There's nothing wrong with Social Security. At all.
The only thing wrong with Social Security was that it was started at all. Once started, it can't be gotten ridden of, and unless we can find a Moore's law for GDP, at some point it is going to fail, but conveniently enough that is some point in the future. Those guys would have made good CEOs.
there's no way it can every pay for itself and still move mail at the current rates.
You're right. Let's cut them back to $0.25. They seemed to do better back when it was a quarter. Of course, stuff cost maybe 20% less back then.
Imagine a situation where the cost to buy something from Amazon was dependent on your distance from an Amazon distribution centre;
I thought it was? Or are you referring to the cost of the whole product and not just the shipping. If that is the case, that is a dumb argument to make. USPS' whole product IS shipping, whereas only part of the Amazon service is shipping and the shipping is dependent upon where you are. and USPS DOES charge more for shipping depending where you live...on everything but first class mail. And on most things that are not first class mail, USPS is not able to compete with private enterprise.
Just jack the price of delivery up to its real value... I did a quick lookup at FedEx for sending a package across town... The lowest cost was $7
How much for them to deliver a letter? Oh, wait, they're not allowed to. Well, then how much is that per ounce? Or more compareable, how much does USPS charge to deliver a package across town? I just did a calculator for a one pound package across town and USPS says $14.89. Fedex says $7.29. UPS says $10.76.
can't raise rates without Congressional approval and a rise in the cost of living index (which hasn't happened in 3 years).
I assume this applies only to first class rates, since they definitely raised the rates on other items like postcards and also additional ounces on first class earlier this year. They also are going to raise the first class rate again in January. I am not sure if the gov't is finally admitting to Cost of Living going up though. They haven't admitted to it in recent years, though the actual cost of maintaining your standard of living continues to rise at 5-10% or more per year.
The cost you cited is correct, and the requirement is justifiably called absurd and not a thing any private company is burdened with,
Well, to be truthful, it is hard to find a private company that will offer you a pension at all. But if there are any, they SHOULD be burdened with actually setting aside the funds to pay for it. Too many companies got away with not paying their employees as much and saying "But see, we are going to take care of you when you are old!". Then, they fire the people before retirement, or if they make it to retirement, then the company says "Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't put any money into the pension fund, so we have to reduce your retirement. Sucker!". If they are going to offer pension, then they should have the funds to cover it, or at least enough funds in maturing investments at an acceptable risk level that will meet the pension. If they aim high, well bully for them in the future. They have more money to reinvest in the business.
You do realize that in rural areas of the country USPS and FedEx won't even deliver things, and so they rely on the USPS for that, right?
You do realize that the USPS contracts with hundreds of other common carriers for delivery to other postal areas. Does that also invalidate their claim to deliver to every address?
Umm... As I said, they do - unlike FedEx and UPS.
And Fedex also WILL deliver to any address, even though not mandated to do so. I don't know about UPS.
I do know that, mandated or not, there ARE domestic addresses to which the USPS will NOT deliver. A friend of mine has one such address. FedEX and UPS deliver to him, but the USPS does not.
Are you saying it isn't a good idea to fund the pension pool that you are promising to your employees?
Of course, most private organizations get around this by telling you you are on your own for retirement. I'm perfectly happy to be responsible for my own retirement since I don't trust any organization to be around in 25 (sheesh am I getting that old) years.
UPS and FedEx could deliver letters all day long, just not to your "official" mail box...and they do.
In fact you are correct. I have a friend who receives home delivery from UPS and Fedex, but the USPS WILL NOT deliver first class mail to his address. At least they are nice enough to provide him with a free PO Box since they won't deliver to his address. I am not sure why they won't deliver to him. He lives in the center of a largish town. In fact, within about 5 blocks of the post office.
UPS and Fedex aren't required to deliver $0.44 letters to the boonies.
No, but they DO promise delivery to locations in the boonies, so presumably they would also do so for first class mail if allowed to do so. As to whether it would be flat rate or not. Who knows? It may end up being cheaper and give more good PR (read: cheaper) to deliver everywhere for a fixed cost. Or it may be extremely cheap to deliver across town and more expensive to deliver to BFE. We don't know, and all we can do is speculate because they are not legally allowed to offer the service.
I've had multiple occasions where the USPS guy left a note on my door saying "sorry we missed you, come pick up your package at the Post Office". No knock on the door. No doorbell. A couple of times, the dog noticed him and started barking, but he was already driving off by the time I got out the door. What is most frustrating is that then I have to wait until the next day to get the delivery from the Post Office, because it is in his truck (or maybe not, maybe he just makes all these notes out beforehand).
There are still far, far too many people charging "convenience fees" for electronic transactions. This is why most of my stuff is still paid by check. Unfortunately, the banks are still charging far too much for electronic transactions and the extra costs get passed on to the consumer. bank's seem to be fine with eating the cost of dealing with a physical check, but they want to pass on the significantly smaller cost of electronic transactions to the customer.
Of course, if we went all electronic, about 3/4 of a bank's staff would be on the breadlines, so maybe we should ease into it.
I've looked into direct deposit, and one reason he may be avoiding it is due to the expense. Judging from some other things you have said, maybe he just hasn't looked into it at all, but it is definitely a lot more expensive than just handing out checks.
There's uses for an axe, sure. But for 90% of the situation where an axe *used* to be the right tool, it no longer is.
I would have to agree with that. I don't even own an axe. I do have a pick-axe, which is good for tree roots and stuff. As far as splitting logs, I use the sledge and wedge. For cutting the trunk itself I have a chainsaw. I would say that the axe really is a technology where specialization has all but killed it off. But...they do still sell them. So SOMEBODY is still using them.
My bank charges me an extra $5 a month for electronic banking.You would think it would be cheaper than hiring people and sending out statements, but apparently not.
USPS loses about 3-5% of mail, per an unofficial source.
In my experience, it is an order of magnitude less than that. Our business sends out and receives about 30 items per month. I know that is not a huge volume, but in about 3000 items, we have never lost one. I don't think the statistical variance could be that extreme. yes, these are all normal first class items.
I take my mail to the Post Office. I've had times where the mailman didn't bother to pick up my outgoing mail. Plus crooks are more likely to steal outgoing mail because it is more likely to have checks in it. They don't want your bills.
Why do they charge a processing fee on a their primary service? They don't get to charge for a processing fee for a service that I have no choice but to use. It is a sunk cost of their chosen business model. If they want to modify the end price of their product to cover their costs that is fine, but don't tack on a fee that is your cost of doing business.
Airlines tack on a baggage fee, but at least I have a choice on whether to use that service. Airlines are probably a bad example because they also have a bunch of other non-discretionary fees that ought to just be included in the ticket cost so you can compare them with their competition.
How does everyone that buys tickets from Ticketmaster think they pay their employees, keep their servers up and running and the lights on?
Presumably they make their money by either increasing the cost of the ticket due to a value add that their competition does not have and we desire, or they make their money by buying in bulk and offering their customers a lower cost option than buying from the competition. One of those two is how most other businesses make a profit.
I think you are confused. Obama actually won the last election, thanks in large part to racism and every news outlet other than FoxNews campaigning heavily for him.
If a phone is stolen, they get another sale. If the phone is unusable after being stolen, it's less likely to be stolen, so there are fewer thefts and fewer sales.
That is not necessarily the case. A phone is a couple of hundred dollar investment. If my phone was stolen, I wouldn't necessarily have the wherewithall to go purchase another one. The same with home TVs and stuff. I may buy a 52" TV as a luxury item for my family. If someone steals it, then I can't just replace it. It was a one time luxury purchase that I probably won't be able to make again for years. This is how the theives become the "haves" and the middle class becomes the "have nots".
In my household, the general purpose PC still outnumbers walled garden appliances by a factor of infinity to one. Or 9 to zero if you prefer that measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
There's nothing wrong with Social Security. At all.
The only thing wrong with Social Security was that it was started at all. Once started, it can't be gotten ridden of, and unless we can find a Moore's law for GDP, at some point it is going to fail, but conveniently enough that is some point in the future. Those guys would have made good CEOs.
there's no way it can every pay for itself and still move mail at the current rates.
You're right. Let's cut them back to $0.25. They seemed to do better back when it was a quarter. Of course, stuff cost maybe 20% less back then.
Imagine a situation where the cost to buy something from Amazon was dependent on your distance from an Amazon distribution centre; I thought it was? Or are you referring to the cost of the whole product and not just the shipping. If that is the case, that is a dumb argument to make. USPS' whole product IS shipping, whereas only part of the Amazon service is shipping and the shipping is dependent upon where you are. and USPS DOES charge more for shipping depending where you live...on everything but first class mail. And on most things that are not first class mail, USPS is not able to compete with private enterprise.
Just jack the price of delivery up to its real value... I did a quick lookup at FedEx for sending a package across town... The lowest cost was $7
How much for them to deliver a letter? Oh, wait, they're not allowed to. Well, then how much is that per ounce? Or more compareable, how much does USPS charge to deliver a package across town? I just did a calculator for a one pound package across town and USPS says $14.89. Fedex says $7.29. UPS says $10.76.
can't raise rates without Congressional approval and a rise in the cost of living index (which hasn't happened in 3 years).
I assume this applies only to first class rates, since they definitely raised the rates on other items like postcards and also additional ounces on first class earlier this year. They also are going to raise the first class rate again in January. I am not sure if the gov't is finally admitting to Cost of Living going up though. They haven't admitted to it in recent years, though the actual cost of maintaining your standard of living continues to rise at 5-10% or more per year.
The cost you cited is correct, and the requirement is justifiably called absurd and not a thing any private company is burdened with,
Well, to be truthful, it is hard to find a private company that will offer you a pension at all. But if there are any, they SHOULD be burdened with actually setting aside the funds to pay for it. Too many companies got away with not paying their employees as much and saying "But see, we are going to take care of you when you are old!". Then, they fire the people before retirement, or if they make it to retirement, then the company says "Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't put any money into the pension fund, so we have to reduce your retirement. Sucker!". If they are going to offer pension, then they should have the funds to cover it, or at least enough funds in maturing investments at an acceptable risk level that will meet the pension. If they aim high, well bully for them in the future. They have more money to reinvest in the business.
You do realize that in rural areas of the country USPS and FedEx won't even deliver things, and so they rely on the USPS for that, right?
You do realize that the USPS contracts with hundreds of other common carriers for delivery to other postal areas. Does that also invalidate their claim to deliver to every address?
Umm... As I said, they do - unlike FedEx and UPS.
And Fedex also WILL deliver to any address, even though not mandated to do so. I don't know about UPS.
I do know that, mandated or not, there ARE domestic addresses to which the USPS will NOT deliver. A friend of mine has one such address. FedEX and UPS deliver to him, but the USPS does not.
Are you saying it isn't a good idea to fund the pension pool that you are promising to your employees?
Of course, most private organizations get around this by telling you you are on your own for retirement. I'm perfectly happy to be responsible for my own retirement since I don't trust any organization to be around in 25 (sheesh am I getting that old) years.
Fedex will deliver to any home address in the United States. Says so right there on their website.
UPS and FedEx could deliver letters all day long, just not to your "official" mail box...and they do.
In fact you are correct. I have a friend who receives home delivery from UPS and Fedex, but the USPS WILL NOT deliver first class mail to his address. At least they are nice enough to provide him with a free PO Box since they won't deliver to his address. I am not sure why they won't deliver to him. He lives in the center of a largish town. In fact, within about 5 blocks of the post office.
UPS and Fedex aren't required to deliver $0.44 letters to the boonies.
No, but they DO promise delivery to locations in the boonies, so presumably they would also do so for first class mail if allowed to do so. As to whether it would be flat rate or not. Who knows? It may end up being cheaper and give more good PR (read: cheaper) to deliver everywhere for a fixed cost. Or it may be extremely cheap to deliver across town and more expensive to deliver to BFE. We don't know, and all we can do is speculate because they are not legally allowed to offer the service.
I've had multiple occasions where the USPS guy left a note on my door saying "sorry we missed you, come pick up your package at the Post Office". No knock on the door. No doorbell. A couple of times, the dog noticed him and started barking, but he was already driving off by the time I got out the door. What is most frustrating is that then I have to wait until the next day to get the delivery from the Post Office, because it is in his truck (or maybe not, maybe he just makes all these notes out beforehand).
There are still far, far too many people charging "convenience fees" for electronic transactions. This is why most of my stuff is still paid by check. Unfortunately, the banks are still charging far too much for electronic transactions and the extra costs get passed on to the consumer. bank's seem to be fine with eating the cost of dealing with a physical check, but they want to pass on the significantly smaller cost of electronic transactions to the customer.
Of course, if we went all electronic, about 3/4 of a bank's staff would be on the breadlines, so maybe we should ease into it.
I've looked into direct deposit, and one reason he may be avoiding it is due to the expense. Judging from some other things you have said, maybe he just hasn't looked into it at all, but it is definitely a lot more expensive than just handing out checks.
Who the hell do you know that still has a landline?
Just about everybody I know still has a landline.
There's uses for an axe, sure. But for 90% of the situation where an axe *used* to be the right tool, it no longer is.
I would have to agree with that. I don't even own an axe. I do have a pick-axe, which is good for tree roots and stuff. As far as splitting logs, I use the sledge and wedge. For cutting the trunk itself I have a chainsaw. I would say that the axe really is a technology where specialization has all but killed it off. But...they do still sell them. So SOMEBODY is still using them.
My bank charges me an extra $5 a month for electronic banking.You would think it would be cheaper than hiring people and sending out statements, but apparently not.
USPS loses about 3-5% of mail, per an unofficial source.
In my experience, it is an order of magnitude less than that. Our business sends out and receives about 30 items per month. I know that is not a huge volume, but in about 3000 items, we have never lost one. I don't think the statistical variance could be that extreme. yes, these are all normal first class items.
I take my mail to the Post Office. I've had times where the mailman didn't bother to pick up my outgoing mail. Plus crooks are more likely to steal outgoing mail because it is more likely to have checks in it. They don't want your bills.
Why do they charge a processing fee on a their primary service? They don't get to charge for a processing fee for a service that I have no choice but to use. It is a sunk cost of their chosen business model. If they want to modify the end price of their product to cover their costs that is fine, but don't tack on a fee that is your cost of doing business.
Airlines tack on a baggage fee, but at least I have a choice on whether to use that service. Airlines are probably a bad example because they also have a bunch of other non-discretionary fees that ought to just be included in the ticket cost so you can compare them with their competition.
How does everyone that buys tickets from Ticketmaster think they pay their employees, keep their servers up and running and the lights on?
Presumably they make their money by either increasing the cost of the ticket due to a value add that their competition does not have and we desire, or they make their money by buying in bulk and offering their customers a lower cost option than buying from the competition. One of those two is how most other businesses make a profit.
I think you are confused. Obama actually won the last election, thanks in large part to racism and every news outlet other than FoxNews campaigning heavily for him.
If a phone is stolen, they get another sale. If the phone is unusable after being stolen, it's less likely to be stolen, so there are fewer thefts and fewer sales.
That is not necessarily the case. A phone is a couple of hundred dollar investment. If my phone was stolen, I wouldn't necessarily have the wherewithall to go purchase another one. The same with home TVs and stuff. I may buy a 52" TV as a luxury item for my family. If someone steals it, then I can't just replace it. It was a one time luxury purchase that I probably won't be able to make again for years. This is how the theives become the "haves" and the middle class becomes the "have nots".
In my household, the general purpose PC still outnumbers walled garden appliances by a factor of infinity to one. Or 9 to zero if you prefer that measurement.