4 ms·
I was curious about how both of these could be true: > 2. The lie about the USPS losing money ignores that Congress requires the USPS to pre-pay for 70 years o
by BrentOzar 7y ago
I was curious about how both of these could be true:
> 2. The lie about the USPS losing money ignores that Congress requires the USPS to pre-pay for 70 years of worker benefits. The truth is that left to manage their own business the USPS would be making huge profits
So I did some quick reading[1] and in 2006, Congress mandated that the USPS pre-pay for 70 years of benefits - but only gave them 10 years to do it (2007-2017.) The payments were $5.6 billion per year. Okay, so that satisfies part of the comment: if it wasn't for this law, the USPS would have a much better cash flow picture.
Why $56 billion? For long term investments to cover the pension, the USPS is only being allowed to invest in bonds, not stocks, real estate, etc. [3] This meant their 2007-2017 payment structure was even higher (since bonds have relatively low yields.) They currently have over $335 billion set aside for future pensions, though, so between this position and the forced conservative investment policy...I gotta say, suddenly the USPS is looking like one heck of a good place to get a line-level job if you're worried about a recession.
So would they be making huge profits? Yes, but...they wouldn't be covering their pension liabilities. What they'd really need to do is walk back some of their pension guarantees (bad idea for employees), segue into employee-funded retirement plans like 401Ks, or ... take the same risks as other big companies did, and simply not pay their retirees their pensions (ouch.)
1: https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-billions-mandatory-payments-despite-scheduled-relief/141404/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2017/09/usps-defaults-bil...
2: https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume
3: https://www.rstreet.org/2019/05/30/usps-pensions-vs-the-world-more-rules-worse-funding/ https://www.rstreet.org/2019/05/30/usps-pensions-vs-the-worl...
- rapind 7y agoSounds like a pretty awesome place to work. Imagine if more companies invested responsibly in their employees.
- TMWNN 7y ago>They currently have over $335 billion set aside for future pensions, though, so between this position and the forced conservative investment policy...I gotta say, suddenly the USPS is looking like one heck of a good place to get a line-level job if you're worried about a recession. Correct. Those who bring this up as proof that "Republicans hate the Post Office" or somesuch don't understand (willfully or not) that the 10 years of pain were always intended to be that, 10 years of pain. It's what any business with pension obligations in a secularly declining market ought to be doing; USPS employees are fortunate in that its government masters forced the USPS to do so.