Postal Service Discussion

[nlsme]

Ohh, and the third time this is posted. It backs up my "unfounded" claims. USPS - Postal Facts

As for them not being able to raise rates, why are we not paying 2 pennies. Thats right. Looking at history, they raise their rates WHEN NEEDED.

 

[mdram]

Post Office To Hike Stamp Price to 46 Cents - CBS News

they asked

 

[cipher6]

It is an example of the failings of government.

Only if your judging Gov. by a corporate measure... ie. profits.

Government cannot respond as a business must to outside pressures. They cannot make the hard decisions that people won't like.

Right, because their end goal isn't the bottom line, but providing the service.

They cannot get rid of Saturday delivery, no matter how much money they lose, because of their constituents. They cannot raise rates, no matter how much money they lose because of their constituents.

Because those things are the end goal of the USPS, not profits. To cut those things just to help the bottom line is a business decision... cutting those things to keep the institution viable, and mail flowing is a different thing. And I suspect they will be cut at some point, but not as timly as a private company would have, because again, profit is not the overall goal of the USPS.

The very involvement of government in an endeavor mandates that the business decisions become subpar and the "business" venture is doomed to financial ruin. It may take it's time getting there, but it WILL get there.

Well, yeah. The Gov is not good at running a business like a business. But i don't think we should judge government institutions on business grounds... their apples and oranges.

 

[cipher6]

Post Office To Hike Stamp Price to 46 Cents - CBS News

they asked

"The Postal Service faces a serious risk of financial insolvency," postal vice president Stephen M. Kearney said.

Kearney said the agency is facing a $7 billion loss in 2011. The rate increase will bring in an extra $2.5 billion, meaning it still faces a $4.7 billion loss.

Financial insolvency = business failure.
I got my mail yesterday = government success.

Its successful in that it is still providing the service at below market cost... its a failure in that its about to be financially insolvent.

That will bring the question, how important is the post office in todays world, and how much are tax payers willing to pay to keep it around.

 

[byteware]

They peaked in 2006.

Yes, I misspoke (or typed as the case may be).

Wow, you must not know much about numbers. 17 is bigger then 6. Or physics, 24000 pounds takes more energy to get going than 5000 pounds. And, show ONE post where I say the usps "business model" should be adopted by other "business".

Seriously? Maybe you are unfamiliar with how much gas constantly starting and stopping for 20 miles will consume.

24000 pounds, which is the hybrid weight, takes 0 gas to get going. That's the beauty of the hydraulic hybrid system. 85% - 95% of ALL braking force is available when the vehicle starts moving again. The vehicle can achieve 85% -95% of it's original speed before it started braking without ever touching the gas pedal.

Honestly, you ridicule what you didn't even bother to read about.

Ohh, and the third time this is posted. It backs up my "unfounded" claims. USPS - Postal Facts

And I can just repost their BUDGET. You know, where they list the money that they take from the Federal Government...

As for them not being able to raise rates, why are we not paying 2 pennies. Thats right. Looking at history, they raise their rates WHEN NEEDED.

Umm... 2 things.

1) $5 Billion in deficits in a given year... and I would say it's needed.

2) The USPS agrees, and has asked to raise rates, but has not been allowed to as of yet.

Post Office To Hike Stamp Price to 46 Cents - CBS News

they asked

Thank you.

Only if your judging Gov. by a corporate measure... ie. profits.

Or, by efficiency. Or by budget analysis. There are plenty of ways that the USPS is currently a failure.

Right, because their end goal isn't the bottom line, but providing the service.

They provide that service well, as do numerous other government agencies. What matters is how responsible they are with taxpayer money in the process.

Because those things are the end goal of the USPS, not profits. To cut those things just to help the bottom line is a business decision... cutting those things to keep the institution viable, and mail flowing is a different thing. And I suspect they will be cut at some point, but not as timly as a private company would have, because again, profit is not the overall goal of the USPS.

They are required to be semi-self sufficient. This means, budget wise, the USPS is on a track to financially implode in just a couple of years.

Whether profit is part of their goal or not, they are a budgetary mess.

Well, yeah. The Gov is not good at running a business like a business. But i don't think we should judge government institutions on business grounds... their apples and oranges.

Except when one claims to be operating like a business, but people fail to mention that's only because competition is kept at bay by law.

Financial insolvency = business failure.
I got my mail yesterday = government success.

IF you got your mail yesterday at the cost of $1 Million per letter... would that still be a success?

Its successful in that it is still providing the service at below market cost... its a failure in that its about to be financially insolvent.

It is required, unfortunately, to be financially solvent.

That will bring the question, how important is the post office in todays world, and how much are tax payers willing to pay to keep it around.

They aren't, otherwise they would already be paying in order to do so. Companies are constantly cutting the amount of paper correspondence that they are required to send out, as a means of cutting costs. People are doing the same with bills, etc... As things continue down this path, the USPS will inevitably disappear.

 

[cipher6]

They aren't, otherwise they would already be paying in order to do so. Companies are constantly cutting the amount of paper correspondence that they are required to send out, as a means of cutting costs. People are doing the same with bills, etc... As things continue down this path, the USPS will inevitably disappear.

But will they fail because of business failure or changes in the market that made their service obsolete?

If FedEx was in the same boat, they would cut cost and expand revenue. Maybe open up services in parts of the world they currently don't. Maybe offer a new product, different than but related to packaging services, to maintain their overall goal of profits, its services would expand to different areas.

But the USPS is different, their services are set, if demand for those services change, they don't have as much flexibility as FedEx to offer different services. (they try, but aren't as flexible. USPS can't open up offices in mexico for example.)

So, I see it as a whole different set of challenges.

Where a private company would ask, how can we expand services to meet a decline in revenue, the USPS would (or should) ask, is the service we are providing still worth the cost.


Don't get me wrong, I think a blind man could find mismanagement and inefficiency all through the USPS, and fixing those things could lead extending the day when insolvency comes and we have to ask do we still need this. I'd add not letting unions suck it dry as well.

But I think the overall main problems with the USPS are declining demand, a private institution would fix that by finding some other demand to fill... the USPS can only ask, is filling the demand worth the cost.

 

[byteware]

But will they fail because of business failure or changes in the market that made their service obsolete?

Both.

For instance, why have they not thought to setup a "digital bills exchange".

What I mean by that is this... We are now paying our bills electronically. However, each biller must setup the electronic payment with each individual bank. If the USPS setup an electronic bill exchange, they would register with the USPS, and the banks would register with the USPS, and everybody could pay virtually every bill electronically without using paper, and the USPS could either get a small cut of each financial transaction, or a yearly fee for being on the exchange. This keeps them relevant, and keeps their revenue stream.

Instead, they have failed to adapt to a changing world, and are failing as a business and allowing their service to become obsolete.

If FedEx was in the same boat, they would cut cost and expand revenue. Maybe open up services in parts of the world they currently don't. Maybe offer a new product, different than but related to packaging services, to maintain their overall goal of profits, its services would expand to different areas.

They could adapt, but government control of business decisions makes that an impossibility.

But the USPS is different, their services are set, if demand for those services change, they don't have as much flexibility as FedEx to offer different services. (they try, but aren't as flexible. USPS can't open up offices in mexico for example.)

Agree, but as their mail traffic becomes electronic, they can adapt and participate in THAT mail service (as I have already pointed out above). The only reason that they cannot adapt is government control.

So, I see it as a whole different set of challenges.

Where a private company would ask, how can we expand services to meet a decline in revenue, the USPS would (or should) ask, is the service we are providing still worth the cost.

They expand services. They just aren't expanding services in the direction that people are going.

Don't get me wrong, I think a blind man could find mismanagement and inefficiency all through the USPS, and fixing those things could lead extending the day when insolvency comes and we have to ask do we still need this. I'd add not letting unions suck it dry as well.

But I think the overall main problems with the USPS are declining demand, a private institution would fix that by finding some other demand to fill... the USPS can only ask, is filling the demand worth the cost.

That's not ALL that they could do. They can participate, and even facilitate the transition to electronic communication. They can take part in the digital post, and make THAT more efficient. They have chosen to fight against it, and will lose horribly.

The bread and butter of the post office is the first class mail, and the USPS projects that in 10 years they will be delivering HALF of what they are currently.

I expect that by that point, it will become obvious that the USPS is no longer viable, but that the government will continue to subsidize it for about another decade or two.

 

[cipher6]

Instead, they have failed to adapt to a changing world, and are failing as a business and allowing their service to become obsolete.

But their not a business... USPS could drop mail all together, and become a Gov. run ISP, everyone gets a official US email address. But whats the point of that? The purpose of the USPS was mail, you reach a point where changing services just to stay aflot defeats the whole initial purpose. UPS doesn't care if their delivering packages or selling shoes, as long as their making a profit. USPS is there for the mail, other things might make mail delivery less expensive, or self funded, but they can't get too far away from their initial goal, because then its just a government run business for the sake of keeping a business alive.


To a private business the product or service is secondary, its only a means to make profit, one service becomes obsolete, get into another. But the USPS is different in that the service is its soul purpose for existence.

They could adapt, but government control of business decisions makes that an impossibility.

Agreed, but thats not all bad.

That's not ALL that they could do. They can participate, and even facilitate the transition to electronic communication. They can take part in the digital post, and make THAT more efficient. They have chosen to fight against it, and will lose horribly.

Your talking about getting the USPS into a market that is already fully met. there is no shortage of ISPs or places to get email address. There is no reason for them to do this besides keep the USPS viable, and the only reason to keep the USPS viable is to deliver mail, and if there is a declining demand for mail delivery anyway, whats the purpose of it all?

 

[nlsme]

The circle grows. And Im not "ridicueling" anything. Just pointing out you fallacies. You said their fuel WAS the same. Thats laughable. The ups trucks currently in use get a whopping six mpg. On diesel. The hybrids are suppose to see a 60-70 percent increase. That puts them at 10-11mpg. Still below the the 17-18 of the llv. Not to mention, they only have a handful. Btw, diesel is like 20% more expensive.

The reason that was posted3 times, was so you could shut up about the unfounded claims. Its all right there. Your "budget" means nada. Even IF you are right in saying the 15b "loan" going to be paid back, I say so what. Give them 30. I find value where you dont. Lets say they averaged 30 b in revenue over the last 30 years, thats 900 b. So the 15 bn is LESS THAN 5% of their budget. Us taxpayers have soooo been ripped off.

 

[cipher6]

The notion the usps is currenly financially viable was proven wrong long ago, even the usps says this. And I believe the value of the post office can be measured by the amount of people that use it, which is to say, declining rapidly.

 

[byteware]

But their not a business... USPS could drop mail all together, and become a Gov. run ISP, everyone gets a official US email address. But whats the point of that? The purpose of the USPS was mail, you reach a point where changing services just to stay aflot defeats the whole initial purpose. UPS doesn't care if their delivering packages or selling shoes, as long as their making a profit. USPS is there for the mail, other things might make mail delivery less expensive, or self funded, but they can't get too far away from their initial goal, because then its just a government run business for the sake of keeping a business alive.

To a private business the product or service is secondary, its only a means to make profit, one service becomes obsolete, get into another. But the USPS is different in that the service is its soul purpose for existence.

While this is true, what exactly IS the service that the USPS provides. They are a communications and package delivery service. There is no reason for them to bow out when the form of communications that need delivering changes.

Agreed, but thats not all bad.

Maybe you could explain how that's been good for the USPS in any way.

Your talking about getting the USPS into a market that is already fully met. there is no shortage of ISPs or places to get email address. There is no reason for them to do this besides keep the USPS viable, and the only reason to keep the USPS viable is to deliver mail, and if there is a declining demand for mail delivery anyway, whats the purpose of it all?

Really? How many ISP's or email providers can deliver certified mail? How many ISP's or Service Providers are trusted by the Courts to deliver notifications etc...

There is still plenty of room for the USPS in the digital realm.

 

[3devious]

On a superficially related related note:

Perhaps we should pay postal workers more if they have to put up with this crap. I know they have to put up with some serious BS. Too bad they can't bill you for doing stupid/dangerous stuff.

I also do not think the woman is entitled to her $22 shipping cost but should be billed for the extra handling.

 

[byteware]

The reason that was posted3 times, was so you could shut up about the unfounded claims. Its all right there. Your "budget" means nada.

Right. Their claim that they receive no taxpayer funds is valid, but the fact that their budget details $3.034 Billion in Taxpayer funds means nada.

Let me translate that for you... you believe what you want to believe, because it makes you happier.

Even IF you are right in saying the 15b "loan" going to be paid back, I say so what. Give them 30. I find value where you dont.

That's rather presumptuous. I find value in the USPS.

Lets say they averaged 30 b in revenue over the last 30 years, thats 900 b. So the 15 bn is LESS THAN 5% of their budget. Us taxpayers have soooo been ripped off.

Ripped off? I guess if I ever made that claim, then your sarcastic response would be a scathing admonition.

However, since you made the claim that the USPS was a shining example of how the government does things right, and it has been pointed out repeatedly that they may be a shining example of the best the government can do, but they aren't an example of what the government does right.

 

[nlsme]

The 15b means nada because it is a LOAN. And, now I see you are just the type that equats government with bad. Good luck with that.

 

[byteware]

The 15b means nada because it is a LOAN.

Just an FYI. "Capital Contribution" is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. It's legal meaning is not "loan".

I'm sorry, but regardless of whether or not you WANT that to be the meaning, it's not.

Heck, there are hundreds of articles on the web about getting your "investment" reclassified as a loan in bankruptcy, so that you can get paid back (IF you want a link, ask and I'll provide them). Capital Contributions and loans are completely separate things.

And, now I see you are just the type that equats government with bad. Good luck with that.

Equates government with bad? Strawman argument. I've never stated anything like that.

I equate government with poorly managed, and poorly run.

Any function that requires passing a law to make simple decisions that you MUST make is a poorly run, and poorly managed situation.

If a law is required to raise rates, it is automatically poorly run.

If a law is required to close post offices that are causing you to lose money, it is automatically a poorly run, and poorly managed institution.



If you reread everything I have posted, no where do I state that the Post Office is "bad", or that government run programs are "bad".

I have simply taken exception at "the post office is a shining example of what the government does RIGHT" statement.

 

[nlsme]

It is. And hundreds of awards and 200+ years of history shows it.

 

[byteware]

It is.

It is what? mismanaged? Horribly run? Inferior to private companies that perform the same functionality?

And hundreds of awards and 200+ years of history shows it.

Hundreds of awards? Seriously? Prove it.

I can't tell you what the 200+ years of history shows, other than what the USPS used to be.

 

[cipher6]

The 15b means nada because it is a LOAN. And, now I see you are just the type that equats government with bad. Good luck with that.

Its a "loan" the the USPS doesn't have the means to pay back. Thats what they mean by financially insolvent. Technically its not a "loan" though, but the law states, US Gov can only give them 3 billion a year, until they have 15b outstanding. So, to continue getting bailed out by the US Gov, they have to start paying some of it back. Or change the law.

While this is true, what exactly IS the service that the USPS provides. They are a communications and package delivery service. There is no reason for them to bow out when the form of communications that need delivering changes.

USPS was set up to fill a communications void, I'd say the ability to communicate has been greatly expanded, calling into question the need of a government funded or operated communications company.

Maybe you could explain how that's been good for the USPS in any way.

Its kept the cost of delivering a letter across the country well below the market average. That added to their financial problems, but also allowed for affordable communications around the country.

Really? How many ISP's or email providers can deliver certified mail?

Why would you need an ISP to deliver a certified letter? Thats like asking for a company that sells shoes to repair clocks.

How many ISP's or Service Providers are trusted by the Courts to deliver notifications etc...

I don't think thats because of the organization handling the message, but the technical means of delivering that message. Email is too easy to tamper with, even if USPS was hosting email, I don't think that would make it a trusted means of official certified communications.

There is still plenty of room for the USPS in the digital realm.

Sure there is room, and they could find something... but why? The Goal of the USPS in its creation was to fill a communications void, that wasn't going to be filled by free market forces. Its served that need well. But I think that need is gone, cheap communication services are everywhere, and private industry offers lots of options for sending physical parcels.


I don't think we need to keep the USPS alive, just to keep it alive. I think its nearing the end of its life, its served its need well, but is quickly growing less relevant or useful.

But I do think we will keep it on life support far longer that we should, USPS is the second largest civilian employer behind walmart, disband the post office and you'll see a jump in unemployment numbers quickly. It will probably be phased out over a decade or so, with much of their routes and assets going to private companies.

 

[nlsme]

But they are not financially insolvent. They run the risk of becoming financially insolvent,IF nothing is done. Hence my history referance. We are not payibg 2 pennies anymore for a reason. IF we were, they WOULD HAVE been a failure. Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they are obsolete. Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they arent vital.

Its a loan the the USPS doesn't have the means to pay back. Thats what they mean by financially insolvent.




USPS was set up to fill a communications void, I'd say the ability to communicate has been greatly expanded, calling into question the need of a government funded or operated communications company.




Its kept the cost of delivering a letter across the country well below the market average. That added to their financial problems, but also allowed for affordable communications around the country.



Why would you need an ISP to deliver a certified letter? Thats like asking for a company that sells shoes to repair clocks.



I don't think thats because of the organization handling the message, but the technical means of delivering that message. Email is too easy to tamper with, even if USPS was hosting email, I don't think that would make it a trusted means of official certified communications.





Sure there is room, and they could find something... but why? The Goal of the USPS in its creation was to fill a communications void, that wasn't going to be filled by free market forces. Its served that need well. But I think that need is gone, cheap communication services are everywhere, and private industry offers lots of options for sending physical parcels.


I don't think we need to keep the USPS alive, just to keep it alive. I think its nearing the end of its life, its served its need well, but is quickly growing less relevant or useful.

But I do think we will keep it on life support far longer that we should, USPS is the second largest civilian employer behind walmart, disband the post office and you'll see a jump in unemployment numbers quickly. It will probably be phased out over a decade or so, with much of their routes and assets going to private companies.

 

[cipher6]

If a law is required to raise rates, it is automatically poorly run.

If a law is required to close post offices that are causing you to lose money, it is automatically a poorly run, and poorly managed institution.

In the business world yeah, but I not so quick to compare the two. The other side of the coin is, some power hungry bureaucrat, can't dictate all kinds of crazy things, its has to be approved by others first. When talking about government and my tax dollars, I'd rather it be slow and maybe loose a bit of money, that get seriously screwed up by some goofball bureaucrat playing dictator.

Take SS, someone could go in and just slash and burn, cut benefits and payouts like crazy, and be done with it. But then what happens to 85 year old granny living on her on and depending on those benefits?

I think you run in to trouble when you make profit the number one goal of government. Sustainability and stability should be their major concerns.

 

[byteware]

Its kept the cost of delivering a letter across the country well below the market average. That added to their financial problems, but also allowed for affordable communications around the country.

It's kept the cost of delivering across the country well below the market average?

There is no market average, because they won't let anyone compete in their market.

Why would you need an ISP to deliver a certified letter? Thats like asking for a company that sells shoes to repair clocks.

Why would you need an ISP to deliver a letter? You didn't before we had email. Now it's a feature that you can't live without.

I don't think thats because of the organization handling the message, but the technical means of delivering that message. Email is too easy to tamper with, even if USPS was hosting email, I don't think that would make it a trusted means of official certified communications.

Email is NOT easy to tamper with, if done right. In fact, if you do it right no one but you can even READ your email, but that's only if you do it right, which currently is fairly complicated, and almost never EVER used.

Sure there is room, and they could find something... but why? The Goal of the USPS in its creation was to fill a communications void, that wasn't going to be filled by free market forces. Its served that need well. But I think that need is gone, cheap communication services are everywhere, and private industry offers lots of options for sending physical parcels.

There are still communications voids for them to fill, they just aren't all physical.

I don't think we need to keep the USPS alive, just to keep it alive. I think its nearing the end of its life, its served its need well, but is quickly growing less relevant or useful.

I agree that it shouldn't be kept alive simply to be kept alive, but there are places it could fill existing communications voids in the digital realm.

But I do think we will keep it on life support far longer that we should, USPS is the second largest civilian employer behind walmart, disband the post office and you'll see a jump in unemployment numbers quickly. It will probably be phased out over a decade or so, with much of their routes and assets going to private companies.

I think that by the end of this decade, it should be gone. Most of their money making mail is going to be gone by the end of this decade.

 

[cipher6]

But they are not financially insolvent. They run the risk of becoming financially insolvent,IF nothing is done.

Currently, nothing is being done. The head of the USPS himself said the pre-funded retirement payments are "impossible demands." On top of declining demand and revenue...

Hence my history referance. We are not payibg 2 pennies anymore for a reason. IF we were, they WOULD HAVE been a failure.

They asked last year and didn't get one, maybe this year... But, you can only raise rates so far, before it comes just as cheap to go with UPS or FedEx, then its game over.

Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they are obsolete. Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they arent vital.

I don't know about obsolete today, but their getting there fast... Vital, maybe slightly, which kinda defeats the definition of vital, the US could get by without a post office. Vital in that their the 2nd largest employer in the country... yeah I'll give you that.


But you've got to face facts, USPS is on its way out. Unless they move into other things, like byteware is talking about, or change the laws and get directly funded by tax dollars, But I don't see the point in sustaining the USPS just out of nostalgia.

I'm not saying they should go away today, but there will be some tough questions about weather the USPS is worth the cost in the next few decades.

 

[byteware]

But they are not financially insolvent. They run the risk of becoming financially insolvent,IF nothing is done.

I'm sorry, their ending balance for 2010 was -$13.873 Billion, and that was WITH the $3.087 Billion they received in Taxpayer Funds.

That's insolvent. If they weren't a government agency, they would be chopped up and sold in bankruptcy.

Hence my history referance. We are not payibg 2 pennies anymore for a reason. IF we were, they WOULD HAVE been a failure.

Right, so losing 8 billion a year, and having a negative 13 billion dollar balance doesn't make them a failure. Gotcha.

Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they are obsolete. Just because they have peaked doesnt mean they arent vital.

No, the fact that people aren't using them enough to cover their costs makes them obsolete.

 

[byteware]

In the business world yeah, but I not so quick to compare the two. The other side of the coin is, some power hungry bureaucrat, can't dictate all kinds of crazy things, its has to be approved by others first. When talking about government and my tax dollars, I'd rather it be slow and maybe loose a bit of money, that get seriously screwed up by some goofball bureaucrat playing dictator.

Take SS, someone could go in and just slash and burn, cut benefits and payouts like crazy, and be done with it. But then what happens to 85 year old granny living on her on and depending on those benefits?

I think you run in to trouble when you make profit the number one goal of government. Sustainability and stability should be their major concerns.

And the alternative is that the government is taking my money, and promising me benefits, all the while we ALL know I'm not going to get anything for the money that they are taking from me.

Well, I don't see that as being any better.

 

[cipher6]

And the alternative is that the government is taking my money, and promising me benefits, all the while we ALL know I'm not going to get anything for the money that they are taking from me.

Well, I don't see that as being any better.

But your getting cheap mail service, or benefits when you get injured and can't work.

I see the USPS as being set up for communications welfare. They when "off budget" in the 70's as a way to be self sustaining, but the declining demand for their services has put them in financial troubles. Before rescuing the USPS by getting it into more things, we have to ask, do we still need communications welfare?