USPS Deserves to go down

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Originally Posted By: Pablo


Lastly, eliminate the postal worker union. Pay them a fair wage, and offer a 401K.



Good luck with that one!

More likely scenario in this crazy world we live in...create an economic climate where the ownership from the rightful owners can be stollen due to their desperate financial position, itself a result of said economic climate, declare their assets and guarantees invalid then give a percentage equity stake in the "new" USPS to the employees Union.


Well why not go back to what Ie said a few times... Let the USPS employees pay for health and retirement at the same rate that normal federal employees do. I dont think people get this, the USPS union lets them pay LESS than the rest of the federal government for this stuff.

When youre mooching billions because of loosing money, this should be the first thing to go. Sorry, USPS employees.

 

[SteveSRT8]

This is sadly true. We just cannot afford the long term legacy costs. I think it's criminal that things were promised and may not be delivered, but it appears that it may hurt a little to fix it.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
This is sadly true. We just cannot afford the long term legacy costs. I think it's criminal that things were promised and may not be delivered, but it appears that it may hurt a little to fix it.


Right. Its not THAT bad... federal employees co-pay into the heath insurance, TSP and retirement system. Just obtain parity with the rest of the folks, not a better deal. It has to reduce the USPS "costs"/losses by 50%.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I think it's criminal that things were promised and may not be delivered, but it appears that it may hurt a little to fix it.

It was criminal (in todays world) to have slaves. It got changed bc it was wrong. It made no sense to promise something (benefits) that is now undeliverable.

Is the solution to continue something that is not affordable? Would you want to survive by going out finding cockroaches to feed you and your family while Government workers get retirements and medical no one else can afford?

Unfortunately there are not enough people that understand our whole existence in this country is Ponzi-ism on steroids.

 

[SteveSRT8]

You are correct Al. Sadly the payments of today pay the people of before. That is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme!

But we should have all screamed bloody murder the first time they raided the social security trust fund. Now all we have is an IOU from a Congress that's crooked! And BROKE!

I think our elected officials need to fear the electorate.

 

[mechanicx]

The question has to be asked why healthcare and retirement can't be afforded. To just simply say no healthcare or retirement for you is a scheme. Maybe healthcare is over priced? Maybe the postal service provides too much service at too low of a price. What about the fact that the postal service is being required to fully fund it's future healthcare obligations while most no one else is?

Point is we don't know the budget and where the money is going. To say that healthcare, retirement, SS etc is a ponzi scheme is not necessarily correct. It depends on how they are administered. If that were the case all insurance would be necesarily a ponzi scheme. To just say were going to cut compensation may be the bigger scheme. We need to look at all the financial numbers to make the call and to make solution.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The question has to be asked why healthcare and retirement can't be afforded. To just simply say no healthcare or retirement for you is a scheme. Maybe healthcare is over priced? Maybe the postal service provides too much service at too low of a price. What about the fact that the postal service is being required to fully fund it's future healthcare obligations while most no one else is?


My Vanguard 401k report this period said about 1.5% of its gain come from the booming health care sector profit, that their stock price went up something in 40% due to increase ability to handle the profit loss from the wave of pharmaceutical patents expiration.

Look for things that the main stream and faux medias do not tell you, and always follow the money. You'll then find the answer.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
You are correct Al. Sadly the payments of today pay the people of before. That is pretty much the definition of a Ponzi scheme!


It is...but...
The baby boomers have told my generation that it's up to us to save for our retirement, and we have mandated retirement savings of 9%, tax effective voluntary of 6%, and people are saving like never before...for their retirement...can't access them until 67 (they keep retiring at 58, and making us work longer).

Now, in only a few short years (literally a couple of decades), retirement savings are equivalent to the Oz GDP, and for the system to function, need to be earning 6-8%.

In a few more decades, what's the return on a bunch of money that's some many multiples of the GDP that can't be touched for another 40 years ?

I'm starting to form the belief that maybe the Govt would be better building hospitals and roads, opening up land for housing (and yes, paying the baby boomers' legacy retirement costs) today with the money on the promise of paying for my retirement in 24 years time.

 

[PandaBear]

Retirement saving of a nation is really fluctuating depends on the population age distribution.

If you have a lot of young people working and not too many old people, then it is easy for the system to work with great benefit. Either tax the young people to pay the old at the current time, or having the old buy assets or investment that eventually can be sold to the young to pay for the retirement themselves and the low supply and high demand will take care of the pricing.

Reverse the trend in a industrialization world, and have a lot more old people than the young people (too poor to have children, working longer before having children, and not wanting too many children, etc), you will run into problem. If you have the young people taxed heavily to pay for the old at the current time, you'll burden them to death or not paying enough to support the retiree. If you have the old people saved up their entire lives and now need to sell their assets and investments to pay for the old, you'll have low demand and high supply to worry about, which is still not sufficient to pay for the old's need.

You can blame anyone 100 or 200 years back, but the point is, the result is the same. It is a population age problem that every developed nation (and a couple developing nation like Russia with massive emigrants) faces.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

You can blame anyone 100 or 200 years back, but the point is, the result is the same. It is a population age problem that every developed nation (and a couple developing nation like Russia with massive emigrants) faces.

Very true Panda. At one time there were 40+ people working and one collecting SS. Now its 3 to 1.

The system will self correct just like overpopulation on the planet will self correct. But those living (no matter what age) won't like the results.

 

[65cuda]

Remember that the private companies aren't shipping the unprofitable stuff like USPS is. You want to have to pay the higher rates for postal service if Fed Ex gets the job? Do you think that the private companies will provide the service that the USPS does? For me I've had good service from the PS, but have had packages delivered to the wrong place or damaged. When I go to the post office the people are reasonably fast, polite and cheaper than the others. I agree that the postal service needs some downsizing and I believe that they are working in that direction, but I wouldn't wish for the private companies to start taking it over, because I just might get my wish.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Remember that the private companies aren't shipping the unprofitable stuff like USPS is. Do you think that the private companies will provide the service that the USPS does? For me I've had good service from the PS, but have had packages delivered to the wrong place or damaged. When I go to the post office the people are reasonably fast, polite and cheaper than the others.

Your post says exactly why the Post office and the Federal government are going broke. They do what makes no sense...delivering a 44 cent letter that should be costing
twice as much.

Quote:
You want to have to pay the higher rates for postal service if Fed Ex gets the job?


yes. What is wrong paying for the actual cost of delivering a letter. And in the end you know it willj cost less than the actual cost of the P.O to deliver the same letter.

Are you comfortable that the Government looses money on every letter that it delivers?

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Remember that the private companies aren't shipping the unprofitable stuff like USPS is. You want to have to pay the higher rates for postal service if Fed Ex gets the job? Do you think that the private companies will provide the service that the USPS does? For me I've had good service from the PS, but have had packages delivered to the wrong place or damaged. When I go to the post office the people are reasonably fast, polite and cheaper than the others. I agree that the postal service needs some downsizing and I believe that they are working in that direction, but I wouldn't wish for the private companies to start taking it over, because I just might get my wish.

If it is unprofitable for the USPS (or anybody for that matter) to ship something.....then why do it and what is the point of a BUSINESS? Without profit, how does a business stay in business....and what is the incentive? You've made my point for me. Being controlled by the federal government is probably the main issue anyway. Turning a profit is not a function of government....as we all know. I think the fact that the Constitution authorizes the USPS actually causes more harm than good.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
I think the fact that the Constitution authorizes the USPS actually causes more harm than good.

True Andrew. But again..nothing says that a Post Office is required to exist.

 

[Cutehumor]

I wouldn't harp on the pension people/health benefits yet. Like Al pointed out, a 44 cent stamp to mail a letter over 3000 miles is a serious money loser. how much is gas/gallon now a days? they should raise stamp prices on junk mail for sure. adjust the basic stamp prices.

 

[65cuda]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: 65cuda
Remember that the private companies aren't shipping the unprofitable stuff like USPS is. Do you think that the private companies will provide the service that the USPS does? For me I've had good service from the PS, but have had packages delivered to the wrong place or damaged. When I go to the post office the people are reasonably fast, polite and cheaper than the others.

Your post says exactly why the Post office and the Federal government are going broke. They do what makes no sense...delivering a 44 cent letter that should be costing
twice as much.

Quote:
You want to have to pay the higher rates for postal service if Fed Ex gets the job?


yes. What is wrong paying for the actual cost of delivering a letter. And in the end you know it willj cost less than the actual cost of the P.O to deliver the same letter.

Are you comfortable that the Government looses money on every letter that it delivers?


While you make good points you fail to understand that with the private companies cherry picking the profitable lines is also hurting the postal service. I believe that the gov is required to provide postal service in the first place. The postal service is cutting jobs and coming up with ways to provide lower cost service now also. The gov loses money on printing money also but I doubt that most want to stop printing money so in a sense that isn't a valid argument. To me the point is that it is easy for people to claim that private can do it better and cheaper when they take the profit routes and leave the rest. On the surface you might not believe that it would make a difference, but I would just about bet that many would see a difference.

 

[JHZR2]

Great point. For example, I have family that lives in the USVI. UPS does not really want to deliver. For a parcel, it has been known to take weeks to months and is VERY expensive. People rent and share ISO containers to ship stuff if it has to go UPS. Someone from Miami will get it there faster and cheaper.

But USPS, same price, priority mail gets anything there in 2-3 days, no issues...

 

[JHZR2]

Quote:
The agency, which is allowed to raise prices in line with the rate of inflation, said it filed the new prices with the Postal Regulatory Commission on Tuesday. The regulator has 45 days to approve the changes.



http://news.yahoo.com/u-postal-lifts-stamp-price-1-cent-202115573.html


So let me get this straight...

UPS and others round to the next highest POUND for all mail, can slap a surcharge due to fuel, change prices at will, etc., etc.

And the USPS has to get approval to adsjust to the CPI???!?

The same CPI that every citizen recognizes is irrelevant because of the cost of energy and other things is not included? The same CPI that does not account for medical insurance premiums that go up 10% per year? for gasoline/diesel fuel prices?

Oh yeah, and this is a mobility-oriented business too...

Im still against the PU getting lower benefit costs than other feds, but stuff like this is the reason why USPS is in trouble.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Im still against the PU getting lower benefit costs than other feds, but stuff like this is the reason why USPS is in trouble.

Why shouldn't we all just be unhappy that the Postal workers getting better benefits than 95% of Private sector workers?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Im still against the PU getting lower benefit costs than other feds, but stuff like this is the reason why USPS is in trouble.

Why shouldn't we all just be unhappy that the Postal workers getting better benefits than 95% of Private sector workers?


Because that's not my problem. You or anyone else is free to be unhappy, and also to provide real, unbiased proof that this is the case. There may be pros/cons to working private sector, and also room for other negotiation. This is a disparity between federal workers which to me seems ridiculous.