Economy Trump does not want to bail out the Postal Service. Should he do it or not?

[skysolo]

In the 3 years i mentioned? You tell me.

I asked why is the USPS losing money.

The answer is all over this thread.

 

[deviake]

I always find it amusing how guys these days become "mean girls" in these types of discussions. It is because women are the dominant sex in your world (you follow their lead) and because you stay emotionally younger for longer. So, emotionally speaking, you're basically a bunch of immature women. <45>

I made no reference to Pensions in my initial post, so it is unclear to me to what "way" you are referring. I agree that the federal government needs to review its pension plan f it causes so much financial loss. But, while pensions may be the biggest source of financial burden for USPS, I am still not interested in propping up a failing entity. There would be other private entities that could pick up the work and do a more efficient job.

So, after making a fool of yourself you take no responsibility, ignore the facts, and turn into a misogynist?

Classic sherdog

 

[deviake]

I asked why is the USPS losing money.

The answer is all over this thread.

It's like the old saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but it might take a shit in it and walk off complaining

 

[Philo-Publius]

Other private entitles cannot do what the USPS does.

Of course they can...

You are clearly wrong about everything that you are writing.

Making absolute statements like that really seems like "mean girl" logic to me. Everything. So, my statement about Congress forcing USPS to prefund its pensions being a financial challenge for USPS is erroneous?

Not admitting when you are wrong, again, you call someone else a teenage girl?

That is exactly what you emulate. You probably don't even know the difference because that is how you have been socialized.

 

[Philo-Publius]

So, after making a fool of yourself you take no responsibility, ignore the facts, and turn into a misogynist?

Classic sherdog

Misogynist. <45>

Sorry if I mistreated you, ladies.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I asked why is the USPS losing money.

The answer is all over this thread.

Why will you not address their financial losses in those years (00,01,02) ?
Odd.

 

[woodguyatl]

There would be other private entities that could pick up the work and do a more efficient job.

This isn’t the case. Simply buying enough real estate in developed areas to have offices would be daunting. Second there are places on the US where private companies don’t deliver even at their current rates because it is not profitable. Do you not think that if UPS and FedEx could make money delivering letters they wouldn’t already be doing it? There is a reason they have stuck to packages and express.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Between 1972 and 2002, how many times was the USPS profitable?
11 times

Let me say that another way.
19 out of 30 years >>>>prior to 2006<<<<< USPS lost money.

@skysolo wants to blame it all in the 2006 pre fund, which I agree didn't help anything..
It's far from the only reason why USPS is a money pit, historically.

 

[Philo-Publius]

This isn’t the case. Simply buying enough real estate in developed areas to have offices would be daunting. Second there are places on the US where private companies don’t deliver even at their current rates because it is not profitable. Do you not think that if UPS and FedEx could make money delivering letters they wouldn’t already be doing it? There is a reason they have stuck to packages and express.

You can mail a letter through a private delivery company, but it's not as cost efficient because they don't do it in bulk like USPS does. USPS contracts with airlines to cart mail all over the globe in bulk. You are right that it is more expensive in certain areas less traveled, but I don't at all buy that private enterprise is incapable of finding a cost efficient way to do it if they were not contending with USPS (who presently has the letter delivery market cornered).

 

[deviake]

Between 1972 and 2002, how many times was the USPS profitable?
11 times

Let me say that another way.
19 out of 30 years >>>>prior to 2006<<<<< USPS lost money.

@skysolo wants to blame it all in the 2006 pre fund, which I agree didn't help anything..
It's far from the only reason why USPS is a money pit, historically.

Source? I can find losses for 2001-2, haven't seen the rest

Also, USPS stopped being funded by tax payers in 1982 so I'm not sure why anything before that would be examined

 

[djacobox372]

Between 1972 and 2002, how many times was the USPS profitable?
11 times

Let me say that another way.
19 out of 30 years >>>>prior to 2006<<<<< USPS lost money.

@skysolo wants to blame it all in the 2006 pre fund, which I agree didn't help anything..
It's far from the only reason why USPS is a money pit, historically.

WTF does profit have to do with it?

It's a government agency, if they were making a profit I'd be more worried.

 

[woodguyatl]

You can mail a letter through a private delivery company, but it's not as cost efficient because they don't do it in bulk like USPS does. USPS contracts with airlines to cart mail all over the globe in bulk. You are right that it is more expensive in certain areas less traveled, but I don't at all buy that private enterprise is incapable of finding a cost efficient way to do it if they were not contending with USPS (who presently has the letter delivery market cornered).

USPS is extremely efficient at delivering mail. $.55 is crazy cheap to pick up a letter at my house and deliver it to somebody else’s house anywhere in the US. My background, both graduate degrees and work experience is in supply chain and logistics. Both UPS and FedEx were my clients. We did some fairly large (multi-million dollar) studies for FedEx exploring mail type services and the numbers never got close to making sense. Even today, UPS gives packages to USPS to deliver in some areas because it is cheaper than doing it themselves. The answer I think is to allow USPS to charge a true market rate for their services. Today, Congress must approve postal rates and no Congressman wants to be the guy who let the USPS raise their rates a bunch.

 

[The Big Bang]

USPS is extremely efficient at delivering mail. $.55 is crazy cheap to pick up a letter at my house and deliver it to somebody else’s house anywhere in the US. My background, both graduate degrees and work experience is in supply chain and logistics. Both UPS and FedEx were my clients. We did some fairly large (multi-million dollar) studies for FedEx exploring mail type services and the numbers never got close to making sense. Even today, UPS gives packages to USPS to deliver in some areas because it is cheaper than doing it themselves. The answer I think is to allow USPS to charge a true market rate for their services. Today, Congress must approve postal rates and no Congressman wants to be the guy who let the USPS raise their rates a bunch.

Well said.

It seems like most of the people here who are ANTI-postal service are Flump supporters...I wonder why that is...

 

[Philo-Publius]

USPS is extremely efficient at delivering mail. $.55 is crazy cheap to pick up a letter at my house and deliver it to somebody else’s house anywhere in the US.

Again, I would point towards the fact that they deliver in bulk as the reason for the low charge. Also, the cheap rates that the Post Office provides may be a contributor to lack of profit margin, as other posters have alluded to, despite some putting it solely at the feet of a Congressional bill in 2007.

My background, both graduate degrees and work experience is in supply chain and logistics. Both UPS and FedEx were my clients. We did some fairly large (multi-million dollar) studies for FedEx exploring mail type services and the numbers never got close to making sense.

And in your estimation, none of that had to do with the fact that USPS already dominates the market?

Even today, UPS gives packages to USPS to deliver in some areas because it is cheaper than doing it themselves. The answer I think is to allow USPS to charge a true market rate for their services. Today, Congress must approve postal rates and no Congressman wants to be the guy who let the USPS raise their rates a bunch.

See first comment above.

 

[Scheme]

USPS is extremely efficient at delivering mail. $.55 is crazy cheap to pick up a letter at my house and deliver it to somebody else’s house anywhere in the US. My background, both graduate degrees and work experience is in supply chain and logistics. Both UPS and FedEx were my clients. We did some fairly large (multi-million dollar) studies for FedEx exploring mail type services and the numbers never got close to making sense. Even today, UPS gives packages to USPS to deliver in some areas because it is cheaper than doing it themselves. The answer I think is to allow USPS to charge a true market rate for their services. Today, Congress must approve postal rates and no Congressman wants to be the guy who let the USPS raise their rates a bunch.

So they are undercutting free market postal services via government aid?

There is no issue with delivery in our country. It has only gotten better with free market options. A lot of things are same day or one day delivery when a decade ago they could take weeks. And traditional mail is dying to digital services. I say we let it die as it is an antiquated industry. Also, the amount of useless fliers, notices, etc. delivered to me is insane. I think in total I probably get 95+% spam mail that could easily be digitized.

 

[woodguyatl]

So they are undercutting free market postal services via government aid?

There is no issue with delivery in our country. It has only gotten better with free market options. A lot of things are same day or one day delivery when a decade ago they could take weeks. And traditional mail is dying to digital services. I say we let it die as it is an antiquated industry. Also, the amount of useless fliers, notices, etc. delivered to me is insane. I think in total I probably get 95+% spam mail that could easily be digitized.

What government aid are you talking about? USPS received no Federal money at all. It is 100% self funded and has been for decades.

 

[woodguyatl]

And in your estimation, none of that had to do with the fact that USPS already dominates the market?

The payback on investment necessary to serve all markets was over 50 years if I recall. It was over 20 years to serve the major markets. Nobody would make that investment without the ability to charge higher rates. If higher rates are acceptable, then we should simply allow the USPS to raise their rates.

There are no companies who thinks they can deliver mail cheaper than USPS.

If we were to allow USPS to raise rates to what a private business would charge and also let them deliver only to profitable areas (sorry Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota. No mail for you.) like a private business would operate then there would be no problems. Unless, you think a private business would deliver to money losing rural areas and not just the profitable zip codes as well as maintaining facilities in all this rural areas for people to mail packages, pick up held mail, etc.

 

[Philo-Publius]

The payback on investment necessary to serve all markets was over 50 years if I recall. It was over 20 years to serve the major markets. Nobody would make that investment without the ability to charge higher rates. If higher rates are acceptable, then we should simply allow the USPS to raise their rates.

There are no companies who thinks they can deliver mail cheaper than USPS.

Because USPS exists and dominates the market. Your point that building (or taking over) infrastructure would be a hurdle is valid, but obviously if USPS is capable of delivering without losing money (as many here are claiming they already do) private enterprise could figure out how to duplicate that process. Bulk delivery is the key to that.

If we were to allow USPS to raise rates to what a private business would charge and also let them deliver only to profitable areas (sorry Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota. No mail for you.) like a private business would operate then there would be no problems. Unless, you think a private business would deliver to money losing rural areas and not just the profitable zip codes as well as maintaining facilities in all this rural areas for people to mail packages, pick up held mail, etc.

It's not that USPS is delivering to those "less profitable" areas for less because they are more efficient. It's that USPS is taking a loss when delivering to those regions, but able to compensate (at least to some degree) when they bulk deliver to the higher revenue areas. It may be that private enterprise would charge more for delivering to high traffic areas (barring government regulation that enforces otherwise), but suggesting that they would simply not deliver to those areas is obviously false. UPS and Fed Ex already deliver packages to all of those regions you mentioned for a profit. Letters in theory would travel on the same airplanes. At the end of the day, bulk delivery is what allows for keeping rates lower.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Source? I can find losses for 2001-2, haven't seen the rest

Also, USPS stopped being funded by tax payers in 1982 so I'm not sure why anything before that would be examined

Its a pdf file from 2002 submitted to congress.
Can't figure out how to link it..
but in Google I searched usps financial report 2002

5th one down. Gao 02 355 is beginning

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

WTF does profit have to do with it?

It's a government agency, if they were making a profit I'd be more worried.

100% agree with you.
I don't think the USPS needs to be operating at a profit, either.

My point is only that historically they have lost money. To blame it all on the 2006 pre fund change is inaccurate.