3 ms·

That would work too, but even those with defined benefit plans are required to fund them at the present discounted rate, just as the postal service was. It's no

by SilasX 5y ago

That would work too, but even those with defined benefit plans are required to fund them at the present discounted rate, just as the postal service was. It's not an absurd condition, though I am happy to accept there's room for reasonable disagreement on the exact timetable for coming into compliance.

ddingus 5y ago
So am I, and the big harm done here was the Bush Admin rate table reforms. Basically, the Post carries a ton of big publishing and other package traffic at a near loss, or flat out loss, with increases in letter rates and small scale package traffic intended to make up the difference. It didn't.
mindslight 5y ago
What's absurd is that this accounting has been turned into a political talking point with useful idiots asserting the organization is broken because it's not turning a profit. Meanwhile the Department of War spends trillions every year and yet nobody compares it to an insolvent business, seemingly because the spending benefits those who define the popular talking points.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Which would be a fine point to argue, “let’s take this back to a pure service model funded out of taxes”; but at some point they decided to make it self funding with some monopoly privileges (hence the gaudy signs they put up about not taking tax money) and as long as we’re going to stick with that decision, then yes, they need to recognize pension liabilities as liabilities and prefund them like any other corporation.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    As a libertarian, I'd be 100% in favor of removing the prohibition on private parties competing with the USPS in exchange for the postal service being overtly subsidized. But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      As one who leans left, I agree with you. >But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    The post runs on postage, not taxes. It should run on postage, and should be able to expand its services
    - SilasX 5y ago
      And in that model it should be funding its deferred compensation and recognizing such on the books as a liability. It wasn’t before.

by SilasX 5y ago

ddingus 5y ago

So am I, and the big harm done here was the Bush Admin rate table reforms. Basically, the Post carries a ton of big publishing and other package traffic at a near loss, or flat out loss, with increases in letter rates and small scale package traffic intended to make up the difference. It didn't.

mindslight 5y ago

What's absurd is that this accounting has been turned into a political talking point with useful idiots asserting the organization is broken because it's not turning a profit. Meanwhile the Department of War spends trillions every year and yet nobody compares it to an insolvent business, seemingly because the spending benefits those who define the popular talking points.

SilasX 5y ago
Which would be a fine point to argue, “let’s take this back to a pure service model funded out of taxes”; but at some point they decided to make it self funding with some monopoly privileges (hence the gaudy signs they put up about not taking tax money) and as long as we’re going to stick with that decision, then yes, they need to recognize pension liabilities as liabilities and prefund them like any other corporation.
- mindslight 5y ago
  As a libertarian, I'd be 100% in favor of removing the prohibition on private parties competing with the USPS in exchange for the postal service being overtly subsidized. But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    As one who leans left, I agree with you. >But since I recognize that that oligopolistic companies can be just as oppressive as de jure government (hence the small "l"), I can't see the ongoing political arc against the USPS as anything but an attempt by the private carriers to destroy the public institution such that they can better price gouge.
- ddingus 5y ago
  The post runs on postage, not taxes. It should run on postage, and should be able to expand its services
  - SilasX 5y ago
    And in that model it should be funding its deferred compensation and recognizing such on the books as a liability. It wasn’t before.