3 ms·

If it’s vital to so much of the economy it shouldn’t have a problem charging profitable rates.

Guest42 6y ago
Research would indicate the rates are profitable as mandated by law. It is irresponsible to spread misinformation on the internet.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  I don’t understand the argument you are trying to make. That price controls are good? Or that a national carrier will always be profitable because they can just jack up their rates?
  - drcoopster 6y ago
    USPS is legally required to charge rates that don't result in a marginal loss.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    The USPS cannot "jack up the rates". The USPS cannot change prices to increase revenue. The USPS prices are set by legislation, and cannot be changed. The USPS is not intended to make a profit, and is intended to provide a public good. Implying that the prices can/should be changed is spreading misinformation.
dghlsakjg 6y ago
The USPS is profitable on the delivery side. If they were allowed to operate as a normal business they would have more revenue than Fedex and UPS. Their free flow cash margins have been positive since 2013. They would be VERY profitable except for legislative meddling. However, they have a number of legislative mandates that suck up their profits. The biggest is that they have to have cash on hand to pay out employee pensions for the next 75 years. Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money. This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable. It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with. Other legislative blocks to profitability: They ae required to deliver lettermail to every address in the US for the same rate. They don't get to set the rates for lettermail. They are prohibited from offering additional services through their branches such as copy and print services. They are prohibited by law from participating in banking and money services except for legacy paper money orders. Online service is strictly prohibited. Besides all that, there is no reason that a service considered vital to the economy has to be profitable. The postal service is one of the few essential government services that is expected to make money for some reason. We don't expect the fire department to be revenue positive even though they are allowed to charge basically anything they want for ambulance service. As an anecdata aside: I've lived in a few countries where postal service is less than reliable (don't know when the mail will come, deliverability rates are pretty bad.). It is not a desirable state of affairs. I remember my mom having to plan half a day to pay bills. She would have to go to the office, or an approved payment processor for the company and wait in line to make a payment for each bill. Contrast that with dropping a check in the mail. The internet has changed a lot of things since then, but I still see a mail service as required.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Considering how many public institutions are having pension fund issues I have a hard time being upset that at least one of them is being forced to make sure they can actually follow through with the promises, even if the rules are excessive
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >The biggest is that they have to have cash on hand to pay out employee pensions for the next 75 years. >Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money. This is not true. The law only requires saving money for accrued benefits, which makes sense to me. See section 802 and 803 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006: https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.pdf https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.p... This is how deferred compensation should work. If an employer offers deferred compensation, they should be saving sufficient funds such that even if income were to stop today, the accrued benefits would have no problem being paid from the savings. >This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable. This is also true, and the proof is "conservatives" exempted governments from the rules it wants the USPS to follow. Politicians do not want to force proper funding of government employee benefits, as then they could not advertise low taxes to voters at the same time they advertise higher compensation (via benefits in retirement) to government employee unions. >It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with. Non taxpayer funded organizations do have similar mandates. See Pension Protection Act of 2006.
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    I did repeat some lies. Thanks for pushing on me to do my research better, haha. I looked into the details to clarify: The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service. The same act also mandated that price hikes at the USPS never move faster than inflation. Very few businesses would want to operate in an environment where you're biggest liability is future healthcare costs of employees, and your revenue is tied to inflation adjusted 2006 prices.... The Pension Protection act does make pension funding more regulated, but the requirements are nowhere near requiring cash on hand to fund 50 years of obligations. Other pensions are also allowed to have assets that aren't cash, meaning they can grow. The larger point I was making, which I think is supported either way, is that the USPS is actually a viable business. The consistent profit loss is based on legislative mandates that their competitors, or anyone else, don't have to abide by.

Research would indicate the rates are profitable as mandated by law. It is irresponsible to spread misinformation on the internet.

anonuser123456 6y ago
I don’t understand the argument you are trying to make. That price controls are good? Or that a national carrier will always be profitable because they can just jack up their rates?
- drcoopster 6y ago
  USPS is legally required to charge rates that don't result in a marginal loss.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  The USPS cannot "jack up the rates". The USPS cannot change prices to increase revenue. The USPS prices are set by legislation, and cannot be changed. The USPS is not intended to make a profit, and is intended to provide a public good. Implying that the prices can/should be changed is spreading misinformation.

dghlsakjg 6y ago

The USPS is profitable on the delivery side. If they were allowed to operate as a normal business they would have more revenue than Fedex and UPS. Their free flow cash margins have been positive since 2013. They would be VERY profitable except for legislative meddling. However, they have a number of legislative mandates that suck up their profits. The biggest is that they have to have cash on hand to pay out employee pensions for the next 75 years. Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money. This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable. It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with. Other legislative blocks to profitability: They ae required to deliver lettermail to every address in the US for the same rate. They don't get to set the rates for lettermail. They are prohibited from offering additional services through their branches such as copy and print services. They are prohibited by law from participating in banking and money services except for legacy paper money orders. Online service is strictly prohibited. Besides all that, there is no reason that a service considered vital to the economy has to be profitable. The postal service is one of the few essential government services that is expected to make money for some reason. We don't expect the fire department to be revenue positive even though they are allowed to charge basically anything they want for ambulance service. As an anecdata aside: I've lived in a few countries where postal service is less than reliable (don't know when the mail will come, deliverability rates are pretty bad.). It is not a desirable state of affairs. I remember my mom having to plan half a day to pay bills. She would have to go to the office, or an approved payment processor for the company and wait in line to make a payment for each bill. Contrast that with dropping a check in the mail. The internet has changed a lot of things since then, but I still see a mail service as required.

thatguy0900 6y ago
Considering how many public institutions are having pension fund issues I have a hard time being upset that at least one of them is being forced to make sure they can actually follow through with the promises, even if the rules are excessive
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>The biggest is that they have to have cash on hand to pay out employee pensions for the next 75 years. >Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money. This is not true. The law only requires saving money for accrued benefits, which makes sense to me. See section 802 and 803 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006: https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.pdf https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.p... This is how deferred compensation should work. If an employer offers deferred compensation, they should be saving sufficient funds such that even if income were to stop today, the accrued benefits would have no problem being paid from the savings. >This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable. This is also true, and the proof is "conservatives" exempted governments from the rules it wants the USPS to follow. Politicians do not want to force proper funding of government employee benefits, as then they could not advertise low taxes to voters at the same time they advertise higher compensation (via benefits in retirement) to government employee unions. >It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with. Non taxpayer funded organizations do have similar mandates. See Pension Protection Act of 2006.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  I did repeat some lies. Thanks for pushing on me to do my research better, haha. I looked into the details to clarify: The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service. The same act also mandated that price hikes at the USPS never move faster than inflation. Very few businesses would want to operate in an environment where you're biggest liability is future healthcare costs of employees, and your revenue is tied to inflation adjusted 2006 prices.... The Pension Protection act does make pension funding more regulated, but the requirements are nowhere near requiring cash on hand to fund 50 years of obligations. Other pensions are also allowed to have assets that aren't cash, meaning they can grow. The larger point I was making, which I think is supported either way, is that the USPS is actually a viable business. The consistent profit loss is based on legislative mandates that their competitors, or anyone else, don't have to abide by.