Postal Service Discussion

[byteware]

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?

Seriously? Ok, a class on business it is.

Fuel and labor are a large part of the cost of delivering letters via UPS and FedEx. With the current volume, they may drive miles to deliver a single letter or package. This costs labor time, and fuel. Now, if you divide the costs of that mile between a thousand letters, instead of a single letter, you can see how that drives the costs down, right?

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.

You can quit, if you want to, but no one is going to believe it's because you know more than anyone else here... especially when we have to continuously explain why volume means lower costs per letter.

 

[nlsme]

K genius, I see him everyday, I dont get a 100 letters from usps(let alone a thousand) for everytime i see the ups. So you fail to explain how the prices will drop 80%. And go ahead and keep ignoring the rest.

 

[byteware]

K genius, I see him everyday, I dont get a 100 letters from usps(let alone a thousand) for everytime i see the ups. So you fail to explain how the prices will drop 80%.

You are rather snide for someone who appears to completely miss the point made.

I doubt that you are the only mail recipient in the square mile route your drivers take.

So, let's say you live in new york city. In the square mile around where you live... there are approximately, 26,000 people. If only have of those received letters, that's 13,000 deliveries in that area. Let's assume that of those that receive letters, half receive more than one... that's 19,000 deliveries in that square mile.

Keep in mind all of the time (labor), and fuel it took to get to that area...

Now, if we go from making 1 or two deliveries in that area to making 19,000 deliveries in that area, you can see how costs go WAY down.

And go ahead and keep ignoring the rest.

If by ignored, you don't mean posted source material from the USPS that you have ignored, because it's inconvenient to your view of things... then let me know what I've ignored, and I will certainly address it.

If by ignored, you mean posted source material from the USPS, that you have ignored, because it's inconvenient to your view on the matter... then well, there's nothing I can do about that. The USPS takes tax payer money every year. That's a fact, per the USPS. The USPS isn't turning a profit, and has a huge, and growing, deficit. That's a fact, per the USPS. These deficits are in addition to the $3 Billion the federal government gives them each year.

Yes, they run deficits each year, but normally deficits plus $3 billion government funding means they end in the black. But they are so far in the red, that even their yearly $3 Billion in tax payer money can't keep them in the black.

 

[3devious]

The tests were reiterated because you said you doubted me. I told you do some research, because you were acting like you knew what you were talking about.

The reason the isps is "off budget" is because congress determined they were self sustaining. They came to that conclusionafter 200 years of budgets showed them that. Maybe you should tell your congressman the words don't belong together.

You are the one who started this discussion about how the USPS is great yada yada yada. You tried to claim that it is sustainable and a good model for government run services. It is not.

Then you started talking about nepotism corruption and testing (in some unsuccessful way of trying to make the USPS sound better than companies who do the same job.) You previously said that ALL civil position required testing as opposed to "just knowing someone" and I told you that you were wrong.

You make statements that you can't back up, can't seem to add and then desperately accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about.

My correspondence with my congressman might be of better use if I asked him to fund math and economics programs.

Since you started a discussion that the only points on your side of it reflect tradition and the fact that private industry wouldn't do it as inexpensively as the USPS does it and are frustrated that few people want to bang that drum with you, you are left with "If you can't provide numbers, STUFU!" Looks like someone gave you numbers. Now it's "Oh yeah, well UPS can't do that, either!"

So what if they can't? The point is, services cost. A company is going to charge you more than something is worth, it isn't a charity. You can argue that they shouldn't charge so much and maybe you're right. The only way the prices will come down will be when someone else can do it just as reliably for less. The playing field isn't completely level right now, but it probably never will be.

Your original comment was that the USPS would be a good model to follow given that it's been profitable for 95% of its existence. You also said that it is the only carrier that is efficient enough to mail a letter across the country for 50 cents. This is more than likely untrue as they can't afford that. Sure it only costs us that, but they can't sustain that.

Let's say that for a moment your premise is reasonable and that our health insurance service would in some bizarro universe be profitable for 95% of its existence and that in this same universe care can be obtained for a fraction of the value of the equipment, manpower and infrastructure required to provide it and that the health care CEOs do not make 96 million dollars a year. Do you see where I am going with this?

Well at least some health care CEOs aren't making $50000/hour. If we get those other obstacles licked, we are in the clear!

 

[nlsme]

The usps least dense rout is 176 miles, with 175 houses, their densest route, 1.9, 640 boxes. Your numbers fail. And "my veiw point" is the post is an example of what the givernment does right. Their NUMEROUS awards show this. The ONLY money they receive from the tax payers is subsidies for delivering the blibd and disabled's mail. I am snide because you are. Differance is you make it quite obvious you are oblivous to what you are arguing.

What you areigboring is fedex losses, rural delivery, and ups being under a totally different of pressures that affect their budget.

 

[Slug]

C'mon now peeps, remember the mantra.... "attack the message, not the messenger".

p.s. as an employee of Royal Mail here in the UK I'm finding this discussion disturbingly familiar. I think all administrations with a USO requirement to uphold are in the same boat.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Do you think Royal Mail is ready for privatisation?

 

[Slug]

Do you think Royal Mail is ready for privatisation?

My personal opinion...

If it's privatised it will have to cease being the Royal Mail everyone knows and relies on. You can't provide a USO to 50-odd million addresses and turn over enough profit to satisfy shareholders. For years the "sole shareholder" (the government of the day) pocketed the majority of any operating profit and restricted investment. That won't change, the only difference will be the pockets being lined. It will only survive if allowed the same operating conditions as its so-called "competitors" i.e cherry-picking the profitable metropolitan areas and pricing realistically to service elsewhere. You can imagine how that will go down with Aunt Aggie in John O'Groats when it suddenly costs her a fiver to send a birthday card to her sister in Lands End.....

 

[ElasticNinja]

My personal opinion...

If it's privatised it will have to cease being the Royal Mail everyone knows and relies on. You can't provide a USO to 50-odd million addresses and turn over enough profit to satisfy shareholders. For years the "sole shareholder" (the government of the day) pocketed the majority of any operating profit and restricted investment. That won't change, the only difference will be the pockets being lined. It will only survive if allowed the same operating conditions as its so-called "competitors" i.e cherry-picking the profitable metropolitan areas and pricing realistically to service elsewhere. You can imagine how that will go down with Aunt Aggie in John O'Groats when it suddenly costs her a fiver to send a birthday card to her sister in Lands End.....

thats pretty much my opinion on this

 

[byteware]

The usps least dense rout is 176 miles, with 175 houses, their densest route, 1.9, 640 boxes. Your numbers fail. And "my veiw point" is the post is an example of what the givernment does right. Their NUMEROUS awards show this. The ONLY money they receive from the tax payers is subsidies for delivering the blibd and disabled's mail. I am snide because you are. Differance is you make it quite obvious you are oblivous to what you are arguing.

What you areigboring is fedex losses, rural delivery, and ups being under a totally different of pressures that affect their budget.

Prove that you aren't just making up those numbers. Provide the link...

 

[srkmagnus]

@slug very good points.

 

[nlsme]

thats pretty much my opinion on this

Hence byteware picking manhatten to explain his "supply and demand" theory.

 

[byteware]

Hence byteware picking manhatten to explain his "supply and demand" theory.

So, you just made up your numbers NLSME? I'm in, your statement was "prove it or STFU"... right?

 

[srkmagnus]

What every needs to realize is that the postal service is a branch of the Federal Government. Government agencies are not for profit businesses. Meaning they only need to take in as much as they are putting out to cover the day-to-day operations and reserve the surplus. In the past the service has been very much independent and did not need a tax payer infusion.

Times have changed and so has the way people do mail. Don't expect increased rates to deliver a letter to Timbuck-too versus the same letter delivered to your neighbor. We'll continue to see the Forever stamp and other services incrementally increase to help cover costs. If the Postal Service does not meet your needs, then go Fedex or UPS.

 

[nlsme]

So, you just made up your numbers NLSME? I'm in, your statement was "prove it or STFU"... right?

No, my satement was "disprove" it, or stfu. Stands here as well. Problem for you is, you CAN'T. Either with this statement, or the previous one. And, Strasser never spoke upon the usps budget since its "inception", like you claim. "Snidely" even, even AFTER you were corrected.

 

[cipher6]

And "my veiw point" is the post is an example of what the givernment does right.

I somewhat agree with that... If by that you mean, subsidize something that might not have happened in a free market.

I see a (shrinking) need for the USPS. Back when mail was the only means of communication, the US Mail was the equivalent of the internet... communicate with anyone in the country for one cheap prices.

That need is shrinking with technology today, which is why junk mail makes up 90% of whats in my mail box everyday. Mail marketing and the US Gov. now subsidies the post office.

Yes, the Government is good at forcing something into existence that might not have occurred in a free market, like food stamps, or wind storm insurance pools.

The USPS IS NOT an example of how the Govenernment does free market businesses right. But an example of how the power of government can create a useful service that isn't bound to free market forces. Which is why the USPS is mandated to provide service to everyone at one price. The market wouldn't do that... and when thats the only way to communicate, its an important thing. When you've got phones, email, twitter, etc. it becomes less important. Who still uses the mail as the main means of communication?

 

[nlsme]

I somewhat agree with that... If by that you mean, subsidize something that might not have happened in a free market.

I see a (shrinking) need for the USPS. Back when mail was the only means of communication, the US Mail was the equivalent of the internet... communicate with anyone in the country for one cheap prices.

That need is shrinking with technology today, which is why junk mail makes up 90% of whats in my mail box everyday. Mail marketing and the US Gov. now subsidies the post office.

Yes, the Government is good at forcing something into existence that might not have occurred in a free market, like food stamps, or wind storm insurance pools.

The USPS IS NOT an example of how the Govenernment does free market businesses right. But an example of how the power of government can create a useful service that isn't bound to free market forces. Which is why the USPS is mandated to provide service to everyone at one price. The market wouldn't do that... and when thats the only way to communicate, its an important thing. When you've got phones, email, twitter, etc. it becomes less important. Who still uses the mail as the main means of communication?

You wait for 3 pages to agree with my first statement.

 

[byteware]

No, my satement was "disprove" it, or stfu. Stands here as well. Problem for you is, you CAN'T. Either with this statement, or the previous one. And, Strasser never spoke upon the usps budget since its "inception", like you claim. "Snidely" even, even AFTER you were corrected.

That's funny. I've disproven every single statement that you've made about the Post Office.

"Without a single taxpayer dollar", Except the $3+ Billion every year.

"With a profit", Well for 2 years (except the USPS is a horrible source for that kind of information apparently).

I'm still waiting for you to enumerate which points of yours I haven't addressed.

 

[byteware]

No, my satement was "disprove" it, or stfu. Stands here as well.

Oh, I see... You make stuff up, and WE have to disprove it.

Well, there are no information on route density that I can find in regards to the USPS. So, either your numbers are either internal numbers released to USPS employees (of which you are one), or you made them up.

Problem for you is, you CAN'T.

Umm... I can't disprove something that doesn't exist. That's pretty much a given.

Either with this statement, or the previous one.

Well, the previous one was the "for all I know the deficits could have been 5 dollars", and I resoundedly disproved that one with the USPS budget. (I know, it's the USPS as a source. You don't trust them).

And, Strasser never spoke upon the usps budget since its "inception", like you claim. "Snidely" even, even AFTER you were corrected.

Nope. He only spoke about the deficits since the restructuring in the 70's. When the USPS went "off budget" (with the exception of the 3 Billion dollars a year in taxpayer money that they receive).

 

[cipher6]

You wait for 3 pages to agree with my first statement.

From what I read, you tried to make it seem like, "what the government does right" as far as running a business. If the USPS was graded on its business skills, it fails horribly.

If its judged on filling a need dictated by the Federal Government, it does ok. It managed to fill that need, but as a business did poorly, But that need is pretty much gone today.

I think your getting so much flack because you failed to clearly differentiate between the two. You sited government mandates as reasons why they didn't do good business, when people pushed you, but never articulated your statement "what government does right," pertained to subsidizing a service, not running a successful business.

Yes, the government is good at subsidizing things... cause all you have to do is pass a law and tax people, the USPS might be an example of subsidizing done right... ITs NOT a sign of the Government running a good business. If you had made that point clear in the beginning, I would have agreed with you from the start.

 

[nlsme]

They receuve no money to run the post office. What they receive is the pistage for the blinds mail. The blind are the ones receiving money. The usps receives no money from the feds.

You stated strasser said they ran defficits since its "inception". He didnt, he only spoke of 30 years. Im done with you, you just aroubd ib circles, and dont even bother to read. Paully?

 

[nlsme]

And you have yet to prove what you say, let alone disprove me.

 

[byteware]

They receuve no money to run the post office. What they receive is the pistage for the blinds mail. The blind are the ones receiving money. The usps receives no money from the feds.

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

Page 71:

The US government gives the USPS 3.034 Billion Dollars every year as a Capital Contribution. It has nothing to do with the "blinds mail".

Your claim otherwise, is obviously false. The USPS budget says so.

You stated strasser said they ran defficits since its "inception". He didnt, he only spoke of 30 years. Im done with you, you just aroubd ib circles, and dont even bother to read. Paully?

I figured you would understand that the only time it COULD run a deficit was after it was taken "off budget". But I guess that was a little too much to expect from you.

 

[byteware]

And you have yet to prove what you say, let alone disprove me.

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

Page 71

The US provides the USPS with $3.034 Billion every single year.

That's $3 Billion in taxpayer dollars every year, per the USPS budget.

I would say that I've disproven your statement in regards to them not being taxpayer funded.

 

[nlsme]

Page 71 doesnt have the word "federal" anywhere on it. Guess you proved you dont read. However, I will admit the federal government does REIMBURSE the usps for delivery for the blind.