Firstly, they do have their own private courier service.
Second, if USPS suddenly is pushed by the Administration or whatever upon which the Administration manages to lean, it will become more-expensive than FedEx, UPS, DHL, and so forth. The other clients will then go to those lower-cost providers. Then the USPS will go bankrupt, like the three casinos Trump managed to trash.
It seems like the increase would merely put it in line with the cost of existing services.
The whole issue here is that the USPS is subsidizing Amazon delivery, by charging rates lower than what it actually costs to ship things. Other mail fees are subsidizing Amazon, how is that right???
They're not subsidizing Amazon. They were turning a mild profit until they were forced to pre-pay pensions by law instead of acting like any other government or private entity.
1. Because they were chronically under-funding their pension system to balance the books, forcing the federal government to step in and cover their losses 2. In a manner that ALL public and private agencies should handle their pensions - figure out how much they are going to have to pay out over the next 50-70 years, and put away enough money to cover it
True. The way they are supposed to work is the money disappears up some executives ass when the majority of the workers that paid into it their entire career reach retirement age.
True. The way they are supposed to work is the money disappears up some executives ass when the majority of the workers that paid into it their entire career reach retirement age.
Even if everyone agrees with you that forcing the USPS to prefund pensions is a good idea, bitching about their finances when they have to go through this huge change is dumb, if anything we should be expanding their services so that they are more profitable. Including lost cost banking services would be a good place to start.
They are being forced to pre-fund pension plans FAR in advance of their obligation. That is singularly different than ANY other company or entity. It is literally starving them of resources. They can't adequately keep their facilities updated, clean, or expand services. The Post Office is one of the few things specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a service the Government is expected to provide.
If it were not for companies like Amazon and others, the Post Office would have gone bankrupt.
They are required to pre-fund for employees 75 years out per the interpretation of the government on the law congress passed. This means prefunding retirement for employees that have not been born yet.
It's absurd and anyone that can't see that is a shill or a partisan troll.
It's more complicated than that. They have to fund pensions for current employees based on life expectancy.
They have to estimate liabilities over a 75 year period, and that does include people who don't currently work there.
So USPS has a a future liability that does include people who aren't even born yet, but they're not required to actually come up with the money yet.
That's been the GOP plan all along. They'll use that to "prove" that private enterprise is always better, smarter and cost-effective, they'll find a way to screw the workers out of their pensions and amend the constitution to either get rid of $govt_svc or to allow its functions to fulfilled by corporations entirely.
Combine that with Drumpf's hate-boner for anything associated with Jeff Bezos plus his belief that he should be able to run the government to the benefit of his business interests, and...
And there you have it in a nutshell. We're done here.
Your matching 401k (where your employer matches what you put into it) is a pre-funded pension. The full amount of the company's obligation leaves the company's control as soon as you've fulfilled the obligation (worked for a month). If the company goes bankrupt, it doesn't affect your 401k, unlike what nearly happened to GM. When they were in danger of going bankrupt, all their pensioners were in danger of losing their pension. Which would've ended up turning them into bottom-priority creditors who woul
The Post Office is one of the few things specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a service the Government is expected to provide.
That is incorrect. In Article I, Section 8 the Constitution grants Congress the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads". If they don't believe Post Offices or post Roads are needed, they are free not to exercise that power and to dismantle said system. In fact, right now, are are there many (any?) active "Post roads" of note in the United States? It seems likely tha
Pension plans are normallly invested, not pre-funded. It is fine to go and criticize the investments and bad money management if some details emerge, but pre-funding pensions is not typically demanded of many other goverment agencies. Because the post office manages to be efficient and self sufficient, it angers all the government-is-evil politicians.
Did you miss the part where the postmaster general said that these arrangements are beneficial to the post office? Is there any data to back up your claim that they're losing money on the deal?
Did you miss the part where the postmaster general said that these arrangements are beneficial to the post office?
Did you miss the fact the financial reports indicate otherwise?
Every single one of you drones brought up pension payments, as if the Post Office could simply not pay pensions. The cost of shipping a package includes servicing debt, but I guess most Slashdot people are too buttery retarded to know even the simplest thing about how a business works.
The whole issue here is that the USPS is subsidizing Amazon delivery, by charging rates lower than what it actually costs to ship things. Other mail fees are subsidizing Amazon, how is that right???
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday May 18, 2018 @04:39PM (#56635282)
The USPS has publish information multiple times debunking this statement.
The primary reason that the USPS makes a profit on Amazon even though the indivitual package price is very low is that Amazon fills the shipment.
An analogy would be a standby ticket. They need to charge passengers $200 for the flight but there are often empty seats so charging someone $50 for those IS profitable because those were unsold tickets and the new passenger costs only a little bit extra.
The USPS has obligations for certain delivery times mandated by congress, so they have a ton of empty space on the airplane or freight truck. Unlike the airlines that schedule fewer flights when a route is slow, the USPS still has to drive it every single day.
USPS items get loaded first, then other shippers like Amazon. If the truck fills, Amazon waits for the next truck but that's such a rare occurrence that it isn't a concern for Amazon.
No, you're still losing money. You're just losing less of it, and in this case it is Amazon that is paying less than others.
Depends on the maths used, because as with airline tickets, each seat is sold at a different price to different people. So if the average seat cost was $100, I can still make a profit selling some seats for $200 and others for $50. This is a common free market method for maximising revenue per service.
What Trump is proposing is effectively socialist price controls, ie the government setting fixed fees. Fair enough if you support Soviet style policy, but I'm pretty sure that's not what most Trump voters vo
.... You clearly don't have a head for finances. I suggest you check shipping rates for local delivery as that's basically what the PO is doing, and always has been doing. They're getting more light parcels to deliver on their normal routes with only a moderate extra burden, but profit is far higher. Amazon uses DHL, Fedex, and UPS to deliver to the PO with their big expensive cargo liners, the post office is the last leg in delivery and they don't rush, they do it on their own normal schedule. DHL and the
They don't provide the same quality of service as the other carriers though, they are cheaper and thats great and on the volume that Amazon needs they are probably a good option (hence the reason Amazon uses them) but if they cost as much as Fedex, but loose more packages then nobody is ever going to use them.
They don't provide the same quality of service as the other carriers though, they are cheaper and thats great and on the volume that Amazon needs they are probably a good option (hence the reason Amazon uses them) but if they cost as much as Fedex, but loose more packages then nobody is ever going to use them.
They only lose more packages because they handle way more packages. It's also why their service is worse.
Think of it this way. In 3 days, USPS handles as much mail pieces as FedEx in a year. UPS is big
Won't that just push... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, they do have their own private courier service.
Second, if USPS suddenly is pushed by the Administration or whatever upon which the Administration manages to lean, it will become more-expensive than FedEx, UPS, DHL, and so forth. The other clients will then go to those lower-cost providers. Then the USPS will go bankrupt, like the three casinos Trump managed to trash.
How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:-1, Troll)
It seems like the increase would merely put it in line with the cost of existing services.
The whole issue here is that the USPS is subsidizing Amazon delivery, by charging rates lower than what it actually costs to ship things. Other mail fees are subsidizing Amazon, how is that right???
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
They're not subsidizing Amazon. They were turning a mild profit until they were forced to pre-pay pensions by law instead of acting like any other government or private entity.
Pre-pay (Score:1, Informative)
They were forced to make pension payments:
1. Because they were chronically under-funding their pension system to balance the books, forcing the federal government to step in and cover their losses
2. In a manner that ALL public and private agencies should handle their pensions - figure out how much they are going to have to pay out over the next 50-70 years, and put away enough money to cover it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
True. The way they are supposed to work is the money disappears up some executives ass when the majority of the workers that paid into it their entire career reach retirement age.
Re: (Score:3)
True. The way they are supposed to work is the money disappears up some executives ass when the majority of the workers that paid into it their entire career reach retirement age.
I'd mod the AC insightful if I had points.
Re:Pre-pay (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if everyone agrees with you that forcing the USPS to prefund pensions is a good idea, bitching about their finances when they have to go through this huge change is dumb, if anything we should be expanding their services so that they are more profitable. Including lost cost banking services would be a good place to start.
Re: (Score:3)
figure out how much they are going to have to pay out over the next 50-70 years, and put away enough money to cover it
Funding the pensions of employees who have not been born yet is really, really stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Funding the [educations of students] who have not been born yet is really, really stupid.
This is what you'll be telling your kids when they're ready for college?
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are being forced to pre-fund pension plans FAR in advance of their obligation. That is singularly different than ANY other company or entity. It is literally starving them of resources. They can't adequately keep their facilities updated, clean, or expand services. The Post Office is one of the few things specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a service the Government is expected to provide.
If it were not for companies like Amazon and others, the Post Office would have gone bankrupt.
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are required to pre-fund for employees 75 years out per the interpretation of the government on the law congress passed. This means prefunding retirement for employees that have not been born yet.
It's absurd and anyone that can't see that is a shill or a partisan troll.
Re: (Score:1)
That is not the case. The law says they are to fund pensions with the assumption of people living to 75 years of age. Not 75 years out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's been the GOP plan all along. They'll use that to "prove" that private enterprise is always better, smarter and cost-effective, they'll find a way to screw the workers out of their pensions and amend the constitution to either get rid of $govt_svc or to allow its functions to fulfilled by corporations entirely.
Combine that with Drumpf's hate-boner for anything associated with Jeff Bezos plus his belief that he should be able to run the government to the benefit of his business interests, and...
And there you have it in a nutshell. We're done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:4, Funny)
Extensive firearms training.
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect. In Article I, Section 8 the Constitution grants Congress the power to "establish Post Offices and post Roads". If they don't believe Post Offices or post Roads are needed, they are free not to exercise that power and to dismantle said system. In fact, right now, are are there many (any?) active "Post roads" of note in the United States? It seems likely tha
Re: (Score:2)
Pension plans are normallly invested, not pre-funded. It is fine to go and criticize the investments and bad money management if some details emerge, but pre-funding pensions is not typically demanded of many other goverment agencies. Because the post office manages to be efficient and self sufficient, it angers all the government-is-evil politicians.
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you miss the part where the postmaster general said that these arrangements are beneficial to the post office?
Is there any data to back up your claim that they're losing money on the deal?
Sad to see so many challenged Slashdot readers (Score:2)
Did you miss the part where the postmaster general said that these arrangements are beneficial to the post office?
Did you miss the fact the financial reports indicate otherwise?
Every single one of you drones brought up pension payments, as if the Post Office could simply not pay pensions. The cost of shipping a package includes servicing debt, but I guess most Slashdot people are too buttery retarded to know even the simplest thing about how a business works.
BTW, "Buttery Retarded" is a phrase that is the
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
The whole issue here is that the USPS is subsidizing Amazon delivery, by charging rates lower than what it actually costs to ship things. Other mail fees are subsidizing Amazon, how is that right???
That is a lie.
USPS financial report [usps.com]
Re:How do you know it's more expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
The USPS has publish information multiple times debunking this statement.
The primary reason that the USPS makes a profit on Amazon even though the indivitual package price is very low is that Amazon fills the shipment.
An analogy would be a standby ticket. They need to charge passengers $200 for the flight but there are often empty seats so charging someone $50 for those IS profitable because those were unsold tickets and the new passenger costs only a little bit extra.
The USPS has obligations for certain delivery times mandated by congress, so they have a ton of empty space on the airplane or freight truck. Unlike the airlines that schedule fewer flights when a route is slow, the USPS still has to drive it every single day.
USPS items get loaded first, then other shippers like Amazon. If the truck fills, Amazon waits for the next truck but that's such a rare occurrence that it isn't a concern for Amazon.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you're still losing money. You're just losing less of it, and in this case it is Amazon that is paying less than others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, you're still losing money. You're just losing less of it, and in this case it is Amazon that is paying less than others.
Depends on the maths used, because as with airline tickets, each seat is sold at a different price to different people. So if the average seat cost was $100, I can still make a profit selling some seats for $200 and others for $50. This is a common free market method for maximising revenue per service.
What Trump is proposing is effectively socialist price controls, ie the government setting fixed fees. Fair enough if you support Soviet style policy, but I'm pretty sure that's not what most Trump voters vo
Re: (Score:1)
.... You clearly don't have a head for finances. I suggest you check shipping rates for local delivery as that's basically what the PO is doing, and always has been doing. They're getting more light parcels to deliver on their normal routes with only a moderate extra burden, but profit is far higher. Amazon uses DHL, Fedex, and UPS to deliver to the PO with their big expensive cargo liners, the post office is the last leg in delivery and they don't rush, they do it on their own normal schedule. DHL and the
Re: (Score:2)
They don't provide the same quality of service as the other carriers though, they are cheaper and thats great and on the volume that Amazon needs they are probably a good option (hence the reason Amazon uses them) but if they cost as much as Fedex, but loose more packages then nobody is ever going to use them.
Re: (Score:2)
They only lose more packages because they handle way more packages. It's also why their service is worse.
Think of it this way. In 3 days, USPS handles as much mail pieces as FedEx in a year. UPS is big
Re: (Score:2)
Can't believe the concept of bulk discounts somehow shocks you.
Amazon pays the same rates every other company shipping millions of packages a year do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...
President Trump personally urged the leader of the U.S. Postal Service to double the rates the agency charges Amazon and other firms
They're not charging half what FedEx and UPS charge. Doubling the fee would thus mean they're charging more than what FedEx and UPS charge.