USPS Deserves to go down

[Al]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Because that's not my problem. 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.

It is your problem..you are paying for it. And if the rest would be brought down to Postal workers that would correct the disparity no??

 

[PandaBear]

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?


Why are people unhappy that 5% of the private sector workers are getting better benefits than the 95%?

Are you only going to be happy when there are only abusers of systems left, with so much power that they can write their own rule (monopoly or political contribution), to make above median or average income/profit?

Seriously, there will always be some people getting better off than the others. So what should be the standard in compensation? Everyone must be average? below average? 50% median? why is it our businesses?

Originally Posted By: Al
It is your problem..you are paying for it. And if the rest would be brought down to Postal workers that would correct the disparity no??

Then don't use USPS if you are not willing to support them? What is the big deal? You are subsidizing many other private sector businesses as well, and if you are unhappy by something that is majority postage supported organization, you really have too many axes to grind and I suggest you find a better target.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

Why are people unhappy that 5% of the private sector workers are getting better benefits than the 95%?

I would have thought that obvious considering the Government is living on borrowed money. In the private sector..folks for the most part are paid what the company can afford to give them. The Government?? Not so much.

Quote:

Are you only going to be happy when there are only abusers of systems left, with so much power that they can write their own rule (monopoly or political contribution), to make above median or average income/profit?

oh..oh here we go..the evil private sector again.

Quote:
Seriously, there will always be some people getting better off than the others. So what should be the standard in compensation?

What Government (us) can afford??

Quote:

Then don't use USPS if you are not willing to support them? What is the big deal?

I feel like I am Alice in Wonderland here. I am supporting it to the tune of 10's of billions whether I use the failed service model or not.

Quote:
You are subsidizing many other private sector businesses as well,

You mean like I buy their products?.you call it subsidizing..I don't.

Quote:
and if you are unhappy by something that is majority postage supported organization, you really have too many axes to grind and I suggest you find a better target.

Believe it or not. Even though I am not as bright as I once was. I am able to criticize more than one thing at a time. And really it is a part of the real one thing that is going to destroy what we now take for granted. Ample food, good living and expectation that life will be good....that force of course is unaffordable Gov Spending.

As an example..My State; Pa. is experiencing 1 Billion in Pension costs and within 5 years it will be 5 Billion. That will be un-affordable. You will see things you will not believe in the coming years.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Because that's not my problem. 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.

It is your problem..you are paying for it. And if the rest would be brought down to Postal workers that would correct the disparity no??

Brought down to postal workers? I cant really help it that it is a fairly no-skill job. Sometimes tough in bad weather and on your feet, but probably healthier too.

So who exactly are we bringing down? Despite what I just stated, I see the postal workers getting a better benefits deal than the rest of the feds.

So Im just saying bring the postal workers down by letting them pay more into their benefits, like the rest of the federal government workers.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Al
riencing 1 Billion in Pension costs and within 5 years it will be 5 Billion. That will be un-affordable. You will see things you will not believe in the coming years.


Is it the pensioners' fault that this is the case? Or is it the mismanagement of the pension funds? If they were mismanaged, is that the pensioners' fault? Is it worse that PA is this way than Bethlehem Steel? Or is it OK at [censored] because the CEO made big bucks on it?

The mathematics never changed. The math could have ben done 20 years ago. I was barely out of diapers, what did you do to fix it?

Hate to be rude, but this stuff all was wrong long before my time. Baby boomers starving in the streets is going to be my problem, and I dont like it.

But it isnt fundamentally the USPS or any other entity's fault. But the insolvency of the USPS is because of stupid rules like the one I cited.

 

[Turk]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Al
riencing 1 Billion in Pension costs and within 5 years it will be 5 Billion. That will be un-affordable. You will see things you will not believe in the coming years.


Is it the pensioners' fault that this is the case? Or is it the mismanagement of the pension funds? If they were mismanaged, is that the pensioners' fault? Is it worse that PA is this way than Bethlehem Steel? Or is it OK at [censored] because the CEO made big bucks on it?

The mathematics never changed. The math could have ben done 20 years ago. I was barely out of diapers, what did you do to fix it?

Hate to be rude, but this stuff all was wrong long before my time. Baby boomers starving in the streets is going to be my problem, and I dont like it.

But it isnt fundamentally the USPS or any other entity's fault. But the insolvency of the USPS is because of stupid rules like the one I cited.


This excess was "negotiated". People (as usual) didn't think ahead (or didn't care) about the basic math of how can it be afforded to be paid out later.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2


Is it the pensioners' fault that this is the case? Or is it the mismanagement of the pension funds? If they were mismanaged, is that the pensioners' fault? Is it worse that PA is this way than Bethlehem Steel? Or is it OK at [censored] because the CEO made big bucks on it?



It is the fault on a lot of places. Some of the bankers' estimation of what the market will be 20 years down the road is at fault, some of the union estimation of what the economy will be like and what they can squeeze employer out of is at fault, some employers / managements who postpone cost till the future to pad their numbers for stock options and bonuses are at fault.

I think Al's point is, that if it is in private sector and the employers go out of businesses, the employee gets nothing so they are more willing to renegotiate and restructure some debts, but in public sectors this is not an options so the tax payers have to pay every cents. This is not the case, as unions in the public sectors also renegotiate in exchange for no / less layoffs, and it is happening here very actively. County and city governments do get bankrupts to get out of contracts and do use that as a threat.

USPS is a different case though, the main reason of it "going down" is because people don't send mail anymore like they used to. It is the equivalent of Kodak and Polaroid going out of businesses in the private sectors, because the market disappeared over a decade, slowly. Some reform is needed, but I don't think you can blame it on the postal employees. If they are paid like the private sector there will still be problem, just a couple years later.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Is it the pensioners' fault that this is the case? Or is it the mismanagement of the pension funds? If they were mismanaged, is that the pensioners' fault? Is it worse that PA is this way than Bethlehem Steel? Or is it OK at [censored] because the CEO made big bucks on it?

Get ready for this..Its (again) Government's fault..you know that great entity that sucks up money and spits out garbage and at the same time takes away growth in the country as a whole.

Quote:
The mathematics never changed. The math could have ben done 20 years ago. I was barely out of diapers, what did you do to fix it?

Obviously I didn't sit on the board that doled out the Pension funds. I voted against the kinds of folks that gave the store away. That's about all I could (legally) do. I vote almost universally against "Bond Approvals"..which means "spending money we don't have.

Quote:
Hate to be rude, but this stuff all was wrong long before my time. Baby boomers starving in the streets is going to be my problem, and I dont like it.

Believe it or not its not strictly a generational thing. You know what an integral is right?: The continuous summation of incremental bits of a function..as in adding one person at a time to the population at large. As in you can't blame a "Generation"

Quote:
But it isnt fundamentally the USPS or any other entity's fault. But the insolvency of the USPS is because of stupid rules like the one I cited.

We could be adding reasons for the rest of the night why almost every Government Department is fiscally dysfunctional.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Is it the pensioners' fault that this is the case? Or is it the mismanagement of the pension funds? If they were mismanaged, is that the pensioners' fault? Is it worse that PA is this way than Bethlehem Steel? Or is it OK at [censored] because the CEO made big bucks on it?

Get ready for this..Its (again) Government's fault..you know that great entity that sucks up money and spits out garbage and at the same time takes away growth in the country as a whole.



So somebody forced these wonderful private entities to clear the pensions and screw up their systems?

Just because a tax law changes does not mean they must rake their workers over the coals...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So somebody forced these wonderful private entities to clear the pensions and screw up their systems?

Just because a tax law changes does not mean they must rake their workers over the coals...

We are talking [unfunded] "Government Pensions" not [funded] private pensions.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: 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.


It's like they (some in the gov) are trying to put the private sector delivery services at an unfair advantage to the USPS. I guess this is so they can later point and say "see the USPS is a failure. We must privatize it!" (so some individuals can make a huge profit, everyone pays more and workers get less).

The only thing I would differ with is if you can directly compare PU lower benefit costs to other federal agencies. I think but not sure that postal workers are lower pay schedule than most other federal workers and so they count their benefits as part of the wages. If you consider total compensation it is probably no higher if not lower than most other agencies. I know a lot of federal workers are payed very well so contributing more to their retirement while getting higher retirement makes the contribution rate mute. It might improve the bottom line for the Postal Service, but I think there are better ways than what amounts to wage cuts.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Well, if you are familiar with pensions, you know that funding is based on "Actuarial Assumptions".

When the markets are going really well, the funding is decreased. When the markets are failing, the people responsible for funding have empty pockets because the money was spent on something else.

It never rains, so why save the taxpayers' money for a rainy day.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Well, if you are familiar with pensions, you know that funding is based on "Actuarial Assumptions".

When the markets are going really well, the funding is decreased. When the markets are failing, the people responsible for funding have empty pockets because the money was spent on something else.

It never rains, so why save the taxpayers' money for a rainy day.


True but as I mentioned before the Postal Service is being required to fully fund its pensions. Most everyone else is not required to. I wonder why? So these private sector businesses that seemingly are doing better than the postal service are not really.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So somebody forced these wonderful private entities to clear the pensions and screw up their systems?

Just because a tax law changes does not mean they must rake their workers over the coals...

We are talking [unfunded] "Government Pensions" not [funded] private pensions.


HUH? im talking about private pensions that were funded, got raided and then had to get bailed by the government.

Great job those private firms did with their "funded" pensions.

Yet properly managed federal pensions are actually looking to be in the black.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111016/BENEFITS02/110160303/

Quote:
But the Office of Personnel Management on Oct. 7 told Federal Times that due to freezes in pay and cost-of-living adjustments, FERS has not only eliminated its unfunded liability, but is now projected to be in surplus for 2011.


Oh, I thought this kind of stuff never happened in government??!?

Quote:
The older Civil Service Retirement System is still carrying a massive unfunded liability, however, of $663 billion when fiscal 2010 began.


So I guess it is generational...

And I guess it isnt just government...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/belt...d-pension-plans

Quote:
Almost half of the nation’s 20 largest unions have pension funds that federal law classifies as “endangered” or in “critical” condition due to being underfunded, an Examiner review of federal actuarial reports shows.



http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/2009-03-11-pension-plan-assets-short_N.htm

Quote:
The nation's 100 largest corporate pension plans were underfunded by $217 billion at the end of 2008, holding only 79% of the assets needed to cover estimated long-term liabilities. That compares with an $86 billion surplus — 109% of estimated liabilities — at the end of 2007, according to Watson Wyatt, a human resources consulting firm.



Hmmmm... sounds to me like it isnt necessarily the pension plans fault, but every pension plan is in the same boat.

But companies RAIDING pension funds is another story, and is on par with putting the SSI trust into the general fund.

Quote:
On the other hand, corporations with overfunded pension plans have sought ways to get their hands on these "excess" funds.

A loophole in ERISA allows them to do that simply by terminating the overfunded plan and starting a new one. Among the largest companies to do this have been Celanese Corp., A&P, AMAX, Stroh Brewery, Armour & Co., and Reynolds Metals. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, workers whose pension funds are terminated lose an average 45 cents on the dollar.


Maybe that's OK? After all, the CEO is earning his millions by making the books look better.

 

[PandaBear]

Al,

Seriously, the same "common practice" of underfunding a pension is being praised as "producing wealth" when the time is good, and overlooked when the companies got into financial trouble when the time is bad. Meanwhile when the government do the right thing to fund it full is considered "a fault"?

You just have an axe to grind and according to you, everything that the government did right is "inefficiency" of the government and the "productivity" of the private sectors.

 

[Tempest]

ALL pension plans, private or public, are based on the labor of future people. You must have an ever expanding amount of people paying other people not to work in order for it to remain solvent.

ALL pension plans are ponzi schemes. And if the government has setup a pension bailout plan funded with other people's money, there is a great incentive for companies to mooch on their pension plans.

 

[SteveSRT8]

yep, these days you can't just leave a big ole pile o' money just laying around. It's gotta be spent on something.

Sooner or later we'll all pay for it, and it's gonna hurt.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
ALL pension plans, private or public, are based on the labor of future people. You must have an ever expanding amount of people paying other people not to work in order for it to remain solvent.

ALL pension plans are ponzi schemes. And if the government has setup a pension bailout plan funded with other people's money, there is a great incentive for companies to mooch on their pension plans.


All pension plans are not ponzi schemes. That's like saying all insurance is a ponzi scheme. Everything just about would be a ponzi scheme. And do you think business that mooch on their pension plans would stop or care if it wasn't gov insured? Government insurance places requirements on pension plans. The real problem is the gov is being to cozy with the pension moochers. but they are doing what they would do anyway with no government involvement.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
All pension plans are not ponzi schemes.

You didn't explain why in your post.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
All pension plans are not ponzi schemes.

You didn't explain why in your post.


Because it's all in the contribution level adjustments. Explain how they are ponzi schemes by necessity? Underfunding and raiding funds is a different matter from calling all retirement plans ponzi schemes.

401K can be raided on the stock market, inflation can raid your nest egg stored under a mattress or in a saving account, workers not being payed enough to have a nest egg in the first is a scheme etc. Consider this, how is current workers paying for the elderly any different than what has always happened naturally? Ie, in the past children supported and cared for their elderly parents.