent wages and be successful then take a look at places like Australia.

Of course some people prefer we keep moving the average employee down to the serf level.  


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 53, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1070 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 52):
Set a minimum wage that is above the poverty line, which means that people working don't need food stamps or Medicaid or any other federal welfare payment. Other countries can manage that so I can't see why the US seems incapable.

Give us an example of a country with a minimum wage so high, they don't need safety nets.

It doesn't exist, because your argument is completely illogical. Minimum wages actually worsen poverty.

[Edited 2012-02-24 07:30:38]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1051 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 53):
Give us an example of a country with a minimum wage so high, they don't need safety nets.

You are talking about two different things. The first is a minimum wage so low that those working a normal work week fail to make a living where safety nets are not need.

The second is the need for a safety net for those who are not working.

While this second use of a safety net is necessary and valid the need for a safety net because we allow employers to pay poverty levels is not necessary. It is the taxpayer subsidizing these employers in the form of corporate welfare.]

So, in the first instance where minimum wages can allow employees to work without this safety net an example would be Australia.

In the second instance, where minimum wages are so low that taxpayers provide help (like Meidcaid) the best example I know of is the US.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 55, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1037 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49):
We let the business pay so little because we know that we can use taxpayer dollars to make up that minimum wage to a reasonable level with Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc. We call it welfare, but in reality it is corporate welfare.

Welfare is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if minimum wage results in me paying $15 for a meal that used to cost $10 or businesses giving 2/3 of employees a raise and laying off the other third (or just leaving completely) it probably isn't worth it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1033 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
You are talking about two different things. The first is a minimum wage so low that those working a normal work week fail to make a living where safety nets are not need.

Occasionally you hear rhetoric from this or that bargaining unit to the effect of "how can I raise my family and sent my 4 children to college on this salary [given that I have a lot of discretionary spending habits also]"

Oh, plus: "[... given that houses are SO EXPENSIVE here in SFO or New York City]"

Where for me, it kind of goes in reverse. If you make $8/hr, maybe living in your parents' basement in Arkansas is all you can afford. Or your friend's basement. Speaking of kids, it is kind of ideal to find a well paying career at the very same time as the kids happen. Or even beforehand. It is not society's job necessarily to figure this out for people.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8269 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1020 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
Welfare is irrelevant.

The corporate welfare the taxpayers get stuck with is relevant.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
What is relevant is that if minimum wage results in me paying $15 for a meal that used to cost $10 or businesses giving 2/3 of employees a raise and laying off the other third (or just leaving completely) it probably isn't worth it.

Remember that $10 meal was served to you by someone making $2.50 an hour plus the hope you will leave them a tip. So how much of a tip would you leave that person on $2.50 an hour? Looking at your concern about that $10 meal going up I'd bet you would go with $1 - if the service was really, really good.

From my experience eating out in Australia and New Zealand on business trips there are plenty of places to eat, they are doing a good business and they are not paying $2.50 an hour. Tips are not necessary because they are paying a living wage. And the taxpayers there are not stuck with corporate welfare payments related to poverty level wages.

So your $15 meal will be selling very well. And the service will be good, as is the food.

In terms of employees being laid off, take a look at the huge costs of employer nanny care. That is going to have more impact than honest wages. Shift that nanny care rip off to a Medicare type program and employers can increase employment.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 58, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 996 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):

Increasing the minimum wage will not reduce welfare - it will increase unemployment, and with it, welfare.

In no way are food stamps and the like a form of corporate welfare. Cut them out, and these people will continue with the same wages.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1471 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 981 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57):
Looking at your concern about that $10 meal going up

I am quite surprised, that you would happily pay $15 for a $10 meal.

Most people (consumers) look to try to get things as discount as possible, not wilfully overpaying.

Unless you are someone with no care for money, each $1 spent must be maximized, and if all of a sudden a business decides to raise fees simply to pay employees more, its very likely they would loose clients that opt to go with more budget providers instead.

Anyhow - as you said yourself in previous post, its not revenue that is a problem with USPS. So it must be the cost then.

Here we have people with low skill getting paid at extremely high rates. The answer is to cut cost to match market better. Again it foolish to pay someone $83,000 average when job can be done for $35,000. This is not pushing people into welfare, but instead matching the skills better with market realities. If people want to get that $83,000 then suggest they have gone to school, got more high value job. This is like story New York City paying over $100,000 for trash man. Crazy.

All overpaying high wages accomplished is create huge budget hole, or needlessly drive up cost of end service and force public to subsidize such over cost.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Original "Black Adder" - Your Views? posted Sat Feb 18 2012 00:29:21 by kaitak
The Ads You Get posted Wed Feb 15 2012 22:27:22 by DocLightning
Could We See A Toyota 86 Based Sedan In The Future posted Tue Feb 14 2012 11:43:20 by 747400sp
The US Military - A Sense Of Entitlement? posted Tue Feb 14 2012 04:50:38 by UAL747
Planning A Trip To The Big Island Of Hawaii-Ideas? posted Sun Feb 12 2012 19:31:15 by N174UA
I Am The Anti-technology posted Sun Feb 12 2012 07:21:12 by FingerLakerAv8r
Apple Seeks Ban Of Galaxy Nexus In The US posted Sun Feb 12 2012 06:38:40 by racko
Any Updates On The Iowa Move To Los Angeles? posted Sat Feb 11 2012 20:11:54 by 747400sp
Why Did The Deroit Diesel Series 50 Fail? posted Thu Feb 9 2012 16:39:00 by 747400sp
Who Owns The Intectual Property (Copyright).. posted Mon Feb 6 2012 16:21:32 by varigb707