Slashdot Mirror
Trump Wants Postal Service To Charge 'Much More' For Amazon Shipments (reuters.com)
President Donald Trump said the U.S. Postal Service should charge Amazon more to deliver packages, the latest in a series of public criticisms of the online retailer and its billionaire founder. From a report: "Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer? Should be charging MUCH MORE!" Trump wrote on Twitter. The president's tweet drew fresh attention to the fragile finances of the postal service at a time when tens of millions of parcels have been shipped all over the country for the holiday season. The U.S. Postal Service, which runs at a big loss, is an independent agency within the federal government and does not receive tax dollars for operating expenses, according to its website. The U.S. president does not determine postal rates. They are set by the Postal Regulatory Commission, an independent government agency with commissioners selected by the president from both political parties. That panel raised prices on packages by almost 2 percent in November.
While they probably should, Trump feels this way because Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT - or as Trump says "Fake News"...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
the GOP shouldn't have forced them to pre-fund the pension plan then.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Seems like that story is lacking some important context; something I just read about earlier (and not because of the tweet) is that Amazon gets about $1.46 per box in subsides due to first class mail costs.
Amazon is making a LOT of money, why does the federal government need to be giving them what amounts to a huge break on shipping? As a Prime member I'm sure that would raise my rates but I don't think everyone in the U.S. should be paying for my quicker shipping.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
postal service can stop pre-funding pensions for 75 years later.
The post office operates in the black. It is the pension rules, or maybe somebody's misinterpretation of them, that fuck things up.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
First, Amazon does use UPS. UPS, FedEx and DHL outsource the non-profitable part of their deliveries to the USPS. Honestly, that's the subsidy Trump ought be railing against. (From a technical point of view. It may be better politically/rhetorically to choose one high profile customer like Amazon).
Second, subsidizing some things (like roads), even for megacorps like Amazon, is important. It makes it easier for those megacorps to start up, and their competitors to start up as well. However, the typical payoff for that is supposed to be corporate tax dollars over and above the subsidy from the successful megacorps.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The USPS using accounting standards no other group (corporation or government agency) meets with regard to its pension. If it calculated its pensions costs using normal methods, its profitable.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The USPS using accounting standards no other group (corporation or government agency) meets with regard to its pension. If it calculated its pensions costs using normal methods, its profitable.
Perhaps other groups *should* pre-pay their pensions. Pensions which were calculated using "normal" methods are going belly up all over the place.
Here's a small sampling the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp's big ticket writeoffs...
Delphi Autoparts ($6.1B underfunded)
United, USAir, Delta, PanAm, TWA Airlines ($7.4B+$2.8B+$1.6B+$0.8B+$0.7B underfunded)
Bethlehem, LTV Steel ($3.7B+$2.1B underfunded)
Then there's the United Mine Workers of America pension bailout that's been kicking around congress that people think will cost $600B...
And there's the Central States Pension fund insolvancy controversy.
The problem with pensions for industries that are crashing is that with "normal" accounting rules they can assume historic contribution rates in their actuarial computations even if they are in decline (like the auto, steel, coal and trucking businesses). Then the pensions need bailing out and retirees collect pennies on the dollar (most pensions are only insured at 30cents/dollar and that assumes that the underwriting remains solvent, which is the problem with the PBGC, UMWA, and Central States pension authorities). Some might think it is a *good* idea that the postal services don't use "normal" accounting rules for their pensions. Unless they only listen to talking points spit out by talking heads.
Between this and his publicly stated desires to shut down certain news organizations and an entire television network, how is it not obvious to every single person in these United States that the 'person' (using the word loosely here) we're dealing with should never have been elected POTUS in the first place? Seriously, it's like we're living in a perpetual nightmare.
I don't mind the postal service at all, as you've said they have improved.
But I do think Amazon could pay them more and the government prop up the post office less. Why does that have to hurt the post office? They could still deliver Amazon packages, just pay what it actually costs to ship them.
Because FedEX and UPS don't deliver to most of the rural US. Typical city dweller...most rural areas are only served by USPS which is why it runs at a loss. Also because leaders 100 years ago knew it was a good thing to promote a global mail/package delivery system.
They are subsidizing Amazon, also every rural address is subsidized as well as every other business that involves package delivery. This isn't political but somehow you (and Trump) are turning a very successful government service (over 100 years, can move a letter from one end of the country to the other in 3 days for less than 50 cents) into a political stunt. If you support reducing the USPS, then you are the type of person who politicizes everything to the detriment of everyone...and even worse without even trying to understand the situation which in this case is actually quite easy to understand.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
They only can't compete because Congress forces them to pre-fund their employees retirement for some ridiculous number of decades - something no other business in the country does.
Additionally, the USPS's charge is to connect every person in America no matter how remote and unprofitable. The point is to have a service to connect far away Alaska villages that have no profit motive for FedEx etc. to connect. It's the same with public transit - the point isn't to make money, it's to enable and improve our lives in a worthwhile way.
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin