• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Postal Service Discussion

nlsme said:
As far as volume, they peaked 4 years ago. Not 40. They will be fine, as always.
Click to expand...

I wanted to respond to just this... you keep mentioning their history as if it can predict the future.

The last time they lost their mail volume because of the internet........

Oh wait, they are in territory they have never been. All of those cost cutting measures were in 2008. They shaved $6 Billion in costs. They cut all those man hours that amounted to 60k+ full time jobs... and they still lost $3 Billion (on top of the $3 billion the federal government gave them... which means they really lost $6 Billion. And if you count the Billion they had in the bank at the beginning of the year... They lost a whopping $7 Billion the year that they had all the cost cutting measures.

Now we are 2.5 years down the road, and those cost cutting measures didn't even slow down their losses. Their whole business model is failing.

I can't find any numbers to support it anywhere, but I can almost guarantee you that they haven't had mail volume fall off like this EVER, and they know it's NEVER coming back.
 
copestag said:
well to be honest if youre going to compare rates from 1792 then you should put EVERYTHING into historical context.....

yes 25 cents would buy a lot of stuff in 1792..... but 450 miles was like flying to the moon in 1792 also
Click to expand...

Perhaps... but the fact is, if you were alive in 1792 and you wanted/needed/had to send a letter, the cost of doing so was huge.

I am never any good at these comparison discussions. That is, how much X amount in 1792 dollars Vs what X amount will buy in today's dollars or Vicey Versey.

Again, not too good at running the numbers, but you get my point. A dollar in 1792 would buy a huge volume of stuff.

All I know is this: it was hugely expensive to mail a card to Granny Copestag, regardless of how or what you want to compare. Not many people had that quarter to spend on mailing a letter.

Bob Maxey
 
USPS warns of default as losses mount - Feb. 9, 2011


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Postal Service warned Wednesday that it may default on some of its financial obligations later this year after reporting yet another quarterly loss.

...

Excluding costs related to retiree benefits and adjustments to workers' compensation liability, the Postal Service said it had net income was $226 million in the first quarter, which ended Dec. 31.

...

The agency said it will be forced to default on some of its financial obligations this year unless Congress changes a 2006 law requiring it to pay between $5.4 and $5.8 billion into its prepaid retiree health benefits each year.

"The Postal Service continues to seek changes in the law to enable a more flexible and sustainable business model," Patrick Donahoe, the Postmaster General, said in a statement. "We are eager to work with Congress and the administration to resolve these issues prior to the end of the fiscal year."
 
byteware said:
Actually, they are the only ones legally ALLOWED to carry letters across the nation.

If it weren't for laws making it illegal to ship LETTERS via UPS, the prices for shipping letters would be vastly lower than it is now.
Click to expand...

No proof it would be better or lower. And that ain't about to happen any time soon. Lots of folks think UPS can carry the mail, but I have my doubts. Also, if it were privatized, who is to say UPS would get the business?

Yup, the Postal Service is in trouble. High gas costs, bloody union concessions, higher wages, fewer senders because of email, cost to build and maintain infrastructure, cost of running the infrastructure... lots of stuff the Post Office really cannot control.

I might add that the government must run it and we must pay for it. We would be in trouble without it. The government should never compete with the private sector for many reasons.

Considering what you get for the cost of a stamp, it is a real bargain.

Bob Maxey
 
Not taxpayer money though. At least not any significant amount. A total of $15b MAX(then they dont receive ANY money from taxpayers,EVER). And what a bargain what 42
 
Except for the fact I mentioned the 3 billion. It max's out at 15, then no more. Thats it, and is barely anything.
byteware said:
Except for that pesky 3+ Billion they get each year... That tax payer money... and they are posting huge losses on top of this free taxpayer money that they are getting.



So, one of the things they do right is going to default on their financial obligations this year?...



Wow, I would really hate to see where they screw up, in your opinion.
Click to expand...
They are at RISK of defaulting, IF NOTHING is done. Guess what, they are working on that.
 
Considering the problem is the pre-funding of the retirement plan, I'd say its gonna be a big, long drawn out fight with the Unions.

Except for the fact I mentioned the 3 billion. It max's out at 15, then no more. Thats it, and is barely anything.
Click to expand...

And I'd add that mentality to government problems.... 15 billion is a bit more than "barely anything." 15b would feed a lot of people. But its the US Government, so who really cares about a measly 15b right? BS!
 
nlsme said:
Except for the fact I mentioned the 3 billion. It max's out at 15, then no more. Thats it, and is barely anything. They are at RISK of defaulting, IF NOTHING is done. Guess what, they are working on that.
Click to expand...

They've been increasingly in the red for years, and haven't been able to do anything about it... and you think that they magically will within the next few months?
 
And its been pointed out, they are below the national average. But, it is nice to know giving a "decent" wage is "wasting money".
 
It isnt the unions they are working with, its a congressional committee.
cipher6 said:
Considering the problem is the pre-funding of the retirement plan, I'd say its gonna be a big, long drawn out fight with the Unions.



And I'd add that mentality to government problems.... 15 billion is a bit more than "barely anything." 15b would feed a lot of people. But its the US Government, so who really cares about a measly 15b right? BS!
Click to expand...
For an orginization with a 70 billion dollar budget, over the course 30 years, 15b is NOTHING.
 
byteware said:
They've been increasingly in the red for years, and haven't been able to do anything about it... and you think that they magically will within the next few months?
Click to expand...
Considering, it only takes a congressional committe to ease their burden, I dont think the usps is going anywhere. Even if the taxpayers bailed them out completey, it is still something the government does right. Your too caught up on "business models", news flash, the usps isnt a "business".
 
nlsme said:
And, where do you get 21%? Its more like .5%.
Click to expand...

15B is 21% of 70b.... where do you get .5%



It isnt the unions they are working with, its a congressional committee.
Click to expand...

Congress can change the law so they don't have to pre-fund so much... but you do know how politics works right? While the USPS is arguing its case to congress, trying to get congressmen to vote for changing it, powerful union lobbies are doing the same, trying to keep congress from changing it.

Care to provide a few examples of how they waste money?
Click to expand...

How about agreeing to "impossible" demands, like the retirement pre-funding.

How about keeping offices open in towns with minimum population?

How about the same postmasters that get a base salery of $70K a year, getting bonuses of 10K for stupid things such as the number of employees who fill out their questionaire on workplace issues. Some postmasters who hit all their bonus marks can almost double their salary!
Click to expand...

The Postal Service
Click to expand...
 
Their buddget is close to seventy billion. Ill go with a relatively low(less then half of this years budget) of 30b. 30b/yr x 30 years. 900b. Okay, its more like 1.5%, far from 21%. Still, it is a TINY number. As far as congress, it is a commitee, not the whole of congress.
cipher6 said:
15B is 21% of 70b.... where do you get .5%





Congress can change the law so they don't have to pre-fund so much... but you do know how politics works right? While the USPS is arguing its case to congress, trying to get congressmen to vote for changing it, powerful union lobbies are doing the same, trying to keep congress from changing it.



How about agreeing to "impossible" demands, like the retirement pre-funding.

How about keeping offices open in towns with minimum population?







I agree, the USPS is a valuable service, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking the government can actually run things efficiently. They provide valuable service, that the market probably wouldn't provide at that price, but they are FAR from efficient... thats the nature of a bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
As far as the small towns, thats universal coverage and is the PURPOSE of the usps. Goes back to the road arguement. A road less traveled still has bridges, right.

As for them "accepting" impossible demands. They were imposed on them, and they working to have that overturned.

Now, you agree that they provide a valuable service, cheaper than the free market would. Yet, you argue that service is innefficient. Name another government from any government THAT GETS ITS REVENUE FROM TAXPAYERS, that gets less then 2% of its budget from that taxpayer money. You can't.So, lets be honest about how much it costs taxpayers, and what you get for 42 cents.
 
nlsme said:
Their buddget is close to seventy billion. Ill go with a relatively low(less then half of this years budget) of 30b. 30b/yr x 30 years. 900b. Okay, its more like 1.5%, far from 21%. Still, it is a TINY number. As far as congress, it is a commitee, not the whole of congress.
Click to expand...

No, the Committee is where the law originates, but the entirety of Congress must vote on it before it happens.


nlsme said:
As far as the small towns, thats universal coverage and is the PURPOSE of the usps. Goes back to the road arguement. A road less traveled still has bridges, right.
Click to expand...

Keeping a post office in every town is NOT a requirement for Universal Coverage.

nlsme said:
As for them "accepting" impossible demands. They were imposed on them, and they working to have that overturned.
Click to expand...

Something the government does right I guess.

nlsme said:
Now, you agree that they provide a valuable service, cheaper than the free market would. Yet, you argue that service is innefficient. Name another government from any government THAT GETS ITS REVENUE FROM TAXPAYERS, that gets less then 2% of its budget from that taxpayer money. You can't.So, lets be honest about how much it costs taxpayers, and what you get for 42 cents.
Click to expand...

You get something for 42 cents.. I'll agree.

But by that standard Welfare is a program that is absolutely perfect... because they pay nothing and get a lot for it.

Just because something is cheap to the end user, doesn't mean it's done right.
 
And welfare is completly funded from taxpayers. The post office isnt. See the differance? Of course you don't. And yes, universal coverage means they need a post office in every town. Its cheap to the end user, as well as the taxpayer. End of story.
 
nlsme said:
And welfare is completly funded from taxpayers. The post office isnt. See the differance? Of course you don't. And yes, universal coverage means they need a post office in every town. Its cheap to the end user, as well as the taxpayer. End of story.
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but just because you say "End of story", doesn't make it so...

Neither the facts, nor the Postal Service agree with you. The Post office has been trying to close Post Offices that serve too small of a population for close to a decade.

Do you think that's because the Postal Service wants to end Universal Coverage? Or do you think that they are basically money pits sucking money from the rest of the system?
 
The end of story is, it is cheap to thr end user, AND the taxpayer. Period. Sure, the post office gets 95% of there revenue from 5% of their retail locations. The rest suck money from them in order to ensure UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. Guess what, it isnt universal coverage when you start closing post. Why not, because people will no longer have access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom