5 ms·

So long as Congress micromanages stamp prices, the postal service can never be fairly expected to meet its obligations without losing money. Personally I'd be h

So long as Congress micromanages stamp prices, the postal service can never be fairly expected to meet its obligations without losing money. Personally I'd be happy to let the price of mailing a letter double or more. The service provided is incredible when you think about what's involved. Getting a letter from your _house_ to nearly any address in the entire country in a few days at most is worth a lot more than 47 cents.

dpark 11y ago
I've never understood why congress does this. The USPS is undercharging. Deutsche Post charges 80 cents (USD) to deliver a letter within Germany. 70% higher rate to cover only about 4% of the land area.
- justin66 11y ago
  At present, just about everything they do with regard to postage or the pension fund has to do with damaging the post office's bottom line in the interest of union busting.
  - SilasX 11y ago
    Yes, how dare they be required to fund their pensions rather than taking the risk-shifting approach of "oh, we'll have the money later", as employed by GM, Bethlehem Steel, ec.
    - zardgiv 11y ago
      You should try not being sarcastic, it just makes it look like you have a weak argument and are overcompensating. Factually, they're being required to overfund it, to the tune of 75 years in advance, which is money that they can't reinvest. No business should accept being run that way.
      - SilasX 11y ago
        Actually, they wouldn't have an arbitrary n-year cutoff for discounting obligations, and would probably be in jail if they hid liabilities this way.
        zardgiv 11y ago
        I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.
        SilasX 11y ago
        I explained how, if you were correct, it would have a less probable implication. (That's how a lot of reasoning works: "if you were correct about oxygen absorption spectra, the sky shouldn't be blue.") Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities. It was not simply a reassertion. If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
        zardgiv 11y ago
        Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)
      - justin66 11y ago
        > they're being required to overfund it Yeah. I don't have any experience with this stuff beyond planning my own retirement, but I recall playing with the numbers a bit a year or two ago when this was more often in the news. It looked to me like the amount of money they were required to put aside would (if the USPS managed to stay solvent over the decades and continue funding the pension fund) eventually make the USPS pension fund a world financial power. I admire the idea of forcing a large organization, public or private, to keep its defined benefit plans fully funded. I don't really think that's what congress was shooting for.
- zardgiv 11y ago
  Congress does this because Republicans in Congress want to privatize it. See also their bizarre retirement and healthcare prefunding requirement.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    What's so bizarre about paying for costs when they are accrued? I wish that approach was applied more widely; imagine the effect on the USA's willingness to go to war if the expected long term cost of disability pensions and other veterans' benefits had to be set aside up front.
    - koolba 11y ago
      Amen brother! Defined benefit plans without sinking funds are a time bomb across this entire country. What I really wish they'd do is abolish all defined benefit plans and instead switch to defined contribution plans. That way they'd be forced to pay them up front and couldn't defer the payment to the next generation. Otherwise whoever is in charge now gets to mortgage off the future by caving to demand after demand. If people want defined benefits then the private sector can meet in the middle and handle the conversion/risk transfer. It's a tough sell but long term it's better for the fiscal stability of the country.
      - jdeibele 11y ago
        My understanding is that many, if not most, local governments have split their pension plans into two levels: employees hired before date X get the defined benefit plan; employees hired after that day get a defined contribution plan instead. In Oregon, the state Supreme Court has held that once you're hired the state has no right to change the retirement plan to your detriment. A few years ago there was a Republican candidate (Ron Saxton) for Governor who said he would fire all the state employees and re-hire them. Sounded very bizarre but the idea was to move them from one plan to the other
    - dpark 11y ago
      My understanding is that the USPS is effectively overfunding its pension and healthcare and required to continue doing so. The USPS claims as much: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/ESS-WP-09-001.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library... But it's hard to get neutral information on this because most of the people putting forth information seem extremely partisan. I will say it's pretty bizarre to regulate USPS revenues downward while simultaneously regulating their obligations upward.

dpark 11y ago

I've never understood why congress does this. The USPS is undercharging. Deutsche Post charges 80 cents (USD) to deliver a letter within Germany. 70% higher rate to cover only about 4% of the land area.

justin66 11y ago
At present, just about everything they do with regard to postage or the pension fund has to do with damaging the post office's bottom line in the interest of union busting.
- SilasX 11y ago
  Yes, how dare they be required to fund their pensions rather than taking the risk-shifting approach of "oh, we'll have the money later", as employed by GM, Bethlehem Steel, ec.
  - zardgiv 11y ago
    You should try not being sarcastic, it just makes it look like you have a weak argument and are overcompensating. Factually, they're being required to overfund it, to the tune of 75 years in advance, which is money that they can't reinvest. No business should accept being run that way.
    - SilasX 11y ago
      Actually, they wouldn't have an arbitrary n-year cutoff for discounting obligations, and would probably be in jail if they hid liabilities this way.
      - zardgiv 11y ago
        I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.
        SilasX 11y ago
        I explained how, if you were correct, it would have a less probable implication. (That's how a lot of reasoning works: "if you were correct about oxygen absorption spectra, the sky shouldn't be blue.") Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities. It was not simply a reassertion. If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
        zardgiv 11y ago
        Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)
    - justin66 11y ago
      > they're being required to overfund it Yeah. I don't have any experience with this stuff beyond planning my own retirement, but I recall playing with the numbers a bit a year or two ago when this was more often in the news. It looked to me like the amount of money they were required to put aside would (if the USPS managed to stay solvent over the decades and continue funding the pension fund) eventually make the USPS pension fund a world financial power. I admire the idea of forcing a large organization, public or private, to keep its defined benefit plans fully funded. I don't really think that's what congress was shooting for.
zardgiv 11y ago
Congress does this because Republicans in Congress want to privatize it. See also their bizarre retirement and healthcare prefunding requirement.
- cperciva 11y ago
  What's so bizarre about paying for costs when they are accrued? I wish that approach was applied more widely; imagine the effect on the USA's willingness to go to war if the expected long term cost of disability pensions and other veterans' benefits had to be set aside up front.
  - koolba 11y ago
    Amen brother! Defined benefit plans without sinking funds are a time bomb across this entire country. What I really wish they'd do is abolish all defined benefit plans and instead switch to defined contribution plans. That way they'd be forced to pay them up front and couldn't defer the payment to the next generation. Otherwise whoever is in charge now gets to mortgage off the future by caving to demand after demand. If people want defined benefits then the private sector can meet in the middle and handle the conversion/risk transfer. It's a tough sell but long term it's better for the fiscal stability of the country.
    - jdeibele 11y ago
      My understanding is that many, if not most, local governments have split their pension plans into two levels: employees hired before date X get the defined benefit plan; employees hired after that day get a defined contribution plan instead. In Oregon, the state Supreme Court has held that once you're hired the state has no right to change the retirement plan to your detriment. A few years ago there was a Republican candidate (Ron Saxton) for Governor who said he would fire all the state employees and re-hire them. Sounded very bizarre but the idea was to move them from one plan to the other
  - dpark 11y ago
    My understanding is that the USPS is effectively overfunding its pension and healthcare and required to continue doing so. The USPS claims as much: https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library-files/2015/ESS-WP-09-001.pdf https://www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/document-library... But it's hard to get neutral information on this because most of the people putting forth information seem extremely partisan. I will say it's pretty bizarre to regulate USPS revenues downward while simultaneously regulating their obligations upward.