3 ms·

> the P.O. could use the income The P.O. is a service, it doesn't have need of income. Does the Department of Defence need income? Does Social Security need i

by grecy 5y ago

> the P.O. could use the income The P.O. is a service, it doesn't have need of income. Does the Department of Defence need income? Does Social Security need income? Does the EPA need income? No, because they're services, not for-profit businesses.

HappyJoy 5y ago
Yes and no. I don't have to buy missiles from the DoD like I do stamps. It's a service but it's some weird quasi-governmental-business
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  It's not unique in that respect. National parks, TSA precheck, and every version of the DMV are selling goods and services back to the public that bought them into existence.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
>The P.O. is a service, it doesn't have need of income. no but it needs funding, has the funding been good over the last few decades?
- grecy 5y ago
  "It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber."
  - dominotw 5y ago
    us army funded drug, enzalutamide, is saving my life right now. i haven't really reserached why they funded that drug but was suprised to learn that.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Education related spending in the US is at its highest ever level as a percentage of GDP. Defense spending has been going down on a GDP basis for decades.
    - moate 5y ago
      If I pay you less than what you need by 1000 dollars every month, but then raise your pay by 200 dollars, your pay "is at the highest ever level". Conversely, if I overpay you by 1000 dollars every month but make you take a 2 cent pay cut every year, my spending on you "will be going down for decades". Ratios are great except when they obscure what problem they're supposed to address.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - coredog64 5y ago
      Aggregate US educational spending across federal, state, and local governments has been higher than DoD (plus DoE) spending for as long as I can remember.
  - refurb 5y ago
    “Quote are make you feel good but don’t prove anything” -Ghandi
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Our schools (probably) have all the money they need. They have the wrong set of policies and practices in many cases, but “more money” is a simpler thing to ask for that specific improvements to educational practices.
germinalphrase 5y ago
Americans seems to have an aversion to your idea. Clearly, if it doesn’t make a profit, a private company would provide a better service at lower cost.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  The assumption in this statement is staggering. If public Company A has costs greater than revenue and is therefore losing money, private Company B will therefore (?) be able to provide a better service at lower cost? On what basis? There is no private company today that does what the USPS does. It's easy to forget while living in the metro areas most of us live in, but Fedex, UPS, and DHL often contract out to deliver to rural addresses, because they don't offer universal delivery. The contract out to the USPS, which does because it's required to. So no, I absolutely dispute that a private company would or could provide a better service than the USPS at lower cost. The USPS would be fine if not repeatedly and continually hamstrung by Congress, and no competitor comes close even so. I mean, have you compared prices recently? Today, right now, private companies are providing arguably worse services (again, more limited delivery area) at higher cost[0]. 0. https://goshippo.com/blog/which-is-cheaper-usps-vs-ups-vs-fedex/ https://goshippo.com/blog/which-is-cheaper-usps-vs-ups-vs-fe...
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    We agree; however, the efficiency of private industry over the bloated lassitude of public services is an article of faith among many.
dhosek 5y ago
The Post Office has a requirement to be self-funding and also has been saddled with a ridiculous pre-funding requirement for retiree health care that applies to no other entity. Both of these could be eliminated by congress, but there doesn't seem to be the will (and in fact, there is an ideological faction in congress that would eliminate the postal service or privatize it for their donors' benefit if they could).
- LanceH 5y ago
  By pre-funding, you mean funding. They are required to pay today for the liabilities they incur today (the promises of future healthcare). Today's liabilities (the promises) have a very real cost. Ignoring that cost elsewhere is it's own hazard. Adopting pay-as-you-go might work for governments which can loot people later or just unilaterally change the rules. Or it might work for a company while things are good, but is catastrophic when it goes bad. Actually funding things is the proper way to do it.
  - dhosek 5y ago
    It's the level of prefunding that's excessive. They need to fund retirement benefits for employees who have not yet been hired. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume
    - coredog64 5y ago
      > As things stand now, retiree healthcare, pensions, and workers’ compensation are unfunded by about $86.6 billion. USPS pensions etc. were extremely underfunded for a long time. The size, scope, and quasi-governmental nature of USPS meant that ignoring the problem was more likely to involve a bailout than responsible operations. IMO, the only unreasonable pension expectation levied on USPS is that for veterans: They’re required to pay some amount of veteran retirement benefits for some reason that I haven’t been able to make sense of.
    - LanceH 5y ago
      Again, putting aside money to meet the obligations you will incur for having an employee today is funding. It is not prefunding by any stretch. I haven't seen any mention of setting aside money for people who don't work there yet, including in your link. Asking to be treated like the government so that you can hire someone now, with promises of future payments, then pull in those payments based upon the revenue produced by future employees is analogous to a ponzi scheme. The federal government gets away with pay-as-you-go because they can set taxes, devalue money, change payment plans, etc... How much the government should be investing in providing a quality mail system is a different discussion entirely. But this discussion is basically "should pensions be funded or not". Calling it prefunding is a rhetorical device only, and doesn't stand up to actuarial scrutiny.

by grecy 5y ago

HappyJoy 5y ago

Yes and no. I don't have to buy missiles from the DoD like I do stamps. It's a service but it's some weird quasi-governmental-business

NoSorryCannot 5y ago
It's not unique in that respect. National parks, TSA precheck, and every version of the DMV are selling goods and services back to the public that bought them into existence.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

>The P.O. is a service, it doesn't have need of income. no but it needs funding, has the funding been good over the last few decades?

grecy 5y ago
"It will be a great day when our schools have all the money they need, and our air force has to have a bake-sale to buy a bomber."
- dominotw 5y ago
  us army funded drug, enzalutamide, is saving my life right now. i haven't really reserached why they funded that drug but was suprised to learn that.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Education related spending in the US is at its highest ever level as a percentage of GDP. Defense spending has been going down on a GDP basis for decades.
  - moate 5y ago
    If I pay you less than what you need by 1000 dollars every month, but then raise your pay by 200 dollars, your pay "is at the highest ever level". Conversely, if I overpay you by 1000 dollars every month but make you take a 2 cent pay cut every year, my spending on you "will be going down for decades". Ratios are great except when they obscure what problem they're supposed to address.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - coredog64 5y ago
    Aggregate US educational spending across federal, state, and local governments has been higher than DoD (plus DoE) spending for as long as I can remember.
- refurb 5y ago
  “Quote are make you feel good but don’t prove anything” -Ghandi
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Our schools (probably) have all the money they need. They have the wrong set of policies and practices in many cases, but “more money” is a simpler thing to ask for that specific improvements to educational practices.

germinalphrase 5y ago

Americans seems to have an aversion to your idea. Clearly, if it doesn’t make a profit, a private company would provide a better service at lower cost.

pwinnski 5y ago
The assumption in this statement is staggering. If public Company A has costs greater than revenue and is therefore losing money, private Company B will therefore (?) be able to provide a better service at lower cost? On what basis? There is no private company today that does what the USPS does. It's easy to forget while living in the metro areas most of us live in, but Fedex, UPS, and DHL often contract out to deliver to rural addresses, because they don't offer universal delivery. The contract out to the USPS, which does because it's required to. So no, I absolutely dispute that a private company would or could provide a better service than the USPS at lower cost. The USPS would be fine if not repeatedly and continually hamstrung by Congress, and no competitor comes close even so. I mean, have you compared prices recently? Today, right now, private companies are providing arguably worse services (again, more limited delivery area) at higher cost[0]. 0. https://goshippo.com/blog/which-is-cheaper-usps-vs-ups-vs-fedex/ https://goshippo.com/blog/which-is-cheaper-usps-vs-ups-vs-fe...
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  We agree; however, the efficiency of private industry over the bloated lassitude of public services is an article of faith among many.

dhosek 5y ago

The Post Office has a requirement to be self-funding and also has been saddled with a ridiculous pre-funding requirement for retiree health care that applies to no other entity. Both of these could be eliminated by congress, but there doesn't seem to be the will (and in fact, there is an ideological faction in congress that would eliminate the postal service or privatize it for their donors' benefit if they could).

LanceH 5y ago
By pre-funding, you mean funding. They are required to pay today for the liabilities they incur today (the promises of future healthcare). Today's liabilities (the promises) have a very real cost. Ignoring that cost elsewhere is it's own hazard. Adopting pay-as-you-go might work for governments which can loot people later or just unilaterally change the rules. Or it might work for a company while things are good, but is catastrophic when it goes bad. Actually funding things is the proper way to do it.
- dhosek 5y ago
  It's the level of prefunding that's excessive. They need to fund retirement benefits for employees who have not yet been hired. https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/be-careful-what-you-assume
  - coredog64 5y ago
    > As things stand now, retiree healthcare, pensions, and workers’ compensation are unfunded by about $86.6 billion. USPS pensions etc. were extremely underfunded for a long time. The size, scope, and quasi-governmental nature of USPS meant that ignoring the problem was more likely to involve a bailout than responsible operations. IMO, the only unreasonable pension expectation levied on USPS is that for veterans: They’re required to pay some amount of veteran retirement benefits for some reason that I haven’t been able to make sense of.
  - LanceH 5y ago
    Again, putting aside money to meet the obligations you will incur for having an employee today is funding. It is not prefunding by any stretch. I haven't seen any mention of setting aside money for people who don't work there yet, including in your link. Asking to be treated like the government so that you can hire someone now, with promises of future payments, then pull in those payments based upon the revenue produced by future employees is analogous to a ponzi scheme. The federal government gets away with pay-as-you-go because they can set taxes, devalue money, change payment plans, etc... How much the government should be investing in providing a quality mail system is a different discussion entirely. But this discussion is basically "should pensions be funded or not". Calling it prefunding is a rhetorical device only, and doesn't stand up to actuarial scrutiny.