If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   So let's check in with the USPS and see how the January increase in the price of stamps has helped their financial troubles   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 61
    More: Followup, U.S. Postal Service, National Association of Letter Carriers, package delivery  
•       •       •

3823 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 May 2013 at 5:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-12 04:00:23 AM  
In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.
 
2013-05-12 04:06:55 AM  
mojoimage.com
 
2013-05-12 04:11:06 AM  
And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.
 
2013-05-12 04:34:47 AM  

Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.


Because that isn't true?
 
2013-05-12 05:00:45 AM  
FTFA:

"Instead of the postmaster general's 'shrink to survive' strategy - which will only begin a death spiral for the USPS - what is needed is a dynamic business plan for the future to take advantage of the many opportunities for growth, including the exploding package-delivery market,"

I thought the government still discouraged those?
 
2013-05-12 06:26:24 AM  

Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?


"massively" is an exaggeration, but the post office would be profitable if congress would get out of its way.
 
2013-05-12 06:28:13 AM  
HA HA!  Look at what happens when the government tries to run a business!  the free market works, people.

The USPS would be doing much better if it were privatized.

And of course, I mean it would cease to exist.  And that's a good thing, right?
 
2013-05-12 06:30:07 AM  
hmm taco bell taco or pay my credit card statement online.  decisions
 
2013-05-12 06:47:04 AM  

Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


You sure do hate America.
 
2013-05-12 06:58:01 AM  
I feel bad for the USPS. They're like a person that congress tied a brick to and told to swim, and all the onlookers seem to go "god that guy's a bad swimmer."
 
2013-05-12 07:28:17 AM  

LasersHurt: I feel bad for the USPS. They're like a person that congress tied a brick to and told to swim, and all the onlookers seem to go "god that guy's a bad swimmer."


And every time they tried to cut off the brick congress says no and attaches a heavier one. Then pisses on their face.
 
2013-05-12 07:50:21 AM  

Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?


Yeah, they required they pay retirement benefits 75 years out.  Tiny difference, doesn't change that Congress is trying to actively destroy the USPS without explicitly abolishing it by mandating ludicrous payments meant to fiscally break them, they want to make it unprofitable and bankrupt so they can dismantle it and claim it was inherently unprofitable.

The post office is one of the very few core functions of Federal Government which is right in the constitution (yeah, not "mandatory", but it's on the fairly short list of things that was a very explicit power of Congress) and as a US government  establishment it predates the Federal Government, much like the military.
 
2013-05-12 08:02:14 AM  

Silverstaff: Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?

Yeah, they required they pay retirement benefits 75 years out.  Tiny difference, doesn't change that Congress is trying to actively destroy the USPS without explicitly abolishing it by mandating ludicrous payments meant to fiscally break them, they want to make it unprofitable and bankrupt so they can dismantle it and claim it was inherently unprofitable.

The post office is one of the very few core functions of Federal Government which is right in the constitution (yeah, not "mandatory", but it's on the fairly short list of things that was a very explicit power of Congress) and as a US government  establishment it predates the Federal Government, much like the military.


That's all true, but if we abolish the USPS, then FedEx and UPS will be able to charge us $3 to mail a letter.  Just think how profitable that would be for those two companies.  Just think of what a huge bonus their CEOs and shareholders would get.
 
2013-05-12 08:35:27 AM  
i could rant and rave all day but it won't change a damn thing. we could elect all new representatives and senators to congress yet i doubt it would matter one bit. meanwhile school children could point out obvious cost saving measures that could benefit the Postal system. it doesn't make sense that our elected officials wear suits instead of greasepaint and huge floppy shoes.
 
2013-05-12 08:37:17 AM  

Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?


It might not be as profitable, but it would be sustaining a much smaller loss, quarter over quarter. Plus, Congress refuses to allow the USPS to close unprofitable post offices and to cut back on Saturday delivery to save money. Congress is incurring extra costs on the USPS and a cynical person would say that it's because Republicans want the enterprise to fail on purpose.
 
2013-05-12 08:49:32 AM  
They want to raise money? just increase what they charge companies for all the junk mail flyers. I moved and received a 'now that you moved' packet from USPS with 50 different flyers in it.
 
2013-05-12 08:56:09 AM  
To all the USPS haters out there, it costs something like $20 to UPS a letter to an adjacent zip code.  It that really what you want to spend to send a letter?
 
2013-05-12 08:59:32 AM  
We are a self-hating country.
 
2013-05-12 09:02:29 AM  
A minor rise in stamp costs isn't designed to turn the USPS into a profiting business.  The USPS gets shiat on more than it deserves.  It's forced by mandate as a public service to deliver everywhere in the US at a fixed price, and has to jump through hoops regarding funding its retirement system in a way engineered to cause it to run a deficit.  But conservatives also expect it to turn a profit like a private business.

Let it run itself like a private business.  Let it charge a premium to run mail and packages out into the middle of Podunk, MO and Cousinfark, AL, and let it run its retirement system in a reasonable way.  Either that, or recognize that a public service costs money, and stop biatching about the USPS not turning a profit.  Personally, I'd love to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth as the red states watch the price of their mail service shoot into the stratosphere, all in the name of Free Market economics.
 
2013-05-12 09:06:37 AM  

Harv72b: FTFA:

"Instead of the postmaster general's 'shrink to survive' strategy - which will only begin a death spiral for the USPS - what is needed is a dynamic business plan for the future to take advantage of the many opportunities for growth, including the exploding package-delivery market,"

I thought the government still discouraged those?


Lol, beat me to it. What a difference a hyphen makes, eh?
 
2013-05-12 09:06:50 AM  
Aside from the silly retirement funding requirements imposed...

The USPS delivers first class letters for the same price across the country in the matter of a few day.  If you are close enough geographically to the recipient, it will often be done on the next day.  The cost of a first class stamp, to ship a letter from New York to LA, is $0.46.  The cost for Royal Mail to deliver a first class letter within GB is 60P, or roughly the equivalent of $1.00 USD.  Comparatively speaking, I would put the services offered by both on a similar level, but the USPS has a far larger areas to cover.  We all know that UPS and FedEx are much higher for door to door delivery of letters.  So we have a situation where Congress is controlling the price and it is obvious it is at level much under what it costs.  So basically Congress is complaining that the USPS is subsidizing mail delivery while making requirements that force them to subsidize mail delivery.
 
2013-05-12 09:08:23 AM  
I wonder how many bootstrappy glibertarians here could run a business profitably if they were required to pre-fund 75 years of health benefits.
 
2013-05-12 09:08:39 AM  
"Instead of the postmaster general's 'shrink to survive' strategy - which will only begin a death spiral for the USPS - what is needed is a dynamic business plan for the future to take advantage of the many opportunities for growth, including the exploding package-delivery market," he said.

Yeah, I used to use the USPS for all my eBay shipping - until FedEx made a deal with eBay and I can consistently ship my packages for $5 cheaper on average - sometimes it's half of the USPS quote. They only time the post office is cheaper is for Alaska and Hawaii (I usually eat the shipping charges here to be fair to all Americans - most eBayers won't ship there). In addition, their "tracking" has always been horrible, and the insurance is not included in the price (FedEx and UPS include an automatic insurance for the first $100). So, I'm not sure how they can compete.
 
2013-05-12 09:16:39 AM  

RobDownSouth: I wonder how many bootstrappy glibertarians here could run a business profitably if they were required to pre-fund 75 years of health benefits.


Maybe Congress should be subject to that same rule. It's only fair....
 
2013-05-12 09:20:36 AM  

Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?


What part isn't true?  That fully funding the retirement of employees that haven't been born yet is a financial burden, or that congress isn't doing it's damnedest to strangle the post office so it can be "privatized"?
 
2013-05-12 09:23:26 AM  

sendtodave: HA HA!  Look at what happens when the government tries to run a business!  the free market works, people.

The USPS would be doing much better if it were privatized.

And of course, I mean it would cease to exist.  And that's a good thing, right?


It wouldn't cease to exist.  A for-profit company will provide more limited service at a higher price, while slashing employee pay and benefits while lobbying for tax incentives and other federal money.  Essentially, we'll still be paying for it, and a private company will be keeping the profits.
 
2013-05-12 09:32:03 AM  

Forbidden Doughnut: RobDownSouth: I wonder how many bootstrappy glibertarians here could run a business profitably if they were required to pre-fund 75 years of health benefits.

Maybe Congress should be subject to that same rule. It's only fair....


You do realize who pays for Congress' healthcare benefits, don't you?

Great_Milenko: Essentially, we'll still be paying for it, and a private company will be keeping the profits.


This. Libertarian idiots (but I repeat myself) are so blinded by ideology that they do not see this a rent-seeking by private shippers and the venture capitalists who will by the husk of the service, fark the employees with a broomstick, and then make a fortune from the remaining assets that they acquired from the government for pennies on the dollar.

It is so damn easy for corporatists to pull the wool over the Randians' eyes. Perhaps because they believe they are so farking smart that they cannot be fooled. It's that or that they are as emotionally dependent on their views being right as a doctrinaire Marxist is. They are like the mirror universe version of the peasant in Holy Grail.
 
2013-05-12 09:32:27 AM  

Great_Milenko: sendtodave: HA HA!  Look at what happens when the government tries to run a business!  the free market works, people.

The USPS would be doing much better if it were privatized.

And of course, I mean it would cease to exist.  And that's a good thing, right?

It wouldn't cease to exist.  A for-profit company will provide more limited service at a higher price, while slashing employee pay and benefits while lobbying for tax incentives and other federal money.  Essentially, we'll still be paying for it, and a private company will be keeping the profits.


Given the way the GOP behaves, this is probably the general idea.
 
2013-05-12 09:36:40 AM  
I dunno, but it just feels to me like postal service is something a good government should provide without worrying about if it makes a profit or not. There's not much I expect from a government, but this would have to be right up there.
 
2013-05-12 09:47:51 AM  

Great_Milenko: Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?

What part isn't true?  That fully funding the retirement of employees that haven't been born yet is a financial burden, or that congress isn't doing it's damnedest to strangle the post office so it can be "privatized"?


Technically it was retirement benefits, not health benefits.  Just enough of a factual difference that somebody looking to derp out can say that it's false.  True enough that the point holds about mandated ridiculous unnecessary payments for employees that haven't even been born yet.
 
2013-05-12 10:00:32 AM  

sendtodave: HA HA!  Look at what happens when the government tries to run a business!  the free market works, people.

The USPS would be doing much better if it were privatized.

And of course, I mean it would cease to exist.  And that's a good thing, right?


It would be doing much better if the GOP hadn't intentionally sabotaged it with their regulations like requiring 75 years of retirement for every employee.
 
2013-05-12 10:01:44 AM  

Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


Congress has the power to establish a post office.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
 
2013-05-12 10:12:39 AM  

stuhayes2010: Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


Congress has the power to establish a post office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service


Just because they have the power doesn't mean it is mandatory to exercise that power.  I can see a time when the USPS will be entirely obsolete.  We have yet to reach that day.

SomeoneDumb: I dunno, but it just feels to me like postal service is something a good government should provide without worrying about if it makes a profit or not. There's not much I expect from a government, but this would have to be right up there.


It's kind of like the roads.  Yeah, they could be run privately, but imagine the impact on all the other private enterprises.
 
2013-05-12 10:15:34 AM  

ghare: Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?

"massively" is an exaggeration, but the post office would be profitable if congress would get out of its way.


Why? Not by actually requiring it to fund the obligations it is promising workers.

Perhaps by restricting price increases and office closures/downsizing.
 
2013-05-12 10:20:13 AM  
They need to cut down delivery days to Mon, Wed, Fri.  Nothing that comes via regular mail is so important that you can't wait an extra day.  If you need it faster, that's what express mail or fedex/ups are for.
 
2013-05-12 10:23:35 AM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: sendtodave: HA HA!  Look at what happens when the government tries to run a business!  the free market works, people.

The USPS would be doing much better if it were privatized.

And of course, I mean it would cease to exist.  And that's a good thing, right?

It would be doing much better if the GOP hadn't intentionally sabotaged it with their regulations like requiring 75 years of retirement for every employee.


Thus proving that government run services don't work.  The government gets in the way of them!
 
2013-05-12 10:24:09 AM  
AliceBToklasLives:
SomeoneDumb: I dunno, but it just feels to me like postal service is something a good government should provide without worrying about if it makes a profit or not. There's not much I expect from a government, but this would have to be right up there.

It's kind of like the roads.  Yeah, they could be run privately, but imagine the impact on all the other private enterprises.


Yep, they're on the list, too. (I'd include trains, but I know that's just because I like to watch them)
 
2013-05-12 10:31:08 AM  

stuhayes2010: Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


Congress has the power to establish a post office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service


I think he was trying to say the the Congress is not required to create a post office, even though they can.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7: [Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.ht ml
 
2013-05-12 10:31:27 AM  

Farnn: They need to cut down delivery days to Mon, Wed, Fri.  Nothing that comes via regular mail is so important that you can't wait an extra day.  If you need it faster, that's what express mail or fedex/ups are for.


The USPS is less useful than UPS or FedEX.  The obvious solution is to make it even less useful!
 
2013-05-12 10:44:40 AM  
Okay, so there's this notion about funding pensions. Your average employee might work 20 years and take a pension for 20-40 years. Sure, that's the problem with the pension in the modern world of people living to 80, but you can account for that.

About a decade ago, if I understand this, some congress weasels beholden to UPS and FedEx decided to make the USPS responsible to fund 90 year pensions. So, instead of having to save pennies for a normal employee they have to save dollars for every one of them to become Methuselah.

That being said, I haven't gone to my mailbox in over a year. I have parcels delivered to a different address (one where someone can sign for them), and all that showed in my mailbox was advertising. The flip side to the first amendment is freedom to ignore the press.
 
2013-05-12 11:01:18 AM  

Silverstaff: stuhayes2010: Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


Congress has the power to establish a post office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service

I think he was trying to say the the Congress is not required to create a post office, even though they can.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7: [Congress shall have the power] to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.ht ml


It's an idiotic statement anyways. The reason the post office exists is so that the government can efficiently communicate with it's citizens. Until internet/email access is free and universally available, post office it is
 
2013-05-12 11:06:49 AM  

Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?


Ah, but it is.
 
2013-05-12 11:36:52 AM  
The only thing the USPS is good for is delivering advertisements and coupons for me to immediately throw away.

I had a package shipped about a month ago via UPS "SurePost".  That means that UPS delivers it to the post office, who then sends it out for final delivery.   Tracking information shows it has been delivered to the post office.  Post office says they don't have it.  It's just gone.  My JC Penney circulars keep showing up, though.
 
2013-05-12 12:01:54 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-12 12:14:25 PM  
I hope we eliminate the USPS as soon as possible. I'm so sick of having basic services provided in a timely fashion and at an affordable rate!  As soon as they're brought down, we can start working on roads, fire and police, water and sewer, and all those other ridiculously not-profitable trappings of "civilized" society.  We're trying to build a dystopia here, people! Get with the program!
 
2013-05-12 12:33:06 PM  

Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


I don't recall anyone claiming the PO was "mandatory" but in the midsts of people calling for a major reduction in the size of the federal government, based on the notion that many things it does are "not in the Constitution," it was pointed out that the PO is.

The only thing sadder than trolling is trolling the Weeners in the thread. Did you submit this yourself so you could be cool?
 
2013-05-12 01:02:13 PM  
Monday-Wednesday-Friday delivery, consolidating the tiny little rural towns into 5 day a week regional centers (you can drop off or pick up mail during normal business hours, but door to door delivery only goes out three days a week) with satellite PO boxes at civic buildings/major commercial centers, an increase in the bulk mail rate, and telling Congress to shut the bloody fark up about pre-funding retirement costs. Then kick any Randroids in the balls for suggesting a public good needs to draw a profit.

There, I just saved the postal service
 
2013-05-12 01:08:26 PM  
The post office isn't profitable because they spent $billions on this guy to bike messenger prescription drug deliveries, but he opened up all the packages and kept the contents.

www.slate.com
 
2013-05-12 01:53:10 PM  

ghare: Lsherm: Buzzerguy: And not a word in the article about how the USPS would be massively profitable if Congress hadn't imposed the unique "pay for all employee health benefits 75 years into the future" requirement.

Because that isn't true?

"massively" is an exaggeration, but the post office would be profitable if congress would get out of its way.


stuhayes2010: Lsherm: In before some idiot that can't read the constitution suggests the postal service is mandatory.  It is not.


Congress has the power to establish a post office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service


That's not a mandate.

ImpendingCynic: Did you submit this yourself so you could be cool?


No, but I'll admit to jumping on the thread once it went green.  There are two lies fark liberals tell themselves about the USPS, and I enjoy crushing both of them every time a post office thread comes up.  The first is that the USPS is somehow mandated by the Constitution.  The second is that the USPS would be profitable if only they didn't have that pesky pension payment.  Neither statement is true.

The USPS defaulted on their pension payment last September and they haven't been making the payments since.  Yet they are  still losing money.

I concur that Congress gets in the USPS's way every chance they get.  Saturday delivery should be stopped.  They could choose another day to cut delivery if they wanted.

Or how about this?  We begin turning under-utilized post offices into public access internet cafes?  Vast swaths of this country still don't have access to broadband internet services.  Public libraries are barely picking up the slack, and there's no federal coordination.  Post Offices would better serve that function and it easily falls under interstate commerce.

The USPS should be providing services to Americans that Americans need.  Instead, fark liberals think the USPS should be providing jobs to people no matter what the cost.  That's insane.  The USPS is not a jobs program.
 
2013-05-12 01:58:58 PM  

Lochsteppe: I hope we eliminate the USPS as soon as possible. I'm so sick of having basic services provided in a timely fashion and at an affordable rate!  As soon as they're brought down, we can start working on roads, fire and police, water and sewer, and all those other ridiculously not-profitable trappings of "civilized" society.  We're trying to build a dystopia here, people! Get with the program!


Parody, or Modern Republican, I can't tell the difference!
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report