Glory Days;1166525 wrote: and ok, cut USPS and let the private sector take over. who is going to provide oversight?

Oversight of what? Delivery failures? lmfao

Consumers generally do a pretty good job of regulating via their checkbooks. You seem to be making an argument that every industry needs a govt sink hole of money and inefficiency to keep competition honest.

[h=2]BREAKING NEWS[/h]
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 2Q LOSS $3.2 BILLION



Another industry being wiped out by unions.....................what a record.

QuakerOats;1166762 wrote:BREAKING NEWS






Another industry being wiped out by unions.....................what a record.

Link?

they are losing money mainly because they are not allowed to set their own prices and because of a decrease in people using the mail. if it gets privatized the price will easily be doubled if not more.

Gblock;1166866 wrote:Link?

they are losing money mainly because they are not allowed to set their own prices and because of a decrease in people using the mail. if it gets privatized the price will easily be doubled if not more.

I wouldn't have any problem with that.

Gblock;1166866 wrote:Link?

they are losing money mainly because they are not allowed to set their own prices and because of a decrease in people using the mail. if it gets privatized the price will easily be doubled if not more.

A) --- they cannot evolve because they are entangled in outdated union mentality.

B) --- your argument does not make sense; you are essentially saying that they would raise prices if they were able to set their own prices; given that their demand has already fallen, raising prices will only further depress demand. The only real solution is to completely overhaul their cost structure and their operations, and we know that will not happen with unions standing in the way. We have been through those dogfights many times over.

QuakerOats;1166977 wrote:A) --- they cannot evolve because they are entangled in outdated union mentality.

B) --- your argument does not make sense; you are essentially saying that they would raise prices if they were able to set their own prices; given that their demand has already fallen, raising prices will only further depress demand. The only real solution is to completely overhaul their cost structure and their operations, and we know that will not happen with unions standing in the way. We have been through those dogfights many times over.

meh congress is in the way in this case imo...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec11/postoffices_09-06.html

actual fact from the postmaster general...funny he doesnt mention unions

more facts


In addition to putting an end to Saturday delivery, the USPS is also hoping to change the face of its workforce. Last year, it helped fund a $6 billion cut in its bottom line by dropping 40,000 employees. Over the next ten years,it expects that roughly half of the USPS workforce -- 300,000 employees -- will either retire or voluntarily quit. Rather than replace them with comparatively expensive full-time workers, the Post Office plans to follow in the footsteps of the rest of corporate America by hiring part-time workers who are not eligible for benefits. While these workers will place a bigger burden on an already-stressed social net, they will also lower the Post Office's bottom line

the real issue besides a bad business model

the financial problem stems from a 2006 rule requiring the agency to pre-fund retiree health benefits. HR 1351 would return that money to the postal service retiree health benefit fund, which would free up between $60 to $80 billion
http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes?lite

Glory Days;1166525 wrote:should the military be profitable too?
police?
fire?
parks?
libraries?

and ok, cut USPS and let the private sector take over. who is going to provide oversight?

The semi-free market provides the oversight. People make market choices with their wallets.

gut;1166711 wrote:Oversight of what? Delivery failures? lmfao

Consumers generally do a pretty good job of regulating via their checkbooks. You seem to be making an argument that every industry needs a govt sink hole of money and inefficiency to keep competition honest.

believer;1167241 wrote:The semi-free market provides the oversight. People make market choices with their wallets.

so what happens when the cost becomes too much for FedEx to deliver to the boonies and they stop altogether? will you be ok with gov't going in and forcing private companies to provide those services

Glory Days;1167628 wrote:so what happens when the cost becomes too much for FedEx to deliver to the boonies and they stop altogether? will you be ok with gov't going in and forcing private companies to provide those services

Not sure that will ever happen. Considering my folks in SE Ohio don't even have cell phone coverage or mainstream cable tv (they have to use a satellite dish) even in Two thousand freaking twelve yet UPS and FedEx have no problem delivering to them, I'm not too concerned about the issue. They live in the definition of the boonies, somehow packages to them get there. Even though they live over two hours from a semi-major airport and 45 minutes from a puddle jumper with 8 flights a day.

Glory Days;1167628 wrote:so what happens when the cost becomes too much for FedEx to deliver to the boonies and they stop altogether? will you be ok with gov't going in and forcing private companies to provide those services

In the extremely unlikely event that this would happen, I guess I'd just have to drive into town once in a while to collect my mail, wouldn't I?

queencitybuckeye;1167689 wrote:In the extremely unlikely event that this would happen, I guess I'd just have to drive into town once in a while to collect my mail, wouldn't I?

I don't know...This solution you propose seems complicated, unreasonable and an unfair burden.

Gblock;1166866 wrote:Link?

they are losing money mainly because they are not allowed to set their own prices and because of a decrease in people using the mail. if it gets privatized the price will easily be doubled if not more.

Link? IMO, just the opposite would happen, price-wise.

gut;1167769 wrote:I don't know...This solution you propose seems complicated, unreasonable and an unfair burden.

You're right, why should I ever have to leave the double-wide for any reason at all?

queencitybuckeye;1167775 wrote:Link? IMO, just the opposite would happen, price-wise.

i posted like four links...it was stated that they desperately want to increase the prices but do not have the power..

Gblock;1167779 wrote:i posted like four links...it was stated that they desperately want to increase the prices but do not have the power..

Not the same as saying a private entity couldn't do it for less.

QuakerOats;1166762 wrote:BREAKING NEWS


U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 2Q LOSS $3.2 BILLION



Another industry being wiped out by unions.....................what a record.

Actually the industry leader, UPS is heavily unionized as is DHL and FedEx may follow suit in the next 5 years

queencitybuckeye;1167783 wrote:Not the same as saying a private entity couldn't do it for less.

i honestly have no idea but isnt the USPS the cheapest way to send mail right now?

Gblock;1167836 wrote:i honestly have no idea but isnt the USPS the cheapest way to send mail right now?

By law, its the only way to send various kinds of mail.

Gblock;1167836 wrote:i honestly have no idea but isnt the USPS the cheapest way to send mail right now?

From what I have been told some folks, USPS is definitely cheapest in package delivery for 2 days. I was surprised to learn that, because I don't mail packages.

Here is a very informative article that explains what constraints the Postal Service operates under, and why they are legally forbidden from putting into place suggestions that a commercial business would have no trouble doing in response to decreased financial performance:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj31n1/cj31n1-9.pdf

I think this was touched upon by Webfire, but USPS also decided to not close small, useless post offices this week, and just cut their hours (and manpower in the few possible instances) instead. Dumbasses.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/05/10/smaller-post-offices-now-largely-spared.html

(sorry to stray the conversation away from bludgeoning the dead horse that is union talk)

gut;1167769 wrote:I don't know...This solution you propose seems complicated, unreasonable and an unfair burden.

True. It would mean that Big Government will need to step in and create a new agency to deliver mail to the downtrodden.

Rumor has it the new bloated, wasteful, costly, and inefficient agency will be known as the United States Postal Service.

Oh wait............

ts1227;1169416 wrote:I think this was touched upon by Webfire, but USPS also decided to not close small, useless post offices this week, and just cut their hours (and manpower in the few possible instances) instead. Dumbasses.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/05/10/smaller-post-offices-now-largely-spared.html

)

USPS is an easy target (can't miss when they're that big), but the "dumbasses" charge is unwarranted. Your Dispatch link is misleading, it gives the impression USPS has the power to unilaterally implement any cost-saving measure it chooses - actually, USPS wanted to close 3700 post offices last year (the smallest and the ones who barely made any daily sales) - and Congress wouldn't allow it. USPS went to the second option of reducing the hours at ten times that many offices, and Congress said okay.

I invite you to check out my link above, it explains the restrictions USPS operates under. If it weren't for Congress, you'd have seen several common-sense steps in place by now.