USPS Deserves to go down

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
If USPS were private, the first class letter would cost $1.50 instead of $0.44. A private entity would have to be insane to do what USPS does.

- Vikas

Highly unlikely. There have been businesses in the past that competed with the USPS at vastly lower rates with better service, but the USPS was granted a monopoly via force of law.

Monopoly = higher prices.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
If USPS were private, the first class letter would cost $1.50 instead of $0.44.

So what? The upshot is that junk mail would stop and a bloated inefficient Government Bureaucracy would go by the wayside like the Pony express.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Highly unlikely. There have been businesses in the past that competed with the USPS at vastly lower rates with better service, but the USPS was granted a monopoly via force of law.

Monopoly = higher prices.


UPS/FedEx are cheaper on LARGE items, I've sent 40lbs of foam and the price is 1/3 less than USPS.

But have you ever send any small mail item via UPS on 3 day air? or even ground? to see how much it cost? I personally have and I can tell you it is even more than $1.50 (try $2.5 - 3, depends on how big of a volume you have).

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I personally have and I can tell you it is even more than $1.50 (try $2.5 - 3, depends on how big of a volume you have).


So we should be happy with the Post office that is losing 10's of billions (of our money) so we can get a cheap rate on a letter which probably cost 5 bucks (of taxpayer money) to send.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I personally have and I can tell you it is even more than $1.50 (try $2.5 - 3, depends on how big of a volume you have).


So we should be happy with the Post office that is losing 10's of billions (of our money) so we can get a cheap rate on a letter which probably cost 5 bucks (of taxpayer money) to send.


No, I personally don't think we need to go that extreme, what I said was Tempest's assumption that private sector can deliver 1st class mail for 44c at a profit because USPS is inefficient is wrong, baseless, and ridiculous.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

No, I personally don't think we need to go that extreme, what I said was Tempest's assumption that private sector can deliver 1st class mail for 44c at a profit because USPS is inefficient is wrong, baseless, and ridiculous.

He said from my interpretation that it was unlikely to cost $1.50. That's the way I read it.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

No, I personally don't think we need to go that extreme, what I said was Tempest's assumption that private sector can deliver 1st class mail for 44c at a profit because USPS is inefficient is wrong, baseless, and ridiculous.

He said from my interpretation that it was unlikely to cost $1.50. That's the way I read it.


That's not what Tempest claimed. He claimed a private for-profit could provided even better service cheaper. And what proof do you have that taxpayers are pumping money in the "10's of billions" into the postal service in the first place?

Quote:
Despite not receiving any taxpayer money, the USPS is technically a government agency, so in order to eliminate a delivery day it has to get Congressional approval. Partenheimer said it has been trying to get approval since 2009, but this is the first year any legislation has been introduced.
While a shortened delivery schedule would help close the budget gap, both Partenheimer and Goldway said the real issue is the $5.5 billion the Postal Service has to pay every year into a fund for the health benefits of its future retirees.

“That’s the real structural problem for the Postal Service right now,” Goldway said.

Goldway said without the retiree fund payments, which were mandated starting in 2006, the mail service would be posting profits.
“If the Postal Service hadn’t had to pay this over the past six years, as of 2010 it would have ended with $1 billion surplus and still have $12 billion to 13 billion left to borrow from borrowing fund,” Goldway said. “Instead, at the end of 2011 it will end up with no cash and an empty borrowing fund.”






This was an ABC news article that is quiet interesting but I hesitate to link it because it is posted under their politics section although it isn't actually political.

This PS needs to downsizes in big part because the internet has taken way much of its business. Some people want to use that as a springboard to erroneously push their privatize and for-profit agenda and only good and magically things will happen. It gets so old. It doesn't take a genuis to figure out what motivates it.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
This PS needs to downsizes in big part because the internet has taken way much of its business. Some people want to use that as a springboard to erroneously push their privatize and for-profit agenda and only good and magically things will happen. It gets so old. It doesn't take a genuis to figure out what motivates it.


+1

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx


Quote:


Goldway said without the retiree fund payments, which were mandated starting in 2006, the mail service would be posting profits.
“If the Postal Service hadn’t had to pay this over the past six years, as of 2010 it would have ended with $1 billion surplus and still have $12 billion to 13 billion left to borrow from borrowing fund,” Goldway said. “Instead, at the end of 2011 it will end up with no cash and an empty borrowing fund.”






This was an ABC news article that is quiet interesting but I hesitate to link it because it is posted under their politics section although it isn't actually political.

This PS needs to downsizes in big part because the internet has taken way much of its business. Some people want to use that as a springboard to erroneously push their privatize and for-profit agenda and only good and magically things will happen. It gets so old. It doesn't take a genuis to figure out what motivates it.


Agreed. If the USPS just didnt fund its obligations the way that for profit entities that want to show good books do, then all would be well.

But again, the reduced cost that USPS employees pay comes from that excessive money that the USPS has to pay. Again, parity with feds would go a long way.

 

[mechanicx]

Agreed. And as you posted before the post office is intentionally having its hands tied. An increase in postage prices would help as would closing losing post offices, maybe cutting Saturday service etc. But postage increases are unpopular with the public as is closing down someone's post office. Meanwhile FedEx and UPS does whatever, whenever they want and it doesn't have to fuly fund squat. For all I know the taxpayer is subsidizing some of its workers in social services.

Rather than what amounts to effectively cutting wages and/or benefits that may not be all that much relatively to begin with maybe we should look at the source of most everyone's problem-healthcare inflation is sucking us dry.

 

[Vikas]

Simple question; is USPS "allowed" to raise the stamp price at will? If I had the authority to increase my prices, I can tell you that the postal rate would be lot higher AND I can make USPS break even.

As far as private company in a position to be able to undercut USPS, that is just baloney and I bet the person telling me knows that too. For crying out loud, who can make money by delivering a letter from Alaska to Hawaii for $0.44 ???? If you are claiming otherwise, you are simply trolling.

Come back and tell me how much FedEx/UPS charges to send a letter from Alaska to Honlolulu. If it is under $0.44, I will eat my used oil filter. If it is $1.50, I will pay for your oil change (how is that for keeping this BITOG related

- Vikas

 

[mechanicx]

I think a private company could possibly do it with a bunch $7/hr, no benefits, part-time flunkies. But even with that they never would do it at that price because there still wouldn't be enough profit margin to suit them. So they would maximize price (and profits), and the US's formerly 2nd largest employer (USPS)would be a bunch of flunky jobs and postage would be higher. But isn't that what some want, to turn everything into a Walmart model? As long as someone makes a big profit, then it's all good, right?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Simple question; is USPS "allowed" to raise the stamp price at will? If I had the authority to increase my prices, I can tell you that the postal rate would be lot higher AND I can make USPS break even.

As far as private company in a position to be able to undercut USPS, that is just baloney and I bet the person telling me knows that too. For crying out loud, who can make money by delivering a letter from Alaska to Hawaii for $0.44 ???? If you are claiming otherwise, you are simply trolling.

Come back and tell me how much FedEx/UPS charges to send a letter from Alaska to Honlolulu. If it is under $0.44, I will eat my used oil filter. If it is $1.50, I will pay for your oil change (how is that for keeping this BITOG related

- Vikas


I posted the result of this earlier. They are a MOBILITY oriented organization, and can only change stamp prices according the the same CPI that does not include things such as energy prices or healthcare.

Oh yeah, and they can only do it every so often and have to jump through hoops to do so.

 

[mechanicx]

I'm just waiting for someone to make the stretch that if they were private they would be able to easily hike postage and cut services

.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I'm just waiting for someone to make the stretch that if they were private they would be able to easily hike postage and cut services

.


Ive been saying that all along. If they were, wage slaves could be brought in and lots could be done. Is it right? I dont know. But is that what would happen, or more specifically, is that why the USPS is loosing money? Yes.

The rules on how postage may be changed need to change. We can take it from there.

GSA determines benefits, USPS workers pay the same as the rest of the Federal workers. Fuel budget is known. Adjust based upon fuel prices. Even if once a year, it isnt the severe limitation that currently exists.

 

[PandaBear]

So would switching to ground based 2nd class mail. Many businesses junk mail (like credit card offers) originated in the middle of nowhere fly around in 3 day air when the more efficient model would be to use ground transit for material printed locally. This would make it more efficient at a lower price, and everyone other than oil companies and air plane manufactures would win.

In the days of internet, junk mail should not be flying all over the nations, they should be locally printed and locally recycled.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The U.S. Post Office found the express and mail companies a serious threat. The Committee on Post Office and Post Roads reported in May of 1844:

Events are in progress of fatal tendency to the Post Office Department and its decay has commenced. Unless arrested by vigorous legislation, it must soon cease to exist as a self-sustaining institution, and either be cast on the treasury for support, or suffered to decline from year to year, till the system has become impotent and useless [House Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads 1844:2].

The pressure of competition from private firms was responsible for bringing about lower postage rates. It was also responsible for changing the nature of postal service. Private companies introduced payment-by-weight, prepayment, postage stamps, and home delivery to the American market. Those reforms were adopted afterward by the Post Office.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html

Without the monopoly protection by force of law, the post office would have been defunct a LONG time ago.

Quote:
The USPS expects to lose about $7 billion this year (2010). The post office already has borrowed roughly $13 billion from Uncle Sam. At the end of 2009, USPS had $33.5 billion in outstanding liabilities and another $54.8 billion in unfunded retiree health and pension obligations.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2010/10/23/opinion/doc4cc3a237064f2250546497.txt

So if truth be told, it costs a lot more than $.44 per letter already, but the price is being subsidized by taking on debt.

 

[PandaBear]

Tempest, how is this a monopoly when every profitable customer can send UPS or FedEx?

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Tempest, how is this a monopoly when every profitable customer can send UPS or FedEx?



mo·nop·o·ly 
 [muh-nop-uh-lee] Show IPA
noun, plural -lies.
1.
exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
The government manipulates the price of first class mail in that it is not a realistic price and is only possible bc the Governrnment choses to lose money providing the service.

2.
an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

The Post office is in business and has a lock on 1st mail by providing an artificial price.

 

[mechanicx]

That's funny a monopoly that charges too little and tries to do too much. I thought the problem with monopolies were they charge too much for substandard products or services. I guess that only applies to for-profit monopolies.

I still say there are people in the gov trying to undermind the postal service because it doesn't fit their for-profit model. (The post office claims it has been required to overpay future healthcare obligations by $50 billion.) Just as long as someone makes a large profit, who cares about postage prices, available services and the workforce, right?