Slashdot Mirror

Actually, this is incorrect. Go back and look at the voting record for the 2006 bill. It was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it was cosponsored by two Democrats and 1 Republican.

And, the Postal carriers' union thinks it was a great bill

When the PAEA was passed in late 2006, it was at right about the peak in total mail volume (which of course they didn't know at the time) and the recession was still 2 years off. Everyone (Democrats, Republicans, and the postal service and unions) thought the prefunding was easily affordable, so it passed with bipartisan support. For example see this from the NALC (the main letter carrier's union) giving it high praise. (Although after things went sour, they started insinuating that it had been shoved down their throats, and pretty much everyone believes that by now.) Prior to 2006 there was no prefunding requirement at all, so it was just bad timing - it would have been fine if done 5 or 10 years earlier.

By the way, the correct prefunding figure is actually 50 years (see this and this which debunk the oft-repeated false value of 75 years).

The correct figure is 50 years (according to section 8909a of the PAEA), not 75. The PAEA does not specify 75 years anywhere at all. See here and here. Given that a postal worker can start working in their late teens and retire in their 40s, a 50-year requirement is perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, as the first link says, once you've gotten enough people, even "journalists", to repeat an unsubstantiated claim, there's no killing it (not even here at Slashdot, where people like to believe they check their facts). In this case, the false claim was apparently first made by the NALC and the NRLCA, two postal carrier unions. Neither of them has ever substantiated the claim. The NRLCA merely says it's "widely cited" (of course, that was the plan). The NALC simply refuses to respond to requests.

The rumor that the PAEA was a Republican plot is also false. This was before the 2008 recession, and total mail volume peaked around 2006 (although first class volume peaked in 2001 and was already dropping), so at the time everyone involved (Republicans, Democrats, postal management, and postal unions, with the possible exception of the APWU) thought the prefunding was affordable. It passed with bipartisan support. For the NALC's opinion of it at the time, see this. Note the almost total praise. The only criticism was a now completely forgotten provision that requires injured postal employees to wait three days before qualifying for Continuation of Pay. The NALC has never actually claimed that it was a Republican plot, though it now serves their purposes for people to believe that. They don't have to, there are enough left-leaning bloggers to do the job for them (along with spreading the false 75 year figure).

I'm sorry, but which people are demanding it? Seems like the massive amounts of packages shipped via other carries shows that the majority of the US doesn't want the USPS, so why should they be forced to pay for it?

I'm pretty sure your numbers are off - way off. Yes, many businesses use FedEx or UPS rather than the USPS, most likely because (a) they've negotiated shipping rates with carriers and (b) parcel tracking is much better than w/USPS, but I'm willing to bet money that most people ship most of their packages via USPS, especially as it's much less expensive to do so. As for volume, according to this http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/productivity.html and at least one other reference on Answers.com - of course, some of this volume is letters not packages.

1. The USPS delivers more items in one day than Federal Express does in a year and more items in one week than United Parcel Service does in a year.
2. The Postal Service delivers to 146 million businesses and households each day, six days per week. UPS delivers to 8 million addresses daily while FedEx serves even fewer.

Chances are pretty good Netflix and Gamefly will turn to UPS and Fedex. ...
Let the free market succeed where the USPS only exists by monopoly.

Umm... You forget that the USPS is mandated to deliver and pick up from *every* address in the US (at a uniform price and service quality). Fed Ex and UPS are not. People malign the Post Office, but they are actually pretty efficient considering the volume of mail they process and the area for which they serve. I think the main problem with the USPS is Congressional oversight keeping the agency from being more nimble and responsive. The obligation to its retired workers is also an issue.

From http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/productivity.html :

• The U.S. Postal Service handles more than 40 percent of the world’s mail volume, five times more than the Japanese Post Office, the next largest carrier of letter mail.
• In fiscal year 2007, the USPS sorted and delivered nearly 213 billion pieces of mail, about 703 million pieces a day.
• The USPS delivers more items in one day than Federal Express does in a year and more items in one week than United Parcel Service does in a year.
• The Postal Service delivers to 146 million businesses and households each day, six days per week. UPS delivers to 8 million addresses daily while FedEx serves even fewer.

And from Answers.com:

• The USPS delivers 177 billion pieces of mail a year (at an average of 584 million per day) to some 150 million addresses in the US and its territories.
• United Parcel Service (UPS) is the world's largest package delivery company, transporting some 15 million packages and documents per business day throughout the US and to more than 220 countries and territories.
• Its FedEx Express unit is the world's #1 express transportation provider, delivering about 3.5 million packages daily to more than 220 countries and territories from about 2,000 FedEx Office shops.

Alot of people like to conveniently forget that prior to the economic collapse of the world's economy the USPS was not only sulf-sufficient but kept prices crazy low without taking tax payer dollars. http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html#selfsufficient http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm

The United States Post Office is self-sufficient

The National Association of Letter Carriers union wouldn't be biased, would they?

Note that the numbers they give for the self-sufficiency claim is the total revenue and expenses from 1972 through 2007. So yeah, they approximately break even if you total everything over the past thirty-five years. But this doesn't really tell us anything about how the system has been operating recently, and how the system is likely to operate in the future.

For comparison, here (PDF) is the USPS's financial statement for 2009. Note that in the last quarter, they lost about $2.4 billion on $16 billion in revenue. Over three quarters, they lost about $4.6 billion on about $52 billion in revenue.

Any private company that posted such huge losses would try to restructure, renegotiate contracts, lay off workers, etc. to stop the money from hemorrhaging. But if you think GM had problems negotiating with the UAW, you should know that the federal union contracts are even more worker-friendly. So yes, of course the NALC wants you to believe the USPS is healthy. But the Government Accountability Office disagrees--they consider it "high-risk".

In case you think I'm just spouting conservative/libertarian propaganda, here's an article from that bastion of right-wing thought, the New York Times.

The United States Post Office is self-sufficient

The reason the US Mail has all those very nice properties you cite is that it's a monopoly, and without subsidy it would run a deficit DESPITE BEING A MONOPOLY. It's like a Microsoft, but instead of making billions it's losing billions.

Furthermore, the US Mail is not just a monopoly but has many other preferential legal treatment rules in force protecting it.

Ever heard of FedEx or UPS? DHL and Airborne Express used to be players too...until the industry consolidated because the FedEx and UPS had a lot of money in the bank.

And no, the USPS does not lose billions. You might find this interesting: http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html#selfsufficient

But all this is beside the point: You asked how it is possible for a public entity to provide services cheaper than a private one. I showed you.

So, now that your nonsensical economic objections are out of the way, we can get to the heart of the matter:

None of this explains why you want other people's money backing your fantasy.

We live in a nation. The purpose of a nation is to pool the resources of its citizens to enhance everyone's quality of life. To make this happen, we have an institution called "government." The question is: how far can the government go to do this?

Now, I take it that you think that the role of government should be limited. That it should only exist to prosecute crimes, provide for a national defense, and maybe a few other things. I understand and respect that position.

I, on the other hand, think that there are a few other things that the government ought to take care of too.

Market forces have caused the health insurance industry to evolve such that there is no low-priced insurance plan available on the private market that middle to lower income people can afford. (who make too much to receive Medicaid and are too young to receive Medicare - both government programs, I might add.)

Just like you think the government should provide for the national defense because private industry won't do it on their own, I think that the government should offer a low priced health plan because private industry won't do it on their own.

You don't like this idea. I understand that. But I have some bad news: most of the duly elected leaders of this country in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives agree with me and not you. And more bad news: by living in this country, you grant them the authority to pass laws that impact you whether you like the laws or not.

So, if you think health care reform is a bad idea, feel free to talk about it. Write your congressmen, argue with private citizens on the other side of the debate (I think you're doing pretty well here).

But I think it's time you get over the notion that it is somehow unjust to be asked to pay for a program that you don't like. We had an election, you lost. The cost of losing politically in this country is that you sometimes have to put up with paying for programs you don't like. That's not injustice, that is just the cost of living in a pluralistic society.

I was about to say something like "it's cheap unless you consider taxes"...but thought I'd better check on that. And bigger than shit was I wrong. The USPS actually runs on it's own sales. I guess I'll STFU now.

I get the sneaking suspicion that the reason you can mail a letter from one side of the US to the other for 'only' $0.42 is that somehow the USPS doesn't count on stamps as it's only source of income. I'd be willing to bet they get money from the taxpayers just like every other government-run program.

Or, to paraphrase, "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but here's my uninformed prejudice". Moron.

The USPS is self financing, and receives no tax payer subsidy.

It is illegal for any shipping company to charge less than the USPS for shipping ... It is also illegal for private companies to deliver first class mail

You have a point there, but I still think $0.41 for a 1st class letter is an excellent deal. Maybe private industry could do better, but there's not a whole lot of room to lower that price.

Actually, the USPS recieved 3 billion dollars in government subsidies for 2007

Where did that number come from? That's not true according to the National Association of Letter Carriers(my emphasis):

Taxpayer subsidies to the USPS were phased out between 1971, when they covered 23 percent of costs, and 1983. Today, an appropriation to the Postal Service proportional to that paid in 1971 would cost nearly $16 billion annually. The USPS is authorized to receive compensation of $460 million per year for operating unprofitable post offices, but has not requested or received this public service subsidy in more than 18 years. The direct savings to taxpayers: $13 billion through 2007.

Also from the same page:

• The USPS maintains the most affordable postage in the world. A first-class stamp, which costs 41 cents in America, costs 75 cents in Japan, 49 cents in Germany and 71 cents in Britain.
• Overall postage rates have increased less than consumer prices in general since the creation of the USPS in 1971. The stability in postage rates was achieved even as direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies have been eliminateddriving the real cost of mailing letters down 23 percent.
• The price of a stamp (41 cents, up 412 percent since 1971) has increased much less than many other ordinary products and services. For example: a movie ticket ($9, up 432 percent since 1971); natural gas to heat your home ($11.40 per 1,000 cubic feet, up 844 percent since 1971); a copy of Time or Newsweek ($3.95, up 690 percent since 1971).

I'll say it again: The USPS does a fantastic job, and I find it hard to believe private industry could do any better.

The U.S. Postal Service is self-sufficient (not subsidized):

http://www.nalc.org/postal/perform/selfsufficient.html
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blpostalservice.htm

If each piece of mail had a GUID, you could call up its tracking from their web site without them having to know who was tracking it, or why. For someone to trace your mail, they would have to know the GUID for that envelope, which does not have your ID in it. According to the USPS web site: "In fiscal year 2002, the USPS sorted and delivered nearly 203 billion pieces of mail, about 670 million pieces a day." A 38-bit GUID gives you 256G GUIDs, enough to tag every piece for a year. Make it a little bigger, say 64-bits and you have plenty of room for all US Mail. Make it 128-bit and you can tag every piece of mail on the planet.