CBO ups ObamaCare cost projections by $115 Billion over 10 years.

[Straw Man]

Yes they do on regular mail. 

there are plenty of alternatives including email, faxing, etc...

not to mention all the other UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...

pretty weak monopoly

[Soul Crusher]

I was talking about 1st class mail. 

[tonymctones]

there are plenty of alternatives including email, faxing, etc...

not to mention all the other UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, etc...

pretty weak monopoly

actually its pretty strong when you consider bulk mail...these ppl dont have your email and ups, fedex, dhl ship packages not letters or bulk mail they have specialized and so has the USPS but they specialized in a form of communication that is less and less prevelant....

[Al Doggity]

LOL the turn of the century... how has it done the rest of the century, when they economy was properous, when it was not...im not saying that there isnt some tie there b/c there is with all business but the economy coming back isnt going to save the post office...

you see the problem is NO the USPS doesnt have to adapt b/c it can rely on tax payer money   A private business must adapt and a private business would have adapted a long time ago or it would have gone out of business

How has the economy done during the rest of the century?

The USPS does have to adapt, had adapted and will continue to adapt. I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where no businesses ever have hurdles or take out loans or file for chapter eleven or sell assets or restructure, but with the assets USPS has and the money it still generates there is not a chance in hell it would be out of business by now were it private.

[Straw Man]

actually its pretty strong when you consider bulk mail...these ppl dont have your email and ups, fedex, dhl ship packages not letters or bulk mail they have specialized and so has the USPS but they specialized in a form of communication that is less and less prevelant....

I've Fed Ex'd letters many times and there are so many alternatives to USPS for all kinds of mail

[tonymctones]

How has the economy done during the rest of the century?

The USPS does have to adapt, had adapted and will continue to adapt. I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in where no businesses ever have hurdles or take out loans or file for chapter eleven or sell assets or restructure, but with the assets USPS has and the money it still generates there is not a chance in hell it would be out of business by now were it private.

the economy has gone up and down since the turn of the century has the USPS followed those trends?

my point is the USPS has less incentive to adapt, and not they would not still be in business...chances are another company would have bought them out or squeezed them out by now...

[Al Doggity]

the economy has gone up and down since the turn of the century has the USPS followed those trends?

Yes, it has, pretty closely.
[/quote]
my point is the USPS has less incentive to adapt, and not they would not still be in business...chances are another company would have bought them out or squeezed them out by now...
[/quote]
I don't agree with your conclusion, but the argument could be made for any public service. The primary goal of the postal service was not to be a for profit business, but to provide a necessary service.

[Soul Crusher]

The USPO needs to get with the program and expand things that work.  For example - they have a 24/7 machine in some offices that you can do almost anything.  That works great and I never stand in line anymore. 

My biggest issue with the PO is how the offices themselves are run.  Horrible service and horrible wait times. 
 

[Al Doggity]

The USPO needs to get with the program and expand things that work.  For example - they have a 24/7 machine in some offices that you can do almost anything.  That works great and I never stand in line anymore. 

My biggest issue with the PO is how the offices themselves are run.  Horrible service and horrible wait times. 
 

Few would disagree with that... I'm not arguing that  USPS is renowned for customer service or can't use improvements, but it's not exactly on it's way out.

[Soul Crusher]

The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome.  I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc.  I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.

However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture. 

[Skip8282]

The post office is not funded by the tax payers. The money it received from the treasury is considered a loan and there is a legal cap to the amount they can borrow. If the Post Office was a private company, it would have issued bonds or borrowed from a bank. The point is that  that money goes back to the gov't, it didn't simply disappear in a puff of smoke.

And, yes, I do believe USPS' recovery is inevitable and tied to the economy. Take the problems Verizon has with its landline division that don't extend to its wireless or broadband divisions- in this day and age, snail mail utilization and landlines are considered luxuries for some. I could go on and on and on, but you either get it or you don't .

lol.  Now that I pointed out your idiocy, suddenly you're in the know about taxpayer money going to the post office.  I see your google-fu serves you well.  How about the subsidies the post office gets from Uncle Sam?  Guess that doesn't count as taxpayer money either?  Ooops, suppose that didn't come up in your quick google search.

It is tied to the economy. It actually was having record profits near the turn of the century.

My firm has a business account with USPS and FedEx and we send mail on a daily basis. I"ve addressed the fact that mail is not the vital lifeline it once was in previous posts. It is still necessary for a lot of people and, like all business, it must adapt.

I agree it is tied to the economy, but only partially.  The electronic age is helping to kill it off, and it's currently failing to adapt. 

There is nothing inherently bad about the USPS business model

There's not?  The GAO thinks it's flawed.  The USPS thinks it's flawed.

The comparison to private companies is non-sensical to say the least.  Private companies are not forced to maintain unprofitable offices for political reasons.  Private companies have no where near the myriad of bullshit restrictions that the post office has to deal with.  Private companies usually (not always) don't have to deal with the unbelievable strength of a union as strong as the postal union.  Even teamsters can't get postal level benefits.

Yes, there is a cap on what they can borrow, it's $15 billion and they are almost there.  The cap can always be raised.  What not being pointed out is the post office additionally has nearly $90 billion in unfunded pension and retirement liabilities.  And while they've been losing huge sums of money, they managed to cut expenses by some $10 billion.  So not only are they making huge cuts, but they're still losing huge amounts of money.



The USPS is projecting a $7 billion dollar shortfall for 10-11.
The USPS is projecting a mail volume in the year 2020 to have declined so much it will equal the volume of mail in 1986.

[Skip8282]

LOL I told you when you first started posting on this board skip about this shit hahahahhaha

LMAO the post office doesnt use any tax payer money thats a good one

Yes you did.  It's unfuckingreal!!

[Al Doggity]

lol.  Now that I pointed out your idiocy, suddenly you're in the know about taxpayer money going to the post office.  I see your google-fu serves you well.  How about the subsidies the post office gets from Uncle Sam?  Guess that doesn't count as taxpayer money either?  Ooops, suppose that didn't come up in your quick google search.

Yes, suddenly if you read about something you're in the know about it.That's pretty much how it works. However, I've actually been a part of  discussions about the USPS' finances- on this very board- before, so I was already pretty informed about how they work and where their shortfalls stemmed from.

I agree it is tied to the economy, but only partially.  The electronic age is helping to kill it off, and it's currently failing to adapt. 

I've already acknowledged that the information age has made snail mail superfluous for many... but it still has a lot going for it... distribution is always king and usps trumps everyone else. Small business is in it's pocket more than any other delivery service.

There's not?  The GAO thinks it's flawed.  The USPS thinks it's flawed.

As it is run now, with it's current financial liabilities and obligations, it can't continue forever. However, what I was referring to- the actual product, delivery and service- is still viable.In terms of reliability or speed, FedEX and UPS arent notably superior. Price is contingent on different factors. Anecdotally, I seem to notice people have a preference between Fed Ex and UPS based on customer service. When all three are option, people seem to just choose whoever is cheapest.

The comparison to private companies is non-sensical to say the least.  Private companies are not forced to maintain unprofitable offices for political reasons.  Private companies have no where near the myriad of bullshit restrictions that the post office has to deal with.  Private companies usually (not always) don't have to deal with the unbelievable strength of a union as strong as the postal union.  Even teamsters can't get postal level benefits.

It's not a perfect analogy and I never intended it to be. I'm not sure if I'm the one who introduced it, but my comparison was basically just an acknowledgment of the fact that the types of troubles it's facing aren't unheard, or even particularly unusual in the private sector. The two companies I think of when I think of the current troubles with USPS are Polaroid and GM.

Like I said earlier, an important distinction-to me, at least- is that the PO's primary goal was never to become as profitable as possible. It's two major directives were a)serve everyone and b) do it at a reasonable price. I honestly don't think the private sector ever could have done as well at handling the mail.

Yes, there is a cap on what they can borrow, it's $15 billion and they are almost there.  The cap can always be raised.  What not being pointed out is the post office additionally has nearly $90 billion in unfunded pension and retirement liabilities.  And while they've been losing huge sums of money, they managed to cut expenses by some $10 billion.  So not only are they making huge cuts, but they're still losing huge amounts of money.

This could go on for 20 pages, and I'm sure you're too much of a man to let this post go without a response, but I'm just going to focus on the highligted text. The USPS is adapting. A lot of their problems with adapting stem from being legally hamstrung. Those issues have to be worked out but nothing about them is insurmountable.

[Skip8282]

However, I've actually been a part of  discussions about the USPS' finances- on this very board- before, so I was already pretty informed about how they work and where their shortfalls stemmed from.

You made the claim they don't receive taxpayer dollars.  Yeah, you're real informed on the topic. 

This could go on for 20 pages, and I'm sure you're too much of a man to let this post go without a response, but I'm just going to focus on the highligted text. The USPS is adapting. A lot of their problems with adapting stem from being legally hamstrung. Those issues have to be worked out but nothing about them is insurmountable.

Is there some reason not to respond?  It is a discussion board is it not?  Of course, you didn't realize they were receiving taxpayer dollars so you can't be too bright.

The real concern is whether or not taxpayer dollars are going to be lost and spent needlessly in trying to shore up the post office.  Right now the political will obviously doesn't exist to deal with the problem and they just continue to rack up huge amounts of debt.  At some point, simple loans and budgetary tricks are not going to cut it.  We may even be past that point given its unfunded liabilities. 

Insurmountable is about as ambiguous as it gets.  According the USPS they need legislative changes in 7 key areas.  Do you have any idea of how hard it is just to get legislative reform in ONE area, much less 7?

Either Congress starts to take the issue seriously, which I don't think will happen anytime soon, or the taxpayer gets the shaft.

[Soul Crusher]

Skip laying a Fedor like beating in this thread.

[Al Doggity]

Is there some reason not to respond?  It is a discussion board is it not?  Of course, you didn't realize they were receiving taxpayer dollars so you can't be too bright.

What I was saying is that I could have written a page long response responding to each point, but instead I would just wait for your response before elaborating further. I don't really like that point-by-point response style, so I just meant I'd address anything I'd missed in a follow up post if necessary. I wasn't trying to discourage you from responding, I was ENCOURAGING you to respond.
 

Insurmountable is about as ambiguous as it gets.

This is what I mean by "not insurmountable".The PO's budgetary problems began in earnest in 2007. They closed every year this decade prior to that with a surplus. They were actually on track to be profitable that year, too, but Congress passed legistlation that required it to make massive pre-payments into its retiree fund. The first payment wiped out the surplus and created a deficit. No other federal agency and few, if any, private businesses pay on these terms. Most pay as they go, and that is what the Post Office had been doing until recently.

Now, I'm not saying that all of the PO's financial problems are a result of that legislation, but they are a big part of it.


Another part- an overall poor economy. The following are excerpted from wikinvest. Grain of salt and all that, but they are just for quick reference.



and here's some elaboration from that page:

FedEx's profits are highly cyclical; they depend on the strength of the U.S. and world economies because economic health is a key determinant of package volumes. Package volumes and economic strength are so tightly correlated that economists will study package volume data from companies like FedEx as an indicator of whether economic activity is slowing or heating up.

This is what I've been trying to push home. How shippers do is not only a reflection of the economy's health, but an indicator of it.

And just for a good measure, here's a  look at how UPS was doing:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ups-profit-down-49-on-fewer-shipments-2009-07-23http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ups-profit-down-49-on-fewer-shipments-2009-07-23

United Parcel Service Inc. said Thursday its second-quarter profit was almost halved as the delivery company shipped fewer packages due to the global economic slowdown.

UPS reported net income of $445 million, or 44 cents a share, compared with net income of $873 million, or 85 cents a share a year ago

Later in that article, once again:

closely watched as a bellwether for economic activity

Now beyond those two issues, the post office does have problems. But those are two issues that had an immediate and directly traceable impact on the POs profitability.

[Skip8282]

The PO's budgetary problems began in earnest in 2007. They closed every year this decade prior to that with a surplus.

Al you're a tool.  Do you just make up shit hoping people buy into it?  Another clueless, uninformed, wannabe.  The post office historically has ended with more losses than gains.

And, no they have not been profitable every year this decade prior to 07.


2000 = $199 million loss
2001 = $1.68 billion loss
2002 = $676 million loss

I'll deal with the rest of your made-up misleading bullshit later - right now it's BBQ time at Skip's!!

In the meantime, why don't you actually study the issue before taking a stand.  That way you won't have to make shit up, fabricate facts, and basically make an ass out of yourself.

[Soul Crusher]

You have been on a roll lately. Lol.

[Straw Man]

The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome.  I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc.  I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.

However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture. 

333

you seem to use the US Postal Service much more than I do

you sound like a fan

[Soul Crusher]

I don't have a choice. 

[Straw Man]

I don't have a choice. 

I don't understand

isn't private, for profit,  mail service like Fed Ex, UPS, DHL cheaper?

[Soul Crusher]

Many rhings I do require usage of the post office.

[Skip8282]

You have been on a roll lately. Lol.

Ha, Doggity makes up more shit than SAMSON running a CT convention.  This is exactly what I was referring to earlier in the thread.

[Straw Man]

Many rhings I do require usage of the post office.

what about all the things that don't require you to use the Post Office

We know you think the Post Office sucks, is a complete failure, more proof of our inevitable slide toward communism et....

but you sure do sound like a fan here:

The 24/7 Kiosk they have is awesome.  I can do Certified Mailings, packages, buy stamps, etc.  I wish they could put those in public places like ATMS.

However, waiting for a money order, picking up a certified or otherwise is like torture. 

[Al Doggity]

Al you're a tool.  Do you just make up shit hoping people buy into it?  Another clueless, uninformed, wannabe.  The post office historically has ended with more losses than gains.

And, no they have not been profitable every year this decade prior to 07.


2000 = $199 million loss
2001 = $1.68 billion loss
2002 = $676 million loss

I'll deal with the rest of your made-up misleading bullshit later - right now it's BBQ time at Skip's!!

In the meantime, why don't you actually study the issue before taking a stand.  That way you won't have to make shit up, fabricate facts, and basically make an ass out of yourself.

I'm neither a tool, an idiot or or an ass.
The worst I can be accused of is not committing the cardinal sin of googling enough before I post. LOL.  (And for the record, no, I do not just make shit up hoping no one calls me on it. As I stated earlier, I've been a part of this basic discussion before. Not having total recall of the post office's relatively arcane financial history is not something that particularly embarrasses me, but I should be more careful about the numbers I use if I insist on using them.)


So, while there were some inaccuracies in my last post, that graph DOES reinforce what I've (along with every economist) been saying about how closely linked the post office's financial forecast is linked to that of the general economy's.

On top of that, my statements about the retirement fund are completely accurate. Those payments are equal to something like 90%  of the losses USPS has suffered since 2006. So the basic point of the post stands.

  I thought this was sort of interesting. It's from a  GAO report of  three years ago. Even though the post office was placed on the high risk list again this year, it had just been removed in this 2007 report. Here is the link to the report, relevant pages start at 14:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:BbPxBcyq2mMJ:www.gao.gov/new.items/d07310.pdf+gao+high+risk+list&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWu8QmDUXPKUOZCZEXGxLngwKvtVVGpmDqHd_5XSoQKtNYPyn-xVWyeJ5rCaNYwKqupgZZRz7OQClhieyjvSBWG5FADY6U9II1itcMAFSCQlZTEsDl4inu4jK77WorqFAosmzv&sig=AHIEtbQqFLgxeezLgv6Vxi_CwwFWAyaZ7w




The GAO is practically  raving about the structural and cost-cutting changes the post office made.None of these changes have been reversed, so the USPS's re-inclusion on the list mostly stems from their debts. Debts which overwhelmingly stem from the relatively new regulations for the retirement fund.The retirement fund is controlled by the treasury and the money borrowed is from the treasury,and payments on that scale aren't required by any other government agency. That's some pretty damned kooky math.