4 ms·

Do you have a source for the post office losing "many billions" yearly aside from the pensions? Because everything I've read says the opposite - that it'd stil

Do you have a source for the post office losing "many billions" yearly aside from the pensions? Because everything I've read says the opposite - that it'd still be breaking even but for that. And while I agree that pay-as-you-go pensions aren't a good idea in this instance, the law requires the post office to pre-fund the pension system for like 75 years. So a lot of these costs are for the pensions for future letter carriers who haven't been born yet. There's a lot of room to build up a fund in a way that doesn't lead to these sorts of short-term losses.

streptomycin 14y ago
Sure. There is a lot of misinformation on the topic out there. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/who-killed-the-postal-service/249508/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/who-kill... "This past fiscal year, it lost a mere $5.1 billion. In 2012, it's facing a record $14.1 billion shortfall and possible bankruptcy. In order to turn a profit, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe says the agency needs to cut $20 billion from its annual budget by 2015. That's almost a third of its yearly costs. ... In 2006, Congress passed a new law requiring the agency to pay about $5.5 billion a year into a trust fund for future retiree health benefits."
- vacri 14y ago
  Imagine if the military had to run a direct profit in the same vein. "Sorry guys, but you need to be a profit centre". In the old days, the US got all kinds of land and resources - the military was a direct profit centre. Nowadays it's a 'welfare kid', despite the fact that it provides considerable indirect profit... just like the USPS.
  - streptomycin 14y ago
    By "indirect profit" you mean "junk mail"? That's about all it provides me. Either way, more privatization would cut the losses without causing much harm. For instance, if we let the USPS decide how much to charge for postage rather than letting congress determine that, they could bring in a lot more money. On the other hand, privatizing the military raises a number of ethical issues that don't apply for the postal service (as we have seen with Blackwater/Xe/Academi.. can you believe they changed their name again??).
- ZachPruckowski 14y ago
  OK, I think I see my confusion here - in 2011, it would have been profitable if not for the trust fund prepay, but that's not the case in FY2012 (though I wonder how it got $9 billion worse in a year)

streptomycin 14y ago

Sure. There is a lot of misinformation on the topic out there. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/who-killed-the-postal-service/249508/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/who-kill... "This past fiscal year, it lost a mere $5.1 billion. In 2012, it's facing a record $14.1 billion shortfall and possible bankruptcy. In order to turn a profit, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe says the agency needs to cut $20 billion from its annual budget by 2015. That's almost a third of its yearly costs. ... In 2006, Congress passed a new law requiring the agency to pay about $5.5 billion a year into a trust fund for future retiree health benefits."

vacri 14y ago
Imagine if the military had to run a direct profit in the same vein. "Sorry guys, but you need to be a profit centre". In the old days, the US got all kinds of land and resources - the military was a direct profit centre. Nowadays it's a 'welfare kid', despite the fact that it provides considerable indirect profit... just like the USPS.
- streptomycin 14y ago
  By "indirect profit" you mean "junk mail"? That's about all it provides me. Either way, more privatization would cut the losses without causing much harm. For instance, if we let the USPS decide how much to charge for postage rather than letting congress determine that, they could bring in a lot more money. On the other hand, privatizing the military raises a number of ethical issues that don't apply for the postal service (as we have seen with Blackwater/Xe/Academi.. can you believe they changed their name again??).
ZachPruckowski 14y ago
OK, I think I see my confusion here - in 2011, it would have been profitable if not for the trust fund prepay, but that's not the case in FY2012 (though I wonder how it got $9 billion worse in a year)