3 ms·

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 t

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.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
>The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service. I do not see this in the text of the law in sections 802 or 803. Where is this information about specifically having "cash on hand" and "50 years out"? >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 USPS is unfairly handicapped by being legislated to be operated as a businesses, yet somehow also legislated to have maximum prices. However, you don't have to be an actuary to know that no entity can possibly make good on offering healthcare for the entire life of their employees unless they have a money printing machine (aka federal government). >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. I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but I disagree that their competitors (namely UPS and FedEx) don't have to abide by similar legislative mandates. As far as I know, no company provides ridiculous benefits such as healthcare after you retire. And if it did, it would be similarly screwed as USPS. Is it unfair that Congress forced USPS to actually set aside money for the healthcare that they promised their employees? Maybe the amortization schedule is unfair, but it should have been in effect a long time ago, one could make the argument that USPS prices have been too low considering the lavish benefits they have been promising. However, I also know that Congress has hamstrung USPS from actually being able to properly operate as a business. Bottom line, USPS is a whipping boy for Congress, but the problem isn't the proper requirements to set aside funds for promised benefits. The problem is Congress using USPS as a political tool, simultaneously not letting them operate as a business, and not letting them have access to the money printing abilities of the federal government.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

>The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service. I do not see this in the text of the law in sections 802 or 803. Where is this information about specifically having "cash on hand" and "50 years out"? >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 USPS is unfairly handicapped by being legislated to be operated as a businesses, yet somehow also legislated to have maximum prices. However, you don't have to be an actuary to know that no entity can possibly make good on offering healthcare for the entire life of their employees unless they have a money printing machine (aka federal government). >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. I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but I disagree that their competitors (namely UPS and FedEx) don't have to abide by similar legislative mandates. As far as I know, no company provides ridiculous benefits such as healthcare after you retire. And if it did, it would be similarly screwed as USPS. Is it unfair that Congress forced USPS to actually set aside money for the healthcare that they promised their employees? Maybe the amortization schedule is unfair, but it should have been in effect a long time ago, one could make the argument that USPS prices have been too low considering the lavish benefits they have been promising. However, I also know that Congress has hamstrung USPS from actually being able to properly operate as a business. Bottom line, USPS is a whipping boy for Congress, but the problem isn't the proper requirements to set aside funds for promised benefits. The problem is Congress using USPS as a political tool, simultaneously not letting them operate as a business, and not letting them have access to the money printing abilities of the federal government.