7 ms·

| Why is the USPS doing so badly when e commerce is doing so well? Because it's actively being sabotaged. It's staffing is held back by pension requirements wh

| Why is the USPS doing so badly when e commerce is doing so well? Because it's actively being sabotaged. It's staffing is held back by pension requirements which other parts of government and Amazon do not have. Their perfectly fine working sorting are removed.

Alupis 6y ago
> Because it's actively being sabotaged. I know this is the political line of the day, but the reality is USPS is, has been, and will be insanely inefficient for decades. Decades. That spans multiple presidents from both parties. Decades. The very fact that USPS receives funding by Tax Payers, but also still charges the same tax payers money to use services, and still manages to lose billions of dollars every year is a modern marvel all in it's own right. The very fact it costs USPS more than $0.55 to deliver a letter to your mailbox (which only USPS is legally allowed to put mail into for whatever reason in 2020), is insane. Raise rates they'll say! To what end? To the point where UPS or FedEX rates start looking attractive for normal letter mail? What will happen then to the USPS? For larger packages over a few pounds, it's already insanely cheaper to ship packages via UPS or FedEx. Sometimes over half the price in difference. Neither UPS nor FedEx are subsidized by Tax Payers + Still Charge for Services. Somehow, they make a profit and deliver packages on time. The mismanagement of USPS is as criminal as it is resolute. It is not the current administration's doing - claiming so is not just intellectually dishonest, it's flatly wrong. No, the mismanagement of USPS has always been, and all signs seem to say it will always be. EDIT: It's a myth that USPS isn't tax payer funded. Pay attention to the wording they use - "Not Tax Payer Funded". That says nothing about routine bailouts[1][2][3], which are so routine they might as well be scheduled. How is a bailout not tax payer funding? Run yourself into the ground then get bailed out by tax payers again, and again, and again, and again. It would probably be more efficient to actually just give them the money up front. [1] https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-says-usps-25-billion-bailout-bill-favors-democratic-party-backed https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-says... [2] https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-lost-78-billion-2007-despite-receiving-billions-taxpayers-every-year https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-lost-78-... [3] https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
- drewrv 6y ago
  USPS has to deliver mail to every address in the country, whereas UPS and FedEx do not. Comparing a public service that handles the long tail and edge cases to private companies that can axe unprofitable routes (or outsource them to USPS) isn't a fair comparison.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > USPS has to deliver mail to every address in the country, whereas UPS and FedEx do not Besides the fact that this isn't true (you'd be astonished at the number of homes that USPS won't deliver to, generally rural areas[1]), it doesn't preclude USPS from being profitable if managed properly. Let's not pretend if USPS could ditch some routes it would suddenly be profitable and not need billions of tax payer capitol injection all the time. They're a long ways from that. Saddled with thousands of unproductive employees, ones that will never be fired, yet collect a paycheck paid for by tax payers, and will enjoy a comfortable retirement with all that pension money. USPS might be a quasi-private company, but they sure don't behave like a private company. [1] I'm in the industry. For these shipments we have to send them FedEx or UPS, whichever is cheapest usually, since both will deliver when USPS will not.
  - kansface 6y ago
    I wonder how much of that subsidy practically goes to spam.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      I actually tried to stop the spam mail to my house. I took a mailbox full, just 2 days of mail, 99% spam, and took it into my local post office. Plopped the mail on the counter and told the clerk I no longer wanted to receive mail from any of these advertisers. Of course the clerk couldn't help me. USPS makes too much money delivering junk right to your mailbox. What a great system we're engineered here, where our national carrier service primarily slups junk mail around the country, and won't stop because it's one of their most profitable side-hustles.
missedthecue 6y ago
The prefunding period lasted ten years and was over in 2016. Even after pension funding in 2019, they lost $3.5 billion on operations. They've always been extremely inefficient. Between 1960-1995, they lost a net accumulated total of $91 billion Blaming the pension funding bill for the economic woes of the USPS is wholly inaccurate

Alupis 6y ago

> Because it's actively being sabotaged. I know this is the political line of the day, but the reality is USPS is, has been, and will be insanely inefficient for decades. Decades. That spans multiple presidents from both parties. Decades. The very fact that USPS receives funding by Tax Payers, but also still charges the same tax payers money to use services, and still manages to lose billions of dollars every year is a modern marvel all in it's own right. The very fact it costs USPS more than $0.55 to deliver a letter to your mailbox (which only USPS is legally allowed to put mail into for whatever reason in 2020), is insane. Raise rates they'll say! To what end? To the point where UPS or FedEX rates start looking attractive for normal letter mail? What will happen then to the USPS? For larger packages over a few pounds, it's already insanely cheaper to ship packages via UPS or FedEx. Sometimes over half the price in difference. Neither UPS nor FedEx are subsidized by Tax Payers + Still Charge for Services. Somehow, they make a profit and deliver packages on time. The mismanagement of USPS is as criminal as it is resolute. It is not the current administration's doing - claiming so is not just intellectually dishonest, it's flatly wrong. No, the mismanagement of USPS has always been, and all signs seem to say it will always be. EDIT: It's a myth that USPS isn't tax payer funded. Pay attention to the wording they use - "Not Tax Payer Funded". That says nothing about routine bailouts[1][2][3], which are so routine they might as well be scheduled. How is a bailout not tax payer funding? Run yourself into the ground then get bailed out by tax payers again, and again, and again, and again. It would probably be more efficient to actually just give them the money up front. [1] https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-says-usps-25-billion-bailout-bill-favors-democratic-party-backed https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congressman-says... [2] https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-lost-78-billion-2007-despite-receiving-billions-taxpayers-every-year https://keller.house.gov/media/in-the-news/usps-has-lost-78-... [3] https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/ https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/

drewrv 6y ago
USPS has to deliver mail to every address in the country, whereas UPS and FedEx do not. Comparing a public service that handles the long tail and edge cases to private companies that can axe unprofitable routes (or outsource them to USPS) isn't a fair comparison.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > USPS has to deliver mail to every address in the country, whereas UPS and FedEx do not Besides the fact that this isn't true (you'd be astonished at the number of homes that USPS won't deliver to, generally rural areas[1]), it doesn't preclude USPS from being profitable if managed properly. Let's not pretend if USPS could ditch some routes it would suddenly be profitable and not need billions of tax payer capitol injection all the time. They're a long ways from that. Saddled with thousands of unproductive employees, ones that will never be fired, yet collect a paycheck paid for by tax payers, and will enjoy a comfortable retirement with all that pension money. USPS might be a quasi-private company, but they sure don't behave like a private company. [1] I'm in the industry. For these shipments we have to send them FedEx or UPS, whichever is cheapest usually, since both will deliver when USPS will not.
- kansface 6y ago
  I wonder how much of that subsidy practically goes to spam.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    I actually tried to stop the spam mail to my house. I took a mailbox full, just 2 days of mail, 99% spam, and took it into my local post office. Plopped the mail on the counter and told the clerk I no longer wanted to receive mail from any of these advertisers. Of course the clerk couldn't help me. USPS makes too much money delivering junk right to your mailbox. What a great system we're engineered here, where our national carrier service primarily slups junk mail around the country, and won't stop because it's one of their most profitable side-hustles.

missedthecue 6y ago

The prefunding period lasted ten years and was over in 2016. Even after pension funding in 2019, they lost $3.5 billion on operations. They've always been extremely inefficient. Between 1960-1995, they lost a net accumulated total of $91 billion Blaming the pension funding bill for the economic woes of the USPS is wholly inaccurate