USPS loses 3.5 billion this quarter.

[snusgetter]

I don't complain about postal rates. It's cheaper than driving it there yourself. I also don't see the point in wasting fuel when it isn't necessary. I'll always pick the electronic option when given chance.

Don't get me wrong. I've done online banking for a few years now.
And I pay certain bills online. I probably mail about 4 payments a
month; I like to think I'm doing my part to contribute to the yearly
$5.5 billion retirement payoff.

BTW, I wasn't directing my comments at anyone in particular; they
were 'generally speaking' comments, so to speak.

[snusgetter]

People tend to forget how much the USPS lost by emails alone.

I wish I could seriously buy into that argument.

Letter writing was already on a decline before the interwebs became a force.

I only have to think of the high percentage of emails that are merely forwards of jokes, scams and other crap that no one in their right (write?) mind would take time to put to paper.


BTW, greeting cards are still big business year-round, probably because they're more intimate than some e-card found for free online. (And there's no worry of some trojan along for the ride.)

[lxskllr]

There's a lot to the email argument. Between that and fax machines, it took a lot of the post office's business. Add in the other ways the internet has encroached on their services(catalogs, magazine subscriptions, online bill paying...), it's pretty much decimated their business. USPS is a niche service anymore. All they're really needed for is parcels, and since they don't do tobacco anymore, I barely need them for that :^D

[MGX]

Time for a bailout!

The USPS won't diminish in size to meet demand so we'll subsidize them for the next 30 years.

[Jwalker]

Yes all these and people also forget how much it costs USPS to deliver mail in places like Alaska, you have to fly everything, the internet has also helped USPS too every other week I come home and there's a USPS box of crap from e-bay my mom just bought. I'm not sure if Amazon uses USPS but if they do that's another big boost.

[tom502]

They do.

[snusgetter]

Most people don't realize that USPS delivers parcels under contract for UPS & FEDEX --

You know, to those addresses FEDUPS consider unprofitable, that they had in the past refused to accept for delivery; or accepted begrudgingly and for which they charged an extra fee.

If USPS is privatized and allowed to cherry-pick delivery addresses like the other two, what happens to out-of-the-way areas. USPS has always had a mandate to deliver to every legitimate address in the country, even in the Grand Canyon; try to get a private company to do that at a reasonable cost. USPS does it with NO taxpayer assistance.

[lxskllr]

I don't have a problem subsidizing USPS through tax dollars. Universal mail delivery is an essential part of running a country. I'd much rather pay to have mail delivery, than pay to interfere in sovereign country's business.

[Bigblue1]

Hey if you can give money to banks, who do absolutely nothing for me. Prop up the US government owned auto companies, whilst allowing the media, perhaps even proliferating a hit campaign against toyota. And Now mandating people buy health insurance and calling it "reform". Why not throw a little recently printed fiat at the old USPS. It's OK the presses are hot well maintained and faster an greased lightning!

[RobsanX]

Yeah **** those greedy bastards who worked their whole careers walking for miles each day in the blistering hot or feet of snow. They can retire when they're dead!

[sgreger1]

Another thing is advertisement money, whereas before a lot fo stuff was mailed (advertisements), a lot of companies now choose to spend their ad money online. They still send mailers and coupons and stuff, but with places like coupons.com that is quickly going out of style.


I also don't have a problem with taxpayer money going to postal delivery services, I just wish they would run it more efficiently. Oh well, one can dream.

[sgreger1]

Yeah **** those greedy bastards who worked their whole careers walking for miles each day in the blistering hot or feet of snow. They can retire when they're dead!

They make about 23 an hour. I work my ass of and get paid the same hourly wage, but get none of the additional benefits. Don't be dramatic like "they can retire when theyr dead", because that is a problem we all face. The question is, why do government employees get this on our dime while we get nothing? It seems unfair that one segment of society should remain in a protected group, earning above standard wages with cadillac benefits packages while the rest of us go without. We should all be equal, no? Why am I discriminated against because I choose to not work in the public sector, but rather the private? Why do people who work for the government have an unfair advantage over me in society?

[MGX]

They make about 23 an hour. I work my ass of and get paid the same hourly wage, but get none of the additional benefits. Don't be dramatic like "they can retire when theyr dead", because that is a problem we all face. The question is, why do government employees get this on our dime while we get nothing? It seems unfair that one segment of society should remain in a protected group, earning above standard wages with cadillac benefits packages while the rest of us go without. We should all be equal, no? Why am I discriminated against because I choose to not work in the public sector, but rather the private? Why do people who work for the government have an unfair advantage over me in society?

You need to work for a federal union.

[RobsanX]

They make about 23 an hour. I work my ass of and get paid the same hourly wage, but get none of the additional benefits. Don't be dramatic like "they can retire when theyr dead", because that is a problem we all face. The question is, why do government employees get this on our dime while we get nothing? It seems unfair that one segment of society should remain in a protected group, earning above standard wages with cadillac benefits packages while the rest of us go without. We should all be equal, no? Why am I discriminated against because I choose to not work in the public sector, but rather the private? Why do people who work for the government have an unfair advantage over me in society?

I've been thinking a lot about your situation, and I think I've come up with a theory. I haven't really fleshed it out, because I'm busy too, but it boils down to a hypothesis that this country has grown economically to capacity. We've stagnated (or receded lately), and the only way for the private sector to maintain apparent growth is by cutting back, i.e. cutting your salary, cutting your benefits, cutting domestic jobs, cutting spending on everything except the salaries of those who do the cutting. Hey it's the free market. If you believe in it, revel in it!

[sgreger1]

You need to work for a federal union.

Lol, you havn't been here for long so you probably didn't catch that I was saying that in jest, because that's how the other side always argues things. As though everyone in every pay grade should be making the same thing and getting the same benefits, regardless of their what they do (or don't do) for a living.

I think it's bullshit and the market should determine wages and benefits. If you become a nuclear physicist you should make more than a janitor, but try explaining that to the left. I do think that government employees secured great benefits packages at a time when the economy was good and that's why they have what they have. Now that the economy is slowing down the private sector takes a hit but the union contracts for government employees stay in place and they get to keep their benefits.

But hey, a contract is a contract, and I have to respect that. I would be pissed if my piece of the pie was being cut smaller.