Do We Still Require Postal Service?

Placing the first sentence in another era:

"For several years we have been hearing how automobiles and other transportation devices have dramatically reduced the need for buggy whips, and therefore revenue to the buggy whip manufacturers, threatening their very existence."

Today, buggy whips are still manufactured because there is a need for them. The volume is substantially smaller and the manufacturers fewer, but there is still a market for them.

I have an acquaintance who works for United Parcel Service. He has told me he is looking forward to the day when the US Postal Service finally concedes that private carriers (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) can and will do the same job for less money.

I think there will always be a need for parcel and mail delivery. The need may diminish over time, just like buggy whips, but the need will always be there.

Re: I have an acquaintance who works for United Parcel Service. He has told me he is looking forward to the day when the US Postal Service finally concedes that private carriers (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) can and will do the same job for less money.

That conflicts with a line from the OP, which I think is true: "The Postal Service remains the least expensive carrier for physical communications, packages, and the like, and it serves even the remotest areas in the country."

And, should the US Postal Service concede that (and go "out of business"), will the private carriers raise their prices?

The issue of privatization has been around for quite a while. From the Wiki article:

"...several professional economists advocate the privatization of the mail delivery system, or at least a relaxation of the monopoly that currently exists. Rick Geddes argued in 2000:

• First, basic economics implies that rural customers are unlikely to be without service under competition; they would simply have to pay the true cost of delivery to them, which may or may not be lower than under monopoly.
• Second, basic notions of fairness imply that the cross-subsidy should be eliminated. To the extent that people make choices about where they live, they should assume the costs of that decision.
• Third, there is no reason why the government monopoly is necessary to ensure service to sparsely populated areas. The government could easily award competitive contracts to private firms for that service.
• Fourth, early concerns that rural residents of the United States would somehow become isolated without federally subsidized mail delivery today are simply unfounded. ... Once both sender and receiver have access to a computer, the marginal cost of sending an electronic message is close to zero.

According to my UPS pal, competition between the private carriers (UPS, FedEx, DHL, etc) will keep the prices in check. I do realize that he has an interest in swaying whatever opinion I may have, and there is no way to know what will happen.

As I consider, how much do you suppose it costs for a buggy whip today versus the price common when there were numerous manufacturers? Ouch!

Those are all good points! Thanks!

When KrisDel Enterprises™ branches out from bows and arrows to artisanal buggy whips, they may be more expensive--but way cooler.

<...KrisDel Enterprises™...> hasn't made much of late.

The USPS is not supported by taxes.It is off-budget.It is not allowed to make a profit,since it became the USPS;Totally different than when it was the Post Office Department(POD). If the USPS makes a profit,it is taken away and put into the general fund.The POD could sell stamps for 2 cents,because it did not matter,taxpayers picked up the bill.The competitors would love to get their hands on first class mail.They can do packages now,but they are drooling for the first class mail.When they get it,and eventually they will,it will be a sad day for postal patrons.The low hanging fruit will be picked first,the cities with high density.A conveyor-ized semi will pull up to the dock,and automatically unload thousands of containerized letters for a skyscraper,and the offices will be required to get their own mail.Delivery to homes will be sub contracted to the lowest bidder.The sanctity of first class mail will disappear.The Avon or Tupperware sales person may deliver your mail.Low density areas will be lucky to get mail once a week,or the customer will be required to drive into town to get mail.Many will long for the good old days after it happens,but after a few years,it will be the norm.

that is were the misunderstanding belongs. The USPS needs Congressional approval to raise the price of stamps, but it really isn't part of the government.

And this is what upsets my wife, the USPS is profitable entity, but the career politicians treat it as a revenue generator for their 'pet projects'.

One thing is, with Amazons et al,... they can not fiscally delivery to remote sites effectively, but the USPS does, and that's why Amazon FEDEX and UPS will use them as a delivery service.

And when the economy was poor, were there was less junk mail,... that hurt the USPS bottom dollar.

If the postal service was turned over to private enterprise, the first thing that will be cut is those remote sites services.

"The Postal Service remains the least expensive carrier for physical communications, packages, and the like, and it serves even the remotest areas in the country."

That is true, delivering mail to all location is part of the postal service.

My girl friend who has been a US postal employee for 16 years and have mentioned some of the bad points of the postal service. The biggest, the union protects the incompetent or lazy worker.

Oh one other thing, it probably soon no longer be a crime for a postal employee to steal on the job......why? Because theft is not a crime, because theft can be attributed as a disease.

"The biggest, the union protects the incompetent or lazy worker."

It's not the biggest, Management don't like to rock the boat. Both my father and brother have retired from the postal service. Both work from the bottom up into management. My father did it because he like to rock the boat. My brother to get the job done.

Postal management has become an men's club. They are afraid to do anything to push the workers because repercussion from those above them

My father had quite a bit of military time with him. As Lt. Colonel kind spoke his mind. They didn't like it but there was not much they could do.

My brother was a real problem for them. He would take branch operation out the red and into the black in a couple of month's. That one branch would stand out on the books like sore thumb. So they would move him every few months. Plus he removed employees from the service for not doing their jobs. As a letter carrier spent good part of it as shop steward. Knew the union regulations better then most and used them. After 30 yrs service he retired. Actually forced out. That's what I would call it management wrote him up for leaving mail on the dock. The dock of the last branch he had managed. See he had been promoted to another branch was there. But was the manager of record it the branch the mail was left on the dock. Which to my understanding was taboo in the postal service management does not write up management.

Management don't like to rock the boat.

I believe I stated that in post #35, third line.

When you rock the boat you have to deal with the union.

The union was never my brothers problem upper management was. They step in on behalf of the employee many times after the union had washed their hands of the termination.

I see, thats interesting.

Yes, we do! At least I will still demand it: maybe it is out of fashion, but I personally still collect stamps and postal things. The level of culture is descending since there are all those stampings on letters, but there are still some quite fascinating and interestic documents out there.

The post office is a government-protected monopoly; 19th century laws make it illegal for anyone else to deliver letters. It's also exempt from state and federal taxes and free from most government regulations.

Why is it that supply and demand is not applied here? If the usefulness has decreased, then should it make the normal cuts any other business make?

If it is truly worth having, let it flourish under normal a business environment... Competition!

Thats true,

Any change in the post office procedures, such as no Saturday deliveries, requires an act of congress.

If it is truly worth having, let it flourish under normal a business environment... Competition!

Like the oil companies. Remember the Postal Unions have a very big say into it.

No, I think the first order of business is to attempt to clean up our government, Which it still will be lame, but its the only one we have.

The first step is to vote.

There has already been a look at privatizing the US Postal Service by the service itself. What they found that there was no binders on the rural areas. No one want it as it's not profitable. So in order to provide those people with mail delivery the service would have to stay to provide it. So why give up the areas that are profitable to keep the ones that are not.

A lot of work is already subcontracted to Fed-Ex and other private carriers.

Yes there is a lot subcontracted out. There is still a difference between those that have a remote address and rural route.

Before we see the privatisation of the US Postal service we will see changes on how its delivered. One is cluster boxes in neighborhoods that have door to door delivery. Which is how all new neighborhoods are set up now.

OK, so how else does one send one's aging relative a birthday card?

Email!

As a professional in the envelope business, I have a viewpoint on this. Envelope companies have been faced with hard times because of the computer age. For a little while it actually helped us as advertising for computer products went out by mail, but with the economy in shambles we are hurting. Back in the 80's envelope companies competed heavily and bought equipment that produced 1000 envelopes a minute. They lowered their price as well. As time went on, this cut-throat pricing together with the downturn in business killed the envelope business. Half of them are gone, and what's left is a mix of the high-speed envelope companies supported by cheap labor, and the smaller specialty companies that pay a more reasonable scale but put a higher stress level on it's employees due to specialty work and quick turn-arounds.

How this relates to the OP's question is kind of off-topic, yet related. If the post office goes, along with all the mail, thousands of manufacturing jobs in America will be lost. I doubt UPS, etc., will start delivering letters for the same price, if at all. Yes, the post office needs to do some "tough-love" changes with it's union to survive, but I think it needs to survive not only for my industry, but for all the people who really want to mail things like BD cards or advertising. You may hate junk mail, but it puts food on the table of Americans like me.

Re: If the post office goes, along with all the mail, thousands of manufacturing jobs in America will be lost.

That's always a tough one. Is there any better answer than capitalistic survival of the fittest?

I wish there was. Is there anybody looking for better answers?

Off topic, or not... still a very interesting bit of info on the background and history of the envelope industry. Probably not information that I would have come across anywhere else. I think it's great that this site has specialists in everything from doors, to envelopes to cosmic worm-hole theory!

Staying with the buggy whip theory. The USPS has managed to price themselves out of business. You can keep raiseing prices of your product or services, but when a different opportunity comes about at a reasonable rate the customers go for what they can better afford even if it means forgetting the glitter. I use the buggy whip to train my animals to pay attention not hitting the animal, but, the snap of the whip puts them on alert to listen to instruction. I have not mailed a letter in 5 years unless it comes with a stamped return envelope. The Computer has relieved me of that expense via Email and freight to my front door in rual Okla. and at age 74 I'm not going to donate my little bit of SS to help front a service that is over paid and under productive.

"The Postal Service remains the least expensive carrier for physical communications, packages, and the like"

One huge mistake in this statement: I don't call loosing $4 billion annually a "least expensive carrier", once you factor that into the real price of sending that BD card! There is no doubt that competitive private businesses reacting to the declining supply/demand and location delivery costs is the best sustainable option until the whole concept goes the way of the buggy whip.

What stacks up against the USPS and makes their service uncompetitive is:

Government managed (poorly & subjected to politics for decisions)

Union influence hampering productivity, government supported. UPS & Fed Ex have unions too, but compete.

Monopoly by law - no driving force or incentive to compete for cost/service.

Eliminate these and the privatized USPS would have a shot at survival. Remember, "Change is not necessary....survival is not mandatory".

lose 4 billion, i thought it was closer to 6, but then that is how the government operates.

The reason for the loses is the economy created alot less junk mail.

You are closer the the right figure. The difference is that in reaction to a dip or decline in demand, a competitive private business would see it coming, and react to it by cutting costs (they have no option reach into customer's pockets like the tax subsidized USPS) so they would not bury themselves in debt and go out of business.

Like Freddie & Fannie, when the tax payer "has your back", life goes on without any real responsibility or accountability of "the management" (our government "enterprise" & politicians). As we elect them, then we are the cause of the unaccountability!

last year the postal services offered thou$ands for early retirement in the fall, What this did, people that were going to retire that spring postponed it till fall, and collected a tidy bonus for just working a few month more.

Good example! It was poor management that agreed to the abusive benefits (unheard of in most well managed businesses), and then again poor management that can't even formulate the minimum cost way to get out from under them.

Yeah.....it figures. But surely the program could be implemented to avoid such an abuse. Or actually, since it's a one time expense, maybe it's just a cost of improving the system.

Al what this did increase their working time, instead of retiring in the spring, they did it in the fall......with a bonus.

I like to add, believe you had to petition to retire, something of that effect.

But how managers manage, it seems that the day to day manager really do not like conflict.

Theft is unusually high at the post office 18 months ago they released a few that were collecting parking tickets.

When a parking ticket is issued it comes with a bright red return 3 x 5 envelope. No matter how many times people of told not to send cash. they put there $10.00-20.00 fine (cash) and mail it. Cameras are everywhere in the sorting, but the thieves still lift it. (easy to spot)

On the other hand, they had one that was robbing from the till, they put him on probation, but let him return. Why? Because gambling is a disease. Thanks to the liberal government, people no longer have to be responsible. BUT, at least he's restricted from being around cash.

Why not prosecute them for stealing? Didn't someone on here recently state that security was a major reason for Federal control over delivering mail?

They steal....put them in jail!!!!!

well the ones There was more than one, I believe two that were escorted out with handcuffs, now that was that cut and dried. They had video cameras set up.

I just wondered how, if the police contacted the people that owed the fines. It must have been a large number that paid and mailed it in which they didn't recieve that propted them contacting the postal service.

But the bastard that was stealing when his till didn't add up. He returned to work a few weeks after. Guess its alright to steal if you have a gambling addiction. I can only guess, but it must be one hell of a powerful union.

These people are personally responsible for their till that they cough up the difference. Which is what its suppose to be.

It is hard to tell if it is beneficial without knowing the precise policies and employee contract agreements, but early retirements offered usually mean it is less costly to reduce forces this way than the net cost to lay someone off (temporary or permanent) or pay full salary until they retire. Also it is not humane to lay someone off who will retire soon.

What is foolish and irresponsible is to have some one wait to retire and receive additional compensation to do so when you really want them to "retire early". It takes managerial competence to offer a schedule that helps both the company and the potential retirees. It is done in the private sector all the time.

What the reasoning for that is. There are still some old timers under the civil service agreement. Which I understand was done away with in the 70's or 80's. Those under that agreement did not pay social security. They paid into a pension plan. The federal government is trying to get out from under the cost of maintaining it. As it cost money to run two systems, it and social security. Plus the plan offer a pretty lucrative retirement package. They are looking at is money saved as jobs they can do away with that maintain those records. Plus the benefits offered under the civil service agreement were much more. Some of which are lost at retirement. Cost savings were computed in to those bonuses for early retirement. They pay scale was even different which wasn't changed under the new union agreement with the change. The civil service agreement was with the employee not the union.

Just a little confused here. The only outcome the payout offered for them to retire early accomplish was that instead of retiring in the spring just extended it to retire in the fall. An extra 6 months in the workforce.

And to use the excuse of thats just the way the government or union or post office works, is poor at best.

WE pay the price.

So when the SS $ were thrown into the General Fund and spent (forcing it to be paid out only by incoming taxes - which is what SS actually is now) the USPS kept their Pension Fund. Nice to have your cake and eat it too!

They are now just like the unsustainable state pension funds, causing a huge fiscal crisis. My point is that they all have been poorly managed in effect by the collaboration of politicians and the unions with no competition or taxpayer oversight. It wouldn't take much competition to beat that (if UPS & Fed Ex would even go after a dying concept).

I just posted on this topic in a different thread.

According to this site:

However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund."

and

Despite this virtual monopoly worth some $45 billion a year, the law does not require that the Postal Service make a profit -- only break even.

If they are the least expensive carrier, perhaps not having to pay federal taxes has something to do with it.

So true. I would be willing to bet that a non-union private company with competition, paying taxes on profits, would still cost us less (than the true net USPS cost) and provide better service.

Up here is Canada. Our postal service is currently on strike. It does have an effect on millions of people and on bussiness. Especially seniors and people who do not have internet and email etc.. But like in the USA. The service is heavily subsidized by tax dollars and is indeed a monopoly that is monopolized (is that a word) by the unions. I beleive as one person stated. The cost of sending a letter or parcel should be dependant on where it is going and where it is coming from. People in far off the beaten track and low populated areas should pay more for pick up etc.. As well. The delivery of mail should be cut back to 3 times per week per area door to door. And common mail boxes should be installed in medium densley areas where the sender/recipient would have to go to a common box with there specific mail slot. The mail slot itself should be a yearly rental to cover maintenance costs etc..

Thus reducing the tax burdens to all. And shifting the costs to those who use it. And making the true costs per user the way of life.

Over taxed.

I was just in Montreal last week and heard on the radio of postal service issues. I think someone was proposing the possibility of cutting services to just a 2 or 3 days a week. Their argument was that while a lot of money can be saved in providing the reduced service, it's a minor inconvenience for us getting mail.....getting bills a few days later than normal, etc.

Certainly could be applied in the US, too.

And if an individual or corporation really needed daily service, why not have the postal service provided for an additional fee (one that cover the cost of the service).

Two days a week would be fine by me. Much like our trash pick-up. Carriers would just work different routes on different days. You might need to hire a little additional help to stay in the post office to help sort mail, but the savings would still be huge. The problem is how to draw down the force. You're basically going to be forced to wait out folks until they retire.

The problem is how to draw down the force. You're basically going to be forced to wait out folks until they retire.

I don't know about the truly legal aspects of what the postal service is bound and tied to the unions for. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if the union contracts were written giving employees full 5-6 days/week pay and benefits regardless of number of days per week worked.

When you look at how the present administration interfered with normal bankruptcy regarding the auto bailouts (giving preference to unions over preferred stock holders). One may argue that it was necessary due to the number of employees who would be hurt, etc., but one can just as well make the case that circumstances are dire for the post office (Fed govern) and as unfortunate as it is, it's necessary to ensure survival of the service.

Years ago the company I worked for was going through tough financial times. Not really due to any fault of their own as there was big down turn in the industry (temporarily). Management didn't want to lay off employees (hoping the downturn wouldn't last long), so they put people on reduced work weeks and require them to use vacation pay. Many of the employees didn't like it and voiced their opinion. Management came out stating, "Would you rather loose your job? We can't afford to pay everyone unless we have enough revenue coming in from contracts to cover our expenses consisting of many things...including salaries".

As much as it sucks.....it's better than no job. I believe unions once had a place and maybe even still do. Unions arose primarily because corporations were taking extreme advantage of the work force. I don't believe that's much of a problem now. If anything, unions are taking extreme advantage of business owners...to the point that they (unions) don't seem to care if they destroying the company they work for....as long as they get their benefits.

One complaint I have with the owners/management/corporations is their complicity (unknowingly?) in the problem by giving in to ridiculous union demands such as 80% pay for two years after being laid off....or other things along those lines. A reasonable thing would be to tie union employee benefits to company performance.

Their argument was that while a lot of money can be saved in providing the reduced service, it's a minor inconvenience for us getting mail.....getting bills a few days later than normal, etc.

Tell that to our welfare recipents. When the post office is closed for a day because of a holiday, these people are there crying. "Where's my check?"

My parents basically live off of their SS and my father's meager pension. Even though they scrounge for quarters from time to time, they would not be harmed one bit by having to wait a day or two for their check.

They get a check once a month, right? (I don't know....just an assumption). Are you saying currently it comes on the same day of the month (the 15th for instance)? Regardless of what day of the week that's on? How do they handle holidays? How do they handle Sunday? If it always came on the 2nd Friday of the month, that would probably be more consistent and reliable than what they get now.

I am a Canadian living in a rural area. We have never had door delivery. Here you have to travel as much as 30 kilometers to the post office building to pick up mail.

Reducing postal office time to 3 days perr week is going to be a reality during the strike and possibly afterwards. Inconvenient yes but still workable.

Concerning private carriers such as UPS and Fed Ex. It's almost imposible to get something delivered by them. They cannot seem to find us. The business volume they have for areas such as we live in, is so low they really cannot get familiar. Nor are their trucks fitted with Google Earth.

We used to have Bus Parcel Express, but since the gas station where the bus stopped burned down there is no more parcel delivery and some of that stuff is so large the Post office declines to accept it for delivery. Someone here had a repaired chain saw brought by bus parcel express. Post office would not accept it not would FedEX

My neighbor recieves lot of mail order things like seed packages. UPS or FedEX would be too expensive.

There is one aspect not yet mentioned. The security of the mail is protected by federal statute. Mess with the mail and the big goons will be coming down on you and you can do time in federal prison. None of these mandy-pandy state judicial systems, you're in the big time.

One of the significant benefits of our mail system is economic. The security of our mail system makes it efficient and possible to conduct business by mail because of the virtual security of our mail system. Many other countries in the world have very corrupt mail systems and likelihood of anything of value of actually reaching its destination is highly questionable.

Would privatized mail delivery also be protected in a similar fashion? The private package carriers like UPS, Fedex, etc. generally have excellent reputations for not losing stuff, but they don't have the force of federal law.

Something to think about.

You bring up a very good point (security). I don't see any reason that the same law couldn't (or shouldn't) be applied to other mail type services.

This is a good point.

As well, there are some thing today that only the US Mail delivers. For example, cremated human remains.

From this site: "Federal Express, DHL and UPS do not ship cremation remains because they are "uninsurable."

Good point! I have to believe that the security before delivery would be as good or better with a private business who would loose the business if their reputation suffered. Why not pass the post-delivery security on to us recipients (lock boxes, etc.). Or tampering with "official" mail (extra cost to sender) could still be a "Federal offense".

Well, I just returned from the post office. We all gripe about the service. There was only one clerk and 4 stations. As I was standing in line I noticed a sign posted on the wall behind the counter. It said, "None of your federal tax dollars support our service." Or that's the gist I remember. Then I saw this thread and decided to see what the USPS website says about this. In a quick search there is this one line: "0 - tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service" stated right above the shaded box entitled, "Mail Is Big Business" -- link here. There is a link on the left of that same page called "Financials." I didn't take the time to wade through any of it. But I assume there is a further delineation of "zero tax dollars" and how it is explained or derived.

Just thought I'd post this since I just visited these guys. And they could definitely improve their counter service with less clerks on break or whatever. But I also agree about the security issue. I don't think any of the private carriers have resources for investigating mail fraud, etc.

Zero tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service. That is the glazed eyed mantra of the USPS, and they want us all to believe it.

The USPS borrows money from the US Treasury, and is deeply in the red.

I copied a few quotes from this site, and then a few more, then another... Soon I had copied the entire story here. One elment of the story, President Obama freely admits "...UPS and FedEx are doing a lot better than the Post Office." Another mind warping comment from the story: "The (GAO) report makes the Post Office sound like a government version of General Motors, if General Motors itself weren't already a government version of General Motors." Huh? So, is that good or bad?

Good find! The USPS must be "too big to fail" so we prop them up with printed dollars that dilute the value of tax payer dollars and then have the balls to advertise that no tax dollars are used to support their operations. Only the government can deceive like this and get away with it.

If I was proportionately as much in debt as them and kept huge unfunded liabilities off of my balance sheet, the IRS & the Feds. would throw me in jail.

I don't have the energy for an exchange back and forth about health care. I'll just say that it isn't as simple as blaming government. Government is at fault in the same way government is at fault for overspending and outrageous charges in military expenditures, or any other area of waste.

There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the current system is too expensive. But we need to shine a light on who's bilking the government for all the money. Health care is expensive no matter what country you look at, but as a percentage of GDP here's how the U.S. stacks up.

Americans like to compete (as Patton would say). And we certainly like Superheroes -- at least at the box office. Why not truly find out where ALL the flaws and stresses and strains are. Don't just look at government's role, look to see who is also taking advantage of easy money from Medicare, for instance. (fraud, not enough investigators, etc.) And there are overcharges across the board from too many providers. There is a good, nonpartisan, documentary that addresses another part of the problem -- too many sophisticated tests and services. Usually, governmental waste is not waste because of the word governmental. It just means thieves find it easy to defraud governmental coffers.

I'd go so far as to say, that some of the TARP money, maybe should have been used to hire a lot of unemployed people as investigators in governmental departments where they are really short-handed, to a short-term 2-year contract just to see if we can't get rid of some of the thievery in health care, military spending... as many places as possible. Of course, you have to have effective laws in place to start with.

If you've ever been burglarized -- and many of us have (me, just last weekend) -- you know what a feeling of disgust you feel at having your space violated. Well, our tax dollar space is being violated in just the same way. Was it the victim's fault that his/her space was burglarized? No alarm system, maybe? Possibly, that helps individuals. But it is most necessary in large institutions. That's exactly what I'm saying about defrauding the governmental cash box. No alarm system. Or at best a VERY defective one. And not enough responders. (Interestingly, everyone fears the IRS. Why? Because OUR financial lives are public record and can easily be parsed by computers. Health care costs have nothing like this. How about public records of mistakes made in hospitals?)

Does private enterprise mean more protection? No. Banks defrauded almost everyone in the mortgage crisis. And I question whether or not all of them really needed to be bailed out to keep the economy afloat. (To me, "normal" CC interest rates are basically fraud -- usury, or whatever you wish to call it.) Without us all being able to walk in to any of them and have them show us their books, we'll probably never know. THAT is what I would like to see -- a website for all citizens to see these kinds of things. (For instance, when a bank fails and is taken over by the Feds, I think all of the banks accounting, and non-personal emails, should be public record, for viewing by anyone. It might help citizens know what to ask their own bank, if they worry about their financial security. Of course, such access might implicate other banks and institutions. That wouldn't do, would it?) Banks are way too pervasive and powerful in our lives to not have that accountability. Insurance companies haven't done too bad, either. Government SHOULD be the most trusted organization in our lives. The fact that it isn't just means the way it operates is in dire need of change. Too many career leeches in places of power. But also, rules that favor the bilking.

Sorry for the diatribe. You touched a nerve.

Does private enterprise mean more protection? No.

You are quite correct there. In my country private enterprise is very good at screwing the public with extra costs and charges, benevolently allowed by the government who collect the extra taxes.

I would be very unhappy if there were no more USPS and so would you I think. They should be making the most of increased on line shopping which is growing all the time.

What makes you think that if they can't properly manage their legally guarded monopoly, that they can compete with successful businesses (UPS, Fed EX, etc.)? The USPS ships packages now, so do they successfully compete? Is it fair for these successful businesses who can't compete in USPS business to allow a government protected monopoly to compete in theirs? Rewarding poor management never pays.

Another subject not for here, but these are the same fears that are arising in the medical & insurance businesses.

No need to apologize - government spending (not just USPS operating losses) is on everyone's mind. The current system is indeed too expensive & wasteful. It has become too expensive because we all would like more than we can afford and expect that a large government will get "other" tax payers to pay for it. It is wasteful because it is poorly managed with no effective accountability or consequences for bad decisions or behavior.

Where there is no competition or accountability, and you can just overcharge the customer (taxpayer), there is no incentive to change. Incompetent appointed officials and managers (don't have to be elected) under current monopolistic policies and practices ride the gravy train they never want to be derailed. Private industries with competition could not survive if they were as incompetent as this, so they disappear. Government largess and waste survives because "we the people" let it.

Seems like the best way not to waste money is to totally revamp state & federal government spending (yeah - that's going to happen soon) or just cease giving them money with unrealistic expectations (cut taxes: starve out the waste & replace the incompetent managers & misguided politicians).

We cannot stop the waste by not paying, the takers are in charge of the programs that help, the aged, the disable, the young and those that cannot help themselves..The postal Dept. just raises the postage or gives you a $5 envelope free, O-boy. But cut their wasteful spending no, as in Medical care and home alone, day care those operation can be cut to the bone. I'm operating on a SS of $700 at age 75 and have two crazys [mentally deficient] that was released from some home, closed to save money, that rely on a few hours a week when I need something done. their income is about $500 a month, SSI..Nobody cares especially the rual post man whos salary is $80,000 plus a year..He does a wave, looking the other way..We are not going to starve out the waste, The programs yes, The takers will still get their share period.

"The takers will still get their share period."

............as long as "we the people" let them!

Of course they will threaten us with reduced services (local, state & federal government agencies always do). Who is running the show here? We can't continue to "let the crazies run the asylum" (no offense intended). If we give up in apathy they will not change and will probably get worse. If we don't stop voting in politicians with unrealistic ideologies just because they promise unsustainable entitlements and return us pork, and start voting in responsible representatives who will change policies and practices by law and insure that the appointed managers are held accountable, then we have no right to complain.

I don't propose we starve them, just put them on a progressive diet and demand the services required by law to drive out the waste. Where are they to go with no jobs in the private sector? They would have to take the hit and do their job or be replaced by one of the many who need and want jobs and could probably perform much better.

Government largess and waste (not just the USPS) exist because there is no reason for them to change. The responsible managers of failing and/or wasteful operations are either lazy or incompetent (or both). They are on a gravy train that they will not willingly derail themselves. The challenging solution is a matter of good, unbiased management for results in a system that rewards for customer service and efficiency (just like the private sector) and customers (us tax payers) who will accept nothing less. If they and their operations can't cut it, they need to go away.

Because the postal service is non profit. The cost of postage has to be approved by postal rate commission. When new postal rates are set the postal service functions in the black for few years. Then starts to operate in the red. They give to the treasury for few year then take it back. That's how they have always operated.

The Postal Service is not subsidized by the government in any way shape or form. When they make money it goes to the government if not slated for improvements. If they lose money they get nothing.

They are the only company in the country that must put 5 Billion dollars away annually to provide for future retirees. No other company is required to set aside money for future payments.

They do not subsidize the delivery of packages to other companies. They actually deliver many other companies packages and documents because it is not cost effective for those companies to deliver them on their own.

Many of the competitive companies only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits.

Just remember what happened when Ma Bell went out of business and then consider paying $150.00 to deliver a prescription to grandma in rural Montana or elsewhere. When they get around to it.

Yeah I think they deserve a break. The only people you hear screaming to privatize are the people who are waiting to jump into the fray to make money.

Re: The Postal Service is not subsidized by the government in any way shape or form. When they make money it goes to the government if not slated for improvements. If they lose money they get nothing.

There are other posts in this thread that seem to contradict you. Have you read those? Can you disprove those? Some of them sound rather factual, with financial reports and such.

I guess getting money from the treasury to cover the billions shortfall is not government subsidy? Why can't I do that?

"No other company is required to set aside money for future payments". Just not so. Most big companies with retirement plans are required to pay into the plan at a minimum level as required by law.

"Many of the competitive companies only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits". Not so either. None of them "only hire part time workers". They hire seasonal and some small % part time workers because they are better managed and didn't let the unions back them into a foolish corner.

I didn't know that Ma Bell delivered prescriptions, just phone products & service.

What is wrong with making money? Profits are taxed and contribute to other government programs. If a better managed competitive private company can provide the service at a better net cost to us, I say bring them on. Trouble is if it is a dying demand service, there might not be a private enterprise to take on the challenge.

I think that is accountant play with the numbers. you can 'borrow' from another account does not make it a subsidy.

How's the saying go...

'Figure don't lie, but liars can figure.'

If you are not the Federal government, and you borrow from the Federal treasury, that is a subsidy (assuming it is not paid back, which it will not be).

If you (personally) borrow from anybody, and don't pay it back, you've been subsidized.

"...is not subsidized by the government in any way shape or form. "

How does not having to pay federal income tax constitute as not being subsidized?

same as the churches and other non-profit organizations

You may be correct, but I think it's irrelevant here. It's still a form of subsidy. I argued in another thread some time ago that tax break were not subsidies. Someone (Garth? I don't recall and I'm too lazy to look it up), made a convincing argument they are the same. I did a bit of research looking up definitions and such and came to that same conclusions.

It's more fair for the government to give an entire industry a break (taxes or subsidies), but when on company (USPS) gets a break that their competitors don't (FedEx, UPS, etc.) that's another story.

Ah.......but by law UPS & Fed Ex can not be competitors. The USPS is a legal, protected monopoly.

Makes one wonder if they removed the protection, let UPS & Fed Ex (and others) compete for the "mail" business" as tax paying businesses that they are (even if the USPS was an unsubsidized non-profit), would the USPS survive?

Good point.

Postal contracts have always been lucrative. I am not going to reiterate on these, the site is pretty straight forward. with the exception of Postal contracts have always been lucritive. The fight for air mail got pretty competitive.....

http://www.lunewsviews.com/top_100_contracts.htm

I think a lot of people would like a piece of this pie.

Here some interest data about postal salaries.

http://www.apwu.org/news/burrus/2007/update02-2007-012607-chart.pdf

Now these are base salaries, not included the amount of overtime paid out.

By the use of the word subsidy just about every business out there falls into that category. The biggest now are our banks. The US Postal Service has never place that kind of load on the American Tax payer. Has never cause the economic down turn we presently are in. The US Postal Service though it may sound like it is using Tax Payer money to operate on it's not.

I don't disagree with you about the banks.

Regarding every business getting a subsidy:

There is a huge difference between all businesses in an industry getting the same tax benefits (i.e. depreciation of equipment, being able to write off expenses) compared to some businesses in a particular industry getting one form of subsidy (not required to pay Federal taxes) that their competitors are not allowed to get such as the case with USPS, UPS and Fed Ex.

First off by definition they are not in the same business. Only the US Postal Service is by law to handle first class mail. The others are package delivery. The Postal Service was created to provide a non profit service. To deliver first class mail to all citizens. The others created for profit to deliver packages that are not classified as first class mail. They where not created under any intention to compete with the US Postal Service. They were created to make a profit delivering packages. So there is no tax exemption as any other business for profit.

If in our country's infancy these others would have been there. There would have not need for Congress to form this so called monopoly. They were not, so congress found it necessary to provide some type of communication between the populous. Now with time these companies see the possibilities of some profit in mail delivery. There is a cry to privatize.

I question the agenda on dieing service. Most money made by the US Postal Service isn't first class at all. It's third class junk mail. Most of first class mail has deteriorated with the use of the internet. For awhile most businesses have use air mail provided by private companies.

Personally I think most the contention is to keep the US Postal Service from get into the package service to stay afloat so the can deliver that first class letter if you have need of them to.

The USPS is in the package business already, no? What is: "If it fits, it ships"?

It is not fair to have a legal government protected monopoly compete with tax paying private sector businesses. (Sort of like where medical insurance is headed, but that is another story). If they can not compete on equal terms (and I don't believe they could), they should not be allowed to compete at all.

What's not fair about it? Where was this private sector when the USPS was created in 1775? I tell you standing back waiting for the day the hazards where not there so the could complain about a government monopoly. UPS inception 1907, FedX inception 1998 DHL inception 1969. It was all right as long as the government took on the hazards for what little profit there was in it. At the time the private citizen could not afford the cost of a courier to have a message delivered. Our government took on the hazards.

So you are willing to give up the governments guaranty of first class mail delivery? To pay cost plus their profit for no guaranty, or pay the absorbent cost that guaranty may entail?

It surely will not be 44 cents. You will also find the rates these private companies charge for other delivery increase if the USPS is no longer there.

Only good thing I see come of this is you won't be able to complain the government screwed something else up because you didn't get your mail.

Re: What's not fair about it? Where was this private sector when the USPS was created in 1775?

Well, it's not 1775 anymore. Now people seem willing to compete for the business. We don't continue to make buggy whips because they were needed in 1775.

And, you're obviously a postal worker. I should look up the average salary for a postal worker. Somebody on this thread mentioned $80,000 for a rural carrier (iirc) somewhere out west--I don't know if he knew or was just guessing.

for the most part its hourly, and with the cut backs there is allot of overtime.....My girlfriend has been working for the postal service for 16+ years, makes $25.00/hour.

She works at the distribution hubs, Problem with the post office, they will not hire anyone over 35 years old. They look for lifers. Nothing wrong with that, BUT, get down to it, there's something illegal there. She can bid on different jobs. She was a clerk for about a year that she went back to the distribution hub.

Two years ago she made $98,000.00/yr, she grabbed all the over time she could.

Funny about the early retirement BS payout.

Now for the most part she only takes about 10 hours OT/wk

Seems most of the postal workers are satisfied with thier 40 hour weeks. They do enjoy the tavern's and casino's.....that is only a small segment.....maybe.

"We don't continue to make buggy whips because they were needed in 1775."

No we make buggy whips because their need today. Harness racing still uses them so do the Amish. It would be a little hard unless you know something I don't to send them back in time anyway.

No I'm not a postal worker. Which package service do you work for?

http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/wages/paychart0311.pdf

If you really want to know lets cut the rumor mill.

Here is a comparison to what is said UPS has to offer

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2003-10-14-ups_x.htm

I hear all this about fair business practices. Have you looked at what it will cost and take. First an increase in taxes. Most government send postage free. You are not going to get that from private companies. Plus the increase in postage.

Our politicians already screw up enough. What ever forethought they would put into the transition will be a nightmare. Who here wants to tell the little old lady her Social Security check is lost while they made this transition. Or that she won't get one until the government comes to some agreement with the private carrier. Or her son that she died because of the increase cost of the drugs she was receiving mail order she could no longer afford.

Most of you just are looking at the surface of this fair business complaint. Not at the depth of what a transition will take or the cost to the public. It is in that depth that nothing has been done.

My suggestion is to let it die intact. Just as you bring up the loss of the buggy whip companies. Email has already taken it's toll sooner or later it or other technology will be it's demise.

Email has already taken it's toll. Sooner or later it another technology will be it's demise.

That is interesting like everything else. Everything changes. Email replaced business faxes.

And being in project managerment, email as a tool for business, email importance will take a back seat with letters are coming back.

USPS lost money due to the poor economy, Marketing played a huge role in revenue generation. Marketing, what marketing? We called it junk mail. Even when the economy makes a comeback, with technology advances to get information out. This junk mail will be replaced with webinars.

Re: No we make buggy whips because their need today. Harness racing still uses them so do the Amish. It would be a little hard unless you know something I don't to send them back in time anyway.

I guess I phrased my statement poorly (in two ways, now that you point out we do still make buggy whips)--my intent was to say we don't still make buggy whips because, except for a few niches, we don't need them anymore. We don't need to continue to fill needs that don't exist any more.

Re: No I'm not a postal worker. Which package service do you work for?

None. No vested interest in any, well except as a US citizen.

Re:http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/wages/paychart0311.pdfIf s

If someone were to make a statement like the one in the UPS article about the USPS (the one that says ~"top drivers can make up to $70,000 a year") what would the figure be? The two articles don't quote apples for both "companies".

BTW, I wasn't advocating the shutdown of the USPS. I was only trying to point out that conditions in 1775 don't have much significance for "fairness" today.

The question is not meant to deride the USPS history, just do we still require the USPS. There is no doubt that the private sector companies (UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, et.al.) pay much less, have less extravagant benefits and are better managed.

Why not make it fair and level the playing field. Remove all of the unequal protections & subsidies (for both), and let everyone deliver both mail and packages (survival of the market choice will decide). That way we can answer the original question.

Technically that may be so, but can you really compare a small (in most cases) tax break on profits foe businesses to a guaranteed "no fail, no competition" protection? Even Freddie & Fannie don't have it that good!

Banks have to compete, and can fail and go out of business (ask Lehman and the 1000 others who no longer exist. Banks have paid back their "subsidy" (if you want to call it that), but would you bet that the USPS will ever pay back the $7B they just lost.? Because the USPS (with a protective congress) can just raise the price of postage and are guaranteed survival, you can you fairly compare them to the banks (even the "to big to fail" ones)?

Churches & non-profits are not subject to income taxes because they are not businesses whose purpose is to make profits. That is why any past extra $ made by USPS was not taxed. This is not the "subsidy" being referred to.

It is the audacity to make the deceptive statement that you are not subsidized by the US Government yet receive $ from the US treasury for any shortfalls without repayment. I would bet the farm that no church or non-profit has received $ from the US Treasury. Can't say that about the "to big to fail" businesses, but then they are expected to pay it back (and are except for Freddie & Fannie). We are being lied to and deceived.

US Postal Service is not intended to make a profit. There is where the comments came that they get money from the treasury to operate on. In practice the postal service works few years in the black with a new postal rate. Surplus funds go to the treasury. As I do believe they produce the stamps. Then they start to lose money. After a few years in the red postal rates are re-evaluated.

Re: In practice the postal service works few years in the black with a new postal rate. Surplus funds go to the treasury. As I do believe they produce the stamps. Then they start to lose money. After a few years in the red postal rates are re-evaluated.

I guess the inference you'd like us to make is that overall it balances out. Is that a fact? I haven't seen any data to support that.

(I thought somebody had posted some financials for the post office for 2009 and 2010 (iirc)--admittedly, that's not enough time to determine if it balances out, but, in any case, I couldn't find that post in a quick look today.)

Mostly agree. In fact, their "profits" are 100% taxed (in essence)!

The line is drawn when they loose $. They, as a protected monopoly (through congress) get to set the price, not the market. We can't go elsewhere for a competitive choice, it is ,by law, not allowed. There is no incentive for the USPS to manage better for the best cost & service and it shows. They know they can just raise the prices on us taxpayers - so their mismanagement and inefficiencies are, by law, subsidized by non-voluntary taxpayer dollars, no?

Back to the original question. We still require a "postal service" that is the USPS for the time being. As demand declines and (if) unsustainable entitlements & poor management continues, they will either price themselves out of existence or the competitive private sector should be allowed to compete for "the mail' market.

This topic of discussion makes me wonder if there are any countries in the world where delivery of packages/mail has never been a government sponsored business. The answer to that question might be food for thought, regarding the OP.

Over on the

Sell the Highways, Save the States (of the USA) From Default

thread, cwarner7_11 has posted out the post office situation in Panama. IIUC, the "delivery of packages/mail has never been a government sponsored business".

I meant to get a post #--I actually found a few, then got distracted and closed those links. If you go there and search for Panama, I think you can find them in short order (or, at least a few of them--some of his followup comments probably do not mention Panama explicitly--sometimes a city in Panama, other times maybe not even that.

In the UK a recent business concept is to do away with the expensive delivery to the door, especially for parcels, and to allow collection from local hubs.

You might say this has always been the default where an article couldn't be delivered due to bodies not being at home, but the 'local' hub was usually anything but local, with unpromising hours of opening.

In Africa we had locked mail boxes at the post office and this would probably be the next step in the UK where everyone who uses the 'service' will be obliged to have a box but at a more local level. The downside is where the post is mis-sorted.

Perhaps if this had been brought in earlier we wouldn't have lost our local post offices for outgoing mail.

and to allow collection from local hubs.

PUBS...oops my mistake.....hubs.

It had crossed my mind but flew on by when I pictured the scene.

actually think of the implications. It would increase the volume.

Husband: Honey, I have another package I have to pick up at the Pub.....

Wife: Oh, they even ship on Sunday. Wow thats service......