Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

inthepublicinterest.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 575 posts

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#541

Post by ballenf »

abiogenesis wrote: post #506
seebetter wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't a person open a bank account? I mean, I can't because I sold some bitcoin via Bank of America 4-years ago. Someone stole my info, I reported it as fraud and BoA reported me for fraud -- and all my bank accounts closed. And they refuse to fix it.

By the same logic post office could have blacklisted you too.

But government action against an individual comes with at least some due process rights. At least, theoretically, which is better than contracts of adhesion everywhere else.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#542

Post by mthoms »

treis wrote: post #530
Discombulator wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am at this point not convinced that you are actually trying to understand, but if you read the text you linked, it says: > If a plan is fully funded, the minimum required contribution is the cost of benefits earned during the year. The USPS however, needs to fund not only the current year’s expenses, but also all expenses for the 50 following years. No one else needs to do this.

That's not what is required. Here is the text of the law: > In this subsection, the term `Postal surplus or supplemental liability' means the estimated difference, as determined by the Office, between-- ``(A) the actuarial present value of all future benefits payable from the Fund under this subchapter to current or former employees of the United States Postal Service and attributable to civilian employment with the…

I'm with the other poster. You don't seem to be reading (or even acknowledging) the provided sources.

>That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans.

This is where you are confused. The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions.

Which brings us back to your original claim:

>This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made any of those payments since 2013. Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments. (2) Pensions are required to be fully funded. In practice that's a bit more theoretical than actual, but the USPS isn't being treated any different.

Point (2) is incorrect since we aren't talking about pensions. Point (1) is incorrect as per the numerous sources I provided already (including a direct quote from the Postmaster General). But here's one more:

>the 2006 law requiring the pre-funding of health benefits for future retirees — not pensions — has put a financial strain on the Postal Service and hurt its ability to turn a profit in some recent years.

From https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/15/afl-cio/wi...

Conclusion: The current financial woes of the USPS are can be attributed in large part to the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#543

Post by gunshai »

topkai22 wrote: post #505
bhupy wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP was justifying USPS's monopoly on first class mail. A government-run grocery store sounds pretty great. A government-run monopoly on grocery stores...not so much.

For reference, the US Government runs thousands of grocery and convenience stores via the US Military exchange (PX) and commissary apparatus. I remember these stores being a fantastic benefit of being a Navy brat. The structure also hints at problems with government run businesses- the PX system avoids all sorts of sales and property taxes and gets reduced or free rent. The commissaries do that and get direct subsidi…

I don't know that that is a fair comparison because many of these stores you can't access unless you have a military ID. The prices are subsidized as well.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#544

Post by coliveira »

treis wrote: post #529
coliveira wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the part of "calculates the value of all benefits to be paid out in the future, due to past and future service" that you don't understand? Congress required all possible benefits present and future be calculated (subtracting only future accruals, i.e., gains in investments) and then that money had to be raised over 10 years. That is never required from companies, which have to fund only the portion of pension…

>What is the part of "calculates the value of all benefits to be paid out in the future, due to past and future service" that you don't understand? Because pensions go up with years of service you have to account for the worker continuing to work when calculating pension liability. As an example, say a pension vests after 5 years. What should the pension cost be for an employee in year 2? The best answer is something…

It is very difficult to debate with someone who doesn't understand the very logic of how pensions work. No company in the world will pay the NPV of a future pension. Like any other person or institution, they will start making contributions over time to meet the requirements of that pension 20, 30, 50 years from now. To require otherwise is absurd. For example, suppose you are retiring 30 years from now. You cannot assume that you have to calculate the NPV of the required pension in 30 years and then contribute that value today. Like any normal person you will setup a plan to contribute towards a pension that will be available 30 from now, with the required amount. The same happens with any company. In fact, when you hear someone calculating the NPV of pensions that will be paid 20 to 50 years in the future, you most probably are talking to a republican who wants to "prove" that public pensions are insolvent. This is the pattern I've seen.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#545

Post by notJim »

alexbanks wrote: post #436
notJim wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what I think your point is, that having mail for all is a requirement of a civilization. (Sorry if this was not your point.) However, elections alone are obviously not enough to sustain a mail operation. [Edit: I had a double-not, hopefully everyone understood my meaning before.]

I would argue that elections are enough to drag the USPS along at literally any cost.

How much would it cost to operate the USPS without bulk mail, i.e., with next to no revenue? I'm not even necessarily against it, but it has to be astronomical.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#546

Post by treis »

mthoms wrote: post #542
treis wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what is required. Here is the text of the law: > In this subsection, the term `Postal surplus or supplemental liability' means the estimated difference, as determined by the Office, between-- ``(A) the actuarial present value of all future benefits payable from the Fund under this subchapter to current or former employees of the United States Postal Service and attributable to civilian employment with the…

I'm with the other poster. You don't seem to be reading (or even acknowledging) the provided sources. >That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans. This is where you are confused. The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions. Which brings us back to your original claim: >This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made…

>The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions.

The law did a lot including:

Postal Civil Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding Amendments of 2006 - (Sec. 802) Relieves the Postal Service of an obligation to contribute matching amounts to its employees' civil service retirement. Provides for a mechanism and an amortization schedule regarding the handling of any surplus or supplemental liability of the Postal Service regarding the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Transfers from the Postal Service to the Treasury certain retirement obligations related to military service of former Postal Service employees. Makes Office of Personnel Management (OPM) determinations on surplus or supplemental liability subject to PRC review if the Postal Service so requests

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407

> Point (1) is incorrect as per thttps://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6407... numerous sources I provided already (including a direct quote from the Postmaster General)

I think you're confused here. Straight from the Postmaster general:

> we were forced to default on $33.9 billion in mandated prefunding payments for RHB for the years 2012 through 2016

https://about.usps.com/news/testimony/2019/pr19_pmg0430.htm

>the 2006 law requiring the pre-funding of health benefits for future retirees — not pensions — has put a financial strain on the Postal Service and hurt its ability to turn a profit in some recent years.

Sigh, and we're back to the same confusion. Pre-funding has ZERO impact on profit. If you incur a cost today it goes on your balance sheet. The fact that the actual cash doesn't leave the company for 30 years doesn't change that.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#547

Post by treis »

coliveira wrote: post #544
treis wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is the part of "calculates the value of all benefits to be paid out in the future, due to past and future service" that you don't understand? Because pensions go up with years of service you have to account for the worker continuing to work when calculating pension liability. As an example, say a pension vests after 5 years. What should the pension cost be for an employee in year 2? The best answer is something…

It is very difficult to debate with someone who doesn't understand the very logic of how pensions work. No company in the world will pay the NPV of a future pension. Like any other person or institution, they will start making contributions over time to meet the requirements of that pension 20, 30, 50 years from now. To require otherwise is absurd. For example, suppose you are retiring 30 years from now. You cannot a…

>You cannot assume that you have to calculate the NPV of the required pension in 30 years and then contribute that value today

?

Did you not read my post where it said:

> The best answer is something like 1/5 of the NPV of their pension.

Of course nobody is required to pay the entire NPV of the pension today. For an employee that is retiring in 30 years they are required to pay 1/30th of the NPV of their pension each year. That's what the USPS is required to do. They're not being required to pay the entire cost of their employee pensions up front.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#548

Post by heimatau »

bmitc wrote: post #20

The amount of narcissism these people (the Koch's, for example) have is just astounding. If you're a billionaire, what could possibly be a reasonable explanation for why you even care about the post office? Why are these people so hell bent on hurting people to feed their own narcissism? The USPS could be improved but struggles primarily due to active efforts to kill it off. But it's a wonderful idea of a service tha…

Libraries are mostly funded by cities/states (harder to defund). Same goes for public schools. But...make no mistake, there is a power struggle going on.

It can be seen with the reduction to these functions to expand the police departments.

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#549

Post by [deleted] »

treis wrote: post #546
mthoms wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with the other poster. You don't seem to be reading (or even acknowledging) the provided sources. >That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans. This is where you are confused. The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions. Which brings us back to your original claim: >This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made…

>The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions. The law did a lot including: Postal Civil Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding Amendments of 2006 - (Sec. 802) Relieves the Postal Service of an obligation to contribute matching amounts to its employees' civil service retirement. Provides for a mechanism and an amortization schedule regarding the handling of any surplus…

[deleted]

Re: The Billionaire Behind Efforts to Kill the U.S. Postal Service [pdf]

#550

Post by mthoms »

treis wrote: post #546
mthoms wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with the other poster. You don't seem to be reading (or even acknowledging) the provided sources. >That requirement is the exact same as private sector pension plans. This is where you are confused. The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions. Which brings us back to your original claim: >This is a common talking point, but is factually incorrect. (1) The USPS hasn't made…

>The bill has to do with pre-funding of health (and similar) benefits and not pensions. The law did a lot including: Postal Civil Service Retirement and Health Benefits Funding Amendments of 2006 - (Sec. 802) Relieves the Postal Service of an obligation to contribute matching amounts to its employees' civil service retirement. Provides for a mechanism and an amortization schedule regarding the handling of any surplus…

> Pre-funding has ZERO impact on profit.

You've just moved the goal posts. Your assertion was "Their current financial woes aren't caused by the requirement since their not making the payments."

Even though you've moved the goal posts, you're still wrong. Do you agree that having $0 available for infrastructure improvements, technology upgrades, delivery fleets, and R&D to improve efficiency for the past 14 years has had zero impact on current profit?

Really? Be honest.

Imagine if UPS had not upgraded (other than the basics) their hardware, software, and massive delivery fleet in a decade and a half. That amount of time is an absolute eternity in the areas of automation, transport and computing. Can you imagine where UPS would be right now in relation to FedEx has it stopped investing in itself since before the iPhone was invented?

Since you missed it. Once again, here's the relevant Postmaster General quote:

> "The Postal Service's $15 billion debt is a direct result of the mandate, this requirement has deprived the Postal Service of the opportunity to invest in capital projects and research and development."

Look, you've been arguing this entire time that the issue was pensions when it wasn't. And that it was the same rules for everybody (it wasn't). The other half of your argument was that the current financial position of the USPS is unrelated to the 2006 act. Provably wrong.

But since that original argument is falling apart you've changed your position to "the USPS is currently unprofitable". Well, obviously.

You're clearly not debating in good faith so I'm done here. Good day to you.

Post reply on HN