3 ms·

USPS Announces Temporary Price Increase

36 points by juokaz 6y ago

nick_kline 6y ago
Hmm, what does this really mean? Separate from the apparent active destruction or reduction of usps capacity by removing machines from sorting and ceasing overtime leading to slowdowns in delivery, this could be fine? Why not increase all prices at the same time? [1] is the fiscal 2019 revenue report. First class prices affect consumers and then there's the problem of people needing to get new stamps etc. It's more hidden to raise non-first class costs. [1] says in 2019, of $71 billion, 24 billion from first class, 16 billion from marketing mail, 23 billion from shipping & packages, 2.5 billion intl, 1 billion periodicals, 4 billion other. So 16+23 = 39 billion for marketing and packages, just over half. What I'd like to see is that this short term price increase will allow the usps to add needed capacity to meet the crucial time of the election. Oct 18, 2020 is when that starts, that could be too late of bring on new capacity, and that new capacity needs to be earlier than the Nov 3 election date for shipping ballots. So this is encouraging, but is it early enough, does it have enough impact to address the current situation. 1. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-usps-reports-fiscal-year-2019-results.htm https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-...
- Daishiman 6y ago
  What it means is that they're trying to steal an election. I have no idea why you're trying to make any logical sense out of this.
  - mrosett 6y ago
    With all due respect, did you read the announcement? This is only for packages. Ballots are unaffected.
    - nick_kline 6y ago
      I'm trying to think about this in the larger context. By getting more money for a segment of the mail, they could be helping overall. But it's really late in terms of the election. There's no discussion about any adjustments on our current problems. The new usps leadership is saying there's a problem of not enough revenue to provide service. So is this a red herring change, or is it a reasonable adjustment to that? I'd say without connecting this to increases in service to meet the supposed current problem, this is a not an honest attempt to deal with it. If I was running the usps and I had intentions of providing proper service to the us, I'd address this directly "outr costs are too high, that's why we are talking about not meeting our needs, but we are going to get more revenue by doing this, and now we believe we can meet needs". But all those pieces are not there. Of course we can sacrifice some short term over-budget spending by the USPS for the crucial honest results for our once in 4 years election.
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    Can you explain your argument with a bit more depth? The bit about "stealing" comes across as a total nonsequitor to me. I don't understand what making Amazon et al. pay a little more for packages has to do with thievery or election fraud.
floatingatoll 6y ago
This price increase affects only 'commercial competitive packages', as per midway down the page. Think of this as a "Black Friday" palliative measure.
mrosett 6y ago
This applies to commercial packages, not retail packages and definitely not ballots. So if you’re here for a “steal the election!” you’re in the wrong place.
- shostack 6y ago
  Could this instead be about trying to boost the value of his Amazon stock somehow? https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367736/postmaster-general-amazon-post-office-conflict https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367736/postmaster-gener...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

36 points by juokaz 6y ago

Hmm, what does this really mean? Separate from the apparent active destruction or reduction of usps capacity by removing machines from sorting and ceasing overtime leading to slowdowns in delivery, this could be fine? Why not increase all prices at the same time? [1] is the fiscal 2019 revenue report. First class prices affect consumers and then there's the problem of people needing to get new stamps etc. It's more hidden to raise non-first class costs. [1] says in 2019, of $71 billion, 24 billion from first class, 16 billion from marketing mail, 23 billion from shipping & packages, 2.5 billion intl, 1 billion periodicals, 4 billion other. So 16+23 = 39 billion for marketing and packages, just over half. What I'd like to see is that this short term price increase will allow the usps to add needed capacity to meet the crucial time of the election. Oct 18, 2020 is when that starts, that could be too late of bring on new capacity, and that new capacity needs to be earlier than the Nov 3 election date for shipping ballots. So this is encouraging, but is it early enough, does it have enough impact to address the current situation. 1. https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-usps-reports-fiscal-year-2019-results.htm https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2019/1114-...

Daishiman 6y ago
What it means is that they're trying to steal an election. I have no idea why you're trying to make any logical sense out of this.
- mrosett 6y ago
  With all due respect, did you read the announcement? This is only for packages. Ballots are unaffected.
  - nick_kline 6y ago
    I'm trying to think about this in the larger context. By getting more money for a segment of the mail, they could be helping overall. But it's really late in terms of the election. There's no discussion about any adjustments on our current problems. The new usps leadership is saying there's a problem of not enough revenue to provide service. So is this a red herring change, or is it a reasonable adjustment to that? I'd say without connecting this to increases in service to meet the supposed current problem, this is a not an honest attempt to deal with it. If I was running the usps and I had intentions of providing proper service to the us, I'd address this directly "outr costs are too high, that's why we are talking about not meeting our needs, but we are going to get more revenue by doing this, and now we believe we can meet needs". But all those pieces are not there. Of course we can sacrifice some short term over-budget spending by the USPS for the crucial honest results for our once in 4 years election.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  Can you explain your argument with a bit more depth? The bit about "stealing" comes across as a total nonsequitor to me. I don't understand what making Amazon et al. pay a little more for packages has to do with thievery or election fraud.

floatingatoll 6y ago

This price increase affects only 'commercial competitive packages', as per midway down the page. Think of this as a "Black Friday" palliative measure.

mrosett 6y ago

This applies to commercial packages, not retail packages and definitely not ballots. So if you’re here for a “steal the election!” you’re in the wrong place.

shostack 6y ago
Could this instead be about trying to boost the value of his Amazon stock somehow? https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367736/postmaster-general-amazon-post-office-conflict https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367736/postmaster-gener...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]