USPS - Still a money pit

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

It's an ABSOLUTE necessity for millions of businesses.

If there modes of communication that were cheaper and more effective there wouldn't be mail advertising. Macy's doesn't just waste tens of millions of dollars every year on bad communications choices.

Grocery stores would use other advertising if mail wasn't cost effective and useful.

This is true for millions of other businesses with less money to spend.

Your point shows how little you understand about US business.

That makes no sense at all, and actually underscores my point. The USPS was designed for direct communication, not mass advertising. Why should Macy's have their advertising subsidized by the US taxpayers? Should the government pay for their TV ads, billboards, newspaper ads, in-store placement, and radio spots as well? If Macy's wants to send me something, they can pay the actual cost of getting it to me without taxpayer subsidy, or they can leave me the hell alone if that is too costly from their perspective. There is absolutely no reason why the taxpayers should be subsidizing a portion of Macy's advertising.

 

[PhDeac]

To the first bolded point, it isn't saving Americans any money by using the current system - Americans are collectively paying for all of the costs either through stamps or taxes.

To the second bolded point, that is part of my intent. The cost of operating the postal service should be borne proportionately by those who use it the most. If you send more e-mails than your neighbor so need faster internet, then you pay for that, not him. 200 years ago, postal mail was crucial because it was the only means of distance communication, so it was necessary that the cost be paid by the government for the country to operate efficiently. Now, postal mail is no more important than e-mail, faxing, overnight delivery, or phone calls. Given the various options, there really isn't any need for the government to provide any of it at this point in time. It is no different than any other consumer service.

I would actually be curious as to whether government-provided e-mail would be more cost effective, energy efficient, paper efficient, and progressive in the long run than trucking and flying billions of letters and junk mail across the country each day. But I do think the PO Boxes could be free if we were to go with my no-home-delivery plan. The amount that the Post Office would save from not having to employ any letter carriers would clearly offset whatever fees they would lose from existing PO Box holders.

Yeah, but your plan doesn't make it more expensive to send mail. It makes it more expensive to receive mail. Why should I have to drive a few miles and pay for the gas to the post office when I don't know what I'm driving there to get?

 

[RJKarl]

That makes no sense at all, and actually underscores my point. The USPS was designed for direct communication, not mass advertising. Why should Macy's have their advertising subsidized by the US taxpayers? Should the government pay for their TV ads, billboards, newspaper ads, in-store placement, and radio spots as well? If Macy's wants to send me something, they can pay the actual cost of getting it to me without taxpayer subsidy, or they can leave me the hell alone if that is too costly from their perspective. There is absolutely no reason why the taxpayers should be subsidizing a portion of Macy's advertising.

Your ignorance on this is monumental. It's the advertising dollars that keeps prices down for the rest of us. You don't understand ANYTHING about how USPS creates revenues.

you simply take talking points at face value rather than dealing with the reality of how things work.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Raise rates. Not like people get mad about that anymore since people rarely use the post office anymore. It was different back when everybody used it.

Charging a fee to opt out of junkmail is an interesting idea. They can't just ban junkmail altogether because that's about the only thing keeping the postal service afloat, though that's what would happen in a perfect world.

Cutting back service would save gas, I guess. And long term maintenance costs to the delivery trucks. But then what do you do with the mailmen who deliver? Are they going to accept a part time job with the postal service? Doubtful. You'd have to let people go like any outfit that loses money, but with the union this will be tough to do.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Yeah, but your plan doesn't make it more expensive to send mail. It makes it more expensive to receive mail. Why should I have to drive a few miles and pay for the gas to the post office when I don't know what I'm driving there to get?

If you are not expecting anything, then you won't go but once every week or two. And, from the sender's perspective, that uncertainty of receipt timing will push delivery of items more towards e-mail and other more efficient methods of communication. So then you are only going once a month. Pretty soon, snail mail would phase itself out completely, which is what would naturally happen if the taxpayers weren't artificially propping it up.

 

[RJKarl]

If you are not expecting anything, then you won't go but once every week or two. And, from the sender's perspective, that uncertainty of receipt timing will push delivery of items more towards e-mail and other more efficient methods of communication. So then you are only going once a month. Pretty soon, snail mail would phase itself out completely, which is what would naturally happen if the taxpayers weren't artificially propping it up.

The nlet's let the roads and airports fall into total disrepair since taxes and designed for them fall woefully short of paying for their needs.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Again, the country needs roads and airports because there are no practical alternatives, so it is proper for taxes to support them. Snail mail has many more efficient alternatives that already exist. A more appropriate comparison would be if the federal government created an agency to implement horse watering and feeding stations every few miles across the country so that citizens could ride their horses to work, under the theory that we need a mobile society. Well, technology has surpassed horses and created more efficient alternatives that already exist, so the government would be wrong to waste taxpayer money on such a project. Sure, some people would get use out of the horse stations, but that does not mean it is an appropriate taxpayer expenditure as a whole.

 

[PhDeac]

If you are not expecting anything, then you won't go but once every week or two. And, from the sender's perspective, that uncertainty of receipt timing will push delivery of items more towards e-mail and other more efficient methods of communication. So then you are only going once a month. Pretty soon, snail mail would phase itself out completely, which is what would naturally happen if the taxpayers weren't artificially propping it up.

You have your causation twisted.

First, important mail doesn't come because you expect it. Often important things come that you don't expect. If you only check your mail once a week, you may miss it. My wife and I are notoriously lazy about checking the mail even if it's in the house and it's not uncommon to miss a reimbursement check or an almost due bill.

In addition, many people already use PO Boxes and that hasn't slowed down anything.

Second, the USPS is in operation because people still use snail mail. Snail mail doesn't exist only because of USPS. Until businesses and consumers find it more profitable and convenient to do online bill pay or online coupons and such, there will be snail mail. Until people stop sending mother's day cards, there will be snail mail. Snail mail exists because people use it and that's why USPS delivers it at a significant discount to the consumer.

 

[RJKarl]

Technology CLEARLY hasn't bypassed mail. Otherwise MILLIONS of businesses wouldn't still be using it so widely.

Mulli-billion dollar companies spend millions to find out which methods of promotion and advertising are most cost-effective and realize the most profit. The answer comes back- the US Mail.

Just because these FACTS dispute what you've told to think, doesn't make them less accurate.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Technology CLEARLY hasn't bypassed mail. Otherwise MILLIONS of businesses wouldn't still be using it so widely.

Mulli-billion dollar companies spend millions to find out which methods of promotion and advertising are most cost-effective and realize the most profit. The answer comes back- the US Mail.

Just because these FACTS dispute what you've told to think, doesn't make them less accurate.

Of course those facts are true. I would expect those findings to be true because, again, the taxpayers are subsidizing the mail system. Of course it is going to be more cost-effective and profitable for the companies, because they are not having to directly pay the full true cost. They are profiting from our collective stupidity - what part of that do you not understand?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You have your causation twisted.

First, important mail doesn't come because you expect it. Often important things come that you don't expect. If you only check your mail once a week, you may miss it. My wife and I are notoriously lazy about checking the mail even if it's in the house and it's not uncommon to miss a reimbursement check or an almost due bill.

In addition, many people already use PO Boxes and that hasn't slowed down anything.

Second, the USPS is in operation because people still use snail mail. Snail mail doesn't exist only because of USPS. Until businesses and consumers find it more profitable and convenient to do online bill pay or online coupons and such, there will be snail mail. Until people stop sending mother's day cards, there will be snail mail. Snail mail exists because people use it and that's why USPS delivers it at a significant discount to the consumer.

I think you (and me) have gotten lazy about checking mail because there is rarely anything good that arrives. Only bills, and even those are now usually secondary to an online statement. Whereas in the past you would look forward to a magazine or a letter from a friend, now you got those 4 days earlier online or via e-mail. I think the remaining mail comes more out of tradition than necessity, but if the subsidies were cut and the true costs charged, then you would see all remaining bills become electronic.

Getting rid of the USPS doesn't mean getting rid of personal delivery, it just means getting rid of the government subsidies. The organization could be de-coupled from the federal government and privatized, or FedEx and UPS would certainly pick up the market to the extent it was profitable. You would still be able to send your Mother's Day and Christmas cards, you would just have to pay the full direct cost of the delivery. Our government is spending itself into the ground, and hard decisions have to be made about what are necessary government expenditures and what aren't. The government does not need to be subsidizing the delivery of bills and Christmas cards when there are plenty of other ways to get the the contents there (both cheaper and more expensive to the sender). Given the government financial decisions that have to be made, I don't think this is a hard one.

 

[RJKarl]

No it couldn't be decoupled. No one would deliver to bumfuck nowhere Montana for resasonable rates. You'd need armed guards to deliver to Bed Stuy.

Plus the reality is you'd have multiple strangers (who aren't necessarily vetted) delivering a range of mai lto your home.

Then there is the real estate and other capital costs. You really live in a dream world.

The reality is all we need to do is adjust the pricing appropriately and the government won't be subsidizing it.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

FedEx and UPS already go to those places and hire competent delivery folks without much problem. I trust the FedEx guy to properly perform his job duties a helluva lot more than I trust my mailman.

 

[RJKarl]

Then you aren't thinking very well. You would be having multiple p[eople come to your home. costs would be MUCH higher.

Everything is setup for FedEx. they don't have to take all the bad routes. They can set higher prices whenver they choose.

Your concept of "subsidizing" is laughable when you consider it only hpapens once in a while and is a tiny fraction of operating expenses.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I believe the initial post of this thread referenced a loss of $2.2 billion in the most recent quarter alone. I certainly do not find that number to be a laughable subsidy under any circumstances regarding the delivery of mail, especially when you consider that that usage of the USPS is certainly trending down, so there is no reason to ever expect a meaningful increase in revenues.

 

[RJKarl]

Each of your posts shows less of an understanding of what the USPS does for revenue.

Yes changes have to be made to deal with present day reality, but on a scale of 1-10 (ten being worst), privatizing the USPS is a 14,000,000.

 

[PhDeac]

I believe the initial post of this thread referenced a loss of $2.2 billion in the most recent quarter alone. I certainly do not find that number to be a laughable subsidy under any circumstances regarding the delivery of mail, especially when you consider that that usage of the USPS is certainly trending down, so there is no reason to ever expect a meaningful increase in revenues.

Thus the recommendations I've made on this thread that provide comparable service at a reduced rate of frequency. Expenses stay down for most Americans and people pay for more frequent service. Your plans drive expensive up for Americans at no appreciable drop in spending.

 

[DCDeac]

The USPS was profitable (despite trying to be profit-neutral) from the 80's until 2006.

I'd also like to know how this is "costing taxpayers money." I mean that literally, because previously the USPS has not been funded at all with taxpayer money. The only money they get from the government is to cover things like free military absentee ballots for voting and free world mail for diplomats - basically wherever the government is using their service.

It's a massive entity. It has to adapt and it'll take a while and a lot of losses and lots of borrowed money to do so, just like many other companies. Plus out of the $8 billion it lost last year for it's 600,000 employees, only $500 million had anything to do with operations. The rest were all government mandates for health coverage changes and crap that jumped their payouts to retired employees. That's against $70 billion in revenue.

Compare that to something like the SunTrust bailout. They employ 30,000 and do $12 billion in revenue and got cash straight from taxpayers of over $4 billion all told.

It's hard to believe the "concern" for USPS is anything other than anti-government folks trying to get a rise out of people.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

The USPS was profitable (despite trying to be profit-neutral) from the 80's until 2006.

I'd also like to know how this is "costing taxpayers money." I mean that literally, because previously the USPS has not been funded at all with taxpayer money. The only money they get from the government is to cover things like free military absentee ballots for voting and free world mail for diplomats - basically wherever the government is using their service.

It's a massive entity. It has to adapt and it'll take a while and a lot of losses and lots of borrowed money to do so, just like many other companies. Plus out of the $8 billion it lost last year for it's 600,000 employees, only $500 million had anything to do with operations. The rest were all government mandates for health coverage changes and crap that jumped their payouts to retired employees. That's against $70 billion in revenue.

Compare that to something like the SunTrust bailout. They employ 30,000 and do $12 billion in revenue and got cash straight from taxpayers of over $4 billion all told.

It's hard to believe the "concern" for USPS is anything other than anti-government folks trying to get a rise out of people.

More like people wanting to crack its monopoly, which is written into the Constitution and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[PhDeac]

More like people wanting to crack its monopoly, which is written into the Constitution and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Monopoly?