6 ms·

> The real issue here is the fact that the USPS is overloaded and requires extra government attention. I agree with this, and this attention needs to come in m

by ptero 6y ago

> The real issue here is the fact that the USPS is overloaded and requires extra government attention. I agree with this, and this attention needs to come in more ways than extra $$. As others said, USPS is stuck in a weird state: need to be self-funded with no authority to set prices. So the gov't needs to either subsidize some things or let USPS compete. However, to fix USPS some of that attention needs to come in the form of hard kicks and forced reorgs. USPS is a dinosaur with a lot of inertia against improving efficiency and modernization. That causes problems, costs a lot of money and drives customers away. USPS is also notorious for advocating for spam senders (who give USPS a lot of revenue) and against people they are supposed to serve. Those are all problems that external "attention" should resolve. As an anecdata, I was occasionally involved with field testing campaigns which include significant shipping for next day delivery a couple of thousand miles away (something would break or some new hardware would be needed and will be shipped from home ASAP). This provides a non-insignificant revenue to the shipper. We tried USPS, but it just did not work. With FedEx we get accurate, near real time package tracking, so the minute the package is dumped at our hotel we see it and someone can drive out and pick it up. With USPS, their system was showing delivery at the end of the following day. Maybe something changed in the last few years, but I doubt it.

dd36 6y ago
There was huge consolidation “for efficiency” in the past decade. They shut down lots of distribution centers. Local mail that used to be delivered over night wis now delivered in 3 days at best.
dkuntz2 6y ago
USPS is efficient and self-sufficient, congress has just done everything possible to make it look like they're failing. If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does), they'd be in great shape.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does) That's…not true? https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  In fairness, pension pre-funding should be an expectation of all government agencies and private companies with pensions. But the way it was introduced was absurd, IIRC USPS had 10 years in which to pre-fund 50 years of pensions.
  - pulisse 6y ago
    75 years. USPS is congressionally mandated to fund the pensions of postal workers who have not yet been born.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      It doesn't matter if it's 500 years. The farther it is into the future, the greater the time discount to fund it now. "75 years" just sounds inflammatory as a soundbite, but it's completely reasonable. If you're promising it, you should book the expense's present discounted value.
      - pulisse 6y ago
        Why aren't other federal agencies subject to similar requirements? Why isn't such a practice standard in the corporate world? > If you're promising it, you should book the expense's present discounted value. Your argument proves way too much. There is no "promise" here. To whom is the commitment made? The beneficiaries of such pensions do not even exist at this time. The most you can say is that there is an expected future expense. But if your claim is that an entity should be presently setting aside money for all anticipatable expenses, no matter how far in the future, then I think you'll find very few CFOs to agree with you.
        SilasX 6y ago
        >Why aren't other federal agencies subject to similar requirements? Why isn't such a practice standard in the corporate world? It is absolutely standard for corporations to be required to fund their pensions, and to include liabilities on their balance sheet that aren't due for 80 years (in what few cases those actually happen in). Edit: Do you know of a rule whereby e.g. such bonds can be left off the balance sheet? I don't. If other federal agencies (which are different in many other ways) aren't required to fund pensions, they should be -- I agree. >Your argument proves way too much. There is no "promise" here. To whom is the commitment made? The workers, to provide pensions for their dependents. >The most you can say is that there is an expected future expense. But if your claim is that an entity should be presently setting aside money for all anticipatable expenses, no matter how far in the future, then I think you'll find very few CFOs to agree with you. It's not an "anticipatable" expense, it's one that you have specifically committed to as compensation for labor, every bit as "anticipatable" as having to make this month's payroll. Do you know a CFO that thinks it's fine not to have allocated money for that?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  The pension pre-payment period ended in 2016. It's been 4 years since that was relevant.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    They also can't set their own postage rates. They're operating in the free market with both hands tied behind their backs.
    - nickff 6y ago
      They do have the advantage that all competitors must charge 6x higher postage for items weighing less than 12.5 ounces.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  And they should be allowed to bank again.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Literally every single private company in the US is required to prepay their pension obligations. When MAP-21 changed the formula for how much prepayment is necessary, FedEx stopped offering pensions to new hires. I think UPS only offers pensions to union employees now. I think the sticking point for USPS was that they were also required to prepay the retiree medical benefits that they offer
- opo 6y ago
  USPS pension funding gets brought up quite a bit as some kind of a conspiracy, but that doesn't appear to be accurate. The issue for the postal service is that the law was changed so that the USPS would start funding their retirement health care costs since they are promised to the workers and the projected costs had exploded. This was supported by a bipartisan commission, the GAO, and the Postal Service itself: >...Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund. >Prior to 2006, the Service simply paid retirees’ health benefit premiums when they came due. The Service put aside no money when it promised the future benefits. Paying benefits when they come due rather than funding them in advance is known as the pay-as-you-go or unfunded approach. >Early this century, Congress, the Administration, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and a bipartisan presidential commission expressed concern about the lack of funding. Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund. >In 2002-2003, it was discovered that the Service was contributing far more than necessary to fully fund its pensions, and Congress allowed the Service to contribute less. Congress decided the pension “savings” could help patch the retiree health benefit underfunding. In 2006, as part of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), the Postal Service Retirement Health Benefits Fund (RHBF) was established. Most of the Service’s contributions to the new fund could be paid using the pension “savings.” PAEA was bipartisan legislation with broad support. https://taxfoundation.org/postal-service-reform-postal-service-retiree-health-benefits-fund/ https://taxfoundation.org/postal-service-reform-postal-servi... >...If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does), they'd be in great shape. In relation to this, the USPS has posted this as part of a fact sheet: >...More recently, the USPS Fairness Act was passed by the House. It would eliminate the requirement to prefund retiree health benefits and forgive our current defaulted prefunding payments. However, ultimate passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the...
munk-a 6y ago
> However, to fix USPS some of that attention needs to come in the form of hard kicks and forced reorgs. USPS is a dinosaur with a lot of inertia against improving efficiency and modernization. I haven't seen evidence of this, in fact I think it's just coming back to the lack of funding. USPS is a bit of a dead-end job due to how limited its lifespan is (continued calls to defund it from the right) and in its current state it isn't really attracting talent. If the US cared about its post service it could be revived and greatly improved. Also, just FYI, you folks have it great. I'm a US expat in Canada and CanadaPost is comparatively terrible - it's slow, expensive, and most package delivery happens through the third party companies (like FedEx, UPS, Purolator, DHL whatnot) which are absolute trash up here - without USPS constantly raising the bar the independent delivery services routinely lie about delivery attempts, refuse to deliver to addresses and re-route packages miles away when they have offices down the street. Since moving up to Canada I've been pretty wowed by the healthcare, but the mail system up here is terrible. I think there are some intensely dedicated souls in USPS still that have managed to keep everything going on their shoestring budget, but they're eventually going to retire and the defunding will probably be capped with USPS being privatized for "costing the tax payers money". It's okay though - delivery service in DC will be great. And USPS will be the latest example of "failed socialism" and held up as the Dems mismanaging budgets.

by ptero 6y ago

dd36 6y ago

There was huge consolidation “for efficiency” in the past decade. They shut down lots of distribution centers. Local mail that used to be delivered over night wis now delivered in 3 days at best.

dkuntz2 6y ago

USPS is efficient and self-sufficient, congress has just done everything possible to make it look like they're failing. If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does), they'd be in great shape.

erichocean 6y ago
> If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does) That's…not true? https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-pensions--some-key-myths-and-facts/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...
dodobirdlord 6y ago
In fairness, pension pre-funding should be an expectation of all government agencies and private companies with pensions. But the way it was introduced was absurd, IIRC USPS had 10 years in which to pre-fund 50 years of pensions.
- pulisse 6y ago
  75 years. USPS is congressionally mandated to fund the pensions of postal workers who have not yet been born.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    It doesn't matter if it's 500 years. The farther it is into the future, the greater the time discount to fund it now. "75 years" just sounds inflammatory as a soundbite, but it's completely reasonable. If you're promising it, you should book the expense's present discounted value.
    - pulisse 6y ago
      Why aren't other federal agencies subject to similar requirements? Why isn't such a practice standard in the corporate world? > If you're promising it, you should book the expense's present discounted value. Your argument proves way too much. There is no "promise" here. To whom is the commitment made? The beneficiaries of such pensions do not even exist at this time. The most you can say is that there is an expected future expense. But if your claim is that an entity should be presently setting aside money for all anticipatable expenses, no matter how far in the future, then I think you'll find very few CFOs to agree with you.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        >Why aren't other federal agencies subject to similar requirements? Why isn't such a practice standard in the corporate world? It is absolutely standard for corporations to be required to fund their pensions, and to include liabilities on their balance sheet that aren't due for 80 years (in what few cases those actually happen in). Edit: Do you know of a rule whereby e.g. such bonds can be left off the balance sheet? I don't. If other federal agencies (which are different in many other ways) aren't required to fund pensions, they should be -- I agree. >Your argument proves way too much. There is no "promise" here. To whom is the commitment made? The workers, to provide pensions for their dependents. >The most you can say is that there is an expected future expense. But if your claim is that an entity should be presently setting aside money for all anticipatable expenses, no matter how far in the future, then I think you'll find very few CFOs to agree with you. It's not an "anticipatable" expense, it's one that you have specifically committed to as compensation for labor, every bit as "anticipatable" as having to make this month's payroll. Do you know a CFO that thinks it's fine not to have allocated money for that?
missedthecue 6y ago
The pension pre-payment period ended in 2016. It's been 4 years since that was relevant.
- triceratops 6y ago
  They also can't set their own postage rates. They're operating in the free market with both hands tied behind their backs.
  - nickff 6y ago
    They do have the advantage that all competitors must charge 6x higher postage for items weighing less than 12.5 ounces.
slowmovintarget 6y ago
And they should be allowed to bank again.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
Literally every single private company in the US is required to prepay their pension obligations. When MAP-21 changed the formula for how much prepayment is necessary, FedEx stopped offering pensions to new hires. I think UPS only offers pensions to union employees now. I think the sticking point for USPS was that they were also required to prepay the retiree medical benefits that they offer
opo 6y ago
USPS pension funding gets brought up quite a bit as some kind of a conspiracy, but that doesn't appear to be accurate. The issue for the postal service is that the law was changed so that the USPS would start funding their retirement health care costs since they are promised to the workers and the projected costs had exploded. This was supported by a bipartisan commission, the GAO, and the Postal Service itself: >...Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund. >Prior to 2006, the Service simply paid retirees’ health benefit premiums when they came due. The Service put aside no money when it promised the future benefits. Paying benefits when they come due rather than funding them in advance is known as the pay-as-you-go or unfunded approach. >Early this century, Congress, the Administration, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), and a bipartisan presidential commission expressed concern about the lack of funding. Although retiree health benefits are often unfunded or poorly funded, two considerations suggested the Service’s retiree health care obligations should be funded: they are as firm a commitment as the Service’s pensions, and they had become enormous (about $75 billion by 2006). In 2003, the presidential commission suggested establishing a reserve fund for these obligations, and the Postal Service itself sent Congress a proposal for creating such a fund. >In 2002-2003, it was discovered that the Service was contributing far more than necessary to fully fund its pensions, and Congress allowed the Service to contribute less. Congress decided the pension “savings” could help patch the retiree health benefit underfunding. In 2006, as part of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA), the Postal Service Retirement Health Benefits Fund (RHBF) was established. Most of the Service’s contributions to the new fund could be paid using the pension “savings.” PAEA was bipartisan legislation with broad support. https://taxfoundation.org/postal-service-reform-postal-service-retiree-health-benefits-fund/ https://taxfoundation.org/postal-service-reform-postal-servi... >...If they didn't have to prepay pensions (something no other government agency, or private company in the world is required to do, or does), they'd be in great shape. In relation to this, the USPS has posted this as part of a fact sheet: >...More recently, the USPS Fairness Act was passed by the House. It would eliminate the requirement to prefund retiree health benefits and forgive our current defaulted prefunding payments. However, ultimate passage of the bill will not reduce our underlying retiree health benefits liability, nor improve our cash flow or long-term financial position. https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the-facts.pdf https://about.usps.com/news/delivers-facts/usps-delivers-the...

munk-a 6y ago

> However, to fix USPS some of that attention needs to come in the form of hard kicks and forced reorgs. USPS is a dinosaur with a lot of inertia against improving efficiency and modernization. I haven't seen evidence of this, in fact I think it's just coming back to the lack of funding. USPS is a bit of a dead-end job due to how limited its lifespan is (continued calls to defund it from the right) and in its current state it isn't really attracting talent. If the US cared about its post service it could be revived and greatly improved. Also, just FYI, you folks have it great. I'm a US expat in Canada and CanadaPost is comparatively terrible - it's slow, expensive, and most package delivery happens through the third party companies (like FedEx, UPS, Purolator, DHL whatnot) which are absolute trash up here - without USPS constantly raising the bar the independent delivery services routinely lie about delivery attempts, refuse to deliver to addresses and re-route packages miles away when they have offices down the street. Since moving up to Canada I've been pretty wowed by the healthcare, but the mail system up here is terrible. I think there are some intensely dedicated souls in USPS still that have managed to keep everything going on their shoestring budget, but they're eventually going to retire and the defunding will probably be capped with USPS being privatized for "costing the tax payers money". It's okay though - delivery service in DC will be great. And USPS will be the latest example of "failed socialism" and held up as the Dems mismanaging budgets.