THe USPS and parcels

[Not IN Trace]

Can someone please tell me with a estimated loss in 10 years of around 200 billion whey the post office is still in the business of delivering parcels? the post office is, never was, or never will be designed for parcel sevice.
I think it is a disgrace to taxpayers that we keep having to subsides this dinosour that will be gone anyway in 25 years.
and it is just as shameful that ups is using the usps and takpayer dollars to pad the profits by uising the postal service to deliver parcels
wake up people~!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Can someone please tell me with a estimated loss in 10 years of around 200 billion whey the post office is still in the business of delivering parcels? the post office is, never was, or never will be designed for parcel sevice.
I think it is a disgrace to taxpayers that we keep having to subsides this dinosour that will be gone anyway in 25 years.
and it is just as shameful that ups is using the usps and takpayer dollars to pad the profits by uising the postal service to deliver parcels
wake up people~!

I am confused by your last sentence. How is UPS using taxpayer dollars to pad their profits? I assume you are referring to Basic. We handle 90% of the movement of a Basic package with delivery carrier (UPS or USPS) determined by zip code. On average about 1/3 of my residentials are Basic. UPS and USPS share the profit on these packages.

IMO the post office needs to be privatized.

 

[dilligaf]

I am confused by your last sentence. How is UPS using taxpayer dollars to pad their profits? I assume you are referring to Basic. We handle 90% of the movement of a Basic package with delivery carrier (UPS or USPS) determined by zip code. On average about 1/3 of my residentials are Basic. UPS and USPS share the profit on these packages.

IMO the post office needs to be privatized.

Just out of curiosity, and I am being serious, what are the advantages to privatizing the post office? Maybe it's to early in the morning or maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet. What are the disadvantages?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Just out of curiosity, and I am being serious, what are the advantages to privatizing the post office? Maybe it's to early in the morning or maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet. What are the disadvantages?

The goal of any business is to turn a profit or to at least be self-sustaining. Privatizing the Post Office would streamline operations and eliminate/reduce waste. Volume is down so routes should be cut/consolidated, excess personnel laid off/reassigned and the work week shortened by one day. Individual mailboxes should be eliminated (where feasible) in favor of bulk mailboxes to shorten delivery time.

I don't see any disadvantages to privatizing the Post Office.

 

[beentheredonethat]

Can someone please tell me with a estimated loss in 10 years of around 200 billion whey the post office is still in the business of delivering parcels? the post office is, never was, or never will be designed for parcel sevice.

Considering for UPS the largest "cost" is the delivery cost. At the USPS, they are already going to virtually every address every day. To them, there is very little incremental cost to deliver a pkg to a customer. This should be their main money maker, considering how much more it pays vs mail

 

[klein]

Here are some changes that Canada made in the past 2 or 3 decades :
- Gave up Saturday delivery in the 70's
- privatized postal outlets, 7/11 or a drugstore in your neighborhood is your postoffice.
- no parcel weighing over 1lb or that won't fit in the bulk mailbox doesn't get delivered, but a notice-card will be delivered in your mailbox (to be picked up at your local 7/11 or drugstore).
- privatization of all rural areas, including smaller towns and citys (individual subcontracters deliver mail, in thier own vehicles).
- cost of mail is 57cents here, plus 5% GST (Vat) tax = 60 cents.

All these changes, and they are actually running good profits, last time I checked.

 

[dilligaf]

The goal of any business is to turn a profit or to at least be self-sustaining. Privatizing the Post Office would streamline operations and eliminate/reduce waste. Volume is down so routes should be cut/consolidated, excess personnel laid off/reassigned and the work week shortened by one day. Individual mailboxes should be eliminated (where feasible) in favor of bulk mailboxes to shorten delivery time.

I don't see any disadvantages to privatizing the Post Office.

What you say is logical. The post office could do the same thing, couldn't they?

 

[JonFrum]

Can someone please tell me with a estimated loss in 10 years of around 200 billion whey the post office is still in the business of delivering parcels? the post office is, never was, or never will be designed for parcel sevice.
I think it is a disgrace to taxpayers that we keep having to subsides this dinosour that will be gone anyway in 25 years.
and it is just as shameful that ups is using the usps and takpayer dollars to pad the profits by uising the postal service to deliver parcels
wake up people~!

The Postal Service will not loose $200 billion over the next decade. They are required by law to (at least) break even over time, even if they can't actually make a profit.

By law the Postal Service has not been subsidized by taxpayer funds since 1983.

 

[Bubblehead]

The Postal Service will not loose $200 billion over the next decade. They are required by law to (at least) break even over time, even if they can't actually make a profit.

How does this work? Under what penalty?

By law the Postal Service has not been subsidized by taxpayer funds since 1983.

The Postal Service has not been self sufficient since 1983, who then is making up the difference if not the taxpayer?

Perhaps the legislation/law to which you refer, could somehow be imposed upon the rest of government in order to facilitate a balanced budget? I'm assuming you were being facetious, I know I am.

 

[JonFrum]

Perhaps the legislation/law to which you refer, could somehow be imposed upon the rest of government in order to facilitate a balanced budget? I'm assuming you were being facetious, I know I am.

I've made the points about the Postal Service being obligated to more-or-less break even, and that direct subsidy using taxpayer money was eliminated in 1983, in four threads in response to false information that was posted.

You should read up on the legislation that governs the Postal Service, begining with the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 which did away with the old Post Office and created the modern Postal Service.

 

[hondo]

I've made the points about the Postal Service being obligated to more-or-less break even, and that direct subsidy using taxpayer money was eliminated in 1983, in four threads in response to false information that was posted.

You should read up on the legislation that governs the Postal Service, begining with the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 which did away with the old Post Office and created the modern Postal Service.

+1
And, I would add, that the biggest financial problem facing the USPS is the relatively recent changes in the way their pensions are required to be funded, NOT a decline in volume or operating losses. Sound familiar? That happened about the same time our pension funds' accounting and reporting rules were changed. The USPS had otherwise been able keep up financially with rate hikes, operation changes, new services, etc.

 

[tieguy]

If you two are done with your post office love fest . it appears the post office has been unprofitable and according to jon breaking the law?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/05/postal_service_profits_volume.html

 

[beentheredonethat]

I've made the points about the Postal Service being obligated to more-or-less break even, and that direct subsidy using taxpayer money was eliminated in 1983, in four threads in response to false information that was posted.

You should read up on the legislation that governs the Postal Service, begining with the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 which did away with the old Post Office and created the modern Postal Service.

Money for the post office may not be coming from the Fed's general fund. But there's no doubt that they haven't been neutral in a bit of time. http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/ar09html/ar_2_116.htm This link is from the usps web site, it shows that for 2009 the lost 3.79 Billion, in 2008 they lost 2.8 Billion, in 2007 they lost 5.1 Billion, FY 2006 was the last year of profits and they made .9 billion (900 million). Also at the end of 2009 it showed since the reorg in 1970 they have a cumulative debt of 5.4 billion. This year they are projecting a 7 Billion loss. This will bring them to over 12 billion debt that occurred in just the past few years. Yes they should be revenue neutral, but they clearly aren't. Also, think of this. They get to borrow at the same interest rate as the US government, any other company would be paying a lot more on their debt. Also, all of their facilities they own, they don't pay real estate tax, all the vehicles they own, they don't pay excise tax on them. They also don't have to pay for parking tickets etc. They have huge financial benefits from being joined with the US govt.

 

[JonFrum]

I said the law requires that the Postal Service break even over time. That means they are allowed to loose money in the short run, but must take steps to rectify the problem so it doesn't continue. And that's what the USPS is, and has been, doing. They have raised prices on stamps, cut services, reduce the workforce, etc. But because they are governed by Congress, they need approval for some of the steps they seek to take. Congress and the Postal Rate Commission act slowly. That's not the Postal Service's fault. The Postal Service has made a fresh set of proposals that would achieve revenue-nutrality.

The USPS is in effect a non-profit corporation. They are exempt from some taxes as are many non-profits, and some for-profit corporations as well.

Congress mandates that the USPS do a variety of expensive and inefficient things in the name of the General Welfare of Society. Some of these mandates Congress funds. Some it doesn't and leaves the USPS to cope with huge unfair expenses.

Search the Internet for articles on the Postal Service and Pensions and Retiree Health Care etc and you'll see what I post is the truth.

By the way, I don't love the Postal Service. I just love accuracy and I know a bit more than some people about the laws the USPS operates under.

 

[tieguy]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to correct us on this one. Passing a law won't make the post office profitable.