Postal Politics

[skulhedface]

Continued from:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...it-about-bringing-guns-into-post-offices.html
to avoid thread jacking.

On a side note, I really wish people were more aware of what's actually happening with the postal service. Dead, maybe, but not from natural causes.

Nothing about the USPS is natural. It's current existence is an affront to liberty on numerous levels.

How so? I've heard similar statements about the Postal Service before, but never quite understood in what way. Could you explain?

Look up a guy named Lysander spooner

While I'm no fan of government squashing free enterprise, I think the decision to shut down the American Mail Letter Company was the fiscally responsible choice. The post office is required to provide universal service. They use the profits from short trips between large cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston (the only places the American Mail Letter company serviced) to subsidize the trips that are not profitable (ie North Carolina to California back then). Generally I'm no fan of subsidies either, but I do think universal service is (in effect) a right for all of us, that should be protected. For me the real affront to liberty is the dismantling of the Postal Service happening today, through nonsensical congressional mandates and subsidizing businesses.

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

I don't know that a dismantling is necessary...

But a definite restructuring / reorganization is in definite need.

While I don't know for sure, I strongly suspect that, by now, the USPS has adopted the "no left turn" routing like UPS / FedEx have done. And if they have not - they should. Granted, I know that when you have to hit every house on every street that may be problematic. But route efficiencies should be done. I can't imagine that it hasn't been done - but, again, we're talking a quasi-government agency.

Also - currently, we have mail service SIX days a week. SIX! That's too many. Too much gasoline, too much vehicle maintenance. Cut that down to just MWF delivery. For those who need things over-nighted - those special extra-cost deliveries would still happen because they're extra cost. Or make it T-Tr-S. Cut delivery days in half.

Sorting and inter-city / inter-state / inter-country / inter-continental could easily continue as is.

The days that delivery service was not available - post offices would still be open to conduct normal business.

The above really aren't "political" - but I think they're prudent business decisions that need implemented.

-J-

 

[poptab]

Continued from:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...it-about-bringing-guns-into-post-offices.html
to avoid thread jacking.









While I'm no fan of government squashing free enterprise, I think the decision to shut down the American Mail Letter Company was the fiscally responsible choice. The post office is required to provide universal service. They use the profits from short trips between large cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston (the only places the American Mail Letter company serviced) to subsidize the trips that are not profitable (ie North Carolina to California back then). Generally I'm no fan of subsidies either, but I do think universal service is (in effect) a right for all of us, that should be protected. For me the real affront to liberty is the dismantling of the Postal Service happening today, through nonsensical congressional mandates and subsidizing businesses.

How can you have a right to mail service? That's like having a right to health care.

 

[skulhedface]

How can you have a right to mail service? That's like having a right to health care.

Easy, the PO is authorized by the constitution. Health care isn't.

 

[hornadylnl]

Just think of how much could be saved if they eliminated mail pickup from individual mail boxes.

If my driver doesn't have any mail for me, he still has to travel a mile round trip to see if my flag is up. I'm just 1 person on a rural route. Even if that only happened 2-3% of his route a day, that still adds up.

Don't think you'll get companies like ebay and Amazon on board with reduced days of service.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[skulhedface]

I don't know that a dismantling is necessary...

But a definite restructuring / reorganization is in definite need.

While I don't know for sure, I strongly suspect that, by now, the USPS has adopted the "no left turn" routing like UPS / FedEx have done. And if they have not - they should. Granted, I know that when you have to hit every house on every street that may be problematic. But route efficiencies should be done. I can't imagine that it hasn't been done - but, again, we're talking a quasi-government agency.

Also - currently, we have mail service SIX days a week. SIX! That's too many. Too much gasoline, too much vehicle maintenance. Cut that down to just MWF delivery. For those who need things over-nighted - those special extra-cost deliveries would still happen because they're extra cost. Or make it T-Tr-S. Cut delivery days in half.

Sorting and inter-city / inter-state / inter-country / inter-continental could easily continue as is.

The days that delivery service was not available - post offices would still be open to conduct normal business.

The above really aren't "political" - but I think they're prudent business decisions that need implemented.

-J-

The routes are frequently evaluated/changed. I can agree with some changes being necessary. Three day delivery may help things since it does cut delivery costs.

The biggest change I'd like to see is lowering first class prices slightly and raising bulk mail prices slightly. As it stands bulk mail goes for near to 25% of what you and I pay. Granted it requires less processing than first class. When the whole workshare pricing program came to be they set a discount from the first class price, but standard rates haven't gone up proportionally. This retirement pre-funding is complete nonsense as well. Ask any company, anywhere in the world, to prepay the retirement costs for the next 75 years in 10 years and see how their balance sheet looks. It would be one thing if they were required to prepay for their current employees, but 75 years is a little longer than anyone I know plans to work. They are paying for employees that haven't even been born yet. And where does the money go...the general fund. Yup, already been spent.

 

[SteveM4A1]

As long as I can pick up my mail on days they don't deliver, that is fine. Otherwise, I wouldn't be ok with it. A lot of stuff I receive in the mail is time sensitive, and only 1 day late can add a mountain of problems.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If my driver doesn't have any mail for me, he still has to travel a mile round trip to see if my flag is up. I'm just 1 person on a rural route. Even if that only happened 2-3% of his route a day, that still adds up.

Is your driveway that long? j/k

If you're the only person down that rural route, have you considered installing your mailbox (with permission of all concerned) at the last point upstream where your mailman services multiple households?

 

[rambone]

Easy, the PO is authorized by the constitution. Health care isn't.

"The Congress shall have Power.... To establish Post Offices and post Roads." -- U.S. Constitution, Section 8


Postal Service is authorized by the constitution, but a legal monopoly is not. The constitution says nothing about forbidding others from delivering mail, alongside the Post Office. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and anti-capitalist to prohibit others from voluntarily engaging in such services.

 

[zippy23]

the post office loses billions every year. Fed ex and UPS make billions. I'd like to see it made private, the cost for a "stamp" might be cut in half. But hey, they are talking about banking services in post offices, so this might be their savior! pay day loans while you send mail!! YEAH!

 

[skulhedface]

the post office loses billions every year. Fed ex and UPS make billions.

For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office - WSJ

Gosh I wonder why. Wish I could open a business where I charge you twice what the post office does to ship a package, then just drop it off at the post office and profit. Who do you think does all those unprofitable rural deliveries for Fedex and UPS. The post office does, and since it's unprofitable you and I get to pay the difference.

 

[Arthur Dent]

the post office loses billions every year. Fed ex and UPS make billions. I'd like to see it made private, the cost for a "stamp" might be cut in half. But hey, they are talking about banking services in post offices, so this might be their savior! pay day loans while you send mail!! YEAH!

Or the price could increase to $5 to mail a postcard. Careful what you wish for.

 

[poptab]

Or there is this thing called the internet...

 

[Arthur Dent]

For FedEx and UPS, a Cheaper Route: the Post Office - WSJ

Gosh I wonder why. Wish I could open a business where I charge you twice what the post office does to ship a package, then just drop it off at the post office and profit. Who do you think does all those unprofitable rural deliveries for Fedex and UPS. The post office does, and since it's unprofitable you and I get to pay the difference.

Private citizens also subsidize business shipping through FedEx and UPS. What will cost me $10 and change to ship something through work would cost you nearly $100 to ship the same thing from the same building to the same destination. It's outrageous.

 

[bradmedic04]

Letter post, at this point in history, is a huge loser. There are too many residences to hit, and the volume of mail simply isn't anywhere near what it was in the past. Between eBilling and the huge number of companies who no longer advertise via direct mail, there's not enough revenue to sustain the required infrastructure to hit every house in the country. Add to that the retirement to pre-fund their pension obligations (which I agree with in principle across the board, but simply isn't done about anywhere else), and its business model is unsustainable.

The management of the Postal Service is typically comprised of people who have worked up through the ranks within USPS. I think a solid start would be to install new executive management with experience turning around insolvent companies, who will take a broader view of addressing the issues.

Unfortunately, I don't think the other companies who might be capable of taking on the Postal Service's duties would want to do it. Package delivery and Express letters are great, profitable business to be in. Letter post is not. The amount of overhead in the mail sorting facilities alone is truly mind-boggling. If you ever have a chance to visit a full-scale Business Mail Entry Unit, definitely do it.

 

[danielson]

Heres an interesting thought... GET RID OF THAT STUPID PILE OF FLIERS AND JUNK that appears in your mail box every week. It has to be a burdon on the workforce to keep pumping all that **** out, just to have it all thrown away. I want USEFUL mail, not a load of **** in my mailbox every other day.

Another thing that never made sense to me, the new address I moved to has no mail box, just a 911 address. So If I want to PICK THE MAIL UP MYSELF, at post office in the nearest town, I have to PAY for a PO box. Meanwhile, everyone else has someone come in, load a truck, and drive all day to deliver their mail, and its free... Wheres the common sense in that? I know you dont want to hear this, but mail should be FREE for pickup at the office, and a fee for home delivery. There is NO other company I can think of, that charges for YOU to pick up your own stuff, while having no charge for THEM bringing it to you. INSANE!!!

 

[Twangbanger]

Private citizens also subsidize business shipping through FedEx and UPS. What will cost me $10 and change to ship something through work would cost you nearly $100 to ship the same thing from the same building to the same destination. It's outrageous.

Is this because the "pickup" cost for the business is being spread over the cost of the multiple packages a business often ships? If so, that could potentially make sense. I work at a business that ships a lot of machined parts, and by analogy, we sure aren't going to charge the same per-piece charge for someone who wants one piece machined, as someone who wants 20 of them, because the 20-piece customer has his setup charges (which can be considerable) being spread across 20 parts. I would think package delivery is somewhat the same. The pickup cost likely has things like vehicle maintenance, gas, overhead, etc. rolled into it, which somebody has to pay, and if you're the guy shipping that single box, I don't see how you can pay the same per-piece rate as the person shipping 20 boxes.

Just wondering out loud. That does not sound like a "subsidy" in the way it was presented. It sounds like maybe some just have an incomplete understanding of the cost-basis of what is occurring.

"The Congress shall have Power.... To establish Post Offices and post Roads." -- U.S. Constitution, Section 8


Postal Service is authorized by the constitution, but a legal monopoly is not. The constitution says nothing about forbidding others from delivering mail, alongside the Post Office. It is immoral, unconstitutional, and anti-capitalist to prohibit others from voluntarily engaging in such services.

One thing I will add to rambone's response, is that the Constitution allowing the federal government to establish something, is _not_ the same thing as establishing an individual "right to it" in the Bill of Rights. Skulhedface seems to be slipping into the Obama-mode of Constitutional thought, aka establishing "what the government must do for you," when what the Constitution really does is draw limits around what the gov't. can and cannot do, while leaving the individual's "right" to it unestablished. I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but it seems to me there is a difference there, even if a particular service is "required" to be set up by the government. I am unconvinced that there is an individual "right" to "universal service.

...This retirement pre-funding is complete nonsense as well. Ask any company, anywhere in the world, to prepay the retirement costs for the next 75 years in 10 years and see how their balance sheet looks. It would be one thing if they were required to prepay for their current employees, but 75 years is a little longer than anyone I know plans to work. They are paying for employees that haven't even been born yet. And where does the money go...the general fund. Yup, already been spent.

I also don't have a problem with the pre-funding issue in general. I don't know if 75 years is the right amount of time, but pre-funding is absolutely non-controversial to me. You sound like a USPS employee, perhaps? (Pure supposition on my part). Those employees have a guaranteed retirement plan that I and most people in the private sector can never expect to get. If the outputs are guaranteed to you by law, then I have no problem with the inputs being mandated, and placed on the organization's balance sheet as a cost that has to be accounted for - to make sure I, and the rest of private sector employees, don't end up on the hook for bailing out your retirement later.

If you don't want the pre-funding requirement costed onto your organization's balance sheet, then take away the retirement guarantee, and get in the same boat as the rest of society. I see the pre-funding requirement as a prudent step, to make sure people don't work their whole lives on an "unfunded retirement I.O.U.," then pass the buck for that to someone else when the bill comes due, on the grounds that "you need to keep your promise to me." We need to get government employees acquainted with the attitude that promises are not free, and have a cost which has to be paid - and not just "by somebody else."

That's why I see this rhetorical flourish about there being a "right to mail service" as being so unhelpful when these issues are discussed. Some folks apparently see themselves as providers of a "right" rather than a provider of a "service," and that seems to lead down the path of entitlement-thinking rather than getting to the bottom of what needs to be done with the Postal Service.

 

[ModernGunner]

Government or quasi-government employees should have no more right to a 'guaranteed' retirement payment than folks in the private sector.

At one point in time, government service (of any sort) was lower paid than the private sector, but the off-setting 'benefit' was the retirement package. Today, government jobs are often much higher paying than that of the equivalent private sector job, with the retirement package being of relatively huge comparative size, as there's typically no equivalent to such a retirement package in the private sector.

For some unfathomable reason, a high pay / high benefit government job became a 'right' in the view of many that would likely be unqualified or incapable of doing the same job in the private sector. Hence, a big problem with the USPS today. Socialist entitlement thinking. Affirmative Action only exacerbated the situation, as it forced a certain agenda to hiring, rather than hiring the most qualified, as should be the only 'standard'.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

How do we even know that letter post can't be run at a profit by a competitor that doesn't have the personnel structure, etc.? It's been forbidden for anyone else even to try. UPS and FedEx, and to a lesser extent a few others, continue to run at a profit, even though USPS does all the things they do. UPS is even a union shop, and they still kick butt. If USPS is running the last leg on some few packages, unless they're even more insane than I'd think, they're not doing it for free.

Now, just because the Constitution says Congress "has the power" to establish post offices and post roads, it doesn't sound to me like it obligates them to do so; you'd just have expected it, particularly back then, before spam had been invented. You might, in fact, say that the creation of the internet satisfies such establishment. As long as these rectal orifices will leave it alone. But then you start getting into everyone having a baseline connection free of charge and all that.