4 ms·

You say with inflation the price of a first class stamp should be 43 cents? It's 49 cents right now... Thanks, your link seems to prove my point... Approximate

You say with inflation the price of a first class stamp should be 43 cents? It's 49 cents right now... Thanks, your link seems to prove my point... Approximately, in the first 100 years of the postal service the price went form 2 cents to 10 cents which is a 5x increase. In the year 1971, which is when the government stopped managing the postal service (this is close to our year of 1975) the price has increased another 5x to today but that has only been 39 years. Inflation has only been one factor in the changing price of first class postage over the years but thanks for your comment...

rgbrenner 12y ago
On that same page, you'll see an inflation adjusted chart of postage prices since the postage service started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates#mediaviewer/File:US_Postage_History.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag... The light purple is the inflation adjusted price (2008 prices); and the dark purple is the nominal price. That is remarkably flat (inflation adjusted). Fact is, it's been roughly 45 cents to mail a letter since the postal service began. Sure, there were times when it was cheaper.. but it was ~43 cents in 1890; 40 cents in 1975 (2008 prices); and 45 cents today (49 cents is 45 cents in 2008 prices.. which is what the chart uses).
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  I guess my argument has not been clear... I am glad you are good at reading Wikipedia charts but ONCE AGAIN inflation has never been the only factor in first class stamp pricing then or now. Sure, over the long term the cost of anything will tend to match inflation. I have been mainly talking about recent short term pricing of stamps... The original argument (by Alupis) was that the government privatizing the postal system has been making things better for consumers (compared to when it was a government agency). It has not... There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. The reason has been pension mandates by the government (due to politics) and the decline of first class mail usage. First class mail service has never been overly profitable which is why I argued a essential service like that is better run by the government (especially since the post office is not totally an independent enterprise anyway) and not a private profit-driven organization. The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) if they were still running the post office which means stamp prices would not have keep pace with inflation (over the last 100 years) incidentally. They would most likely have addressed the pension mandate and taken other measures to keep stamp prices more stable (to not piss off the consumers aka voters). It is also doubtful they would be making deals with direct marketers to flood us with more junk mail.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    > There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. ... The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) A stamp in 2001 was 34 cents. That would be 45 cents in 2013 money. The same price as a stamp in 1890. And while you blame USPS for adjusted prices for inflation, it's actually mandated by the government. USPS prices are tied to the CPI-U index by Congress. So clearly the government is happy to raise prices, since they've mandated this, and they've kept a stamp at roughly 45 cents for over 100 years.
    - 01Michael10 12y ago
      The fact (or not) that stamp prices have been increasing along side inflation is irrelevant and is still not (and shouldn't be) the only factor in raising prices! What don't you understand about raising prices "because of inflation" for an essential, constitutionally mandated service is not good for consumers aka citizens? My whole point(again) is that first class mail delivery should be handled by the government and NOT privatized. The government is supposed to handle certain things for it's citizens. Let's say in 1965 (when the postal service was running the postal service) paper costs, because of some crisis jumped 1000%. The government would not have raised the price of a stamp 1000%. A private postal service would have had to (not exactly because supply and demand is also in play) which I hope you understand. Thank God we outlawed poll taxes and didn't privatize polling places. Adjusted for inflation, we would probably be paying $50 to vote on election day. We won't get into why the government requires USPS prices be tied to the CPI-U or the pension fund mandates. Hint, union busting and lobbing money via UPS and FedEx. This wasn't really even about the postal service but why the government needs to regulate ISPs. The Internet is now an essential service and citizens shouldn't be at the whim of monopolized private companies. Well, this thread has been beat to death but thanks for playing...
abhorrence 12y ago
Even though USPS isn't "managed" by the government, the government still meddles in its affairs: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432

rgbrenner 12y ago

On that same page, you'll see an inflation adjusted chart of postage prices since the postage service started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postage_rates#mediaviewer/File:US_Postage_History.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_postag... The light purple is the inflation adjusted price (2008 prices); and the dark purple is the nominal price. That is remarkably flat (inflation adjusted). Fact is, it's been roughly 45 cents to mail a letter since the postal service began. Sure, there were times when it was cheaper.. but it was ~43 cents in 1890; 40 cents in 1975 (2008 prices); and 45 cents today (49 cents is 45 cents in 2008 prices.. which is what the chart uses).

01Michael10 12y ago
I guess my argument has not been clear... I am glad you are good at reading Wikipedia charts but ONCE AGAIN inflation has never been the only factor in first class stamp pricing then or now. Sure, over the long term the cost of anything will tend to match inflation. I have been mainly talking about recent short term pricing of stamps... The original argument (by Alupis) was that the government privatizing the postal system has been making things better for consumers (compared to when it was a government agency). It has not... There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. The reason has been pension mandates by the government (due to politics) and the decline of first class mail usage. First class mail service has never been overly profitable which is why I argued a essential service like that is better run by the government (especially since the post office is not totally an independent enterprise anyway) and not a private profit-driven organization. The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) if they were still running the post office which means stamp prices would not have keep pace with inflation (over the last 100 years) incidentally. They would most likely have addressed the pension mandate and taken other measures to keep stamp prices more stable (to not piss off the consumers aka voters). It is also doubtful they would be making deals with direct marketers to flood us with more junk mail.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  > There has been nine price increases since 2001! This has NOT been because of inflation which has been minimal and stable. ... The government never would have raised stamp prices nine times in the last 13 years (based on past history) A stamp in 2001 was 34 cents. That would be 45 cents in 2013 money. The same price as a stamp in 1890. And while you blame USPS for adjusted prices for inflation, it's actually mandated by the government. USPS prices are tied to the CPI-U index by Congress. So clearly the government is happy to raise prices, since they've mandated this, and they've kept a stamp at roughly 45 cents for over 100 years.
  - 01Michael10 12y ago
    The fact (or not) that stamp prices have been increasing along side inflation is irrelevant and is still not (and shouldn't be) the only factor in raising prices! What don't you understand about raising prices "because of inflation" for an essential, constitutionally mandated service is not good for consumers aka citizens? My whole point(again) is that first class mail delivery should be handled by the government and NOT privatized. The government is supposed to handle certain things for it's citizens. Let's say in 1965 (when the postal service was running the postal service) paper costs, because of some crisis jumped 1000%. The government would not have raised the price of a stamp 1000%. A private postal service would have had to (not exactly because supply and demand is also in play) which I hope you understand. Thank God we outlawed poll taxes and didn't privatize polling places. Adjusted for inflation, we would probably be paying $50 to vote on election day. We won't get into why the government requires USPS prices be tied to the CPI-U or the pension fund mandates. Hint, union busting and lobbing money via UPS and FedEx. This wasn't really even about the postal service but why the government needs to regulate ISPs. The Internet is now an essential service and citizens shouldn't be at the whim of monopolized private companies. Well, this thread has been beat to death but thanks for playing...

abhorrence 12y ago

Even though USPS isn't "managed" by the government, the government still meddles in its affairs: http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432 http://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432