By the way, while there is *actual* fake news, most real news has "editorial bias" because it is reported and written by human beings, who are in general not completely unbiased however they may try.
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general? The only exceptions I can think of are activist outlets, which are biased as all hell by definition, and tax or TV license funded organizations like the BBC (who have managed to become an activist outlet somehow).
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general?
No, it does not. Mainstream media faces major repercussions for posting false stories, and it becomes a huge scandal. They aspire to journalistic standards of avoiding sole-source stories, and understand that credibility is their greatest asset.
The actual fake news willingly misrepresents the news or outright fabricates it in order to make money and/or push an agenda. Much like you misrepresented the GP's position with your cherry-picked quote, in order to draw a false equivalence and further your personal
So spinning and editing a quote to make it seem something different was said is not "fake news"?
The "60 Minutes" television show is infamous for doing just this.
That's why there are multiple news outlets for people to choose from. It only becomes a real problem when people with power try to selectively curtail some of them.
That's why there are multiple news outlets for people to choose from. It only becomes a real problem when people with power try to selectively curtail some of them.
The problem is most people are completely lousy at filtering nonsense from sense. I mean you have fox news who spent two presidential terms airing uncritical claims that the president is some sort of kenyan homo-communist muslim athiest without even stopping to say "You know, this might actually be crazy nonsense". And since so many people rely o
And so we seer the bias, you could have also described how CNN spent all the campaign airing uncritical claims against Trump, but you didn't.
This is the bias we're talking of, the idea that the bad stuff only happens from one side, whilst casually ignoring the same crap from the other side.
the only solution today is to read as much different places as you can, read both a Breitbart and a Guardian (or a Fox and a CNN). They are both as shit as each other, but once you view them both equally, you realise wha
I read Breitbart occasonally, its interesting. I just wish the media would also follow up on the stories BB runs instead of ignoring them as its obvious there's interest in knowing of the usua reported atrocities out there.
But until the media does get a little less biased and propagandising, I'll just have to make do with what I can and attempt to fill in the blanks with a widespread read of various sites.
Incidentally, the most amusing one at the moment is Guido Fawkes' Order Order. those hypocritical and n
Bezo's owns the Washington Post, which has been dogging the Russia and obstruction of justice investigations.
In fact, you can predict when a new Post story is about to break some news, because Trump will attack the Post or Bezos or Amazon about ten minutes prior to release.
Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
seriously? USPS operates at a loss, Trumps says they should charge more then to be profitable (or not run at a loss) and its an attack on fake news from a left-wing news site?
Maybe he's more interested in the fiscal issues of subsidising the postal service and hitting the near-monopoly (and tax avoiding) user of the service is a good soundbite. But I guess it doesn't matter what he does, you're so indoctrinated Trump will always be bad. He could hand out free puppies to all children, and you'd scream and co
I know they are going to mod you down so I'll say it a little more softly.
President Trump tweets something bizarre in order to distract everyone from other news less favorable to him.
His behavior towards his daughter is creepy.
He's accused by over a dozen women of sexually assaulting them and he said on tape that he sexually assaults women ("grabs them by the pussy") because he can get away with it because he's rich and famous.
I disagree on Russia. Mr. Trump has screamed in fear a couple times now includin
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth. Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral. Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: wh
it's unconstitutional. It's against the law to write laws that single out an individual or individual group. That was expressly forbade in our constitution, and for damn good reason.
Fuck the USPS, what we need is a last mile solution. And how we need to get that is to [literally?] hold the telco execs' feet to the fire until they give us what we paid for. Seriously, all this snail mail is dumb. It should just be packages.
I've yet to see a country with a functional postal system. Pretty much all of them seem to deliver more junk than actual mail. That's pretty dysfunctional.
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot. Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner? Last I checked, private entities and people should not be subject to defamation by the government unless without due process and a trial. If any other president told peo
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
Raising prices isn't how it "is supposed to work". If it was, making money would be easy. Open a store, keep raising prices until you make a profit.
Amazon charges $0 for a lot of their shipping and they are making money despite charging less for shipping than the cost of shipping.
USPS isn't subsidizing Amazon, they are offering a service at a price and Amazon and every other person who ships items through the USPS pays that price. That the USPS overall is losing money is more complex than what they charg
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Every business passes on every regulatory and other cost on to it's customers, because that is where 100% of their revenue comes from - the only money a company has is the money it collects from it's customers.
I remember years ago when the gov't passed a new tax to be applied to every telephone account - the idea was to soak the rich telecos, but the telcos simply added a line item to everyone's phone bill and directly passed that new tax on to their customers.
it wouldn't surprise me if he got the Post Office to rescind postal neutrality as well. Which would be hilarious as it would mostly harm those that voted for him.
Almost all of Trumps policies disproportionally hurt those who voted for him.
Someone who apparently thinks it's cool for the USPS to subsidize Amazon shipping, and also can't even get straight what media companies Bezos owns, should not be modded up. I invite everyone to head over to MetaMod [slashdot.org], where you can rate the choices the moderators make and give these moderators a bit of a spanking.
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday December 29, 2017 @08:57PM (#55831783)
They only can't compete because Congress forces them to pre-fund their employees retirement for some ridiculous number of decades - something no other business in the country does.
Additionally, the USPS's charge is to connect every person in America no matter how remote and unprofitable. The point is to have a service to connect far away Alaska villages that have no profit motive for FedEx etc. to connect. It's the same with public transit - the point isn't to make money, it's to enable and improve our lives in a worthwhile way.
If they don't do it, it simply won't happen. The corps aren't going to expand into areas without high profit. Average Americans have a higher quality of life due to cheap/affordable postal services.
What the postal service was doing, and is supposed to stop doing, is the kind of accounting that sent Enron executives to prison. If anyone but the postal service was hiding a $120 billion liability, it would be called "fraud".
What they were doing is saying to employees "work for us today, and we'll not only pay you today, we'll keep paying you after you retire, until you die." Someone can retire from USPS at the age of 56, so their retirement payments may be almost as much as their salary, or even more. Over the course of 30 years of retirement, the worker might be owed $840,000. So they had workers doing the work in say 1995, promised to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars "later", but never set aside any money to be able to make good on those promises.
They owe about $120 billion - for work already done, and hadn't set anything aside to pay it. Most "every other business in the country" funds your 401K or other retirement by sending their contribution to a third-party investment bank every time you get a paycheck. You work this month, they pay for it this month, including the retirement part. State retirement plans work the same way, at least where I'm from in Texas - whichever agency you work for, when they pay for this year's work, they also pay whatever retirement they'll owe for this year's work. They don't have you work today and say "we'll worry about how to pay for it 20 years from now".
In 2006 they were given fifteen years to get caught up on the retirement they owed. They haven't come come close, because they are losing money. Any "profit" has to go toward funding the retirement promises they've made, but the "profit" hasn't been nearly enough and the number of letters they carry has fallen 30% over the last ten years, so it's unlikely they'll ever be able to pay for the retirement they are promising today's employees. They'll need the taxpayers to bail them out.
They owe about $120 billion - for work already done, and hadn't set anything aside to pay it. Most "every other business in the country" funds your 401K or other retirement by sending their contribution to a third-party investment bank every time you get a paycheck. You work this month, they pay for it this month, including the retirement part.
So every other private (non-public) retirement/pension plan EXCEPT the USPS plan is fully-funded? I'd like to see proof of that!
The post office has the best-funded pension/retirement plan of ANY federal program:
So every other private (non-public) retirement/pension plan EXCEPT the USPS plan is fully-funded? I'd like to see proof of that!
Then the keywords for you to Google are "ERISA" and "Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation". ERISA is the federal law that says pension and other retirement programs offered by private companies must be properly funded *at the time the employee earns the benefit by doing the work*, not 30 years later, after they've already retired and payments are due. They also must be insured by
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
> that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years.
False. The five-year requirement is that every five years they have to calculate how far in the hole they are. (How much they owe to workers who have already worked, or are working on today, and whom they've promised decades of retirement pay to, without funding that promise.)
> If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension
Actually as a Brit, I'm speaking about the experience of much of Europe, where we have massive unfunded pension liabilities in the public sector. Do your civil service employees' pension costs form a fund or are they also a black hole?
In the1980s the US realized this was a big problem with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, so they switched to the "fully funded" Federal Employees Retirement System for people hired since 1984.
CSRF has a trust fund too, but it's not enough. One might think "1984 was a long time ago, it's okay now". But that was for people HIRED then. Some people were hired in 1980 and worked under CSRF until 2010. They'll be getting retirement payments in 2040.
Under both CSRF and FERS, each government *agency* pays in t
Do they really require the USPS to take over military pensions like I read in the past for prior military that get jobs at USPS?
Tim S.
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service.
Argentina took a different route: every package you get from abroad (especially China) is held by customs. Then they send you a letter demanding you pay them about USD 8 + import taxes. There's no "free shipping" here.
I'm baffled as to how many people could have forgotten what the US Post looked like 10 years ago (pre-Amazon-boom).
It was failing and they were talking about reducing their delivery days even more than they already had. They were hemorrhaging money and could not find a way to bring themselves back from the brink. Why? Because they don't receive Government Funding and people had stopped sending letters.
Amazon made them relevant again, although I'm not terribly surprised that our current Drumpfster Fire is gl
The US post was never supposed to be a private corporation. It doesn't matter if it turns a profit or not. It's one of the few things that the federal government is actually empowered to do.
The fact that a government service can't "compete" is no excuse to give Amazon corporate welfare.
The postal service doesn't need to be "relevant".
HELL, I wish there was a "no USPS" option on my own Amazon packages.
I don't mind the postal service at all, as you've said they have improved.
But I do think Amazon could pay them more and the government prop up the post office less. Why does that have to hurt the post office? They could still deliver Amazon packages, just pay what it actually costs to ship them.
I don't mind the postal service at all, as you've said they have improved.
But I do think Amazon could pay them more and the government prop up the post office less. Why does that have to hurt the post office? They could still deliver Amazon packages, just pay what it actually costs to ship them.
Because FedEX and UPS don't deliver to most of the rural US. Typical city dweller...most rural areas are only served by USPS which is why it runs at a loss. Also because leaders 100 years ago knew it was a good thing to promote a global mail/package delivery system.
They are subsidizing Amazon, also every rural address is subsidized as well as every other business that involves package delivery. This isn't political but somehow you (and Trump) are turning a very successful government service (over 100 years, can move a letter from one end of the country to the other in 3 days for less than 50 cents) into a political stunt. If you support reducing the USPS, then you are the type of person who politicizes everything to the detriment of everyone...and even worse without even trying to understand the situation which in this case is actually quite easy to understand.
In Europe it's usual for any company offering a private postal service to have to accept the universal mandate, i.e. deliver everywhere for the same price.
I guess it raises prices slightly but it's like universal telephone/broadband/water/electric service.
Seeing one group - recipients of federal subsidies - against another - taxpayers - is what politics is all about. Farm subsidies are another way that rural residents are benefiting against ordinary tax payers...
The UPS trucks rolls down the two lane rural road then up the 1/4 mile dirt road to my parent's farmhouse and drops off packages all the time. They do have surcharges for many zip codes to reflect the higher cost of delivery but it is false to state that they "don't deliver to most of the rural US"
Because FedEX and UPS don't deliver to most of the rural US. Typical city dweller...
I lived for a long time in a very rural area (foothills of mountains, not even a suburb) and we got delivery from UPS, possibly also FedEx.
I think *YOU* are probably more than a bit out of touch without how widespread those services are.
But again, I'm not even saying Amazon should not use the USPS, just that they should at least pay for cost of services. Not sure how that ends up being controversial.
Then they have to charge everyone else higher rates, even those on low incomes. It's the equivalent of net neutrality. The post office can charge different rates for parcels by their size, their weight, or the distance being shipped, but they can't charge by who is sending the parcel or who is receiving the item.
That part aside, how is it cool for the president to publicly target companies he doesnâ(TM)t like. If amazon is doing something illegal then give them due process and a trial. Remember trump himself took advantage of tax loopholes and immigration loopholes to enrich himself and then declared himself âoesmartâ.. why isnâ(TM)t he exalting amazon instead of defaming them?
Absolutely. Despise President Trump but if we are delivering amazon packages at a discount, we are killing local businesses, jobs, and economies (directly pumping money out of economies in one cycle instead of the usual 6-8 cycles).
Even a slow and partially broken clock may be occasionally correct.
Amazon is making things cheaper-- but the USPS should not be subsidizing it's business model.
Of course- since Mr. Trump said it, I doubt it's true. That man lies so much that he has no credibility.
Hm... free market , western democracy style... dam those commies and their regulated everything. All hail the united lobbies of the free world, where cops, judges and politicians are superman, no need to sleep, they never lie and they can't make mistakes since paper is so easily erased, happy new year
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house."
-- George Carlin
Fake News (Score:4, Interesting)
While they probably should, Trump feels this way because Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT - or as Trump says "Fake News"...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, while there is *actual* fake news, most real news has "editorial bias" because it is reported and written by human beings, who are in general not completely unbiased however they may try.
Re: (Score:2)
the purpose of monetary gain
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general? The only exceptions I can think of are activist outlets, which are biased as all hell by definition, and tax or TV license funded organizations like the BBC (who have managed to become an activist outlet somehow).
Re: (Score:2)
knowingly false for the purpose of monetary gain
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general?
No, it does not. Mainstream media faces major repercussions for posting false stories, and it becomes a huge scandal. They aspire to journalistic standards of avoiding sole-source stories, and understand that credibility is their greatest asset.
The actual fake news willingly misrepresents the news or outright fabricates it in order to make money and/or push an agenda. Much like you misrepresented the GP's position with your cherry-picked quote, in order to draw a false equivalence and further your personal
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, while there is *actual* fake news, most real news has "editorial bias" because it is reported and written
and read or consumed
by human beings, who are in general not completely unbiased however they may try.
Re: (Score:1)
That's why there are multiple news outlets for people to choose from. It only becomes a real problem when people with power try to selectively curtail some of them.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is most people are completely lousy at filtering nonsense from sense. I mean you have fox news who spent two presidential terms airing uncritical claims that the president is some sort of kenyan homo-communist muslim athiest without even stopping to say "You know, this might actually be crazy nonsense". And since so many people rely o
Re: (Score:3)
And so we seer the bias, you could have also described how CNN spent all the campaign airing uncritical claims against Trump, but you didn't.
This is the bias we're talking of, the idea that the bad stuff only happens from one side, whilst casually ignoring the same crap from the other side.
the only solution today is to read as much different places as you can, read both a Breitbart and a Guardian (or a Fox and a CNN). They are both as shit as each other, but once you view them both equally, you realise wha
Re: (Score:2)
I could see your Fox and CNN but you lost me when Breitbart got involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely ignoring the fact that the rules haven't taken effect yet since they need to be entered into the federal register first..?
Re: (Score:2)
I read Breitbart occasonally, its interesting. I just wish the media would also follow up on the stories BB runs instead of ignoring them as its obvious there's interest in knowing of the usua reported atrocities out there.
But until the media does get a little less biased and propagandising, I'll just have to make do with what I can and attempt to fill in the blanks with a widespread read of various sites.
Incidentally, the most amusing one at the moment is Guido Fawkes' Order Order. those hypocritical and n
Re: (Score:2)
I read Breitbart occasonally, its interesting.
Because you are a moron?
Re: Fake News (Score:1)
The New York Times is actually owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family, with additional help from Carlos Slim.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bezo's owns the Washington Post, which has been dogging the Russia and obstruction of justice investigations.
In fact, you can predict when a new Post story is about to break some news, because Trump will attack the Post or Bezos or Amazon about ten minutes prior to release.
Re: (Score:1)
Fake news for a fake president. Sort of a double-negative thing.
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that.
It may actually be a good point that the USPS should be charging Amazon more, but that common sense approach would have to apply to EVERY company and individual that ships a package via USPS.
Amazon is on track to provide its own delivery system. including the last mile.
The monopolistic ambiance of commerce regulators will allow it and USPS, UPS, and FedEx will hurt like hell, just as retail has, because of the "Amazon Effect."
Re: (Score:2)
Congress should allow USPS to specifically charge Amazon more than others, on the grounds of preventing monopoly. Unfortunately that would be unpopular with consumers (and would violate Postal Neutrality). Maybe Trump's attempt of shaming USPS publicly into feeling stupid for helping Amazon would have some effect.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe you missed the goddam point that the pussy grabbing asshat was taking a jab at WaPo.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true that I never grabbed you.
Re: (Score:2)
seriously? USPS operates at a loss, Trumps says they should charge more then to be profitable (or not run at a loss) and its an attack on fake news from a left-wing news site?
Maybe he's more interested in the fiscal issues of subsidising the postal service and hitting the near-monopoly (and tax avoiding) user of the service is a good soundbite. But I guess it doesn't matter what he does, you're so indoctrinated Trump will always be bad. He could hand out free puppies to all children, and you'd scream and co
Re: (Score:1)
USPS doesn't operate at a loss because of Amazon you insensitive clod.
Goddammit pay attention to TFA.
Re: (Score:1)
I know they are going to mod you down so I'll say it a little more softly.
President Trump tweets something bizarre in order to distract everyone from other news less favorable to him.
His behavior towards his daughter is creepy.
He's accused by over a dozen women of sexually assaulting them and he said on tape that he sexually assaults women ("grabs them by the pussy") because he can get away with it because he's rich and famous.
I disagree on Russia. Mr. Trump has screamed in fear a couple times now includin
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Net Neutrality is gone, can Postal Neutrality be far behind?
Re: (Score:2)
Works OK in the UK, to a point. Businesses that send a lot of post get a preferential rate, hence all the junk mail we enjoy (well, I enjoy putting it in the shredder). I guess that's not "neutral" as it charges differently to different customers.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Re: (Score:2)
Selling stuff in bulk doesn't break neutrality, at least as long as they sell it to any legal business that wants to buy in bulk.
Only if by "bulk" you mean shipping containers instead of parcels. Delivering 1000 packages for Amazon should cost exactly the same as delivering 1000 packages for 1000 different individuals (assuming they all dropped off their packages at the same post office). Doing anything else does not conform to neutrality, as that would punish the smaller players simply due to their inability to negotiate a deal. This is highly anti-competitive and it's exactly what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
Volume discounts are normal in most any business. Here there is network neutrality but it doesn't stop my ISP from doubling my bandwidth for 30% more cost even though I'd be using 2 households of regular bandwidth.
Likewise the post office here gives deals if you buy a bunch of stamps at once. As long as they aren't playing favourites, it's neutral.
Likewise as long as everyone who shows up with a thousand packages gets the same deal, it's neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be 100% unconstitutional for Congress to pass a bill allowing the USPS to charge Amazon more than others. That's called a Bill of Attainer. At best Congress would have to pass a bill identifying a class of customers, but doing so is likely to cement Amazon's dominance, not reduce it, as it would impact all Amazon's competitors.
Also worth noting: just because the USPS makes a loss doesn't mean they make a loss on everything. Their contract with Amazon is almost certainly a major profit center: wh
It's not just common sense (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
it's unconstitutional. It's against the law to write laws that single out an individual or individual group.
Really?
Felons, as a group and as individuals can't own or be in possession of guns.
Prisoners, as a group or an individuals, are not free to assemble or roam about the country.
Children, as a group and as individuals, cannot own a beer joint
You make extend the list
Re: Fake News (Score:1)
Don't worry, net neutrality will stop them from doing that.
Interesting; thank you (Score:2)
One can only assume that Americans regarded this as from outside the USA and so insignificant to real people ;)
Congress has the power - but not the duty (Score:2)
So it's legitimate to suggest that the Federal government stops doing a post office, just as it doesn't hand out privateer licences any more.
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't you take your anarcho-capitalism and fuck off to some country where this is appreciated. Somalia maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the USPS, what we need is a last mile solution. And how we need to get that is to [literally?] hold the telco execs' feet to the fire until they give us what we paid for. Seriously, all this snail mail is dumb. It should just be packages.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have no appreciation for having a functional postal system.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
I've yet to see a country with a functional postal system. Pretty much all of them seem to deliver more junk than actual mail. That's pretty dysfunctional.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans have no appreciation for having a functional postal system.
It was awesome once. Now it's stupid. What year is it? We're still sending information back and forth on slips of paper?
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
If the USPS raised rates because it was selling below cost and Amazon raised their price because they were shipping below cost then this is how it is supposed to work. Trump is right that the USPS shouldn't be subsidizing Amazon. But what would likely actually happen is that Amazon would switch to other carriers and/or increase the amount they deliver directly and the USPS would likely just lose that business completely.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot. Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner? Last I checked, private entities and people should not be subject to defamation by the government unless without due process and a trial. If any other president told peo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the moron himself runs the USPS or âoeUnited States Post Officeâ (does that even exist?). How can someone b!tch about an organization they themselves run? Itâ(TM)s like he is officially declaring himself to be an idiot.
The president neither runs nor sets the prices for the USPS. He does though have a giant soapbox that he can use. Complaining about the prices charged and requesting congress to help him change them is probably an appropriate job for the president if the president really believes this to be true.
Second, is it legal for a president to punish and interfere with the private sector in this manner?
Even though the president doesn't run the USPS, the USPS is owned and managed by the USA government. The USPS is not private.
Re: (Score:2)
Raising prices isn't how it "is supposed to work". If it was, making money would be easy. Open a store, keep raising prices until you make a profit.
Amazon charges $0 for a lot of their shipping and they are making money despite charging less for shipping than the cost of shipping.
USPS isn't subsidizing Amazon, they are offering a service at a price and Amazon and every other person who ships items through the USPS pays that price. That the USPS overall is losing money is more complex than what they charg
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Besides, even if the USPS charged more, how many of you would bet that Amazon wouldn't just simply pass the rate hike on to consumers? Any businessman worth half his salt would do that.
Every business passes on every regulatory and other cost on to it's customers, because that is where 100% of their revenue comes from - the only money a company has is the money it collects from it's customers.
I remember years ago when the gov't passed a new tax to be applied to every telephone account - the idea was to soak the rich telecos, but the telcos simply added a line item to everyone's phone bill and directly passed that new tax on to their customers.
Gov't tried to force the telcos to stop itemizi
Re: (Score:1)
it wouldn't surprise me if he got the Post Office to rescind postal neutrality as well. Which would be hilarious as it would mostly harm those that voted for him.
Almost all of Trumps policies disproportionally hurt those who voted for him.
Re:Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
When did Bezos buy the Times? I know he owns the Washington Post...
Re: (Score:2)
When did Bezos buy the Times? I know he owns the Washington Post...
And there is the irony of people calling "Fake News" who have no idea themselves what is going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Not fake news, it was an alternative fact posted on his Twitter account by his lawyer's uncle. Can't prove it wasn't!
Drain the pond.
Build the fence.
Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
unless something's happened that didn't make the news I though Bezos owned the Washington Post. Which is probably Enemy number 3 or 4
The Free Press is enemy #1. WaPo, CNN, NYT, LA Times et al are just the enemy's armies.
Off to MetaMod (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who apparently thinks it's cool for the USPS to subsidize Amazon shipping, and also can't even get straight what media companies Bezos owns, should not be modded up. I invite everyone to head over to MetaMod [slashdot.org], where you can rate the choices the moderators make and give these moderators a bit of a spanking.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
Re:Off to MetaMod (Score:5, Informative)
They only can't compete because Congress forces them to pre-fund their employees retirement for some ridiculous number of decades - something no other business in the country does.
Additionally, the USPS's charge is to connect every person in America no matter how remote and unprofitable. The point is to have a service to connect far away Alaska villages that have no profit motive for FedEx etc. to connect. It's the same with public transit - the point isn't to make money, it's to enable and improve our lives in a worthwhile way.
Re: (Score:1)
False. Any private CEO would get jail (Enron) (Score:4, Informative)
What the postal service was doing, and is supposed to stop doing, is the kind of accounting that sent Enron executives to prison. If anyone but the postal service was hiding a $120 billion liability, it would be called "fraud".
What they were doing is saying to employees "work for us today, and we'll not only pay you today, we'll keep paying you after you retire, until you die." Someone can retire from USPS at the age of 56, so their retirement payments may be almost as much as their salary, or even more. Over the course of 30 years of retirement, the worker might be owed $840,000. So they had workers doing the work in say 1995, promised to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars "later", but never set aside any money to be able to make good on those promises.
They owe about $120 billion - for work already done, and hadn't set anything aside to pay it. Most "every other business in the country" funds your 401K or other retirement by sending their contribution to a third-party investment bank every time you get a paycheck. You work this month, they pay for it this month, including the retirement part. State retirement plans work the same way, at least where I'm from in Texas - whichever agency you work for, when they pay for this year's work, they also pay whatever retirement they'll owe for this year's work. They don't have you work today and say "we'll worry about how to pay for it 20 years from now".
In 2006 they were given fifteen years to get caught up on the retirement they owed. They haven't come come close, because they are losing money. Any "profit" has to go toward funding the retirement promises they've made, but the "profit" hasn't been nearly enough and the number of letters they carry has fallen 30% over the last ten years, so it's unlikely they'll ever be able to pay for the retirement they are promising today's employees. They'll need the taxpayers to bail them out.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/450184... [cnbc.com]
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: False. Any private CEO would get jail (Enron) (Score:2)
They owe about $120 billion - for work already done, and hadn't set anything aside to pay it. Most "every other business in the country" funds your 401K or other retirement by sending their contribution to a third-party investment bank every time you get a paycheck. You work this month, they pay for it this month, including the retirement part.
So every other private (non-public) retirement/pension plan EXCEPT the USPS plan is fully-funded? I'd like to see proof of that!
The post office has the best-funded pension/retirement plan of ANY federal program:
The Postal Service has set-aside cash totals of more than $335 billion for its pensions and retiree healthcare, exceeding 83 percent of estimated future payouts. Its pension plans are nearly completely funded and its retiree healthcare liability is 50 percent funded â" much better than the rest [uspsoig.gov]
Read your own quote carefully (Score:2)
So every other private (non-public) retirement/pension plan EXCEPT the USPS plan is fully-funded? I'd like to see proof of that!
Then the keywords for you to Google are "ERISA" and "Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation". ERISA is the federal law that says pension and other retirement programs offered by private companies must be properly funded *at the time the employee earns the benefit by doing the work*, not 30 years later, after they've already retired and payments are due. They also must be insured by
Re:Off to MetaMod (Score:5, Informative)
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
False and extra false (Score:3, Informative)
> that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years.
False. The five-year requirement is that every five years they have to calculate how far in the hole they are. (How much they owe to workers who have already worked, or are working on today, and whom they've promised decades of retirement pay to, without funding that promise.)
> If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension
However the rest of government works like that (Score:2)
Actually as a Brit, I'm speaking about the experience of much of Europe, where we have massive unfunded pension liabilities in the public sector. Do your civil service employees' pension costs form a fund or are they also a black hole?
US switched to fully funded in 1984. Sort of (Score:2)
In the1980s the US realized this was a big problem with the Civil Service Retirement Fund, so they switched to the "fully funded" Federal Employees Retirement System for people hired since 1984.
CSRF has a trust fund too, but it's not enough. One might think "1984 was a long time ago, it's okay now". But that was for people HIRED then. Some people were hired in 1980 and worked under CSRF until 2010. They'll be getting retirement payments in 2040.
Under both CSRF and FERS, each government *agency* pays in t
Thanks - very helpful (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:1)
Tim S.
Without subsidy the USPS will need to scale down massively, they can't compete in a free market environment.
The USPS is not subsidized by the US government/taxpayers. Their rates are set by the government, but they operate entirely on the funds that they generate directly.
Even then, they'll always run losses because the international treaties rapes every western postal service. If Trump wants to do something useful he should unilaterally get the US out of the treaty of Bern.
The USPS is profitable. The reported shortfall in their budget was due to congress passing a new requirement (which only applied to the USPS) that they pre-fund their retirement account fully within five years. Meaning that the full retirement package for every postal service employee is fully paid. If every employee retired now (even if they were just hired and thus are not eligible for retirement benefits...) the full amount of their retirement pension is covered.
It is not a bad thing, but it was done in such a way as to make the USPS look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Argentina took a different route: every package you get from abroad (especially China) is held by customs. Then they send you a letter demanding you pay them about USD 8 + import taxes. There's no "free shipping" here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm baffled as to how many people could have forgotten what the US Post looked like 10 years ago (pre-Amazon-boom).
It was failing and they were talking about reducing their delivery days even more than they already had. They were hemorrhaging money and could not find a way to bring themselves back from the brink. Why? Because they don't receive Government Funding and people had stopped sending letters.
Amazon made them relevant again, although I'm not terribly surprised that our current Drumpfster Fire is gl
Re: (Score:3)
The US post was never supposed to be a private corporation. It doesn't matter if it turns a profit or not. It's one of the few things that the federal government is actually empowered to do.
The fact that a government service can't "compete" is no excuse to give Amazon corporate welfare.
The postal service doesn't need to be "relevant".
HELL, I wish there was a "no USPS" option on my own Amazon packages.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't mind the postal service at all, as you've said they have improved.
But I do think Amazon could pay them more and the government prop up the post office less. Why does that have to hurt the post office? They could still deliver Amazon packages, just pay what it actually costs to ship them.
Re:Off to MetaMod (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind the postal service at all, as you've said they have improved.
But I do think Amazon could pay them more and the government prop up the post office less. Why does that have to hurt the post office? They could still deliver Amazon packages, just pay what it actually costs to ship them.
Because FedEX and UPS don't deliver to most of the rural US. Typical city dweller...most rural areas are only served by USPS which is why it runs at a loss. Also because leaders 100 years ago knew it was a good thing to promote a global mail/package delivery system.
They are subsidizing Amazon, also every rural address is subsidized as well as every other business that involves package delivery. This isn't political but somehow you (and Trump) are turning a very successful government service (over 100 years, can move a letter from one end of the country to the other in 3 days for less than 50 cents) into a political stunt. If you support reducing the USPS, then you are the type of person who politicizes everything to the detriment of everyone...and even worse without even trying to understand the situation which in this case is actually quite easy to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe it's usual for any company offering a private postal service to have to accept the universal mandate, i.e. deliver everywhere for the same price.
I guess it raises prices slightly but it's like universal telephone/broadband/water/electric service.
Re: (Score:2)
That would work, but it's not on offer here.
It's LEGITIMATE politics (Score:2)
Seeing one group - recipients of federal subsidies - against another - taxpayers - is what politics is all about. Farm subsidies are another way that rural residents are benefiting against ordinary tax payers...
Re: (Score:2)
The UPS trucks rolls down the two lane rural road then up the 1/4 mile dirt road to my parent's farmhouse and drops off packages all the time. They do have surcharges for many zip codes to reflect the higher cost of delivery but it is false to state that they "don't deliver to most of the rural US"
Re: (Score:1)
Because FedEX and UPS don't deliver to most of the rural US. Typical city dweller...
I lived for a long time in a very rural area (foothills of mountains, not even a suburb) and we got delivery from UPS, possibly also FedEx.
I think *YOU* are probably more than a bit out of touch without how widespread those services are.
But again, I'm not even saying Amazon should not use the USPS, just that they should at least pay for cost of services. Not sure how that ends up being controversial.
This isn't political but
Re: (Score:2)
Then they have to charge everyone else higher rates, even those on low incomes. It's the equivalent of net neutrality. The post office can charge different rates for parcels by their size, their weight, or the distance being shipped, but they can't charge by who is sending the parcel or who is receiving the item.
Re: Off to MetaMod (Score:2)
So the argument is, we'll subsidize every package shipped by charging less than the shipping actually costs, but we'll make it up n volume?
Brilliant. /sarcasm
Re: Off to MetaMod (Score:2)
That part aside, how is it cool for the president to publicly target companies he doesnâ(TM)t like. If amazon is doing something illegal then give them due process and a trial. Remember trump himself took advantage of tax loopholes and immigration loopholes to enrich himself and then declared himself âoesmartâ .. why isnâ(TM)t he exalting amazon instead of defaming them?
Re: (Score:1)
I believe you mean the Washington Post. Way to start another fake news meme.
Re: (Score:1)
Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT - or as Trump says "Fake News"...
Speaking of fake news.....
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely. Despise President Trump but if we are delivering amazon packages at a discount, we are killing local businesses, jobs, and economies (directly pumping money out of economies in one cycle instead of the usual 6-8 cycles).
Even a slow and partially broken clock may be occasionally correct.
Amazon is making things cheaper-- but the USPS should not be subsidizing it's business model.
Of course- since Mr. Trump said it, I doubt it's true. That man lies so much that he has no credibility.
If he said the
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Fake News!!!!! Bezos owns the Washington Post, not the NYT.
Re: Fake News (Score:2)
Jeff Bozo, who owns Amazon, also owns the NYT
Jeff Bezos does not own the New York Times, he owns the Washington Post [nytimes.com], as I recall.
Re: (Score:1)