USPS Reports $15.9 Billion Loss, Asks Congress For Help

New submitter Gaildew2 writes with news that the embattled United States Postal Service has posted a $15.9 billion loss over the past fiscal year, more than three times the amount it lost the previous year. "The USPS, which relies on the sale of stamps and other products rather than taxpayer dollars, has been grappling for years with high costs and tumbling mail volumes as consumers communicate more online. In September, the Postal Service hit its $15 billion borrowing limit for the first time in its history. That leaves it with few options if it suffers an unexpected shock, such as a slowdown if lawmakers are unable to prevent the year-end tax increases and spending cuts known as the 'fiscal cliff.' ... Postal officials want Congress to pass legislation that would allow the agency to end Saturday mail delivery and run its own health plan rather than enrolling USPS employees in federal health programs, among other things."

Comments

Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people using mail anymore are junk mailers. And they get an ENORMOUS discount to send out thousands of flyers and coupons. So let's raise our taxes even more to prop up a bunch of spammers. If you don't, the union gets angry and leans on politicians. That's just good policy.

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

They may lose money on every piece of junk mail they deliver, but they'll make it up on volume.

Re:Mass Mail

[scumdamn]

Today I learned that old people and poor people don't use snail mail. Thanks for the lesson.

Re:Mass Mail

[The Moof]

Well, I still receive packages and my bills via the USPS, so I imagine shutting it down would cause some problems in those departments.

And they get an ENORMOUS discount to send out thousands of flyers and coupons

Mailing companies don't get enormous discounts. They actually do the majority of the USPS's work themselves. They take care of the presorting and processing of all the mail, and will even do drop shipments of the presorted mail to the delivery facilities directly. The only real part that the USPS does is take the sorted mail and have their carriers deliver it. It removes a large portion of the process, such as address analysis and routing processing. USPS also get revenue from the mandatory quarterly software updates used for sorting and processing of the mail.

Re:Mass Mail

[Shining Celebi]

The USPS doesn't run on taxes, they are self-sufficient. That's why they're not asking for a bailout, but for an end to Saturday mail delivery and other USPS cost saving measures. At the same time, the USPS is generally hobbled by Congressional requirements that they do this or that and overfund their retirement obligations and all sorts of other things.

Re:Mass Mail

[Shining Celebi]

I meant to include this link - the USPS has a 13 billion dollar surplus sitting in its retirement accounts.

Re:Mass Mail

[samkass]

The USPS doesn't run on taxes, they are self-sufficient. That's why they're not asking for a bailout, but for an end to Saturday mail delivery and other USPS cost saving measures. At the same time, the USPS is generally hobbled by Congressional requirements that they do this or that and overfund their retirement obligations and all sorts of other things.

Exactly. They are the only agency required to pre-pay all the retirement accounts in full rather than make regular installments into an interest-bearing account. Congress hobbled them with this, along with requirements to keep all rural post offices open and keep delivering on Saturdays, but provided them no way to recoup those costs. Almost all of the $15B is due to the retirement pre-payment requirements.

Re:Mass Mail

[jythie]

Well, no. One problem we have as techies is we tend to surround ourselves with similar people and forget that not everyone is online. All YOU might get is junk mail, but many people (usually at the low end of the income scale) still depend on USPS for the basic bureaucracy of living. Many people still, for instance, pay their bills by mailing a check. They do not have computers or Internet so the electronic option simply isn't open to them.

Re:Mass Mail

[oh_my_080980980]

So you missed that bit about the not running on taxes....

Re:Mass Mail

[rgbrenner]

junk mail subsidizes first class mail. Junk mail does not need to be sorted, shipped across country, etc. The profits from junk mail are used to keep first class mail rates low.

Re:Mass Mail

[bhlowe]

Since 1970, the U.S. Postal Service is a semi-independent federal agency, mandated to be revenue-neutral. That is, it is supposed to break even, not make a profit. It has had deficits for years.

Here their their plan. http://about.usps.com/news/national-releases/2012/pr12_0217profitability.pdf

I would prefer they cut delivery to once a week. Use some savings to implement wider adoption of electronic communication. (Voting, taxes, motor vehicles, etc.) Too bad for NetFlix.

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

The retirement account money is just sitting there because Congress passed a law under Bush requiring they fun employee pensions fully for 50 years. No company does that, even when pensions were the norm the funds weren't required for that length of time.

The letter carriers union fought against this law because they knew what a hardship it would be. So, instead of getting all small government on something that doesn't even rely on taxes, why not suggest to your congresspersons that they repeal the pension mandate and have it set at a more sane funding level.

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

The only people using mail anymore are junk mailers. And they get an ENORMOUS discount to send out thousands of flyers and coupons. So let's raise our taxes even more to prop up a bunch of spammers. If you don't, the union gets angry and leans on politicians. That's just good policy.

To put some figures (though not much) around that:

http://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/09/27/how-junk-mail-is-helping-to-prop-up-the-postal-service/

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS is important. Basically, Congress is making the USPS prepay pensions so many years out, that the beneficiaries of it haven't even started working for the USPS yet!

Of course they're doing badly, no other company on earth is required by government to do that. Combine that with they're required to maintain postage rates which are under cost for the library system despite big, heavy books, and that it's legal for UPS and FedEx to use USPS for last-leg delivery*, congress has been working very hard to set up the USPS to fail.

It was basically a trick to make USPS be the poster boy for government inefficiency: they get to make headlines every quarter about their financial woes.

* UPS Mail Innovations, FedEx Smart Post, and some other services are products those companies sell which provide cheap shipping. Delivery is expensive, and these low-price options are offered at a cheap price because they remove the last leg of delivery, actually delivering to unique addresses. They handle most of the shipping themselves hitchhiking on other shipping methods when they have extra room and, when they get to the depot, just get offloaded to the local USPS hub and pay them a fraction of what they get paid to finish the delivery. This is the perfect textbook example of "Socialize the Costs, Privatize the Profits".

Re:Mass Mail

[operagost]

Poor people don't use snail mail. Why would they? Do you have evidence otherwise? It's not like there are free email accounts and free internet access for poor people or anything.

Re:Mass Mail

[jjohnson]

the Republican party has been working very hard to set up the USPS to fail

FTFY

Re:Mass Mail

[operagost]

Most people still get at least some of their bills on paper. Having only one delivery a week would definitely cause some billing problems for customers, besides the fact that carrier routes would have to be redone to account for the volume-- because now he has a week's worth of mail. Know what your mailbox looks like if you go away for a week and place a hold on it? Yeah, it's going to be like that every week. And people's mailboxes, especially in apartments, are not going to be able to hold that stuff. Losing Saturday delivery is reasonable; going to weekly delivery is not.

Re:Mass Mail

[jjohnson]

I think it's the former

And you'd be wrong. It's not only legally required to operate without receiving tax funds, it's by law not allowed to raise the price of stamps, or determine its own service hours, and it has incredibly onerous restrictions placed on it to fund its retirement and medical benefits for decades more than any private corporation would ever consider doing. In other words, Republicans set it up to fail so they could point to it as an example of inefficient government.

Re:Mass Mail

[GLMDesigns]

You mean to say that no government monies - at all go to the USPS? That they receive no breaks of any kind by any federal, state or local government agency.

Are you saying that this would be the first time that the USPS has ever received any government assistance?

Is that what you're saying?

Re:Mass Mail

[orthancstone]

At the same time, the USPS is generally hobbled by Congressional requirements that they do this or that and overfund their retirement obligations and all sorts of other things.

This. Pundits love to ignore the fact that the same Congressional tools that whine about USPS' inefficiency are typically the ones preventing USPS from enacting changes that would help its bottom line and potentially save it from needing massive loans.

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

why do you hate the constitution?

Re:Mass Mail

[Sir_Sri]

Actually it's the rare but important stuff sent via the mail that you need to subsidize and why there are massive government postal programmes at all. If you can't check your bank balance online, if you need to send legal documents, contracts, bill etc. all of that needs to be accessible to people. Your voter registration any government correspondence etc. is all doable through mail. And mail services guarantee package delivery to the entire country usually (I'm not 100% sure how this works for the US with things like the republic of marshall islands or the like, which are sort of overseas independent dependencies of the US government, but not full blow territories like puerto rico).

All of the junk mail crap is there to subsidize the actually important stuff. The effective monopoly postal services had on junk mail was an indirect subsidy, and I can't imagine Fed Ex wanting to go door to door delivering pizza coupons, but who knows. Even things like magazines, which, yes, people actually buy and read, would be seriously inhibited if they had to pay significantly more for delivery costs.

Obviously, the basic problem all postal services have is their regulatory requirements don't line up with their financial ones in a changing market. Government needs to take a bit of a heavy hand in any industry where the goal is to actually reduce your workload. Medical providers should be looking for ways to reduce their number of people getting sick, police should be looking to reduce the amount of crime, the post office should be looking for ways to reduce paper mail, but at the same time you do need reliable cross country (cross world actually) mail delivery - because some of what is sent via mail is both important and needs to be kept inexpensive. If you want to spend 8 bucks to mail a letter to arrive tomorrow rather than 50 cents for it to arrive in 3 days fine, but for the people who cannot afford the extra 7.50 or whatever it is you don't want to lock them out of communication, most especially if they are your customers.

As to the specific problem though, of mail employees being necessarily treated like career people and not minimum wage disposables, and all of that stuff, I don't really know. If the government is going to mandate they provide a service without a way to pay for it (e.g. saturday mail delivery) that's going to have to change or the government is going to have to step in financially.

Re:Mass Mail

[niftydude]

The only people using mail anymore are junk mailers.

Not quite. If all the retail stores are going broke because everyone is buying stuff off the internet, then USPS should be doing a roaring trade in package deliveries.

Not sure why USPS don't seem to be able to leverage off all that traffic to make a profit.

Re:Mass Mail

[jmauro]

Honestly it works both ways. USPS pays FedEx and UPS a small portion of what it gets to ship a letter to have them move the mail in bulk across the US, since it's cheaper to utilize their air and ground freight systems instead of building its own duplicate system. If the USPS wasn't hobbled with things like the pension pre-pay and the inability to control it's prices, everyone would be making profit.

Re:Mass Mail

[magisterx]

Netflix uses USPS extensively. There are also certain legal matters that for the moment require the physical exchange of documents (anything that requires a notary for a very simple example). Many of them go through FedEx/UPS of course, but for some non-urgent ones USPS makes complete sense.

The USPS may be fading, but there is still a need for the immediate future and ending saturday delivery is a very logical way to make up some of its revenue gap.

Re:Mass Mail

[Mullen]

No, paying the benefit when you promise it is one thing, paying it 75 years in advance is another. Yes, they are paying for retirement benefits for people who are not even born yet.

Look deeper into this problem instead of yelling "OMG, GUBER'MENT IS BAD".

Re:Mass Mail

[X0563511]

the Republican party has been working very hard to fail

FTFY

FTFY.

Re:Mass Mail

[tibit]

Perhaps we're getting to the point: Why the FUCK does a supposedly self-sufficient company have to ask anyone how to run their FUCKING business?! As long as they dot their constitutionally mandated job, can't everyone else fuck off? Seriously.

Re:Mass Mail

[cellocgw]

Today I learned that old people and poor people don't use snail mail. Thanks for the lesson.

Reading fail. The (obvious) point the OP was making is that the vast majority of snailmail is catalogs and other junk mail, all of which is carried at a far cheaper per-item rate than first-class letters. Hence your "old ..and poor people" are subsidizing the corporations.

Re:Mass Mail

[DragonWriter]

If all the retail stores are going broke because everyone is buying stuff off the internet, then USPS should be doing a roaring trade in package deliveries. Not sure why USPS don't seem to be able to leverage off all that traffic to make a profit.

First, because USPS is not supposed to make a profit (it supposed to target operating at break even.) But, more importantly, because, while the USPS has a legal monopoly on regular mail delivery, it doesn't on package delivery, so private carriers that don't do regular mail delivery but are optimized for package and express delivery take a lot of that business. In some other countries, when new communications mechanism -- starting with the telegraph, then the telephone, then the internet -- began displacing mail, the public entity that was the national postal system expanded to also include those functions and take a similar role with relating to them that it took with regard to mail. In the US, instead, the postal service has been kept to a narrow role, and its role that is less relevant over time to how the country operates. It is failing by design, even before considering knife thrusts to the heart like the Congressionally-imposed 75-year retirement funding mandate.

Re:Mass Mail

[tlhIngan]

Not quite. If all the retail stores are going broke because everyone is buying stuff off the internet, then USPS should be doing a roaring trade in package deliveries.

Not sure why USPS don't seem to be able to leverage off all that traffic to make a profit.

They are making tons through parcel deliveries. The problem is, congress prevents them from adapting.

USPS is required to be revenue neutral and non-profit (i.e., they make as much money as they need). Congress controls how much a stamp costs (and other basic services - so their income is hobbled), and congress controls how much they're required to pay out (e.g., USPS is required to pre-pay retirement for 75 years over the next 10. Yes, that means they're paying NOW for a retirement package for employees who have not even been hired yet).

In fact, because of changes signed in by George Bush (notably, USPS was running a pretty damn tight ship until 2006 when the requirement mandate kicked in.).

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/email-isnt-killing-the-post-office

Basically, the government has set up USPS to fail as an example of "government inefficiency" by making it have obligations that go above and beyond what any company has to provide, including USPS' competitors.

Then again, I suppose it's better paying $8 to have FedEx send a letter across the US than 50 cents.

Re:Mass Mail

[DragonWriter]

The USPS may be fading, but there is still a need for the immediate future and ending saturday delivery is a very logical way to make up some of its revenue gap.

Reducing delivery days isn't going to do much to reduce the revenue gap except, maybe, in the very short run; in the long run, its going to reduce the value of using the postal system compared to other options and accelerate the movement of communication off snail mail and into other systems (whether alternative physical delivery services or non-physical systems.)

Re:Mass Mail

[TheLink]

But itâ(TM)s so cheap overall that it still doesnâ(TM)t contribute as much to the USPS as First-Class mail. And thatâ(TM)s despite the continuously declining popularity of sending stamped envelopes through the mail.

So the big question: is junkmail profitable enough for the USPS? Would increasing their charges help?

Re:Mass Mail

[Dzimas]

That's not true. USPS is by far the cheapest way to send or receive a package internationally. It's also the only way of sending a physical document across the country for well under a dollar. I suspect that there's an incredible amount of waste in the system -- cutting Saturday delivery is easy, as is the idea of integrating postal counters into existing businesses (mini outlets in supermarkets, drugstores and convenience stores) where possible. Rethink door-to-door delivery (Canada Post has been using community mailboxes in new neighborhoods for years, dramatically increasing carrier efficiency).

Re:Mass Mail

[porges]

I get junk mail from all over the country. Is that unusual? (Maybe you mean supermarket circulars.)

Re:Mass Mail

[serviscope_minor]

In other words, Republicans set it up to fail so they could point to it as an example of inefficient government.

Interestingly, the Labour party in the UK did exactly the same thing in order to justify privatisations.

The post office is obliged to let other companies collect mail and sell stamps. This means all the easy collections like collecting a huge number of mail sacks from one location are taken care of by private companies. The lucrative part (selling stamps) is also taken care of by private companies.

The difficult part (last mile delivery to every unique address in the UK) is taken care of the Royal Mail. Oh and they get to charge the colelction companies a very small amount set by the government for this last mile delivery.

It's basically a cunning scheme to funnel tax money into cronies pockets while giving the appearance that privatisation is good because all the private mail compaines are profitable and the only non private one hemorages money and has to be propped up by the taxpayer.

It is a fine example of the government being extremely crap. Except that the part of the government in question is Parliament, not the Royal Mail.

Re:Mass Mail

[chartreuse]

Gilbert, meet Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usps

"The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. Since the 2006 all-time peak mail volume,[5] after which Congress passed the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act",[6] (which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future—a requirement unique to this agency), revenue dropped sharply due to recession-influenced[7] declining mail volume,[8] prompting the postal service to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit.[9]"

I’m sure that like most of us in the country the USPS also benefits from using roads and sidewalks and highways and water and electricity systems that were built for us by all those socialists between the 1930s and 1980, back when the personal tax rates were three times higher. (No doubt you have built your own alternative transportation system, perhaps jetpack-based.)

Re:Mass Mail

[Richy_T]

Transferring a document across country for less than a dollar could be considered part of the waste of which you speak.

Re:Mass Mail

[GLMDesigns]

the article didn't say anything about the USPS paying property taxes.

Expanding this conversation to roads will unnecessarily complicate the conversation. Let's keep on topic. Here are more relevant questions. Is there any reason for the government to run the post office.? (Yes. The constitution provides for it.)

Why are you so invested in having the government run the post office? What makes you think that big top-down government agencies are the way to go? If the USPS is self-sufficient why MUST it be a government service? Do you actually think that government agencies are better?

Re:Mass Mail

[jjohnson]

Of course I blame one party: It was the Republicans who were in the majority in both houses of Congress when they passed the laws that crippled the financial position of the USPS. It was the Republicans who voted for the law, while most Democrats opposed it. Who else should I blame?

Does saying "it's all grey" make it easier for you to ignore people who are fucking over other people?

Re:Mass Mail

[bill_mcgonigle]

Look deeper into this problem instead of yelling "OMG, GUBER'MENT IS BAD".

Who exactly imposed the 75-year rule?

Q.E.D.

Re:Mass Mail

[darkain]

I wouldn't know anything about that at all!!

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/533496_4414778401537_1045480076_n.jpg

(note: These are just the political spam collected for this past election, not counting the multiple items a day for credit card offers and other various junk)

Re:Mass Mail

[9jack9]

Is there any reason for the government to run the post office.? (Yes. The constitution provides for it.)

Why are you so invested in having the government run the post office? What makes you think that big top-down government agencies are the way to go?

If the USPS is self-sufficient why MUST it be a government service? Do you actually think that government agencies are better?

Here's your answer:

The mission of the Postal Service is to provide the American public with trusted universal postal service at affordable prices. While not explicitly defined, the Postal Service's universal service obligation (USO) is broadly outlined in statute and includes multiple dimensions: geographic scope, range of products, access to services and facilities, delivery frequency, affordable and uniform pricing, service quality, and security of the mail. While other carriers may claim to voluntarily provide delivery on a broad basis, the Postal Service is the only carrier with a legal obligation to provide all the various aspects of universal service at affordable rates.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usps#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status.

So, if we don't think we need a post office, let's change the constitution.

Personally, I think there some services best provided by the government, including services where it might be desirable to provide a certain level of service at a certain price to everyone in the country. Maybe you disagree. That is your right. So change it. Get your congresscritters to amend the Constitution.

Again, just my opinion, but to some extent our national character is defined by the obligations that unite us. The interstate system, CDC, USPS, NASA, the US military, Sesame Street. Things that exist only in America. Get rid of enough of those obligations, and we're no longer the United States, we're just some states.

Re:Mass Mail

[Anonymous Coward]

They receive a lot of discounts because they do the USPS's work for them. They only receive discounts if the mail is all pre-sorted, bagged and tagged with endpoint route destinations, so the USPS can easily deliver the mail as a bunch to the individual local (and even individual carrier route) without inspecting any of it. It's cheaper because they are using much less of the actual service. And a significant amount of work goes into managing the pre-sorting, barcoding and permit management.

So, the "cheaper per-item rate' mail isn't simply a giant weight dragging down the system. It's far more complicated than that.

Re:Mass Mail

[dkleinsc]

And mail services guarantee package delivery to the entire country usually (I'm not 100% sure how this works for the US with things like the republic of marshall islands or the like, which are sort of overseas independent dependencies of the US government, but not full blow territories like puerto rico).

The USPS will deliver absolutely everywhere - rural Alaska, overseas territories (they may work through the local territorial government to make that happen), Army and Navy posts abroad, you name it, they'll send it. FedEx and UPS actually pays them to handle deliveries to a lot of areas where it's not profitable to send a truck.

Re:Mass Mail

[theArtificial]

The only people using mail anymore are junk mailers.

Amazon, Newegg, Ebay, Zappos... Junk mail is one of the post offices biggest profit items. This is like claiming the roads are only used by drug dealers and thieves.

So let's raise our taxes even more to prop up a bunch of spammers.

An apt analogy for how USPS operates is a ship with 3 rudders.

If you don't, the union gets angry and leans on politicians. That's just good policy.

The main reason that the USPS is losing money is because congress forced a 70 year prepayment of retirement benefits on the USPS

Re:Mass Mail

[sjames]

And remarkably, it has managed to hold up under this attack for years while their so-called 'efficient free market' competition routinely dumps on its retirement plans, cuts service, and hikes rates.

Re:Mass Mail

[Digital Vomit]

Who exactly imposed the 75-year rule?

Private corporate interests disguised as political parties?

Re:Mass Mail

[citylivin]

"Reading fail. The (obvious) point the OP was making is that the vast majority of snailmail is catalogs and other junk mail,"

Thinking fail. You haven't ever received a mail in rebate, an ebay package, a small business online order, a care package from grandma, letters from the bank, local catalogues from small businesses, cheques from contract work, reminders about doctor visits, city forms, etc.. recently?

And besides all that, do you really think that the destruction of a carrier will stop or decrease the levels of spam? HA! all that money there, UPS and fedex would be more than happy to enter that market. I doubt you would see even a one day drop in spam volumes. Someone like UPS would buy up the usps business and then charge the average person $7 to send a letter. The volume discounts would likely not change and you would be at the same place you started, except on the rare occasion when you do need to use the service and then you would personally pay a lot more.

Its hard for me to believe that the federal government doesnt own the post office as a government service. Its one of those businesses that should not be run as "for profit". They are providing a service at a low cost to everyone in your country and should be protected.

" Hence your "old ..and poor people" are subsidizing the corporations."

Nice try there sparky, but here's a fun arithmetic fact. 10000 items at 5 cents per item is vastly MORE MONEY than 1 grandmas letter at 2 dollars or whatever. Obviously the advertising industry drives the post office's revenue. You can argue that this is wasteful, environmentally unfriendly and therefor the federal government should really probably pay for the post office to prevent these sorts of spamvalanches, but you are not doing that. You seem to be saying that snail mail is obsolete, which i think is demonstrably false. There is quite a high premium to send things by fedex or ups, thus creating a good niche for USPS, albiet evidently not a profitable one. Should near universal access to a communication tool be profitable? thats the question.

Re:Mass Mail

[Wolfrider]

--I've said it before and I'll say it again: we SHOULD NOT sacrifice Saturday delivery. Once we do, we will NEVER get it back. The Pony Express riders are practically spinning in their graves at the very thought. We used to have STANDARDS, dammit! Dropping Saturday delivery is just lazy thinking.

--For me, it's mostly a Netflix DVD delivery thing - why should I have to wait until Monday if I would otherwise have it Saturday?? However, there are lots of people that get PAID on Friday. Think about that.

Re:Mass Mail

[timeOday]

Basically, Congress is making the USPS prepay pensions so many years out, that the beneficiaries of it haven't even started working for the USPS yet! Of course they're doing badly, no other company on earth is required by government to do that.

Where I work, in about 2001 I was told, "there is such a huge surplus in the pension plan that they don't know what to do with it." So a year later, you know what they did? They have existing pensioners a raise.

Within 7 years, the pension plan investments had crashed. They cancelled the pension plan for new hires, slashed future contributions for on-roll employees, and cancelled pre-medicare healthcare benefits for future retirees. (Existing retirees, of course, are drawing their full pensions, including the "raise," to this day).

So, I am wary.

Re:Mass Mail

[Americano]

Everybody assumes because they don't get much important mail that nobody else must get important mail, either - that's why you see comments like this about "nobody needing mail service more than once a week." But surely a middle ground exists between "once a week" and "every day" that would also allow the USPS to save a little money?

Given the increasingly electronic nature of things like this, I think the USPS could probably explore:
1) Any address gets service 3 days a week; each carrier could service 2 different routes in a week, on alternating days (e.g., Mon/Wed/Fri, or Tues/Thurs/Sat):
          -- If you absolutely MUST receive something on a non-delivery day, pick it up at the post office, or just... wait until tomorrow. Very few things sent by post are *that* urgent that you couldn't wait one extra day for regular service to deliver it;
          -- Cut the number of carriers in half - since you only do half the existing routes on any given day, you don't need as many carriers;
          -- For absolutely time-critical shipping, subcontract with a service like FedEx or UPS to handle the local delivery of specific packages on non-delivery days;
2) Offer a "pro" plan to opt out of the advertising (just like you can do with apps and online services)... I would pay a reasonable amount of money to have my mail service (and my mailbox) not cluttered up by a bunch of useless crap advertising that I never look at. I understand that the ads help subsidize the low cost of mail, so I would be willing to help offset that lost revenue, if they offered a service that would exempt my mailbox from the advertising b.s. and save a tree or ten... I suspect they could find a few other people who would be willing to pay this, as well.

As people are increasingly connected and things move increasingly to being done online/electronically, I think the migration to once a week service (or even longer intervals) is pretty inevitable. But it need not be "daily delivery today, monthly delivery tomorrow," either - it can be phased in over many years as / if demand tapers so that people and companies have a chance to adjust.

Re:Mass Mail

[X0563511]

FTFY

FTFY.

FTFY

FTFY?

I mean, it was inevitable...

Re:Mass Mail

[rgbrenner]

Junk mail is sent in bulk (a bundle with several thousand pieces) to the destination zip code. It is not sorted. Each delivery carrier takes a stack of junk mail (enough for their route), and places it in every box. This costs as little as 14.2 cents per piece.

The only other way to get junk mail across country is the pay regular prices to ship it. If you are sending out enough pieces, and you're willing to barcode, check addresses, obtain a mailing permit (for several thousand dollars) and pre-sort the mail for the post office.. then you can obtain a modest discount. Regulations prevent them from offering real discounts (like what FedEx and UPS offer).. so when I say modest, I mean modest (think 10-15% off retail counter rates).

Re:Mass Mail

[kf6auf]

Once a week is a bit extreme, and would require the post office to store a whole lot of mail over the course of a week, but I figure we could switch to standard 3-day delivery without a problem. Half of each zip code gets mail Mon, Wed, and Friday, and the other half gets mail Tues, Thurs, & Saturday. So if someone mails you something, it'll at most take an additional two days (1 extra day waiting to go out, and 1 extra at your post office waiting for your delivery day)---assuming you check your mail every day anyway. And the post office needs half as many maintained vehicles, half as many drivers, and uses half as much gas. And there's always the possibility of charging extra for everyday delivery.

Re:Mass Mail

[Americano]

It was the Republicans who voted for the law, while most Democrats opposed it.

Are you joking, lying, or just completely ignorant?

The PAEA changed how the Postal Service would be allowed to handle the retirement benefits. It was passed in 2006, and was brought before Congress by Republican Tom Davis. It passed the House of Representatives by a voice vote, and passed the Senate with unanimous approval.

In the 109th Congress, Republicans held a fairly slim majority in both houses. There were 48 Democrats in the Senate (none of whom registered an objection - they gave unanimous approval); there were 202 Democrats in the House (few, if any of whom registered an objection if it passed by voice vote);

And this dastardly Republican corruption of justice and our beloved Postal Service was co-sponsored by Rep. Davis' fellow neocon Republithugs:
-- Republican John McHugh of New York;
-- Democrat Henry Waxman of California;
-- Democrat Danny Davis of Illinois;

Clearly, it's all a Republican plot, and the poor beleaguered Democrats who fought against this tooth and nail were simply steamrolled on this issue! No friend, make no mistake about it - if the Republicans are "setting them up to fail," the Democrats are happily providing the soundtrack.

Re:Mass Mail

[Rockoon]

How is this bullshit from this partisan sack of shit insightful? (he is a sack of shit because he is lying)

The bill was sponsored by two House Republicans and two House Democrats:

Thomas “Tom” Davis III (R)
Danny Davis (D)
John McHugh (R)
Henry Waxman (D)

In the Senate it passed by unanimous consent. Thats every single Republican and every single Democrat that voted in the senate. 100% support.

Yet again blaming the Republicans for the shit they supported?

Re:Mass Mail

[TapeCutter]

Should near universal access to a communication tool be profitable? thats the question.

The Aussie mail service is still cheap, fast and reliable, it makes a profit and is competitively priced against private couriers such as FedEx. It's main business is letters and parcels, as with any other courier company it's insanely expensive to deliver spam via Australia Post. Go back a couple of decades and the US postal service used to be just as efficient and profitable. A $17B loss in a single year indicates to me that the US congress has not been doing it's job properly, unless of course its job is to dismantle the postal service and eliminate what used to be a major competitor to FedEx? Why do I blame congress? - Because (as I understand it) they set the prices on EVERYTHING the USPS sells. Metaphorically USPS management has been tied up with red tape and throw in the pool, congress and the big boys of the courier industry have been laughing their arses off watching them try to swim for at least a decade.

Re:Mass Mail

[jjohnson]

Are you joking, lying, or just completely ignorant?

I'm more informed than you are, though you found the same site I did.

In the House, Republicans voted 145 to 15 in favour of the bill, with 29 abstaining; Democrats voted 128 to 59 against it, with 51 abstaining.

In the Senate, Republicans voted 20 to 5 in favour of the bill, with 14 abstaining; Democrats voted 38 to 1 against it, with 14 abstaining.

So when I blame Republicans for the bill, I'm blaming the party that supplied the vast majority of the votes to pass it. I'm blaming the party that introduced it. I'm blaming the party of the president who signed it. No, they didn't do it alone, but it seems pretty clear to me who bears the most responsibility for the situation created by that bill.

And by the way, fuck you, you worthless piece of shit, for starting what could have been an informative response with insults. I hope your kids die of Cystic Fibrosis.

Re:Mass Mail

[Americano]

I'm more informed than you are, though you found the same site I did

Interesting you were able to find a breakdown, considering no record is kept of voice votes in the House. Care to share your source? CAN you share your source, or is it more made up shit from FantasyConspiracyLand?

Care to explain how your numbers add up at all? During the 109th Congress, at the time this bill was passed (early December 2006), there were 232 Republican Representatives, 202 Democrat Representatives, and 1 Independent, with 3 seats Vacant. Your numbers suggest that there were 189 Republicans, 238 Democrats, and 0 independents participating in the vote. Now, maybe a bunch of Republicans got lazy and stayed home and missed the vote, but where the FUCK did the Democrats come up with 36 more votes than they had representatives?

At the end of the 109th Congress, there were 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents. At the start, there were 55 Republicans, 45 Democrats, 0 independents. No matter WHEN this vote was taken, it is impossible for the 53 Democrats you suggest voted on the bill to have voted. In addition, the *official vote tally* indicates that the Senate passed it *unanimously* - which means, NOBODY voted against it. Which means, your numbers are completely wrong.

You are claiming that they all "fought against it," when they demonstrably did not. Not even a majority of them did. In fact none of them, including our current President, voted against it in the Senate. Why would they? The Postal Worker's Union *also* supported the plan. When you start trotting out bullshit partisan politics that bears no resemblance to the way things actually played out in demonstrable fact, you can expect to be corrected. I know that here at slashdot we're supposed to be post-modern and not care about "facts" and "figures," and instead we should seek to affirm one another's self esteem and provide a loving space where everybody's feelings are respected, but seriously? Fuck that in the ear - if you want to talk bullshit, expect to hear some corrections.

Re:Mass Mail

[jjohnson]

Hunh... I was just totally wrong on this.

I googled "HR 6407 votes", and ended up on these pages: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/h172 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/79-1946/s204. I saw the "HR 6407", and didn't see that they were for a different congress... from 1946.

I withdraw my assertions unequivocally, and apologize for the really shitty things I said.

Re:Mass Mail

[Americano]

Props for the retraction.

apologize for the really shitty things I said.

No blood, no foul. I'll apologize in kind for going straight to the flamethrower when a gentle correction probably would have sufficed.

Now we can get back to affirming each other's self esteem in a loving and safe environment. :)

Re:Mass Mail

[painandgreed]

Private industry can and will step in.

That is exactly what I'm afraid of, because when they do, it will only be the spammers that will be able to afford to send letters.

Re:Mass Mail

[Shadow of Eternity]

It's simple. Republicans claim that everything should be privatized because the government can't do anything right... and they prove this by making damn sure that the government can't get anything done.

Re:Mass Mail

[cryptizard]

Where did you find that information? I'm confused because according you your numbers it was 21 for and 43 against in the senate which would imply that it did not pass.

Re:Mass Mail

[jayveekay]

I want to opt out of mass mail to save the environment.

The system today is:
1. Company uses ink and paper and time to make admail.
2. USPS delivers admail to my mailbox consuming gas and time.
3. I take admail from mailbox and put in recycle bin (wasting my time)
4. Recycling company hauls paper to recycling, consuming gas and time

It would be great if I could opt-out of admail so that we can eliminate the wastage of gas and time. e.g. have the USPS just take the admail of everyone who opts out to the recycler directly, instead of putting it in my mailbox.

Re:Mass Mail

[Richard Dick Head]

:crickets chirping: Mind what ye be sayin, Ezekiel, there be atheists in these here parts

Re:Mass Mail

[VanessaE]

Except, they won't. Companies don't give two shits about little details like full mailboxes because they won't see it as affecting their profit margins - they'll just continue to lay blame on whoever they can when a problem arises.

My utility bill has wording on the back to the effect of "Failure to receive your utility bill is your responsibility, not ours", and I can almost guarantee that they'll continue to stand behind those words 125% if something like once-a-week delivery were to be implemented. When your bill ends up in the circular file because your mailbox is full, they'll just ask "Well, why didn't you phone us or come by the office?"

And before it comes up again, forget the idea of going all-online for receiving/paying bills - the folks you owe, especially utilities, just loooooove to charge "convenience" fees (or use 3rd-party entities who do) for paying said bills online.

So no, we need daily delivery (minus Saturday perhaps). Everyone and their dog uses the postal system, so put it back under the government umbrella before it fails, fund them with tax dollars, and cut out the bullshit like the aforementioned 75-years-ahead pension.

This isn't some car company or bank that's teetering on the edge, this is the fucking UNITED STATES POST OFFICE. We kinda need them.

(that last comment isn't directed at anyone in particular)

Re:Mass Mail

[Bryansix]

Classic! Actually, this transitions nicely into my only response to this story. They just need to raise postage rates across the board. Ya, they have employee and Union issues but so do the other carriers. Only the USPS delivers letters and bulk mail for so cheap and they need to stop it.

Re:Mass Mail

[nbauman]

It can also be demonstrated that the USPS carries these bulk mailers at a per piece loss.

Please demonstrate that.

Re:Mass Mail

[bhiestand]

You're spot on to blame the legislative. I don't know all the details, but the MSNBC folks were saying that ~$10B of the "loss" is a new requirement that USPS pre-fund 75 years of pension benefits over 10 years. Thanks, Congress. The USPS thinks it can make up the rest of the gap with fairly standard cost-cutting measures.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks one of the political parties is trying to bankrupt the USPS so they can justify privatizing it. Otherwise, I suppose they're just that incompetent? Or they're trying to prove that "government can't do anything right"?

Re:Mass Mail

[bhiestand]

...when the end comes, congress should let the post office sink... Private industry can and will step in.

As someone who has lived in rural areas and served overseas, let me be the first to say: Fuck that shit.

Does UPS or FedEx deliver letters from loved ones to APO/FPO addresses? No.
Would the private sector guarantee that every single person, even the poor, had regular mail pickup and delivery? No.
Will private companies find a way to rip us off? Absolutely.

There's a certain group of people who like to wave the flag, brag about conservatism and strict adherence to the constitution. Why are they the same ones trying to kill off a vital function explicitly tasked to the federal government by our founding fathers?

Few things are more important to a society than access to communications. If we're so strapped for cash that we want to sell the USPS to the highest bidder, let's end subsidies to oil companies and give that money to the USPS instead.

Re:Mass Mail

[ultranova]

Our government should do two things: First, release all the idiotic regulation of the post office as they have requested, and let them sink or swim on their own, and second, when the end comes, congress should let the post office sink... Private industry can and will step in.

How will the government ensure that official communications - such as court summons - reach their targets? Will it - that is, you, assuming you pay taxes - pay a courier service to deliver them? In which case private industry can and will squeeze it for every last cent it can. Or will citizens be required to report to, say, their local town hall at certain interval to check if there's such communications for them (and be penalized if there is and they won't)?

Re:Mass Mail

[lsatenstein]

The only people using mail anymore are junk mailers. And they get an ENORMOUS discount to send out thousands of flyers and coupons. So let's raise our taxes even more to prop up a bunch of spammers. If you don't, the union gets angry and leans on politicians. That's just good policy.

Canada faced this problem 10 years ago. What Canada did was a) offer small businesses the opportunity to sell stamps and to collect parcel post or accept registered mail. Typically, independent pharmacies reserved a 10x10 corner of the store for the PO. Having the PO brought in extra business.

Merge distribution centers. Build a large sorting center with modern machinery, and transfer mail to the regional centers. Stop door to door delivery. (Street corners have mailbox clusters, with one dropoff slot and individual boxes per resident.

Give early retirement incentives to the age 60+ employees. Work with UPS and FEDEX on sharing airline routes for parcel handling.
Allow postmen/postwomen to distribute flyers, with direct pay to these individuals from the flyer publishers.
Review and adjust postal rates.

Not being in that postal delivery business, I am mentioning what I saw and see. I am no expert. Perhaps the postal service has already done those things.

Re:Mass Mail

[geoskd]

As someone who has lived in rural areas and served overseas, let me be the first to say: Fuck that shit.

Does UPS or FedEx deliver letters from loved ones to APO/FPO addresses? No.

UPS, FedEx and DHL do not deliver to APO/FPO because they are expressly forbidden from doing so by US federal law. Same reason no one but you and the post office are allowed to touch your mailbox. Its a felony offense at the federal level. If Another carrier were to start doing this on a regular basis, there would be an investigation by the FBI, fines, and if it was willful, possibly jail time. Just one more example of the US government unable to keep their hands off things.

-=Geoskd

Re:Mass Mail

[geoskd]

It can also be demonstrated that the USPS carries these bulk mailers at a per piece loss.

Please demonstrate that.

Bulk mail accounts for the vast majority of the Post office's volume and revenue, and they are loosing money. Doesn't take a genius to see that they are selling product at a loss. Since they are unable to reduce or increase the cost of first class mail, that only leaves their bulk mail prices as the culprit... The single best way to reduce their pension obligations is to become a much smaller organization. Their current pension obligations are already met, so they don't need the revenue to pay that.

-=Geoskd

Re:Mass Mail

[geoskd]

Our government should do two things: First, release all the idiotic regulation of the post office as they have requested, and let them sink or swim on their own, and second, when the end comes, congress should let the post office sink... Private industry can and will step in.

How will the government ensure that official communications - such as court summons - reach their targets? Will it - that is, you, assuming you pay taxes - pay a courier service to deliver them? In which case private industry can and will squeeze it for every last cent it can. Or will citizens be required to report to, say, their local town hall at certain interval to check if there's such communications for them (and be penalized if there is and they won't)?

All the carriers offer signature required services. For many court related matters, a Marshall is required to serve notice anyway. In reality, you will get the same level of service from UPS or FedEx as you will from the post office on items that require a signature. In fact, UPS can even provide GPS co-ordinates on where a package was delivered if so requested by law enforcement, or court officers.

-=Geoskd

Re:Mass Mail

[tibit]

Can't you access your utility account electronically? It's 2012, after all...

Re:Mass Mail

[nbauman]

But you haven't demonstrated that bulk mailers lose money. Saying, "it seems obvious to me" is not demonstrating it.

Do you have something that would meet the standards of a reliable source on Wikipedia?

Re:Mass Mail

[bhiestand]

So you think UPS would come to Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, everywhere else... and pick up our letters for pennies? And then reliably deliver them to their recipients? Or that we should have multiple, competing carriers doing this?

"Mail call! Oh, I know your girlfriend just died, Jimmy, but this is UPS mail call. Your family uses FedEx, right? Maybe next week"

I don't know how they do it legally, but ShipItAPO does package and mail forwarding to APO addresses. I don't see how FedEx or UPS couldn't do the same thing. Hell, when it comes to private enterprise supporting our troops, I'd be happy with all web forms accepting APO/FPO addresses without erroring out.

Since you focused on just this one point, I'm going to assume that you agree with all my others.

Re:Mass Mail

[ultranova]

All the carriers offer signature required services.

No. I mean, how will the government ensure that official communications reach Joe Nobody, -1 Nowhere? A commercial carrier will not do it since it's only profitable to run a regular service in densely populated areas. So either we accept that rural areas are incommunicado, or we subsidize the communication infrastructure there. And USPS is probably one of the cheapest options for that, especially since the existence of somewhat reliable communication infrastructure that can reach anywhere helps bolster business models such as Amazon which might well end up paying for it.

Of course we could either explicitly or effectively declare low-population areas to be off-limits for anyone except those rich enough to pay to have their postage forwarded from the nearest big city, but that could end up costing far more than just money.

Re:Mass Mail

[geoskd]

All the carriers offer signature required services.

No. I mean, how will the government ensure that official communications reach Joe Nobody, -1 Nowhere? A commercial carrier will not do it since it's only profitable to run a regular service in densely populated areas. So either we accept that rural areas are incommunicado, or we subsidize the communication infrastructure there. And USPS is probably one of the cheapest options for that, especially since the existence of somewhat reliable communication infrastructure that can reach anywhere helps bolster business models such as Amazon which might well end up paying for it.

UPS and FedEx both deliver to anywhere in the united states. If the dispatchers at 911 can find you, the package carriers will find you...

-=Geoskd

Re:Mass Mail

[Golddess]

However, there are lots of people that get PAID on Friday. Think about that.

I don't want to drop Saturday delivery either, but I'm afraid I don't see how this relates. Assuming three methods of being paid, direct deposit is not impacted, picking up your paycheck at your place of work on Friday is not impacted (since it was delivered on or before Friday), and receiving your paycheck in the mail on Friday is not impacted (since it is delivered on Friday). Maybe it's different where you live, but to me, saying that pay day is Friday means that is the day I get my pay.

Or are you thinking about what if there is a volume of mail that not all mail that can go out, does go out, and some paychecks end up not being delivered on time?

Re:Mass Mail

[bill_mcgonigle]

Private corporate interests disguised as political parties?

Nope, the private corporate interests can't do this without a government.

Take government out of the equation - can private corporate interests do this without government? (ignore for now that corporations are government fictions; call it 'companies'). No.

Now take private corporate interests out of the equation: can government do this without corporations? Yes.

Government is the essential part of the equation. They may be spurred on by private corporate interests, but the power to do such stupid things lies entirely with the State.

Just send them a Raptor!

[tekrat]

Another F-22 crashed recently, and that's about the same value...

Re:Just send them a Raptor!

[jgtg32a]

Yeah, but all future aircraft will benefit from the research as well.

Re:Just send them a Raptor!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another F-22 crashed recently, and that's about the same value...

What would be the postage on a F-22?

Re:Just send them a Raptor!

[Richy_T]

Would it have to go by air mail?

Cuts

[jamesl]

This is simple.
1. Cut deliveries to three per week -- MWF and TThSa.
2. Raise rates to cover costs.
3. Close local post offices and replace them with contractors where required.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

What's killing them is health insurance. The union got a deal where the employee pays less than $200 per month for a family plan while the USPO pays the balance, something like $1000.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even simpler than that.

1. Stop requiring the post office to fund pensions for future employees that aren't even born yet.

In 2006, Congress passed a law requiring the Postal Service to wholly pre-fund its retirement health package – that is, cover the health care costs of future retirees, in advance, at 100%. The Postal Service, which is a corporation owned but not funded by the federal government, is the only government-related agency required to prefund retirees' health benefits.

"(The requirement is) so ridiculous, Congress doesn't do it. No other government agency does it. No private businesses do it," she said. "It's $5.5 billion a year, every year, for 10 years. That's what is causing the problem.

"The law was passed in 2006 and lo and behold, ever since 2007, the Postal Service has been suffering a tremendous debt."

Re:Cuts

[Drakonblayde]

It'd be better to just sub contract the postal service out to UPS and FedEx at that point. ZOMG privatizing the postal service! If they cut delivery dates, that limits my options and makes me even less likely to use them, especially if I need timely delivery of something like say a rent check or a bill payment (believe it or not, there are landlords and rental companies, as well as utilities and such that still only accept payment in person or a check in the mail as opposed to paying online) If they raise rates, that makes them less competitive with their private industry counterparts. If they were to do both, private industry would eat their lunch.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking nincompoop. USPS has been gutted by corrupt politicians who have been paid off by private interests.

The entire "public is less efficient than private" lie that had been repeated so often that everyone now believes it is just that. A lie. The reality is that private industry is far more efficient at corrupting and side stepping morality issues in the quest for a dollar. That *seems* like it's more efficient at first glance, but it actually incurs a giant negative externality that is not accounted for.

Now think very carefully before you reply with some hilariously stupid straw man argument.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So, based on your numbers, if we did that they'd 'only' have made a $10,400,000,000 loss.

Presumably you can explain how to 'simply' fix that part.

Re:Cuts

[firex726]

Was it the Union or Congress?

I thought it was Congress that mandated that they prepay it all for the life of an employee when hired.

Re:Cuts

[sideslash]

hilariously stupid

Yeah, we certainly wouldn't want to read anything that met that description.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be better to just sub contract the postal service out to UPS and FedEx at that point.

You mean like how UPS and FedEx subcontract out their deliveries to the USPS for locations they would lose money on or otherwise don't want to cover?

Re:Cuts

[firex726]

Yea, let's look at the standards at private prisons.
Wasn't there an article recently where one stopped giving toilet paper to cut costs?

Re:Cuts

[firex726]

I think the argument is that the contractor will then organize and do the work and use the supplies in a more efficient manner. Of course what ends up happening is he cuts corners and uses substandard supplies.

Re:Cuts

[Enry]

Nyyyessss....You make $10k, I force you to put $2k/year into an IRA - no choice in the matter. You can live on $9k/year. What happens after 6 years?

Re:Cuts

[sideslash]

Maybe. But I think it's days are numbered. At some point it will be cheaper to institutionalize and standardize secure 2D document transmission mechanisms and leave physical object delivery to the private shipping companies. Even today people can have internet access pretty much anywhere in the USA, via dialup. Some people don't have computers, but they can go to a local library to read their mail (and post offices could even be converted into digital mail reading centers cheaper than their continuing delivery services). I think it's inevitable, just a question of when.

Re:Cuts

[Rob the Bold]

Was it the Union or Congress?

I thought it was Congress that mandated that they prepay it all for the life of an employee when hired.

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They (and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy) required that the Post Office prepay pensions to the extent that no other business is required to do.

Lest you doubt this statement: The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 required the USPS to prepay pensions for all employees for 75 years in advance within 10 years.

That's right, 75 years. The USPS is required to prepay pensions for the next 75 years. Let that sink in.

Is there any other business you can think of that is required to stash away the pension funds now for its employees not yet born?

Re:Cuts

[i kan reed]

That's pretty comparable to what I pay in the private sector. I'm not seeing the problem.

Re:Cuts

[Hatta]

According to TFA, the pension funds account for 11 billion of the 15 billion shortfall:

Much of the Postal Service's loss in 2012 came from two defaults on a total of more than $11 billion in payments that Congress had directed USPS to pay into a fund for future retiree health benefits.

Re:Cuts

[Stolpskott]

This is simple.
1. Cut deliveries to three per week -- MWF and TThSa.
2. Raise rates to cover costs.
3. Close local post offices and replace them with contractors where required.

Cannot do point 1, because cutting costs there would require the firing/disposal of postal delivery staff who are probably Unionized.
Point 2 would be doable, but any increase in rates pushes more organisations to use FedEx and UPS as alternative carriers in profitable areas, leaving USPS with responsibility for less profitable/loss-making delivery services, such as those to rural or less-densely populated urban areas, where USPS delivery services would be effectively subsidized by revenue generated from delivery to the major urban centres.
See the response to point 1, for the response to point 3. There is also a legal aspect, because competing services are not allowed to deliver non-urgent letters and may not directly ship to U.S. Mail boxes at residential and commercial destinations. This requires transit agreements with USPS in which an item can be dropped off with either FedEx or UPS who will then provide shipment up to the destination post office serving the intended recipient where it will be transferred for delivery to the U.S. Mail destination, including Post Office Box destinations. Effectively, USPS provides "pickup" and "last mile" services, which for any postal service are the highest cost and most labor-intensive parts of the postal delivery service, with the bulk transport that UPS and FedEx perform being the low cost part.

With the decline in physical mail volumes in general, due to the increasing use of electronic mail, USPS is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (2006) mandates additional healthcare payments that commercial mail carriers and other government departments are not required to account for, so USPS is getting it from both ends at the same time.

Re:Cuts

[KingMotley]

It can be cheaper! See the painting contractor actually bought paint sprayers instead of using an old fashioned brush. Of course it's not going to be cheaper if all you do is paint one house, but it allows the contractor to use 1/4th the man hours in actually doing the paint work. He can pass on these savings through lower costs than if you did it yourself.

Now it doesn't always work out that way, but it can, and sometimes does. Outsourcing/contracting isn't always the correct answer, but sometimes it really is.

Re:Cuts

[Rob the Bold]

If they cut delivery dates, that limits my options and makes me even less likely to use them, especially if I need timely delivery of something like say a rent check or a bill payment (believe it or not, there are landlords and rental companies, as well as utilities and such that still only accept payment in person or a check in the mail as opposed to paying online).

You're free to spend $13 to FedEx your rent check right now (get your quote here - I picked slowest/cheapest option to send an envelope across town). By what factor would first class postage rates need to increase to be "uncompetitive" with that?

Re:Cuts

[theangrypeon]

The pension pre-funding is definitely stupid, but it just makes clear how economically unsound giving every single employee defined pension packages is to begin with. That's honestly the root of the problem. All the pre-funding does is frontload the shortfall that was going to happen anyways.

Re:Cuts

[h4rr4r]

So what is your alternative?

Let them starve in the street is not on the table, just so you know.

Re:Cuts

[Shining Celebi]

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They (and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy) required that the Post Office prepay pensions to the extent that no other business is required to do.

This is exactly their modus operandi for pretty much every government agency these days. Cut funding where possible, demand crazy requirements on spending, saving, oversight, personnel, etc., and then when a cash-strapped agency burdened with the bureaucracy necessary to follow those requirements and things like pre-paying pensions 75 years in advance fails to perform, decry the inefficiency and waste of the government and demand that the function the agency performs be privatized.

It's called "starve the beast."

Re:Cuts

[UnknowingFool]

While your notion of privatizing postal service seems expedient, it ignores practicality. FedEx and UPS do not operate on the same model as the postal service. They deliver only to locations and they sometimes receive shipments at a location. The Postal Service must send carriers to on routes for every single mailbox in case there is mail to be picked up. Neither FedEx nor UPS want this job.

Re:Cuts

[GLMDesigns]

You seem to forget that most municipalities (and much of the Federal government) has huge pension shortfalls. Why? Because the gov't agency involved does have a pay-as-you go system. Pension funds are not funded until they are being withdrawn. That is one of the reasons we are in such a f**king mess.

Say an employee is to get a salary (s) and pension (p). Every pay period the government agency should pay salary and place the appropriate pension payment into an account. We are not funding our pensions.

I haven't read the link you provided - there may have been excess in those bills - but before laughing and ridiculing them out of hand maybe you should reserve a little frustration for the agencies that do not pay pensions and expect later generations to fund them.

Re:Cuts

[kbolino]

The pre-funded pension is only one part of the problem (also, accounting does not work as simply as you seem to think). The problem is threefold (at least):

1. The pension mandate (from Congress), as already mentioned;
2. The USPS is forced by Congress to run unprofitable postal offices and routes;
3. The USPS cannot set its own rates (they are set by, surprise surprise, Congress).

Either the USPS is a public service, in which case it should be reintegrated into the government and divorced of the need to make a profit, or else it is a business and it should be able to set its own rates and terms for doing so.

You cannot have it both ways and get everything you want, which is exactly what Congress has done to them.

Re:Cuts

[sopwath]

The extra $10B comes from defaulting on the two previous $5B bills they had to pay. Again, for paying pension and benefits for retirees that may exist in the future at 100%.

Re:Cuts

[poity]

What are the negative externalities which Fedex and UPS incur and in what way does USPS mitigate them?

Re:Cuts

[oh_my_080980980]

It was congress douche bag.

Re:Cuts

[oh_my_080980980]

No one else pre-funds pensions moron. Pensions are not the problem.

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Even worse, when that agency is privatized, all of that money is still sitting in the retirement account and goes to the company that bought that portion of the USPS. Guess what gets raided first?

Re:Cuts

[gorzek]

Well said. And I noticed there are quite a few people here saying that the employees shouldn't get pensions at all. It's as if they don't understand that a pension is deferred compensation--it's money you earned while working but your employer promised to pay it to you later. It's not a "freebie" that workers unfairly feel entitled to. It is part of their compensation package.

If an organization defaults on their pension obligations, they've essentially reneged on earnings the employees are fully entitled to.

Now, the requirement the new hires at USPS have their pensions 100% funded from day one may be (and probably is) excessive and unnecessary. But any organization that offers deferred compensation pensions absolutely needs to make sure they are funded so that the money is there to be paid out when employees retire.

Re:Cuts

[Darth Snowshoe]

Even Grover Norquist is not going to be happy with the quality of service after a privatization of the USPO.

Re:Cuts

[HellYeahAutomaton]

The entire "public is less efficient than private" lie that had been repeated so often that everyone now believes it is just that. A lie. The reality is that private industry is far more efficient at corrupting and side stepping morality issues in the quest for a dollar.

Spooner and his American Letter Mail Company's challenge to the postal monopoly at least brought prices down (temporarily). Competitive pricing is moral. Monopoly under threat of caging is immoral. Any questions?

History is a funny thing, sometimes it even makes people who thinks there are "lies" out there have a nice tasty bite of crow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

Re:Cuts

[Smidge204]

The flaw in your premise is that the contractor starts from the same point you do.

The reason a contractor might be cheaper is they have already laid out the costs of infrastructure and organization. As a real-world example, there are contractors who rent towels and aprons to restaurants and catering companies, beds and linens to hospitals and hotels, etc. These companies deliver clean articles and collect soiled articles on a regular basis for laundering. If you're trying to run a business, you can do your own laundry which requires space, personnel, energy and equipment... or you can contract it out to someone who can take advantage of scale to keep these costs low and distributed.

That said, there is no way any contractor would be able to do the USPS' job at any level for less money unless they really put the screws to their employees and reduce service. You only save money with contractors through economies of scale, and the USPS is the biggest in the business by far.
=Smidge=

Re:Cuts

[jjohnson]

No, what's killing them is the requirement to pre-pay their projected medical obligations 75 years into the future. If it weren't for that requirement and the requirement to pre-pay retirement money out 50 years, they'd be profitable.

Re:Cuts

[sabt-pestnu]

In some ways, the USPS is like the BBC - a pseudo- (or perhaps, para-) government entity with the goal of being a zero-sum impact on the government.

It's annual budget is something like $70B. That puts it at about the level of the discretionary portion of Health and Human Services (including Medicare and Medicaid) or about twice the entire budget of the Department of Justice. Currently, being a "separate" entity makes it hard for congress to play politics with its budget. Rolling it back as a department of the government would erase that barrier, weak as it is.

I wasn't able to easily locate a history on when the USPS funding was separated from the general budget, if indeed it was ever a direct part of it. Would love to see the history of that decision.

Re:Cuts

[gorzek]

You do realize that outfits like UPS and FedEx actually use the USPS for last-mile delivery in a lot of places? It's them outsourcing to the USPS, not the other way around.

In other words, killing the USPS would actually jack up parcel delivery rates, too, because UPS and FedEx would have to foot the full costs of those, rather than pay the (relatively low) fees the USPS charges.

Re:Cuts

[operagost]

What kind of a moron are you to seriously propose such a false dilemma?

Re:Cuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Flat out BS; you're the nincompoop. I work in the commercial fishing industry. The companies themselves have done FAR more in terms of fishing conservation than any NGO like Greenpeace or any government organization like the EPA, FDA, etc. They're a much bigger nuissance.

Previously i worked in the defense industry. The Defense Department is so godamned incompetent that they would request changes to our contract that would cost them hundreds of millions, and we would make numerous suggestions that would cut the costs of those changes to say tens of millions and give them the same functionality, but they would ignore it because they're not cost-concious.

Private industry and public industry are just as corrupt, because they're both staffed by people. The only difference is, when a company gets in trouble they find ways to cut costs, find new revenue sources, change their business model, or remain inefficient and go out of business. Government companies like the USPS, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and sadly General Motors now apparently, go and ask for taxpayer bailouts instead. Why can't the USPS realize that their services aren't required as much, reform and change themselves to a cost efficient model that fits what the public wants, and go back to making money? If this was the private sector, that's what you're forced to do.

Re:Cuts

[Jeremi]

It'd be better to just sub contract the postal service out to UPS and FedEx at that point.

A lot of the things the USPS does (e.g. serving distant rural areas) are not profitable and never will be. So we'd either end up subsidizing UPS and FedEx to serve those areas, or we'd end up with no postal service to those areas. Dunno if either of those options are acceptable to you, but I don't the public would benefit much from either of them.

Re:Cuts

[operagost]

You won't get a response. Leftists only speak Hyperbole.

Re:Cuts

[MightyYar]

"No one" besides the government has pensions, and most of the government pensions are chronically underfunded. While I think the USPS pension requirement is being absurdly handled, the spirit of the law is reasonable enough - don't let politicians push the problem down the road. If you want to provide an employee benefit, then pay for the damn benefit rather than adding to our debt.

Re:Cuts

[operagost]

I doubt this is a major source of cost for the USPS. Most addresses along their route are either sending or receiving mail, so very little time or money is spent needlessly driving past mailboxes. If it was, they could easily implement a system where you had to call an automated system when you needed a pickup. Incidentally, UPS and Fedex do have routes to businesses that want daily pickups.

Re:Cuts

[orthancstone]

The Postal Service must send carriers to on routes for every single mailbox in case there is mail to be picked up. Neither FedEx nor UPS want this job.

It amazes me that folks do not understand this point. UPS and FedEx would never take on First Class postal responsibilities. It's extremely inefficient.

Re:Cuts

[jmauro]

[L]eave physical object delivery to the private shipping companies.

Unless you live in a largish city, they won't do it, now or in the future. They hand this off to the USPS since there is no way they can ever do this profitably since there isn't enough volume to justify staffing, warehousing, etc.

Re:Cuts

[ai4px]

Of the $16billion they lost, $11B was failure to pay pensions. Let me do the math for you.... if not for the requirement to fund pensions 75 years in advance, they would have still lost $5B

Re:Cuts

[gorzek]

I was going to say something similar. You're right. The advantage of a contractor is that they've made the investments in supplies, infrastructure, training, etc., so on a per-job basis, they can do it cheaper than you, since you would have to take on all those up-front, one-time costs in order to do it yourself.

Obviously, there are those who cut corners and use substandard tools, supplies, and labor, but then a contractor worth their salt can give you an itemized list of what you are paying for.

Re:Cuts

[tibit]

Not if you use their Ground service. For $20 you can ship a couple kilograms across the country. That's one heck of a letter you have in mind.

Re:Cuts

[TFAFalcon]

But its so much more efficient to give that money to stockholders, then shut down or bankrupt the company when it's time to start paying. So that's what happens.

Re:Cuts

[h4rr4r]

I was not proposing it at all. I was ruling out one of the options.

What kind of moron are you that cannot read?

Re:Cuts

[h4rr4r]

It does not make sense if you give a shit about your employees.

Those modern 401ks are not much better than taking your savings to the casino. I watched people lose 50% of more of their money just a few years before they were supposed to move into safe investments as they were getting close to retiring. So now they can either move to bonds and never have enough or spin that roulette wheel again.

Re:Cuts

[dywolf]

Ya. You go girl! Tell him how it is Mr AC!
It's not like there are market forces like competition that cause inefficient businesses to fail or anything. Or that industries, even governement run ones, that when faced with a lack of competition become bloated messes that devote ever increasing amounts of their budget to fuel their ever growing beauracracies instead of to delivering their supposed products.

Ya just ignore those things and accuse others of ignorance.

Re:Cuts

[CaroKann]

After reading this thread I could not help but remember how my last package was delivered. The package was shipped using Fed Ex, but it arrived via USPS. Fed Ex flew it across the country, then dropped it into the mail for the last hundred miles. That tells me it's more economical for them to use the USPS instead of their own trucks for the last leg of the journey.

Re:Cuts

[dywolf]

Let the punishment fit the crime!

Re:Cuts

[jimktrains]

As much as I'd like to see Congress give the USPS much more independence, I do think that unprofitable offices and routes should remain open or be replaced by something to service them (more cheaply).

Re:Cuts

[careysub]

...While I think the USPS pension requirement is being absurdly handled, the spirit of the law is reasonable enough...

If this "feel good" legislation Republican style? I'm sorry. Absurd and obviously harmful laws do not get a "reasonable spirit" exemption. A bad law is a bad law and should be repealed.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

And yet Obama was in for two years with a Democrat controlled house and senate. Just saying.

Re:Cuts

[MightyYar]

I was not clear.

Pension funds should be fully-funded. That is the "spirit" of the law that I was talking about. It is immoral to promise employees future benefits for two reasons: you will not be around to guarantee those benefits, and it pushes the burden of your promises on to future generations. Things like bond-financed infrastructure do this as well, but at least the future generation gets the benefit of the infrastructure. A pension obligation gives them nothing.

In the case of the Post Office, they converted a pay-as-you-go system to a prepaid system almost overnight, which is absurd. I agree with the goal, but not with the execution.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

I could send it by pterodactyl for free.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

Easy. If you want to live in BFE, you accept reduced delivery, pay for to-destination delivery or pick up at a central processing point. It's not other peoples obligation to fund your lifestyle choices.

Re:Cuts

[bill_mcgonigle]

You're free to spend $13 to FedEx your rent check right now (get your quote here - I picked slowest/cheapest option to send an envelope across town). By what factor would first class postage rates need to increase to be "uncompetitive" with that?

Don't forget that the $13 price includes the 'unicast' nature of their imposed business model. Remove the USPS monopoly on local delivery and they can better provide economies of scale.

Re:Cuts

[sideslash]

If the price is right, UPS and FedEx and other private carriers will do the job. Let the market decide how much it should cost to ship physical objects.

Maybe it should cost $100 to deliver a physical object to a remote location. Why should cheap delivery anywhere of physical objects be a basic expectation of our society in our modern age? The internet can take care of 2D material. The USPS needs to go where the pony express and the telegraph went; it's not needed anymore.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

I'm not seeing the words "opportunity cost" in this thread either.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

no way they can ever do this profitably

Costs + x% => profit.

Re:Cuts

[BruceCage]

The "crisis" is entirely manufactured by Congress. Yes, Congress. They ( and by "they," I mean mostly Republicans who seem to want to drive the post office into bankruptcy )

Can you elaborate on your position? In the article you link to Ralph Nader refers to Congress as a whole and doesn't place blame squarely (or mostly as you say) with one of the two parties. If I look at just the numbers then in 2006 the Democrats held 44 seats in the Senate compared to the Republican's 55 and the bill passed the Senate unanimously. In the House the Democrats held 202 seats (and essentially also another independent seat) compared to the Republican's 230 and with the exception of one abstain all Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Of the Republicans 20, including Ron Paul, voted against the bill.

And just because I feel like it, here's some George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

Re:Cuts

[sjames]

GOD no. I'd like important documents to actually get to their intended destination. I also like insurance on packages that will actually pay up when the carrier obviously damaged the package.

How in the world do you imagine that adding an extra layer of profit will make something cheaper on that scale?

Re:Cuts

[sjames]

How about trimming it back so they only have to pay up pensions for people that are actually working for them now? Alternatively, give them more than 10 years to make 75 years worth of payments.

Yes, they are actually mandated to pre-pay pensions for people who haven't even been born yet.

Re:Cuts

[sjames]

But the USPS isn't delivering to one house, it's delivering to all of them. They have already realized the same economies of scale as a contractor might. In that case, all contracting out can do is add overhead.

Currently, it's actually going the other way. FedEx is effectively contracting local deliveries out to the USPS.

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

Whut?

No one is obligated to send food anywhere. Do you understand how trade works at all? Goods & services for money ring a bell?

Re:Cuts

[Richy_T]

I am already bitching about that. So STFU yourself. Ironically, doing useful things like removing idiotic requirements of the post office and shutting down Guantanamo would have been things I would have understood and/or been supportive of. I guess there were other priorities like mandating payments to large insurance companies to get done.

Still, the idiots put him back in (can hardly blame them with Romney as the alternative but still)... So just hanging on for the ride now.

Re:Cuts

[scot4875]

Yeah, they should have done something about it. Would have been nice. Unfortunately, *nothing* is getting done right now and even getting the most basic legislation passed takes enormous amounts of time and energy because the Republican party has decided to take the ball and go home by obstructing *everything,* no matter how trivial. They won't even let universally-liked stuff like health care for 9/11 first responders get through.

--Jeremy

Re:Cuts

[Idbar]

What about extending the business. Those guys drive around those cars all day. Why not put ads on their cars like they do on public transportation.

Re:Cuts

[scot4875]

Operaghost only speaks hyperbole.

The negative externalities that the GP refers to aren't, in my opinion, something that's actually a negative externalities. However, the point stands that the USPS has to deal with legislation from (a Republican) congress that forced them to:

a) fund pensions in a manner that has no parallel anywhere else in the private or public arena
b) forces them to take on the most unprofitable routes and deliveries
and c) prevents them from doing things that could make them profitable

These are pretty well documented throughout the thread. It's a perfect example of Republicans setting up a government agency to fail and then pointing at that agency as an example of government failure.

--Jeremy

Re:Cuts

[scot4875]

If it was, they could easily implement a system where you had to call an automated system when you needed a pickup.

They could, if they were allowed to do so. Or they could reduce the number of days per week that they delivered.

Again, if they were allowed to do so.

--Jeremy

Re:Cuts

[rahvin112]

The only way FedEX and UPS would take on First Class Delivery would be if the price was 100X the current rate AND delivery was made to local "HUBS" where people had to go to get their mail. This would typically mean one HUB per major city, and there wouldn't be a HUB in any city smaller than about 100K people.

USPS has been killed by Congress.
1. 75 Year Prefunded Pension Obligations is the biggest challenge.
2. Congress dictates routes and service hours and even the number and location of post offices.
3. Congress sets stamp prices and refuses to allow an increase to support the deficit created by the first two.

These requirements were rammed through a Lame Duck Session of a Fillibuster proof Republican dominated congress with a sitting Republican President. The intent of these rules was to force the USPS into bankruptcy so they could peal off more of the Post office business that is money making and shift it to their friends at UPS and FedEX. This is Crony capitalism at it's worst. The USPS is a critical aspect of first world living.

Re:Cuts

[SillyHamster]

The entire "public is less efficient than private" lie that had been repeated so often that everyone now believes it is just that. A lie. The reality is that private industry is far more efficient at corrupting and side stepping morality issues in the quest for a dollar. That *seems* like it's more efficient at first glance, but it actually incurs a giant negative externality that is not accounted for.

Soooo ... would we be better off if we had everything run by public industry?

Re:Cuts

[Darby]

Dunno if either of those options are acceptable to you

Fine, cut off rural deliveries and make the welfare leeches pay their fair share of something for once. Perhaps they might stop voting against their best interests and mine. If that isn't enough, start making them pay their fair share of water, power, phones, network etc. etc. etc.

I'm happy to help support the less fortunate except when they use that as a weapon against this nation, spout crap like they're the real America and whine about welfare when they're the primary recipients.

Enough coddling of the boot licking leeches, I say.

Re:Cuts

[BruceCage]

I'm only superficially aware of the rules and procedures in Congress so perhaps I've been mistaken. It might be that 2005/2006 bill H.R. 22 was different from the later bill H.R. 6407 which passed under suspension of the rules and voice vote (under a voice vote the names or numbers of representatives voting on each side are not recorded).

Helpful article on the subject: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/congresss_war_on_the_post_office/singleton/

Re:Cuts

[jmauro]

Actually,

Revenue - Costs = Profit

This only works though if some one is willing to pay for more for the service that the costs. So far that answer has been no.

It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

USPS provides a great value -- just think about it, for about half a dollar you can get your first class letter delivered almost anywhere in the U.S. Alas, they are burdened with costs that other enterprises don't share, and their very existence seems to be against the flow so to speak. I think it's time to abolish the U.S. Mail monopoly and let it compete on a fair playing ground. If you didn't know, U.S. Mail has a legally granted monopoly. It's illegal for anyone but a postman to drop mail into postboxes marked U.S. Mail, and if your postbox is not marked, then the postman is obligated not to deliver mail in it. When U.S. Postal Service (however they were called back then) was starting up, they did actually have competition, and that competition was providing better service, apparently. The competitor got killed when USPS got granted the monopoly. I think we should see a return of healthy competition once the USPS monopoly ends. There's no reason for it.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[h4rr4r]

We will not see a competitor unless you are lucky enough to get profitable service.

Anyone deemed not profitable will have only a USPS that is in even worse shape. Thus will continue the mantra "Privatize the profits, socialize the losses".

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[scarboni888]

And what about the people who live in places that are too expensive for privatized couriers to make a profit serving?

What are they to do, take a flying leap?

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem with that is that if they didn't have a monopoly private companies would deliver mail all the easy profitable places and usps would be stuck with the requiement of delivering mail the places that cannot make money

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[CanHasDIY]

And what about the people who live in places that are too expensive for privatized couriers to make a profit serving?

Move somewhere else?

But then, who would run the oil derricks?

Macco's Razor - sometimes the simplest answer is stupid and counter-productive.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Coisiche]

Competition for postal services in a big country won't work. It's only profitable to deal with the high population centers because low population areas would hit profits too much to be worth doing.

Kind of like a cable infrastructure for internet in a way.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Qzukk]

When U.S. Postal Service (however they were called back then)

The Constitution calls it "Post Offices and Post Roads".

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Ichijo]

People who live in places that are too expensive for door-to-door mail delivery can pick up and send their mail at the nearest post office. Consider it part of the cost of living far from society.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

If you're in a remote area, maybe you'd just have to accept mail service that only came by once a week, and maybe only to centralised postal locations.
And maybe you'd also have to accept that anyone who wanted to send you mail might have to pay a bit more for it.

For other areas, why are they proposing dropping Saturday delivery. That means 2 days without mail. Why not drop Wednesday?

Perhaps you could subscribe to a service where a completely automated system could open the original mail, scan it, and allow you to accept an electronic copy instead, for a credit. If you still wanted/needed it delivered, it could reseal it.
That might admittedly be complex to implement in a private fashion, but, I suspect people even in non-rural areas might be excited to have scans instead, so it might pay for itself.

Dunno. Maybe some areas will never be profitable for non-electronic delivery of cheap (say, $1) mail. People living in those areas might just have to accept that paying more for physical delivery of mail is a side effect of living there.

In this case though, the main reason the Postal Service is running out of money is their retirement plan.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

In terms of implementation of a "scan the mail instead of delivering it system"
1) Mail goes to central sorting
2) If you're an opt-in-to-scanning address, front of letter is scanned, image is sent to your electronic inbox
3) In your inbox, you then click "open" which triggers cutting it open and scanning it. At this point, if you still want it physically, it can be resealed/dropped into a new envelope, possibly w/ a 5Â nuisance charge or something.

Any letters where the person does not "collect" within 24 hours get sent on physically. Any letters not delivered physically the recipient gets an incentive credit, say, 5Â - although probably the real incentive would be convenience.

All letters sent by scan get shredded after the scan is accepted.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your premise is wrong. I am a privatized courier who charges $1000 per gram for delivery. No place is too expensive for me to make a profit serving.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

*sigh* On another note, when is slashdot going to reliably support UTF-8 :(
And yes, I know there's *some* potential for abuse. Use a whitelist or a blacklist against the BMP if you feel it is necessary. Maybe just ban the mirroring char.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[KingMotley]

Get their mail delivered to a PO Box.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[CanHasDIY]

If you're in a remote area, maybe you'd just have to accept mail service that only came by once a week, and maybe only to centralised postal locations. And maybe you'd also have to accept that anyone who wanted to send you mail might have to pay a bit more for it.

For other areas, why are they proposing dropping Saturday delivery. That means 2 days without mail. Why not drop Wednesday?

Perhaps you could subscribe to a service where a completely automated system could open the original mail, scan it, and allow you to accept an electronic copy instead, for a credit. If you still wanted/needed it delivered, it could reseal it. That might admittedly be complex to implement in a private fashion, but, I suspect people even in non-rural areas might be excited to have scans instead, so it might pay for itself.

Dunno. Maybe some areas will never be profitable for non-electronic delivery of cheap (say, $1) mail. People living in those areas might just have to accept that paying more for physical delivery of mail is a side effect of living there.

Hence the reason for a nationalized mail service - of course some places won't be profitable to deliver to, but they still need their mail.

In this case though, the main reason the Postal Service is running out of money is their retirement plan.

Indeed. American bureaucracy at it's finest.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[oh_my_080980980]

Somebody's itching to move to Somalia...

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[poity]

How can you live in the far out countryside yet not have transportation to get supplies (I assume anywhere supplies can be bought would have a post office nearby)? How many subsistence farmers are there in the US anyway?

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

Well, I was trying to think of a system that would allow reduced cost of actual physical delivery, especially to rural areas.
I'm a huge fan of online billpay and such, but most systems nowdays are for eliminating the need for *you* to send a physical letter.

Unfortunately there are still quite a few people who feel the need to send me things physically.

I'll admit implementation is tricky, but postal service already has automated sorting and scanning. But. Ok. Opening it might only be practical if there was a way to easily tell if the dimensions and contents were standard.

Oh well, was just 5 minutes of off-the-cuff speculation. But surely there's a way to avoid actually delivering all that stuff that gets to me that I didn't actually want. I suppose that if prices to rural areas went up, people might just naturally opt to use faxes or scans without the need for a centralised system :)

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

There is a rate/frequency/location at which it *is* profitable to send them mail though, and it is probably not cost prohibitive. Esp nowdays when automated systems for assisting delivery might actually be practical for truly remote areas.

If all the letters for middle-of-nowhere were collected and sent out once a week, and they cost $2 to send there instead of 32 cents or whatevertheheckthepostofficeispayingdunnohaventuseditinyears and maybe you had to drive 20 miles to the post office instead of 10 miles...

Well, just saying, it is doable, and unlike pony express days, transportation and processing is cheaper and more automated. Who knows, maybe drones might be a practical delivery mechanism for areas where air mail is still the way to go :)

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

Without the monopoly, USPS needs to run on a balanced budget, or else they go bankrupt. Easy.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

It's otherwise called the cost of living. If you can't afford living there, well, don't. I don't think that the delivery of mail is really something that the government should be mucking about with.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

Without a monopoly, USPS can compete or they can cease to exist. There would be no more requirement for USPS to exist, much less deliver mail anywhere.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

The price structure for UPS and FedEx would start changing very soon after USPS would lose its monopolist status.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

That's demonstrably false. You do know that USPS used to have a competitor back when the country was, relatively speaking, much bigger than it is now?

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

The kids these days, until you spell everything out they can't figure it out, sigh. Well duh Sherlock, you nailed it, we need to amend the constitution. Bravo. It's not the only thing there that needs amending, BTW...

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[scarboni888]

Some people live 'there' because they can't afford to live in more expensive areas which are actually profitable for private couriers.

so there's a fundamental issue with your solution and that is that poor people will not be able to receive mail - a constitutional right that the government is therefore mandated to 'much about with' - because they can't afford to live in more heavily populated areas.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

Just for the heck of it, although you'd hope actual costs of a full system could be lower...

Shipping a 10 pound package from Washington, DC to Aleknagik, Alaska using UPS which is presumably seeking to turn a profit on this, costs $90.45

10 pounds would be ~160 letters.

That's 56 cents a letter for a bulk delivery.
That's really not that bad.

Now I'm assuming costs might be lower if UPS and FedEx went into general mass delivery, although, who knows, maybe UPS piggybacks an a USPS plane or something to get to Aleknagik.

IMO though, it isn't the end of the world if USPS shuts down most of their operations, I think we have enough alternatives these days, which is the other reason they've been losing money.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[CanHasDIY]

I don't think it would be too damaging (if at all) for the USPS to stop delivering packages (although I do find their 'If it fits, it ships' program damn useful), and focus their efforts on letter delivery.

I've had entirely too much trouble with incompetence at UPS and FEDEX the last few years to be willing to entrust them with time-and-privacy sensitive materials like bill payments. The driver "forgetting" to put the new HDD I ordered on his truck 5 days in a row is no big deal, but imagine if that was, say, my mortgage payment sitting on their dock for a week...

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Nethemas the Great]

There's no profit to be had in rural markets. They'd effectively lose service. Telecommunications, even electrical services for instance only exist in rural areas because of federal mandates.

As for the USPS losing money due to losing volume there's a real simple solution. Economies of scale work both ways. If the volume is going down then the solution should be obvious. Raise rates to cover the cost of doing business. In particular, stop giving the mass mailers (read junk mail) a nearly free pass on the system.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[DragonWriter]

When U.S. Postal Service (however they were called back then)

The Constitution calls it "Post Offices and Post Roads".

While it changed organizational structure to become a cabinet-level department under the Constitution, the United States Post Office (as it was known before being kinda-sorta-privatized in 1971) predates the Constitution. In fact, it predates the Declaration of Independence, having been formed under the Second Continental Congress in 1775.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Derek Pomery]

Amusingly, I've the opposite experience.
USPS carriers, ridiculously incompetent.
I'm routinely carrying letters over to neighbours, sometimes several streets over, despite clearly marked, usually typed, addresses.

Then there's stuff that just never arrives, like Netflix.

By contrast, if I want something absolutely positively to arrive, such as a document that needs a signature, I'm going to use UPS.

For a mortgage payment... that should all be done online nowdays. Providing remote communities with some public terminals should be way cheaper than maintaining USPS.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[dywolf]

When we created the USPS we basically got together and said something along the lines of "Freedom of communication is important to our nation, our lives, our rights and the exercise there of. Thus we establish an entity to facilitate that communication and garuntee it." Something like that. As such such, its important to keep the USPS around. Private industry is great, but it doesnt do -everything- great. Sometimes it decides that its cheaper to miss out on the last 3% of potential customers cause the cost of reaching them is "too high" (ie, "the last mile" in telecomm...and the reason the fed was the one that paid for stringing phone lines everywhere, even to the way out reaches that wouldnt be profitable). similar thoughts are why the fed built the interstate and highway system, which includes highways that no business would have laid down, at least not for years and possibly not even then (contrast the interstate system with the railroad system which was built (and still owned) entirely by private business; see how worse the coverage of the RR system is, and the places they bypassed)

The USPS needs to adapt, sure. I'll agree to that. The USPS should be scrapped? No, never. There's a recent wired opinion piece about patents, and how its important to instead of just patching the system, we need to instead look at the original intents and thoughts in order to truly fix it. Same thing here. Look at the original intent and purpose of the USPS...and now apply that to the modern world: maybe the USPS should be involved in online communication. Honestly I think a strong case could be made for the USPS and FCC being merged or at least sharing duties; little complicated here as the USPS is somewhat seperated from the Fed and the FCC is not. But hopefully you see where my thoughts are.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[dywolf]

you need a lesson ont he history and purpose of the usps.

When we created the USPS we basically got together and said something along the lines of "Freedom of communication is important to our nation, our lives, our rights and the exercise there of. Thus we establish an entity to facilitate that communication and garuntee it." Something like that. As such such, its important to keep the USPS around. Private industry is great, but it doesnt do -everything- great. Sometimes it decides that its cheaper to miss out on the last 3% of potential customers cause the cost of reaching them is "too high" (ie, "the last mile" in telecomm...and the reason the fed was the one that paid for stringing phone lines everywhere, even to the way out reaches that wouldnt be profitable). similar thoughts are why the fed built the interstate and highway system, which includes highways that no business would have laid down, at least not for years and possibly not even then (contrast the interstate system with the railroad system which was built (and still owned) entirely by private business; see how worse the coverage of the RR system is, and the places they bypassed)

The USPS needs to adapt, sure. I'll agree to that. The USPS should be scrapped? No, never. There's a recent wired opinion piece about patents, and how its important to instead of just patching the system, we need to instead look at the original intents and thoughts in order to truly fix it. Same thing here. Look at the original intent and purpose of the USPS...and now apply that to the modern world: maybe the USPS should be involved in online communication. Honestly I think a strong case could be made for the USPS and FCC being merged or at least sharing duties; little complicated here as the USPS is somewhat seperated from the Fed and the FCC is not. But hopefully you see where my thoughts are.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[dywolf]

the USPS is part of the essential infrastructure our country, our civilization we know it even, relies on to exist.

imagine if UPS or fedex or both went out of business. the why of it doesnt matter, just imagine they did. important/essential communication that we rely on no longer flows through them. now also imagine that someone had the bright idea, lets ditch the USPS....oops. Now instead of having something that garunteed communication across the country, even if industry failed (and there were private couriers that operated alongside usps before ups), there's nothing. sure someone would step into the gap eventually. but after how long?

businesses grow, they merge, they split, they buy each other out....its the life cycle of business. it happens. and sometimes those businesses make bad decisions and die. Look at Hostess and the coming twinkie shortage.

when those businesses are part of the essential infrastructure of the nation, when we have become dependent upon them, and they die....its never good. Its happened before. It will happen again. Killing the USPS is not a good idea.

If it had been up to private industry nearly a third of the nation still wouldnt have phone lines.
If it had been up to private industry, many small towns wouldnt even have paved roads. (and those debates still happen, where residents of big cities say "why should we pay a tax to help build a road thru a town of 20 people?")

If it had been up to private industry, the last 5% of the population still wouldnt have internet access.....oops. That one is still true.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Richy_T]

There's no poor people in the cities...

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Richy_T]

That old chestnut. You might end up with two sets of pipes but more likely some kind of licensing arrangement would be worked out. No licensing arrangement is likely if only one set of pipes is mandated by law.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[scarboni888]

And gentrification isn't increasing in cities either...

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[CanHasDIY]

Amusingly, I've the opposite experience. USPS carriers, ridiculously incompetent. I'm routinely carrying letters over to neighbours, sometimes several streets over, despite clearly marked, usually typed, addresses.

Then there's stuff that just never arrives, like Netflix.

Must be a regional thing - around here, the only apparent requirement to get a job as a UPS driver is a complete and utter lack of respect for other people and their stuff.

By contrast, if I want something absolutely positively to arrive, such as a document that needs a signature, I'm going to use UPS.

Yet another apparent regional difference - every time I've ever had delivered by UPS that required a signature, I come home to find the package sitting, unsecured, on my front porch.

Conversely, the packages that don't require signatures end up sitting on the UPS docks until I take time off work to go pick them up. It's mind-numbingly stupid, but good to hear that the practice is apparently local, and not a case of company-wide idiocy.

For a mortgage payment... that should all be done online nowdays. Providing remote communities with some public terminals should be way cheaper than maintaining USPS.

Easier said then done when your mortgage holder doesn't do online payments, as is with mine.

Archaic and kinda dumb? You bet your ass, but it's not my call to make, so I do what must be done.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Either that, or get subsidized mail service and then be referred to as moochers who refuse to take responsibility for their lives.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Richy_T]

Gentrification always occurs in cities. It's part of the cycle otherwise they would be nothing but slums.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Khashishi]

You don't get it. It's not that they can't easily send letters out to other entities. Nobody cares. It's that other entities (eg, government) can't easily send letters to them. The court doesn't want to have to pay FedEx $90 to send a summons letter to Joe, Unnamed Street, Nowhere, WI.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[nbauman]

If you're so far away from civilization that you can't get profitable mail delivery, then you can't get Internet service either. You wouldn't be able to get phone service either if the phone companies weren't required to do it as regulated monopolies.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

Man, if you get that many court summonses in the mail, you've got worse problems I guess. I get government communications a couple of times a year, and some of it is really junk that they wouldn't bother sending if it cost them. BTW, you really don't have to overnight stuff, sending a letter via ground service even to nowhere, U.S., usually costs well under $20.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Coisiche]

So, demonstrably false some time ago. My US history is quite poor but I'm guessing about a century ago?

The world's slightly different now and the primary duty of any company is to it's shareholders, so it is more likely that unprofitable areas would just be ditched rather than being permitted to lower overall profits. Maybe once upon a time it was fine if a company still turned an overall profit even if part of the business wasn't generating as much revenue as the rest but now the shareholders wouldn't tolerate that.

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[tibit]

now and the primary duty of any company is to it's shareholders

Yes, and it's up to those shareholders to, first of all, invest in a company whose values and business plan they accept. There's no higher prerogative as to profit at all costs. That's something that many people falsely believe, I only imagine that's beause they never properly invested in a corporation of any sort :(

Re:It's time to end the monopoly...

[Coisiche]

I'm of the opinion that there has been a big shift in shareholder expectations over the last thirty or forty years. Sometimes I wonder if it is related to a rise in large institutional investors often being the largest shareholders but I have no knowledge on the subject to substantiate that hypothesis.

The next time

[nimbius]

a republican clutches the constitution and screams bloody murder, kindly ask them to stop wiping their jackboots on it. The postal service is in the constitution as well. Lets go back to bush junior, or as i like to call him, the acid reflux republicans just cant keep down:

H.R. 6407; The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act was passed in the Republican-controlled Senate two days after it was introduced in the Republican-controlled House. It was subsequently signed into law by Republican George W. Bush. One of the provisions in this hastily passed law requires the USPS to prefund ALL of it's retirees health benefits 75 years into the future. That's right. The USPS is supposed to set aside money for the future health benefits for people that haven't even been born yet.

Re:The next time

[oursland]

THANK YOU! I wish more people knew that Congress decided to make demands on the USPS that no company could ever meet. And to think that the Republicans frequently politic on "running the government like a business" yet they make actions to ensure the government business fails.

Re:The next time

[Nimey]

I strongly suspect the reason for that is because the Republicans don't like the idea of

1) some part of the government actually working, because it puts the lie to their ideology, and
2) some part of the government competing with the private sector, to wit UPS, FedEx, etc, even when those carriers aren't that interested in first-class mail.

Re:The next time

[h4rr4r]

This is because they believe "The government can't do anything right". When they get elected they make sure that statement is true. Why anyone would want to elect someone who believes this I cannot understand. It would be like going to an interview and telling them that you can't do the job and their business will soon fail.

Re:The next time

[MachineShedFred]

While that is indeed a ridiculous law, the USPS themselves says that the pension funding only accounts for around $5B. That means they would only be losing ~$10B / year without that ridiculous law.

Still way too much goddamn money.

Re:The next time

[RoccamOccam]

Actually, Michael Medved has gone after Amtrak quite a bit lately: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/michaelmedved/2012/10/29/billions_for_burgers . I don't know about the others -- I prefer to listen to Medved.

Re:The next time

[MachineShedFred]

So you think that because a certain political party doesn't like the idea of large government services, that they would actually sabotage existing government services in order to prove a point in an argument that no one outside of the beltway cares about?

Without the US Postal Service, the US House of Representatives wouldn't have anything to do. All they do now is have unanimous consent votes on naming the post offices.

Yes, we are both incredibly cynical people.

Re:The next time

[ThatsLoseNotLoose]

That appears to be an exaggeration.

CNBC story: "Before Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, the USPS operated under a pay-as-you-go model for retiree health care funding. The new law requires the Postal Service to pre-fund its benefit obligations."

"Members of the postal workers union say the pre-funding requirement has created a fiscal mess. Some people have even claimed that law has the effect of requiring the postal service to fund retirement obligations for people who are not yet employed by the USPS--potential future employees.

No one ever intended the law to work that way. And, in fact, it doesn't. Although accounting rules require the postal service to calculate future liabilities, including those for projected future employees, the law only requires pre-funding of obligations to actual current and past employees."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432/The_Truth_About_The_Post_Office_s_Financial_Mess

I'm guessing the postal workers don't want that benefit pre-funded because that frees up money for additional pay.

Re:The next time

[gewalker]

The Constitution does not require a national postal service, it merely authorizes congress to establish one. Those silly delegates at the constitutional convention actually thought that the post office might be a source of revenue for the US.. Abolishing the post office or not has nothing to do with wiping the mud off of my stylish jackboots with the constitution.

Re:The next time

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think that because a certain political party doesn't like the idea of large government services, that they would actually sabotage existing government services in order to prove a point in an argument that no one outside of the beltway cares about?

Actually they planned on privatizing it by making it look like a basket case. Then they could sell it off at a pittance. But it would have something like 50 billion dollars hidden inside it. And the buyers would be able to raid that 50 billion to pay for the purchase. See Louisiana's school privatisation for details.

Re:The next time

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

Yep, they knew this would happen too. Why would you (as a Republican) want to bankrupt any government controlled entity? Answer, to make way for a commercial service that would do the exact same thing.

Re:The next time

[Coisiche]

Absolutely. If reality doesn't fit your political dogma, then when given the opportunity you simply change either reality or peoples' perception of it.

It has already worked for a long, long time.

Re:The next time

[lister king of smeg]

actually most rural people never use amtrak.

Re:The next time

[GodfatherofSoul]

This is because they believe "The government can't do anything right". When they get elected they make sure that statement is true.

Perfect summation

Re:The next time

[oh_my_080980980]

I'm guessing you're a douche bag that can't read. Because they have to prefund it soaks up their budget. Without prefunding they would not have a budget issue and can operate within their means.

Re:The next time

[oh_my_080980980]

Actually it does - since it's in the constitution. Twit.

Re:The next time

[adrn01]

The biggest reason Republicans want to destroy the Postal Service is to eliminate the postal union, one of the few large unions left.

Re:The next time

[TubeSteak]

2) some part of the government competing with the private sector, to wit UPS, FedEx, etc, even when those carriers aren't that interested in first-class mail.

A) USPS was there first
B) UPS/FedEx/other are interested in first class mail, but only for profitable areas.
C) UPS and FedEx subcontract a lot of rural package deliveries to USPS, because that's cheaper for them.

Re:The next time

[roccomaglio]

The mail delivery companies are not allowed to compete with the USPS by law. The Private Express Statutes are a group of laws under which the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has the exclusive right, with certain limited exceptions to carry letters for compensation. The Statutes are based on the provision in the U.S. Constitution that empowers Congress “to establish Post Offices.” http://pe.usps.com/text/qsg300/Q608.htm. One of the exceptions is for urgent mail. This is how Fedex and UPS are allowed to compete.

Re:The next time

[tibit]

Ta-da we have a winner.

Re:The next time

[dywolf]

examination in a vacuum leaves you blind to certain things. like that the bill was passed at a time when many public departments were (and still are) having trouble funding their pension plans even for the people they have recieving pensions now, let alone in the next few years. the USPS is simply the largest of those entities.

the notion is a good one, the term simply seems to have been too much too fast.

Re:The next time

[Richy_T]

If only we could have had a Democratic controlled House. And Senate. And president. With two years to do something about it in.

Re:The next time

[Nimey]

...and no conservatards who somehow always forget that the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority for six weeks, and then later for about four months (and probably less than that considering the holiday recesses) when Paul Kirk filled in for Ted Kennedy, and who are too ignorant to know what is involved in filibustering the Senate nowadays.

Shotgun mouthwash, my boy.

Re:The next time

[sjames]

Actually, they said it's 5B/year. It's been several years and remarkably, they are only $15B behind.

Re:The next time

[Richy_T]

Yes. This is why there has been no legislation passed in the last four years, particularly not any that might reasonably be expected to attract some measure of bipartisan support.

Re:The next time

[nbauman]

Why would you (as a Republican) want to bankrupt any government controlled entity?

Because Republicans hate America?

Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[scarboni888]

The ridiculous retiree benefits mandate handed down from congress is pretty much the sole reason for this unnecessary debacle.

No other organization is required to provide such an absurd level of retiree benefits payment so why is this insanity allowed to persist in light of the fact it could potentially doom the USPS?

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[Liquidretro]

Yes this exactly. If the USPS did not have to prefund 10 years in advance its retirement plans they would be at least breaking even. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/08/03/Going-Postal-Congress-Adds-to-Systems-Woes.aspx#page1

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans cannot govern.

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[svartbjorn]

It's hard to imagine a rationale for it other than a puposeful plan to bankrupt the USPS so it can be privatized.

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[Rogerborg]

I agree. By the time people retire, they're generally old, sick and weak, and therefore worthless. We should also get rid of postal votes and put all polling stations up three flights of stairs - that would keep out the genetically inferior as well.

Fuck it, let's just send everyone to Carousel when they hit 30, and be done with it.

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[lister king of smeg]

while i think moveing there pension over to a 401k or similer sytem would be a good idea i would not call a public pension lavish

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[dynamo]

We have public pension plans because the free market has not yet managed to fuck that up. Ages ago, companies had pensions and people could actually believe they would be secure in their retirement. Has this economic disaster really not made it blindingly obvious to you that stock-market-based retirement programs are only a slight improvement over lottery-ticket-based retirement programs?

Without pensions, and with all these attacks on the already insufficient social security system by econocidal republican professional threateners in congress and the acceptance by their passive defeatist Stockholm-Syndrome-afflicted democratic "opposition" offering 20-to-1 'compromises' against their own supposed interests, with the insane costs of health care and health insurance here and the lack of single payer. the whole idea of retirement seems like a sad joke in this country for people of my generation (mid 30s) or younger. We are fucked.

Personally I would rather just get what money I can - not some stupid vouchers to force me to buy into a rigged stock market - actual, spendable money.

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[tibit]

Well, guess what. A pension is part of your compensation, just deferred. That's all there's to it. You've earned it while you worked, you just get paid later. How can this be equated with paying people not to work is beyond me. You're silly.

Re:Riduculous Retiree Benefits

[nbauman]

We should also get rid of postal votes and put all polling stations up three flights of stairs

You know of course that that's a health insurance company trick to keep sick people out of their coverage pool.

end Saturday mail delivery

[Joe_Dragon]

in other places like Canada they don't have that any more.

The big lie

[Anonymous Coward]

USPS is failing because it's been "grappling for years with high costs and tumbling mail volumes"?

No. The truth is that the GOP has been trying to kill USPS by mandating the prefunding of all USPS benefits for the next 75 years!

The Post Office would be solvent if it had reasonable requirements placed on it, but the GOP wants the public to think that is impossible.

See: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/05/06/going-postal-in-washington-d-c-the-usps-the-postal-accountability-and-enhancement-act-of-2006-union-busting-and-paving-the-road-to-privatization/

Re:The big lie

[Coisiche]

What makes that ironic is that from seeing maps of state presidential election results; the GOP votes seem to dominate areas that a private enterprise performing mail carriage wouldn't go near because they'd be unprofitable.

Re:The big lie

[GodfatherofSoul]

Come out to the Midwest. You'll see lots of dying farm towns ironically voting against their own interests.

Re:The big lie

[Khashishi]

I think these GOP voters don't want mail. Their paradise is living in some shack in the middle of nowhere with no government to annoy them with pesky mail notices.

Re:The big lie

[Areyoukiddingme]

They don't do it ironically. They do it with great sincerity and zeal. Single-issue voters, we call them, who spend all their time worrying about fetuses instead of people who have already been born. It's a disease with no cure. They will cause themselves and their culture to go extinct, like the Shakers did. It will just take longer and involve a lot more suffering because, you know, the fetuses.

not quite

[nten]

even using the highest estimate of F-22 cost I could find we'd need to give them 44 F-22s. Raise rates on mass mailers perhaps? The only reason I check my mail anymore is to get information the government wants me to know about, car registration, voter registration, jury duty etc. If I could give an email address to uncle sam, I would be more than happy to do away with my mail address. Let it die.

Re:not quite

[Binestar]

Sounds like a good investment actually. They could use those 44 raptors to bomb UPS, DHL and Fedex and they'll have more business overnight.

Re:not quite

[jythie]

Sadly, they would not. Besides the retirement account issue, one of the restrictions the USPS runs under is they are not permitted to compete in the more lucrative areas because that would be 'unfair to the free market'. So they are essentially forced to both be self sufficient AND only offer services with thin or negative margins.

Re:not quite

[Darth Snowshoe]

THIS. Congress tinkers with the mandate of the USPS, and then complains that its not making a profit. Don't you get it? It's not allowed to compete in ways that allow it to make a profit.

Pretty much all the people around at the founding of the nation recognized the value of reliable, efficient, post service available for all. It's essential infrastructure. It's one of the reasons why business works in America. 'Based on the Postal Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress "To establish post offices and post roads", it became the Post Office Department (USPOD) in 1792. ' - Wikipedia

Geez, try sending essential items to your buddy on Peace Corps assignment in Africa, and you will quickly come to understand the value of a trustworthy, efficient and transparent postal service.

And you can't just eliminate the USPS with a wave of your hand. Just figuring out how to do that would be a tremendous amount of work. Many laws and much legal precedent rely on the existence of the USPO, for instance. And still, weirdly, there are lots of things that cannot be sent over a wire.

Re:not quite

[MightyYar]

Presuming that you will fly SOME kind of jet, you need to subtract the cost of maintaining and updating the current fleet for the time period that you used to come up with the $59 billion... I'd bet that those 30 year old F-15s start to get pretty spendy when they are 50 or 60 years old and have triple their designed airframe hours.

Re:not quite

[Jeremi]

Sounds like a good investment actually. They could use those 44 raptors to bomb UPS, DHL and Fedex and they'll have more business overnight.

I think they'd be better off destroying the Internet (in particular email and the various automated bill-paying mechanisms), as that is their real competition.

Re:not quite

[MightyYar]

Well, fair's fair... UPS and FedEx are not allowed to deliver the real gravy: bulk advertisements.

IIRC, you can be fined for using UPS and FedEx for any document that could have gone via USPS.

Re:not quite

[tibit]

They are allowed to deliver it, just not to mailboxes marked U.S. Mail. Well, nobody but USPS is allowed to do that. Technically, your kid dropping off a handwritten love letter in his/her beau's mailbox is breaking federal law :(

Re:not quite

[MightyYar]

No, you can't deliver any regular letters at all except for urgent stuff. Private Express Statutes

Re:not quite

[careysub]

His point is that the absence of a reliable postal system in Africa makes one appreciate the benefit of having one here.

Re:not quite

[Areyoukiddingme]

Yes, I'm wondering why you're the only post that even mentions this aspect of it.

Our legal system depends on the existence of the USPS as it functions today. There are whole swaths of law and legal procedures that depend on the delivery of mail to a physical address. Even the physical addresses themselves are involved, and guess where those addresses come from? The United States Postal Service.

And the Republicans are trying to kill that system, as has been repeated numerous times in this thread. I find it very hard to imagine why. Do they really hate the rule of law that much that they are willing and eager to try to knock one of its underpinnings right out? The ownership of property itself is often tied to a physical address, in many many places throughout the government. We don't define property lines by GPS coordinates. We define them by road names and numbers, and offsets, and relations to other parcels which are defined in the same fashion. The legal management of those road names and numbers rests with the USPS.

They want to fuck with that? They're out of their goddamn minds.

But they did it. And they're going to stick with it. They're going to fight tooth and nail and try to tie any rollback of the insane pension requirements to the "fiscal cliff" bullshit, all to destroy one of the pillars of our legal system. Just for the sake of ideology. They're so sick and wrong, they need to be taken out behind the barn and shot, like Old Yeller.

Re:not quite

[nbauman]

Pretty much all the people around at the founding of the nation recognized the value of reliable, efficient, post service available for all. It's essential infrastructure. It's one of the reasons why business works in America. 'Based on the Postal Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress "To establish post offices and post roads", it became the Post Office Department (USPOD) in 1792.

More hypocrisy. The conservatives complain when the federal government moves into something like health care, because it's not in the Constitution. The USPOD is in the Constitution, so they come up with another attack.

Re:not quite

[tibit]

Thanks, that was informative. It turns out the love letter would have been legal, after all :)

Thank Congress circa 2006...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. This law requires the Postal Service to do something that no other business or government agency has to do–pre-fund its FUTURE retiree health care benefits. This is a 75 year liability that has to be paid in 10 years. The Postal Service makes a payment of approximately $5.5 billion on September 30 at the end of every fiscal year to meet this obligation. The Post Office has been paying these benefits the past four years into a trust fund for employees who have not even been born yet. This is the burden that is creating the “financial crisis” for the Post Office. The recession that has gripped America the past few years has undoubtedly affected the Postal Service, but even in the worst economic times since the great depression, the USPS has had a net profit of $611 million dollars. Unfortunately, the red ink associated with the post office is the mandated pre-funding since 2006.

prefunding the next 75 years

[ProfBooty]

Exactly. Having to pre-fund the next 75 years of retirement benefits, including for those retiree's not yet born makes little sense. Its 11 billion dollar "paper" loss.

Riduculous Retiree Benefits prefunding requirement

[DragonWriter]

The ridiculous retiree benefits mandate handed down from congress is pretty much the sole reason for this unnecessary debacle.

No other organization is required to provide such an absurd level of retiree benefits payment so why is this insanity allowed to persist in light of the fact it could potentially doom the USPS?

The whole point of the insane prefunding mandate (what is ridiculous isn't the retiree benefits, it is the mandate to prefund them 75 years into the future) is to doom the USPS. Its not allowed to persist in spite of the fact it could doom the USPS, it is allowed to persist because it will doom the USPS.

Duh.

[Captain.Abrecan]

They sell 27 billion stamps a year. They need 15 billion dollars. Raise the price of each stamp by what, 55 cents? Is that math okay?

Re:Duh.

[sideslash]

No, it's a moving target. Raise the price and people will buy fewer stamps. It may still be a good idea to raise the price, you just won't magically, linearly balance your books that way.

Re:Duh.

[Rogerborg]

Fewer stamps = fewer letters = less cost.

At least that's how it should work, but the problem seems to be that the USPS is spending more even while doing less. Yes, the pension thing, but that's $5B out of $16B - where's the rest of it going?

Re:Duh.

[compro01]

$5B+ another $10B because they couldn't manage it 2 previous years.

Re:Duh.

[sideslash]

No, actually the math is just hurtful to them both ways. It sounds great to say fewer letters will lead to lower cost, but it's a slow train to stop, since you still have to retain letter carriers to run all the routes. Maybe they don't have as much to deliver and can cover a wider area, but there's a point of rapidly diminishing efficiency where the whole outfit becomes questionable.

Re:Duh.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Fewer stamps = fewer letters = less cost.

hey, you used 'fewer' and 'less' correctly on Slashdot. They should make that one of the 'achievements' on here. ;)

Not due to the Internet

[br00tus]

The health plan mentioned in the blurb is what did this, not the Internet. The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act forces USPS to put 75 years of healthcare benefits into an account within 10 years, something which was noted as ridiculous when the law passed. Also, this law is filled with provisions that say the USPS is *not* allowed to modernize in this era of the Internet. The law was pushed by lobbyists from companies like UPS and FedEx. It makes no sense to blame this on the Internet, since the direct cause of this massive shortfall was the 2006 law which caused the shortfall, a law which also prevents the USPS from modernizing. A postal service is one of the few "socialist" government nationalized enterprises mandated by the U.S. constitution, the Republicans and private mail carriers are doing all of this to try to do an end run around the constitution they supposedly love so much.

How I would fix the post office

[rolfwind]

1. Cut delivery in most areas, definitely the rural ones to every other day. M-W-F and T-Th-Sa. This will cut number of mail carriers and fuel and vehicles needed, as 1 carrier now will get two routes. Express mail has it's own carrier so that will be unaffected for the people that pay for it.

2. Offer to take UPS and FedEx packages at the post office. People who want package for stuff they don't want delivered at home (theft, gifts, adult purchases, etc) have to rent a box at UPS or Fedex location at exorbinant rates. Let them rent a cheaper USPS box, get their mail and packages in one spot, come in, and bring some more business.

3. Consider offering an electronic mail service, where you can send certified/registered mail or even purchase money orders and send them right off online - and have USPS print them out and deliver them like normal letters. Premium services without ever going to the counter. Lawyer offices rejoice?

4. Call an international Postal Office congress. Get a cheap international tracking number and while at it, standardize all customs forms and registered form and other forms the world over with symbols. Too many packages get lost, too many registered packages with funny foreign postal languages go unheeded and the cheapest tracking number (unreliable) is with Express mail or Fedex/UPS with around $150 minimum ridiculousness, less for a business but still). Domestic tracking is like 0.75 cents. Even if they charge $5 for intl tracking, would be way cheaper than what's out there now and an untapped market. Especially for eBay sellers and the like.

5. On the eBay sellers front, try to break down customs barriers, especially with the EU. It's ridiculous.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[xaxa]

4. Call an international Postal Office congress. Get a cheap international tracking number and while at it, standardize all customs forms and registered form and other forms the world over with symbols. Too many packages get lost, too many registered packages with funny foreign postal languages go unheeded and the cheapest tracking number (unreliable) is with Express mail or Fedex/UPS with around $150 minimum ridiculousness, less for a business but still). Domestic tracking is like 0.75 cents. Even if they charge $5 for intl tracking, would be way cheaper than what's out there now and an untapped market. Especially for eBay sellers and the like.

I think all that exists. The language for post is French, the tracking numbers I've seen have started with an ISO country code (and foreign ones worked in my national postal service's website).

5. On the eBay sellers front, try to break down customs barriers, especially with the EU. It's ridiculous.

That's not much to do with post.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[rolfwind]

To add a few more:

1. Be more proactive with the blue boxes. I have to literally drive 3 miles out of my way to get to the closest ones in my well to do suburb town. None of the major new shopping malls have one. And looking at the internet there is a huge pocket of none although demographically it makes no sense. The closest one is in a aging, dying stripmall in front of an empty supermarket that closed 5 years ago. In the last 10 years, 5 huge strip malls opened in the area, each one bigger than the last, and literally none have one. The only other two in the area are like 1/2 mile from the USPO itself, located 20 feet from each other diagonally on street corners not particurly trafficked. A braindead person much have coordinated this.

2. Have more self serve kiosks, particularly in locations that should close but the unions block it. (No clue how to overcome that.)

Re:How I would fix the post office

[rolfwind]

I got a few registered packages from Hong Kong. I don't remember French on them, just Chinese Characters. The guy tried scanning it in and it wouldn't scan. I ended up signing for it another way, and I'm pretty sure the sender wouldn't have been able to track it if I chose to be dishonest.

Also lost more than a few registered intl packages (domestic registered is rock solid). They definitely need more cooperation and improvement. The fact that they have coverage on the domestic registered package up to $25K and on international registered (depending on country) of $45.23 (IIRC) speaks of the varying confidence levels in this area.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[NJRoadfan]

The customs forms are all standardized by the Universal Postal Union. for example the CN-22 form commonly used to send small packages internationally. The only universal tracking numbers I have seen come with packages shipped via the Express Mail Service (EMS), another service that's administered by the UPU.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[King_TJ]

All good suggestions.... but I'd add another here.

Add more of those automated postal centers they have in SOME post offices already. People should be able to go in, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and mail a box or buy a book of stamps. I work during the day, so by the time I'm out of work, the post offices around me are all closed. Without an automated postal center kiosk, I can't conduct any business with them (and boxes over 16 ounces or something like that are illegal to drop off in a blue mailbox or drop slot ever since the letter bomb scares, post 9-11).

Re:How I would fix the post office

[bill_mcgonigle]

And then,for a small fee, offer the customer a reverse service: To scan their mail and email it to them.

One of the Scandinavian countries already does this. In the US, EarthClassMail is a service that will give you a 'download/recycle/shred/deposit/forward' button set. I'd be using it already if their nearest center wouldn't incur an additional 2-day delay for my local mail.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[bill_mcgonigle]

Route frequency should be designated by population density and nothing else.

So long as the taxes levied to support it are similarly proportioned.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[snsh]

USPS needs to greatly improve its online services. USPS still does not let you go on the web and print out a friggin first class stamp or envelope. You still have to wait in line at the post office to do registered mail, certified mail, proof of mailing, or to make a claim for lost/late mail. Clearly the USPS has never made it a mandate to make all services available on usps.com, so that people never have to visit their post office except in rare circumstances.

Maybe USPS should just buy stamps.com for a billion dollars and turn it into a free service.

Re:How I would fix the post office

[MikeKD]

1. Cut delivery in most areas, definitely the rural ones to every other day. M-W-F and T-Th-Sa. This will cut number of mail carriers and fuel and vehicles needed, as 1 carrier now will get two routes. Express mail has it's own carrier so that will be unaffected for the people that pay for it.

Ok, now get that plan through Congress (might be hard due to the representatives from those rural areas). Good luck.

What's the point?

[goldspider]

The USPS's primary role these days seems to be cramming my mailbox with unsolicited and unwanted advertisements, and providing landfills with a limitless supply of dead trees.

Remind me again why we're still spending $billions to keep this going?

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The USPS, which relies on the sale of stamps and other products rather than taxpayer dollars,.."

Re:What's the point?

[Revotron]

Because we need to protect our retirees' rights to print off funny e-mails in blue 24-point Comic Sans and mail them to their family and friends.

Go Figure... One more privitazation scheme

[jmd]

This is not about mail volume or heath costs. Try funding 75 years of pension value in 10 years. ..public or private entity.

"Unlike every other governmental agency, the Postal Service is required to fund 75 years of retiree health benefits over just a 10-year span."

Yep.... would not want the government to be successful at anything..except war and destruction. Oh and let us not forget....printing money for the rich.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/1/as_us_postal_service_faces_default

The USPS doesn't charge the right prices.

[Ichijo]

For example, some sizes of PO box are sold out in some areas. This proves that they charge too little for those.

And there are surpluses of other sizes of PO box in other areas. This proves they are overcharging for them, and they lose PO box customers as a result.

Charging the wrong prices is a good recipe for failure. Is it any wonder why the USPS is losing money?

Re:The USPS doesn't charge the right prices.

[Ichijo]

You could just as easily say they under-invested in capacity for those PO box sizes.

That works as a long term strategy, provided the revenues after increasing capacity exceed the costs.

In the short term, it's much easier to raise prices to eliminate the shortage. And there's no good excuse not to set the prices at the market clearing rate.

Suppose we did a reductio ad absurdum example, where they build a big warehouse-sized office, but charged only a few bucks a box -- but happened to build that office in a desolate outpost devoid of citizens, utilities, or road access. Would the market automatically correct that surplus by dropping rates?

Yes, but you may have to drop the rates below zero to eliminate the surplus.

But it usually isn't a good idea to create so much supply that the costs are greater than the revenues.

They may very well be mis-pricing their goods, but having consistent rates across the nation also happens to be a deliberate function of a nation-wide postal service.

Only for first class mail.

Just in time

[Big Hairy Ian]

Just in time for Christmas :)

Waste.

[MaWeiTao]

Financial problems are not unique to the US postal service. The same kinds of issues are affecting mail carriers the world over. That said, our situation is particularly absurd. Keep in mind that this is the same entity that decided to eliminate clocks from post offices so that customers in line wouldn't have as clear a sense of how long they had been waiting. And they've got a tracking system that is complete and utter garbage. The service I've experienced from postal services overseas is better than what I get here.

There are two fundamental problems here: the first is the complete and utter chaos of a government run entity, although private corporations aren't necessarily any better, and second, the insane burden of employee entitlement programs. You've got these excessively generous pensions that should have never been offered to begin with and guaranteed pay raises. Why should government workers be entitled to these pensions? Don't they have social security, investments and personal savings like the rest of us?

Re:Waste.

[NJRoadfan]

I've actually noticed that the tracking has gotten better. Delivery Confirmation used to be just that, you only got notice of when the package is delivered. Now they seem to scan packages at some of the processing centers along the way. Its not 100% consistent like the courier services or the more expensive priority/express mail options, but its an improvement. Heck USPS scanned the customs forms on the last international shipment I did, allowing me to track the package while it was still in the US.

The service has to be cut back

[Tridus]

It's tough to run what is a legacy business in decline when you can't change your service to suit the new environment due to the law. Case in point: Saturday delivery. It's just not necessary anymore and is hugely expensive, but they can't eliminate it without Congress getting involved.

That's no way to run an agency. Congress should remove all these restrictions and let the USPS modernize.

Running it like a business doomed to failure

[caseih]

I get pretty tired of people demanding that public services operate as if they were private. I mean we already paid for this service with our taxes (theoretically) once. To demand that it run as a for-profit business is just going to kill it while charging us more and more for something we've already paid for. It's similar to British rail. First UK citizens paid for it dearly with taxpayer dollars to build it over the years. Then the government, in its infinite wisdom, sold it off and privatized it. Now British citizens, who already paid for BR many times over in the past, also have to pay for the privilege of using it! What a ripoff.

I'm okay with public services charging a nominal fee for the service, if anything just to keep it from being abused. But to be mandated to make money, or cover their own costs, is silly. Just budget the thing and be done with with. Why make citizens pay twice, which is what we are currently doing with the USPS. US citizens are paying taxes which provide money which the USPS borrowing/being rescued with, _and_ paying for their service. Of course that's a waste of money and not efficient.

I know the Libertarians will cringe here at all this, but really, since the USPS was part of the constitutional structure of the country to begin with, just make a department and be done. Running it like a private company is neither intrinsically more or less efficient than a public service can and ought to be.

Re:Running it like a business doomed to failure

[caseih]

Sure but tax payers built the usps back in the day. And they are in the hook for any bailouts and loans. That's my point. Just turn it into a budgeted department.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not health insurance...

[lister king of smeg]

no just quit paying for the pensions of people that aren't born yet that will work for them someday

Re:Not health insurance...

[NJRoadfan]

The workers also pay a portion of their salary into the pension system. Most public employee pension systems are fiscally solvent from contributions alone as long as politics don't get involved and start dipping into the funds to plug deficit holes elsewhere (sadly all too common).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not health insurance...

[oh_my_080980980]

Tell that to Corporate America paying CEO pensions....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

one service

[issicus]

it goes against the capitalist ideals but maybe if only one company had trucks driving around to all of our houses it would be more efficient . and possibly a little cheaper.

Re:Cuts: You agree with UPS then!

[peter303]

The UPS proposed most of these. But Congress refuses to let them do this! It mostly Congress's fault.

Re:Charge more for junk!

[mk1004]

You have to wonder if the USPS has done a price demand elasticity analysis to determine if they're charging enough for junk mail. But since the government has to approve their rates, it would be difficult to bump the price up incrementally until they reach the maximum income.

Re:Not health insurance...

[jjohnson]

How America survives to this day with people this fucking stupid going out to vote, just astounds me.

You fucking idiot: A pension just is an employer-run plan WHERE YOU PUT ASIDE A PORTION OF YOUR EARNINGS INTO RETIREMENTS SAVINGS. THAT'S WHAT A PENSION IS!

Your salary isn't the entirety of your compensation, it's your salary plus benefits, which partly means pension. For decades employers have been offering (and unions accepting) lower salaries plus guaranteed pension benefits. You didn't have to save out of your salary because it's structured into your employment--they withhold part of your money, invest it, and pay it out later to you. Besides the benefits of large pension fund investing rather than a single small investor, you get professionals managing your retirement money, not some coal miner or factory worker who doesn't understand investing.

It's at the point now where I'd tell my kids "never accept a pension deal because someone dickhead down the road is going to blame you for budget problems and steal it back. Demand your money up front."

File a case

[Frankie70]

I know USPS is part of the Govt, but can they file a case against the Govt for making them do this?

End deal for bulk mailers

[highlander76]

Make bulk mailers pay full price. This will have many effects: less volume => fewer workers needed, less gas used. Higher revenue per item means the now-smaller workforce is more sustainable. I don't get those stupid spam mails that just go straight into the recycle bin unopened.

Re:Charge more for junk!

[Smidge204]

6.8 billion letters at 2.5 cents each? That's only $170 million. You're not a terribly GOOD engineer, are you? Also that bulk mail, which comes from the sender presorted (as part of qualifying for bulk mail rates), likely makes the USPS more profit than a typical personal letter.

The pension funding thing is ENTIRELY the problem. the USPS could be turning a very small profit if it weren't for that, but the mandate says they need to pack away $55 billion in pension plans by 2016 ($5.5bln/yr for 10 years). Their revenue is decreasing and that's still a long-term problem that needs addressing, but as of right now they could still have their heads above water is only just.

The $15.9 billion loss, per the article, is mostly the result of failing to make these required payments from 2010 and 2011, plus what's due for 2012 makes $16.5 billion in obligated spending that they just couldn't cover.
=Smidge=

Re:The real cost of privatization

[PPH]

Its the result of a pissing match over a USPS worker's strike.

Take a page from Havelock's book

[timbit]

I hear that ex-cons can work miracles with inefficient postal systems.

Since you're begging for replies here .....

[King_TJ]

I'm simply going to say this.

The USPS *has* been gutted by corrupt politicians. No argument with that particular statement. That's the problem with government in general. Power corrupts and people need to CONSTANTLY be vigilant, trying to keep that power in check, if we expect to keep any kind of fair and functional government.

As for the "public is less efficient than private" comment? I wouldn't say it's a lie so much as "it depends". Government does certain things pretty efficiently. It's particularly useful when the country wants to undertake an extremely big project that has notable long-term benefits, but just doesn't show enough short term return on investment to interest private investors enough to fund the whole thing. (That's pretty much how we got the first man on the moon, for example. It's also how we put together the road and highway infrastructure we've got today. If that was done privately, I think at the very least, you'd see FAR more toll roads and roads with rules on who can use them and for what purpose.)

The thing is though, times change and what was "too big a project for the private sector" initially becomes doable over time. Space is being privatized successfully right now, making NASA increasingly irrelevant. The USPS is in the same situation. They have to adapt or become an anachronism.

As it stands today, I find the USPS very much a mixed bag. Generally, yes, the letters I send get delivered on time and efficiently. BUT, here's a prime counter-example. When I shut down my on-site computer service business recently, a buddy of mine wanted to take over with his company and service as many of my former customers as possible. So he paid to mail out letters to everyone in my address list informing them of the situation and enclosing his business card. Turns out nobody ever received that first batch -- and he even used 1st. class stamps on each one (not a bulk mailing rate). He sent out a second batch, which apparently finally started making it out to people, but took at least 2-3 weeks to arrive consistently. That is HORRIBLE service.

just do this...

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Just raise the price of postage a little and discontinue delivery services on Saturdays. That should take care of it. I know people have advocated replacing the USPS with private carriers but I don't like that idea at all. First, the USPS is a longstanding service invented by Ben Franklin before we even became a nation. Second, private carriers would probably be more expensive. Third, private carriers probably would not deliver to many rural and residential locations (much like Fed Ex and UPS operate now) that the USPS delivers to now. Fourth, we've seen that private carrier quality of service is really no better than the USPS http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57345876-71/computer-monitor-tossed-over-fence-by-fedex-man/

Many fingers to point

[ai4px]

The USPS is under the gun (unfairly) by congress' requirement to pay their pension in advance. That said, the USPS is run by a bunch of nimwits. It's as bad as finding who's to blame at General Motors... greedy management or the greedy union workers.

Case in point... the post office is open from 9am until 4pm here. Closed an hour for lunch. I get off work at 330 and can't get to my local post by 4pm... Really, I've pulled up at 3:57 by my cell phone and was greeted with a locked door and a friendly voice on the other side that said "We're closed". If they want to turn a profit, they should be open when people can get to them.

Case number 2... You can't buy stamps in the lobby any longer. The post master at my local office said the vending machines were too problematic and expensive to maintain, so they were removed. Now if you want to buy stamps, you have to get to the post office when they are open. See above for the likelyhood of that. I've received postcards from the USPS that offered to sell me stamps by mail.... with a postage fee added to my purchase. Are you kidding me?

It's almost like they don't want to make money and they want to drive customers away.

Contrast this to UPS. In my town, UPS is open from 1pm until 7pm. The working stiffs can actually use their services.

Re:Many fingers to point

[VisceralLogic]

Case number 2... You can't buy stamps in the lobby any longer. The post master at my local office said the vending machines were too problematic and expensive to maintain, so they were removed. Now if you want to buy stamps, you have to get to the post office when they are open. See above for the likelyhood of that. I've received postcards from the USPS that offered to sell me stamps by mail.... with a postage fee added to my purchase. Are you kidding me?

FYI, many grocery stores cell stamps at the checkout counter.

Re:Dirty republican tricks

[ai4px]

I have no doubt about congress' intentions for this pile 'o money. They force the USPS to create this HUGE pile of money so they can then pass a law allowing them to borrow against it.... just like they did with our social security since 1983.

Loss is not quite right

[Lawrence_Bird]

technically for accounting purposes it may be but the reason behind these large figures is that the congress mandated that USPS prefund the worker pension and medical plans to the tune of $11B. Aso to those calling for letting ups or fedex deliver the mail, good luck with that. It is debatable whether either firm could (or would) be able to scale to the size needed to deliver the amount of items the USPS handles each day - over 650 million. UPS does about 16 million.

Brokerage

[phorm]

As a Canadian, USPS is the only carrier option where I don't have to worry about insane brokerage fees (often 45% and upwards of a package cost).
Fedex and UPS both tend to be really horrible for this.

No more USPS, and I'll be ordering less packages from the US. I'd imagine that this won't be particularly good for business in the US.

Re:Dirty republican tricks

[Hatta]

Perhaps, but I think the simpler explanation is that they intend to bankrupt the USPS because socialism.

Postal Service History

[DragonWriter]

I wasn't able to easily locate a history on when the USPS funding was separated from the general budget, if indeed it was ever a direct part of it. Would love to see the history of that decision.

The United States Postal Office was created by the Second Continental Congress in 1775, became, the US Post Office Department in 1792, and remained a cabinet-level government department until 1971, when the Postal Reorganization Act moved it out of the regular structure of government into a government-directed corporation.

Uhh, astroturf senses tingling

[PPalmgren]

As much as I agree with the problems congress saddled on the post office, it doesn't need to me repeated 20 times in the same comment section and modded to +5 insightful every time. Repeating something louder and more often only serves to irritate, people who didnt get it the first or second time have their head in the sand anyway.

Re:Uhh, astroturf senses tingling

[Rockoon]

Its called astroturfing. Notice that they use the same phrases in the same order, with small amounts of filler in between.

Re:Uhh, astroturf senses tingling

[Areyoukiddingme]

It's not astroturf. The userids are too low (lower than yours, in fact) and spread too widely. Echo chamber effect, maybe, but not astroturf.

It helps that it's the truth.

Let's just get rid of Bulk Rates...

[Bartles]

I'm tired of my forced upon me PO box being filled with dead tree products on a daily basis. I refuse to use US Mail out of spite. Get rid of bulk rates, let the US Mail service become the essential service it should be.

Could the USPS get into email?

[MobyDisk]

Currently, post is the only way to reliably transmit mail to someone. With email, there is no guarantee of receipt. There is no way to guarantee it went to the correct person. And it is the only way to send a message to someone when you only know their physical location. The USPS could step-in and provide these features.

For some examples of why this is a problem, note that legal documents are always sent via snail mail. I prefer to receive all my bills in snail mail because when I setup my credit card for email delivery, I get the email intermittently. The messages aren't in my spam mail folder. They aren't filtered at the server. They just never arrive. I have no idea why. The credit card company says they sent them, so who knows what happened.

It would be great to to be able to send something to "123 Lexington Street Hudson, OH" from my computer and be legally guaranteed it was received. If such a system required some reasonable postage, AND required the sender to prove their return address (a simple logon), then it would be no more subject to spam or abuse than current postal system. It might be better because it is easy to forge a return address with the current system.

Price increase

[skelly33]

All criticisms aside, it seems to me that the immediate problem can be addressed with a price adjustment on retail services. This PDF provides some interesting rough figures to play around with on page 4. I am specifically looking at the first figure ($66B in revenue), the second figure (167.9B "pieces of mail" delivered), and comparing with the reported $15.9B loss. Adding $66B revenue (all spent cash) plus the additional $15.9B loss gives us a total of $81.9B operational expenses.

Now divide $66B in revenue by 167.9B pieces of mail delivered and we get an average revenue of about $0.39 per piece of mail delivered - that is less than the current price of a "forever" stamp which is $0.45. That means that some amount of mail is being handled for less than $0.45 which is averaging down the revenue per piece of mail by almost 14%. If we divide our total operational cost of $81.9B by167.9B pieces of mail, we get about $0.49 actual average cost per piece of mail. If we correct for the 14% averaging down, that brings us up to $0.56 per piece of mail.

So I propose raising the base price of the forever stamps from $0.45 to $0.56 and proportionately for other lesser cost mail as well (e.g.post cards, flyers, etc.) Is 11 cents really all that much to ask? This doesn't seem like that big of a problem to me. Furthermore, I think this spoiled new generation of citizens has become so accustomed to their daily conveniences that it takes a hurricane Sandy to remind them of the value of a payphone. Will it take a collapsed postal system to realize the value of mail delivery? How much would it cost you to deliver the same piece of mail via an alternative commercial carrier? (hint: a lot more) How much would it cost you to personally deliver it and use none of them? (hint: unbearably more)

Going Postal

[Tenebrousedge]

That one is easy: because they are required to serve everyone.

If they were run as a normal company, they would not want to run rural routes because they're not cost-effective. Fedex does not deliver to rural Alaska. USPS does.

Government agencies are better when (a) the service being provided falls into the category of "natural monopoly", and (b) when coverage is required to be universal. Especially (b) because as long as you have to serve everyone, you should probably be accountable to everyone. That whole "by the people, for the people" thing, as opposed to "by the employees, for the shareholders" thing.

I'm not a big fan of having a universal tax for the benefit of the shareholders of some company.

You can disagree with the necessity of having a good postal system, but (a) as you mention, the Founders did not, and (b) I'd suggest you try living in someplace that does not have a well-run postal system.

I've lived in rural Alaska. It's a lot like frontier America in 1776: the USPS was often the only way to get things. I've also lived in rural Costa Rica, and the inability to get anything by mail was a sharp and unpleasant contrast.

Honestly, I see the USPS as being an excellent example of how government services should be run, although I would rather they be subsidized a bit more heavily. Service charges should be designed to prevent (or recoup the costs from) overuse; the majority of operating funds should come from taxation. Charges on services with a universal mandate are a form of hidden taxation: I'd rather be up-front about it. The idea of government agencies being run as for-profit businesses is actually a severe misunderstanding of what government is for.

Re:Going Postal

[ekgringo]

Phone and power companies are not run by the government but they are required, by said government, to provide services at a reasonable cost to rural locations. I don't see why the USPS couldn't be required to abide by the same type of policy without needing to be a government agency.

Re:Going Postal

[GLMDesigns]

Excellent reply. Here in NY its a bloated bureaucracy that ought to be trimmed but in Alaska and in other remote areas it is needed and works very well. I too have lived in Alaska (south-east) and other remote area.

Socialist bogeyman

[Tenebrousedge]

It has ever been thus. Post offices were some of the first structures built in frontier America. In 1776 when the USPS was mandated in the Constitution, most of the country lived in rural areas. Socialism ain't all bad, you know, and in this case it's pretty obvious that this is how the system was designed to work. Take it up with those dead guys who are on all the money in this country.

Money! Now there's a socialist venture. We should go back to when all the banks printed their own notes.

Next time pick rural Alaska for the target of your sociopathy. It's an easier target.

Business as usual with the government

[jjsimp]

There are a lot of things that could be done to save the USPS. Unfortunately, it is business as usual with the Congress/Senate and USPS. The silly advertising for a government service, especially sponsoring Dragster/NASCAR/Sports Stadiums. The retirement plan, although nice, needs to get with all other business and have the retirement utilize employee 401K. Make Spam-mailers pay more for shipping, even citizens paying for shipping. Does a letter really only need to cost $.42 nowadays. Find out how much it costs now and charge accordingly, granted they would lose a some business, but that is where increasing spammers and catalog rates would come in. Mail deliverys and pickups, especially residential, only Mon-Wed-Fri and have the Actual office open on Tue & Thu only. Defintely should get rid of Saturday deliveries.

Simple solution

[mightyhe]

1. Have congress declare anything delivered by the USPS to have the same legal protections as the mail it currently delivers.
2. Establish email addresses that correspond to physical addresses; issue digital stamps.
3. Profit

Re:There is no subsidy

[Sir_Sri]

Granting someone an effective monopoly in one area in exchange for their following rules is, in effect, a subsidy. Government mandates that you must have a medical license to practice medicine and collect government healthcare funding is in effect a subsidy, in exchange for the fact that you have to actually be a doctor to practice medicine.

To quote myself on the topic

The effective monopoly postal services had on junk mail was an indirect subsidy

Is pretty much the exact opposite of

Anyway, you're not alone- I see at least 5 positively-modded comments that seem to believe there is some explicit and intentional subsidy for bulk mail

The postal service has certain monopoly privilege, even now. They are the primary distributor of government mail (social security cheques presumably being a major one), and they are, as pointed out, guaranteed to have mail service everywhere, on fixed delivery days etc. There is even an implicit backing of the federal government that your mail will still get delivered even if the postal service goes bankrupt, although I doubt anyone has any idea how this could go down.

Using the US postal service also enjoys certain legal protections about what they can and cannot do with your mail and so on.

you're not a U.S. native

Thankfully I am neither a US native nor a US resident. As can be seen from my comment history if one is so inclined. But the same basic problem with postal services applies everywhere. Including in canada where I am. Traditional mail volumes are declining, but the fixed costs of operating large mail delivery networks aren't declining with them. Here the solution has been to discontinue home delivery and move to neighbourhood boxes for all new housing.

Re:Not health insurance...

[sjames]

So you advocate clawing back part of the compensation package after the work has been done? How would that not be theft (of course, large corporations routinely get away with that sort of theft).

The employees DID put aside for their retirement. They accepted a pension in lieu of higher pay.

Stamps and other products..

[sl4shd0rk]

Maybe give USPS some sort of premium priority over other kinds of "deliveries", especially in Colorado and Washington. I bet the profits would be pretty high inside a month or so.

That's more than NASA's budget

[DickBreath]

That USPS loss is bigger than NASA's annual budget in any year up to 2007.

small business would suffer

[Phoenix666]

my sister owns a water quality lab that tests drinking water for most of the state of Montana. she gets her samples by USPS. FedEx and UPS either don't deliver to most of her customers or are prohibitively expensive. note, these are many of the small farming and ranching towns that grow the wheat you eat and raise the cattle that turn into the juicy steak on your plate. if the USPS vanished tomorrow those places would not be able to certify their drinking water safe to drink, which they must do by law. that means fines they can't pay and the knock-on effects that brings for communities that teeter on the edge all the time anyway.

Re:Not health insurance...

[T Murphy]

they withhold part of your money, invest it, and pay it out later to you

Unless of course you're in Illinois and the union bosses and the state congress work out increased pensions without actually finding money to pay for it. They aren't withholding pay to give you later, the money just doesn't exist. Of course, the pensions for the state representatives are always fully funded, and the union bosses plan to retire before the numbers catch up to them.

Demand your money up front

That would be better for everyone (taxpayers and state union workers), too bad those in power will never give up their favorite political bargaining chip.

Re:Not health insurance...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have it slightly wrong. There are Pensions, and Defined Benefit Plans. In a Pension plan you get a defined amount of money every month/year you live after a well defined retirement age. You can never run out of that money (in theory) since there is no cap on how long they are going to pay you. But the moment you die the Pension plan stops paying you. In a Defined Benefit Plan you as a worker get a certain amount of your paycheck put into an account on your name from every paycheck. When you retire this entire amount of money is now yours, but you have to make sure that it is going to last you the rest of your life.

Some important notes here:

- If you die on day 1 of retirement your inheritors get nothing from a Pension plan. On a Defined Benefit Plan they get %100. Personally I tend to prefer retirement programs that are focused squarely on retirees and see the lack of inheritance as a feature, but others see that differently.

- You don't know when you are going to die, but yet Defined Benefit Plans have built into their assumptions the idea that you can "Plan for retirement" in any meaningful way. From the 10K foot view that is just stupid.

- Private industry has largely abandoned Pension plans, mainly because a Pension plan needs to be funded continuously forever. This is hard to do when you are a business that can have good and bad years, and even go out of business. There has always been a government agency to back-stop pensions from companies that have gone out of business (http://www.pbgc.gov).

- Government organizations don't have the same problems as Industry, since they don't tend to have the same swings that Industry does. However in the last 20 years the Republican Party has been trying to treat government as if should behave just like Industry. So their view has been that since Industry has gone away from Pensions, therefor government should as well. There has been little to no explanation as to why, only a lot of talk about "fat Pension plans".

- There is a real danger in Pension plans in someone coming along later and changing the deal, since the money is not "yours". However, I will remind people here that in a Defined Benefit Plan you are in danger of losing the money. For example many people saw their IRA's drop by %30 during the recession. Assuming that those people managed to accurately "Plan for retirement" then %30 of their planning went down the drain.

Re:Not health insurance...

[jjohnson]

Someone please mod parent up: Extremely Informative.

Re:Not health insurance...

[Khashishi]

Pensions sort of make sense when companies can be counted on to survive longer than employees. I wouldn't bet on any (specific) company to outlive me, except perhaps a few defense contractors.

Re:Not health insurance...

[Darby]

The whole idea of continuing to pay someone's salary long after they've quit working is utterly stupid.

No, it's a way which worked for a long time to grant people a portion of the value they contributed to an organization. It was the norm until the stupid idea that people were nothing but resources was pushed in very recent times.

You're supposed to put aside a portion of your earnings into retirement savings while you're actively working.

Which they dd via their contracted pensions you retarded boot licking muppet.

Oh, sweet irony...

[jvonk]

You have it slightly wrong. There are Pensions, and Defined Benefit Plans. In a Pension plan you get a defined amount of money every month/year you live after a well defined retirement age.

Apparently you are confused about the definition of defined benefit plans (aka. pensions) and defined contribution plans (eg. 401k).

To reiterate: "defined benefit" is synonymous with pension. The *benefit* payout is defined as per the pension plan terms.

A "defined contribution" is a plan where an employer contributes a defined amount into an individually-owned account that is held by a custodial trustee. In the USA, these are the 401(k) plans Americans have come to "love". The retirement planning is the individual's responsibility, though there are basic actuarial tables one can use to determine the amount of money required for retirement.

Simply put, one can convert between a lump sum account like a 401(k) into a pension-like payout by purchasing an annuity (the present value of an annuity is simple to calculate using Excel, Calc, or a financial calculator). So, if you *really* want a pension-like guaranteed payout for the rest of your life you can buy an annuity on the open market by cashing out your 401(k) when you retire. Valuing an annuity is very straightforward.

Also, in a defined *contribution* plan like a 401(k) it isn't hard to avoid losing your shirt. Just contribute your money in the defined retirement date fund for your target retirement date. The "trick" is that equities (stocks) have more risk and potential reward (aka volatility). Thus, when one is young the preponderance of the portfolio should be in equities. When the time horizon is short (retirement is near), one should have a portfolio weighted in stable investments like bonds or cash equivalents. Those target retirement date fund options are configured to handle this portfolio shift automatically over time for the investor. "I put all my money in Enron" is a horrible excuse for ending up penniless.

Pensions are essentially extinct outside of government entities, for good reason. Defined contribution plans require more individual responsibility, but at least the account belongs to the individual and their heirs, in residual. That is an excellent feature that defined contribution plans have that defined benefits plans lack. As you stated, when you die (or perhaps your spouse as well, depending on the plan), the plan stops paying.

USPS was turned into a bizzarre pro-market example

[Burz]

...in a country where coal and oil companies receive large government subsidies.

Together with the strange pension requirement set by Congress, none of it makes sense.

Congress has screwed the Post Office

[michaelslevinson]

The Post Office is not broke. The Post Office is required to set aside bilions in a retirement account that is covering people who have not yet been hired. The Post Office could use improvement in the way customers are served at the counters, but lots of people depend on them. http://youtu.be/KWKMPRFNowM?hd=1.l;