ext_116967 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
musicpsych.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2012-02-13 01:53 am
musicpsych.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2012-02-13 01:53 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I saw this article recently, and it reminded me of a subject I've been thinking about: What should be done about the U.S. Postal Service?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/postal_service_loss/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Postal Service renewed its pleas for congressional support Thursday as the floundering agency reported another massive quarterly loss.
The Postal Service announced that it sustained a net loss of $3.3 billion in the last three months of 2011, as declining mail volumes and mounting benefit costs continue to weigh on its business.
In the previous fiscal year, the Postal Service lost $5.1 billion and said its losses would have been roughly $10.6 billion if not for the passage of legislation postponing a $5.5 billion payment required to pre-fund retiree health benefits.
In a statement, the Postal Service urged the government to do away with the requirement that such benefits be funded at their current rates, and also called for greater "delivery flexibility."
There's more to the article at the source.
The article mentions some ideas, such as having mail service on only five days instead of six, slowing down next-day service, or closing some offices. It may help to increase postage costs, though I feel like there are always gripes when that happens, and people could just stock up on "Forever" stamps before a really major increase. I honestly don't know how competitive the mail costs are compared to private delivery services, though the article mentions at the end that both UPS and Fed Ex "reported strong increases in earnings and revenue in their most recent quarterly reports."
I'm hesitant about some of the ideas mentioned above. Slowing down service or reducing the quality of service would, in my opinion, make people even less likely to use it. It might be a downward spiral from there - less people use it, so service is reduced, so less people use it, so service is reduced, and so on. Should tax dollars be allocated towards keeping the Postal Service solvent? That may help, though it might be a tough sell, since the Postal Service says that a large chunk of the money needed is for employee retirement health benefits. More and more people are doing things online that they would previously do via the mail - send messages, send birthday/holiday cards, pay bills, receive magazines/books/music, etc. However, not everyone in the U.S. can do these things online or is comfortable with it. Still, is the decline of the postal service a sign that it's becoming obsolete? If it still needs to exist, in what form should it exist?
http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/postal_service_loss/index.htm
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The U.S. Postal Service renewed its pleas for congressional support Thursday as the floundering agency reported another massive quarterly loss.
The Postal Service announced that it sustained a net loss of $3.3 billion in the last three months of 2011, as declining mail volumes and mounting benefit costs continue to weigh on its business.
In the previous fiscal year, the Postal Service lost $5.1 billion and said its losses would have been roughly $10.6 billion if not for the passage of legislation postponing a $5.5 billion payment required to pre-fund retiree health benefits.
In a statement, the Postal Service urged the government to do away with the requirement that such benefits be funded at their current rates, and also called for greater "delivery flexibility."
There's more to the article at the source.
The article mentions some ideas, such as having mail service on only five days instead of six, slowing down next-day service, or closing some offices. It may help to increase postage costs, though I feel like there are always gripes when that happens, and people could just stock up on "Forever" stamps before a really major increase. I honestly don't know how competitive the mail costs are compared to private delivery services, though the article mentions at the end that both UPS and Fed Ex "reported strong increases in earnings and revenue in their most recent quarterly reports."
I'm hesitant about some of the ideas mentioned above. Slowing down service or reducing the quality of service would, in my opinion, make people even less likely to use it. It might be a downward spiral from there - less people use it, so service is reduced, so less people use it, so service is reduced, and so on. Should tax dollars be allocated towards keeping the Postal Service solvent? That may help, though it might be a tough sell, since the Postal Service says that a large chunk of the money needed is for employee retirement health benefits. More and more people are doing things online that they would previously do via the mail - send messages, send birthday/holiday cards, pay bills, receive magazines/books/music, etc. However, not everyone in the U.S. can do these things online or is comfortable with it. Still, is the decline of the postal service a sign that it's becoming obsolete? If it still needs to exist, in what form should it exist?
no subject
I don't know what the solution is.
P... p... privatize... it... ?
no subject
no subject
no subject
The Hayekian thing is to privatize it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Is there a checklist I've been missing?
no subject
no subject
Isn't belief a personal quality?
no subject
no subject
>50%, >75%, >99.999999714286% ?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject