21–30 of 50 posts
Why do they need giant, expensive buildings in the center of every town, rather than partnering with convenience stores like in Europe?
As others have pointed out, they already do. Go to http://www.usps.com and click on "Find Locations." Put in your zip code, click on "See More Results" and sort by "Approved Postal Providers" to find those non-USPS-owned locations.
IMO it would be pretty easy to change the USPS to be profitable or sustainable, but politically difficult. Preserving universal service (expensive rural routes and facilities) should be done via direct government subsidy, vs. commercial cross subsidization. Reducing or contractorizing staff (to cut medical and retirement costs) would have been done already by a really private company, but would have political and eco…
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. They have to fully fund the pension for 75 years, and do that in 10 years. That would reduce their operating budget deficit. Second, they need to push their parcel service, and open the counter all week long. The internet has caused a reduction in regular first class postal mail, but is also increasing the numbe…
Yes, rather than fully funding their pensions like any private company, they should be allowed to push massive problems into the future like the public sector does.
IMO it would be pretty easy to change the USPS to be profitable or sustainable, but politically difficult. Preserving universal service (expensive rural routes and facilities) should be done via direct government subsidy, vs. commercial cross subsidization. Reducing or contractorizing staff (to cut medical and retirement costs) would have been done already by a really private company, but would have political and eco…
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. They have to fully fund the pension for 75 years, and do that in 10 years. That would reduce their operating budget deficit. Second, they need to push their parcel service, and open the counter all week long. The internet has caused a reduction in regular first class postal mail, but is also increasing the numbe…
The issue is that even the GAO thinks there are "pyramid" issues -- the USPS revenue is going to be in a long-term decline, and peak-retirees will hit in a period where the revenue is lower than today. So, pre-funding makes a lot of sense.
Similarly, SS (and I think medicare?) were supposed to be pre-funded during high tax years of the baby boomers. There's technically a surplus, but it's invested in US treasury debt, essentially an accounting trick. (although I don't know what an SS surplus would otherwise be invested in -- you don't really want the government investing in private securities, either).
Parcel drop-off could be automated, extended hours, partnerships with businesses, etc., although I think most parcels originate from businesses now.
Maybe a good compromise would be fewer post offices, open later, and less delivery, but with mail available for pickup at the post office up to the day before delivery. This would be capital expensive vs. operating expense intensive, which should be good for the USPS (they can borrow at cheap rates, and the government could fund some of this).
IMO it would be pretty easy to change the USPS to be profitable or sustainable, but politically difficult. Preserving universal service (expensive rural routes and facilities) should be done via direct government subsidy, vs. commercial cross subsidization. Reducing or contractorizing staff (to cut medical and retirement costs) would have been done already by a really private company, but would have political and eco…
You could certainly cut the facilities producing the least revenue, but then you'd be closing mostly rural post offices. Incidentally Fedex and UPS use USPS infrastructure for rural delivery. Since we're all guaranteed postal service in the constitution, perhaps it would be better to question the idea that the USPS has to be profitable and run like a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. They have to fully fund the pension for 75 years, and do that in 10 years. That would reduce their operating budget deficit. Second, they need to push their parcel service, and open the counter all week long. The internet has caused a reduction in regular first class postal mail, but is also increasing the numbe…
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. Yes, rather than fully funding their pensions like any private company, they should be allowed to push massive problems into the future like the public sector does.
High-risk private enterprises don't do pensions now (can you imagine a Zynga Pension Plan?). Approximately everyone has shifted to defined-contribution from defined-benefit. The problem is USPS and the fully-private companies with legacy pension plans are both in long-term decline and have underfunded pensions, but USPS is particularly large in workforce and obvious in long-term decline (and political).
Tell your congressional representative, not USPS. FedEx and UPS have spent large amounts of lobbying money ensuring that USPS does not innovate. Congressional legislation is what prevents USPS from innovating.
IMO it would be pretty easy to change the USPS to be profitable or sustainable, but politically difficult. Preserving universal service (expensive rural routes and facilities) should be done via direct government subsidy, vs. commercial cross subsidization. Reducing or contractorizing staff (to cut medical and retirement costs) would have been done already by a really private company, but would have political and eco…
The USPS hasn't taken tax payer money since 1982 and has posted profits almost every year up until 2006 when the new retirement pre-funding requirements were introduced. The USPS is the only agency required to pre-fund their retirement plans for 75 years. You could certainly cut the facilities producing the least revenue, but then you'd be closing mostly rural post offices. Incidentally Fedex and UPS use USPS infrast…
"But the truth is, the USPS needs to innovate." Tell your congressional representative, not USPS. FedEx and UPS have spent large amounts of lobbying money ensuring that USPS does not innovate. Congressional legislation is what prevents USPS from innovating.
It's hardly surprising, but do you have any sources for this claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. They have to fully fund the pension for 75 years, and do that in 10 years. That would reduce their operating budget deficit. Second, they need to push their parcel service, and open the counter all week long. The internet has caused a reduction in regular first class postal mail, but is also increasing the numbe…
The first thing they need to do is reduce the pension funding requirement, which was forced by a 2006 law. Yes, rather than fully funding their pensions like any private company, they should be allowed to push massive problems into the future like the public sector does.
I think you're on to something though, we should definitely require private sector retirement benefits to be pre-funded by 100%, then we can all point our fingers and say how obvious it is that the private sector is less efficient.