Postal Service Discussion

[byteware]

Byteware, a deficit of 5 bucks is a deficit.

That would mean much more to this discussion, IF you had done ANY research that showed that they only made a $5 deficit.

That article never said how big the deficits were. After 30 years of being off budget, their debt is 15b. That's an average of 500 million year. Pretty small considering the 80b annual budget. And the false statetement was YOU (not Strasser)sayingnothing but deficits since their inception.

Ok... You are right... They had two years when there weren't deficits.

Its funny you want proof that a lot of postal workers walk. Shows just how little you know about the usps. Guess what, some use 4 wheelers, and some use donkeys. Boats, planes and a few other crazy things.

Yep, my request for proof of your believes shows that I don't trust you, or what you claim to know.

Its funny you took what I said about programmers/execs, and just had to disprove it. Problem is, you took the highest prgramming job and compared it to a starting junior exec salary.

And? Your statement was about programmers making more than executives. Period. I guess if you want to add a few more disclaimers onto your statement, it could still be true.

As for the rest of your post, you really should have taken the time to reread what I said. But since you didn't, I'll retierate for you. Ups(not the usps) and fed ex have comparable wages. Yet fed ex has been in the red since 2007(to the tune of 7 billion).

Ahhh... so you do realize that the USPS has horribly overinflated pay rates. Gotcha.

 

[byteware]

USPS is to blame for alot of the problems, really? How would you like to work for a boss that constantly changes the rules daily?, plays favorites with employees of equal or lesser seniority? How would you feel about a boss that you reported an on the job injury too, only to have them tell you the next day, they don't know what your talking about an leave you hanging out to dry. How about the same boss that makes a big deal an fires you for calling in sick for 2 times in 3 months, while allowing another co worker who is in the click to skate by with calling in about 15 times over the last 3 months! I will say this, i have seen many times when the union has saved someones job that didn't deserve it. But how about the single mom or dad that needs that job to provide for their family, only to have the postmaster fire them because they didn't like them, an turn around an hire a "friend" to that same position.

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! Im like, you knew the job and pay when you hired in, DO YOUR JOB! Ever noticed the stupid amount of questions the window clerks ask you when you mail a letter or package? Just let the customer, come in do their business, without feeling like they are being haggled at a swapmeet!

Umm... how is this different from any other employer? There are great people to work for, and crappy people to work for. Where I work, my best friend has a crappy boss, and I have a great one. That has nothing to do with the institution, except that you can't really get rid of crappy bosses.

 

[byteware]

And, if you can agree it is corruption, mismanagement, and incopetence that is the reason for most banks failing, how can you argue that banking SHOULDNT be a guarenteeincome sorce? Your logic fails.

Huh? I'm not sure if there was ever any logic in your statement here.

He agreed that there was corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence in the banks, but he clearly demonstrated why they failed due to financial pressures from outside the banks.

Banking involves risk, more so than most other businesses. It involves investing the money that is deposited, either by lending it out again, or another means (i.e. stock market). No matter what method you choose, chances are you could lose all of that money you invested, and then not have the money to pay out your withdrawals.

The banking system involves HUGE risk, something you seem to overlook. The USPS doesn't really have much risk. The government shields them from competition. People have to send most of their mail through them.

 

[nlsme]

You show some figures that the last thirty years produced deficits of more then 5 dollars. Till then stfu. As far as overinflated wages. 20 grand starting for an admin, 108,00 max for an exec is hardly that.
As for the banks, their lending practices are outside pressures? And he obly took two years, I said 30 for a reason. At least the other posters come up with an original arguement. You just restate the ones that have already been covered. Im done with you, as it is like arguing with a parrot. "Paully wanna a cracker" " no carckers paully" "paully wanna cracker"

 

[ElasticNinja]

the idea of banking is sound
get a pool of money by offering people interest by keeping their money with you, and by borrowing money at low cost
lend out money on interest
if they fail to repay, take the collateral

 

[nlsme]

And people can use anybody to deliver anything. That just choose not to pay the price othera charge, wich is well ABOVE the minimum allowed by law. Covered this before, nobody WANTS to compete. And until they charge that minimum, your point about protection fails.

 

[cipher6]

And people can use anybody to deliver anything. That just choose not to pay the price othera charge, wich is well ABOVE the minimum allowed by law. Covered this before, nobody WANTS to compete. And until they charge that minimum, your point about protection fails.

I'm sure UPS would love to deliver letters to mail boxes and PO Boxes, and if they were allowed to their prices would come down too.

Article I, section 8, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads, which has been interpreted as a de facto Congressional monopoly over the delivery of mail. Accordingly, no other system for delivering mail - public or private - can be established, absent Congress's consent.

If those restrictions were removed, you can bet UPS and FedEX would be quick to expand their system to day to day mail.

And its right there black and white, you might disagree on the amount of benefit the USPS receives from its protected status, but that the USPS gets government protection to keep out some competition is irrefutable.

As far as overinflated wages. 20 grand starting for an admin, 108,00 max for an exec is hardly that.

But 40k for stuffing letters in a box is, in my opinion. And what about what the guy that works at the post office said?

The Postal Service’s deficit was caused by the requirement to pre-fund future retiree health benefits, and the Service has been overcharged $75 billion for its pension fund obligations.

as for the banks, their lending practices are outside pressures?

There was a big government push to give loans to more people. Thats outside influence. A bank or financial institution that purchase asset-backed securities that had been rated safe by ratings agencies got screwed when it turned out they were not as safe as the ratings agencies claimed. Thats outside pressure and factors that can lead to a lose of profit. Investing involves risk, to say banking should be guaranteed income shows a complete lack of understanding of the free market system, which might explain why you think the USPS is the bees knees.

And yes, the USPS is subject to outside forces as well, but in a free market, without government protection, the USPS would either meet these challenges or fail and let another entity take up the demand, in a more efficient way.

Now, you can claim the Post Office meets a special need, and therefore its reasonable to give them special protections... I can agree with that somewhat... but thats a whole different argument than the USPS being some shining example of government efficiency.

 

[byteware]

You show some figures that the last thirty years produced deficits of more then 5 dollars. Till then stfu.

Well, ok then... but I already know my source is shit... it's the USPS.

http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/FY_2009_10K_Report_Final.pdf

2009 - Net loss $3.8 Billion.
2008 - Net Loss $2.8 Billion.
2007 - Net Loss $5.1 Billion.


What I also found interesting was that apparently the federal government has been making Capital Contributions to the USPS each year, to the tune of over $3.034 Billion in 2009.

I guess that blows your "without a single taxpayer dollar" out the window.

2007 Has a positive ending balance because of the Capital Contributions of the Federal Governments along with the Positive balance from the previous year.

2008 had a negative ending balance because it started with a negative balance, and lost money for the year.

2009 had $5.4 Billion ending balance... That's absolutely awful.

As for the banks, their lending practices are outside pressures? And he obly took two years, I said 30 for a reason. At least the other posters come up with an original arguement. You just restate the ones that have already been covered. Im done with you, as it is like arguing with a parrot. "Paully wanna a cracker" " no carckers paully" "paully wanna cracker"

Well, I know I've only got numbers from the USPS to back up my points... hopefully you'll provide your superior sources to all of us and show us the error of our ways.

 

[byteware]

the idea of banking is sound
get a pool of money by offering people interest by keeping their money with you, and by borrowing money at low cost
lend out money on interest
if they fail to repay, take the collateral

Here is where the idea falls apart.

The Collateral is worth less than when the bank loaned the money.

The Bank can not sell the collateral to get it's investment back.

The Bank has to spend money to maintain the collateral for the length of the time the bank owns the collateral.

The longer the Bank owns the collateral the more it drops in value.



The idea is sound, the reality is a little more complicated.

 

[byteware]

And people can use anybody to deliver anything. That just choose not to pay the price othera charge, wich is well ABOVE the minimum allowed by law. Covered this before, nobody WANTS to compete. And until they charge that minimum, your point about protection fails.

It is well above the minimum required by law because few people will pay $3+ to send a letter.

 

[Hangdog42]

What a lot of people overlook is that the USPS can't do normal business things like close unprofitable offices. Their pay structure may be out of line, but that is certainly exacerbated by Congressional interference and their mandate to server the entire country. And you can bet if UPS or FedEx were to take over USPS functions, rural delivery would suffer or be a LOT more expensive than it is now.

 

[nlsme]

Ill give you tho mailbox po box arguement to a degree. Only wanting to point out their prices would noy come down enough that they would be close to the minimum.

As for the constition, fed ex and ups ARE established. Now, you say," they aren't allowed to carry mail", here is where I say,"they are allowed to carry whatever they want, they just have a set minnimum price(to qualify as urgent), of wich they double". Here is where I point out" the law that states this, doesnt diferintiate between letters or packages".

Regarding wages, their job is more then stuffing envelopes. And I know taxi drivers that make more then that. I gues where you live, that is a lot of money. In some places, good luck living.

As for the post office guys post, I think that is more directed at the anti usps crowd. Yes, there was a government push to give lower income people loans. By telling banks they couldnt discriminate based on geographic location. If they wanted to operate in an area, they couldn't deny loans based on location. The law never said they had to lend to broke people. Wich is what they did. A couple working at mcdonalds got an 800000 house.

As for government efficiency. Please list other government agencies, from any government, where the cost to the taxpayer is 0.

 

[byteware]

Ill give you tho mailbox po box arguement to a degree. Only wanting to point out their prices would noy come down enough that they would be close to the minimum.

As for the constition, fed ex and ups ARE established. Now, you say," they aren't allowed to carry mail", here is where I say,"they are allowed to carry whatever they want, they just have a set minnimum price(to qualify as urgent), of wich they double". Here is where I point out" the law that states this, doesnt diferintiate between letters or packages".

Would they be that expensive without a minimum? No, they would not.

Regarding wages, their job is more then stuffing envelopes. And I know taxi drivers that make more then that. I gues where you live, that is a lot of money. In some places, good luck living.

Yep... it's much more than someone at UPS would make for the same job, but then again... UPS is profitable.

Yes, there was a government push to give lower income people loans. By telling banks they couldnt discriminate based on geographic location. If they wanted to operate in an area, they couldn't deny loans based on location. The law never said they had to lend to broke people.

Actually, what the law required was that they didn't discriminate. How the government determined that changed under Clinton.

He changed it so that they would prove that they weren't discriminating by issuing loans to people in those neighborhoods.

That's the change that you aren't getting.


Wich is what they did. A couple working at mcdonalds got an 800000 house.

As for government efficiency. Please list other government agencies, from any government, where the cost to the taxpayer is 0.[/QUOTE]

 

[byteware]

As for government efficiency. Please list other government agencies, from any government, where the cost to the taxpayer is 0.

The USPS gets $3.034 Billion dollars from the US Taxpayer every year.

That's per the US Postal Service. Their year end financial disclosure (linked above), page 71.

 

[nlsme]

What you arent getting, is the law never said they had to loan to them, rather, they couldn't deny BASED ON geographic location They could have said "hey, nobody applied that met the qualifications". PERIOD, end of discussion.

 

[nlsme]

Also, keep ignoring the the other 28 years of bank failures.

 

[nlsme]

So they charge six, makes sense.

It is well above the minimum required by law because few people will pay $3+ to send a letter.

 

[cipher6]

As for the constition, fed ex and ups ARE established. Now, you say," they aren't allowed to carry mail", here is where I say,"they are allowed to carry whatever they want, they just have a set minnimum price(to qualify as urgent), of wich they double". Here is where I point out" the law that states this, doesnt diferintiate between letters or packages".

I'm pretty sure not being around the grab the package, and not wanting it to sit on the doorstep is a major reason many people would choice USPS over private carriers. When I order stuff on line, I use USPS because I know it won't sit on my door step where anyone can steal it. access to mail and PO boxes is a big deal, and counts as "government protection."

As for the post office guys post, I think that is more directed at the anti usps crowd.

But he points to mismanagement and corruption... which you constantly fault in private companies, but overlook in the USPS.

Yes, there was a government push to give lower income people loans. By telling banks they couldnt discriminate based on geographic location.

I think your talking about redlining, which was made illegal decades ago. I'm talking about loosening mortgage requirements and lending standards. Done for many reasons...

In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[66] In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll":[67] "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."[68]

Barney Frank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for government efficiency. Please list other government agencies, from any government, where the cost to the taxpayer is 0.

With some fancy book keeping, yeah it costs tax payers 0. In reality the Feds have been giving USPS $$ for a while. You cry when they do it to GM.

I agree there is a need for the post office, but I don't think its some shiny example of governments ability to run a business. Without Gov protection and sweat loans, USPS would have gone under long ago. UPS might run it the red too, and if they do it for too long, they won't be around any more... USPS can run in the red all it wants, because its backed by the Feds.


PS. in response to your question... the entire government of Saudi Arabia, they pay no taxes because of oil money.

 

[byteware]

What you arent getting, is the law never said they had to loan to them, rather, they couldn't deny BASED ON geographic location They could have said "hey, nobody applied that met the qualifications". PERIOD, end of discussion.

No, they couldn't. That's the point. When the regulations changed, the compliance of banks was measured in number of loans made in that neighborhood. It was originally measured in how the banks marketed their products in the neighborhood, but it was changed to be measured by the number of loans.

 

[byteware]

So they charge six, makes sense.

Yep... supply and demand. If you can't price your product to a point where you get massive demand, price it to a point where the demand is profitable.

I'm assuming you don't know much about business. I believe you've said that you own a small business. I don't believe you. The fact that this appears to be a sarcastic remark deriding an obvious business practice makes me believe that you are a postal employee, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

 

[cipher6]

No, they couldn't. That's the point. When the regulations changed, the compliance of banks was measured in number of loans made in that neighborhood. It was originally measured in how the banks marketed their products in the neighborhood, but it was changed to be measured by the number of loans.

What exactly are you guys talking about? It seems your talking about redlining.

Redlining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which I don't think was a major factor in the recent housing and financial crisis.

 

[byteware]

What exactly are you guys talking about? It seems your talking about redlining.

Redlining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which I don't think was a major factor in the recent housing and financial crisis.

Redlining is illegal. However, Clinton changed the process to prove that, as an institution, you weren't redlining.

Originally, to prove that you weren't redlining, you only had to show that you were offering your products in those neighborhoods.

After Clinton's changes, to prove that you weren't redlining, you had to show the loans that you made in those areas, and it had to be a significant amount of loans (i.e. not one or two loans).

Hence, the discussion.

 

[cipher6]

but did redlining or changes in the rules of redlining constitute outside pressures that contributed to profit lose and failures, outside mismanagement and corruption?

 

[byteware]

but did redlining or changes in the rules of redlining constitute outside pressures that contributed to profit lose and failures, outside mismanagement and corruption?

It definitely contributed to losses, and was an outside pressure. Was it a significant factor in the financial meltdown?

Who knows.

 

[nlsme]

Yep... supply and demand. If you can't price your product to a point where you get massive demand, price it to a point where the demand is profitable.

I'm assuming you don't know much about business. I believe you've said that you own a small business. I don't believe you. The fact that this appears to be a sarcastic remark deriding an obvious business practice makes me believe that you are a postal employee, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

Please explain why you think that. I see both the fedex guy and the fed ex guy everyday. How will throwing a few more letters going to drop their prices by the 80% they would have too to compete in price with the usps? You must not undetstand how small profit margins are And it is funny you take such attitude about my knowledge, yet constantly fall back on ups profits. Ups is an international company, with a very large freight division. They are completely different, and face different issues. Yet you ignore fed ex's multi billion dollar losses. Im finnished with you, as you repeatedly show you have no idea what you are talking about.