Trump Wants Postal Service to Charge “Much More” for Amazon Shipments

Once again another pussyhat wearer makes knee jerk statements in a sloppy rush to attack the President. IN 2013 Amazon demanded the USPS provide Sunday delivery as a regular service. Nice, deceptive wording you have there to suggest it was congress that forced the USPS to take on an additional burden. It was the Obama administration's cozy relationship with Bezos that helped push this through. I'm sure Bezos buying the official Democrat cheerleader newspaper in the same year had nothing to do with this, no quid pro quo, right?


By DAN MITCHELL
November 13, 2013

FORTUNE — Why does Amazon’s new deal with the U.S. Postal Service to provide Sunday deliveries to Amazon Prime customers seem so unsettling? I can think of three reasons: the exclusivity (we’ll get mail on Sundays, but only mail from Amazon); the dynamic of a private enterprise hiring out a government agency as a contractor; and the fact that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the deal is a “marriage of one of the country’s most successful enterprises with one of its most troubled.”

Amazon and the Postal Service are both mum on the deal’s details, so it’s difficult to answer many of the questions that it raises. Such as: How much will it help shore up the USPS’s losses, estimated to be $3.9 billion so far this year? Will other companies be able to make similar deals? If so, will smaller companies also be able to get in on the action? What will the deal do for Amazon’s bottom line as investors increasingly clamor for better results? Why didn’t Amazon choose a private delivery service to partner with?


The postal service is losing billions in the aggregate. What they are charging for their services does not cover their expenses. You can't attribute that loss to any specific USPS service, it's a systemic issue. Amazon benefits disproportionately from that situation, and the losses would be lower if they hadn't had to make specific changes Amazon required them to, like purchasing much larger vehicles, and making Sunday delivery a regular service. Read the agreement Amazon made with the USPS and it's clear the additional expenses incurred by the USPS are definitely contributing to its loss and profiting from artificially low rates.


So where is this agreement, so we can all read it just like you?
 
Sure. Go ahead and raise USPS rates. Amazon will go for the least costly courier. If that remains USPS fine, but there are competitors for the kinds of things Amazon ships out. I bet if the USPS rates go up so does the percentage of parcels going out via their competitors. After all business is business.
 
Last edited:
The USPS is the only 'branch of government'** required to pre-fund it's retirement health benefits. NO OTHER BRANCH** OF GOV'T HAS THIS REQUIREMENT. This is by far the main reason the USPS can't cover its costs.

It's also wrong to say that the USPS should be forced to "run profitably" and not use tax money. The USPS has requirements by regulation to provide service even in many areas where the population density is not profitable. It provides service to many places and days where no other delivery service will go. As a nation, it is both socially and economically important to provide a service that connects us all together, especially in an era where online shopping is rapidly displacing large sections of the retail industry. That it needs some tax money to accomplish this is fine.

If the bulk shipping rate that the USPS charges Amazon is too low, then it can be assessed when the contract is up next. However, the USPS has a lot of smart people working on these contracts, and it sounds like Amazon does a lot of the prep work themselves compared to other bulk mailers, so it doesn't sound like a giveaway to me.​

credit (or discredit) goes to jdreyer @ bluesnews forum
source https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm

**not quite a branch, more like a twig.
 
If USPS raises it's prices too much, Amazon may use someone else or do last mile themselves and the USPS will fail. I believe that Amazon delivers to post offices instead of distribution hubs which helps the USPS save money, so they charge Amazon less.

Amazon's success has probably saved the USPS from complete financial ruin.
 
Amazon does deliver directly to the local post offices instead of the hubs. They started in our area in September and they are abysmally bad at it. The couple weeks prior to Christmas we had carriers waiting ~2 hours for Amazon to show up with the drop off. Had an entire week where every single day the Amazon contractor was his first day on the job.
 
Amazon does deliver directly to the local post offices instead of the hubs. They started in our area in September and they are abysmally bad at it. The couple weeks prior to Christmas we had carriers waiting ~2 hours for Amazon to show up with the drop off. Had an entire week where every single day the Amazon contractor was his first day on the job.
That's unfortunate. It works fine in my area.
 
The USPS is the only 'branch of government'** required to pre-fund it's retirement health benefits. NO OTHER BRANCH** OF GOV'T HAS THIS REQUIREMENT. This is by far the main reason the USPS can't cover its costs.

It's also wrong to say that the USPS should be forced to "run profitably" and not use tax money. The USPS has requirements by regulation to provide service even in many areas where the population density is not profitable. It provides service to many places and days where no other delivery service will go. As a nation, it is both socially and economically important to provide a service that connects us all together, especially in an era where online shopping is rapidly displacing large sections of the retail industry. That it needs some tax money to accomplish this is fine.

If the bulk shipping rate that the USPS charges Amazon is too low, then it can be assessed when the contract is up next. However, the USPS has a lot of smart people working on these contracts, and it sounds like Amazon does a lot of the prep work themselves compared to other bulk mailers, so it doesn't sound like a giveaway to me.​

credit (or discredit) goes to jdreyer @ bluesnews forum
source https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm

**not quite a branch, more like a twig.

Yes the post office actually has to attempt to fund their employees retirement benefits instead of just forcing that cost onto the children of the future. You know the way the rest of the government works. But hey who cares let's just screw over our children and grandchildren even more.

And fee for service... Hmm sorta like a private business? Why not just privatize the post office then? There's plenty of competition already. The only reason I don't see this happening is because their pension is bankrupt and privatizing them would require it to be adequately funded, which would require acknowledging that it's basically bankrupt. And nobody wants to acknowledge this. Too many people just have this fuck the future, fuck the children and grandchildren, let them pay for it attitude.
 
In relation to those calling for privatization of the mail service, what is the USPS's impact on rural areas? Will other companies be profitable in mail operations in low population density areas without significantly raising rates for those areas? If the USPS loses money on this function, we should just go ahead and fund it directly from the government. Since providing mail service is established in the Constitution its hardly excessive government overreach and besides, supporting our rural population is important. (With that said, i don't know what impact the USPS has on rural areas, so it depends. if its not needed, then i suppose we can privatize the post office. Still, like most people note, they do a ton of last-mile work for other private companies so perhaps we are subsidizing and Trump has the right idea regarding raising rates. Still, low cost mail service is important, maintaining that is important, privatization should not change that)
 
something is wrong if they can't break even with $70 billion in revenue each year

if they raise postage rates, they will not make more money, because fewer people will mail shit, so it would probably be a wash.
 
Yes the post office actually has to attempt to fund their employees retirement benefits instead of just forcing that cost onto the children of the future. You know the way the rest of the government works. But hey who cares let's just screw over our children and grandchildren even more....

And why should those who are in their prime working years not contribute to their elder's retirement benefits? I funded my dad's retirement and now that I am retired my kids are contributing to mine just as my grandkids will contribute toward their parents' retirement. And trust me here - I contributed more to the govt retirement funds over almost 50 years than I will ever hope to see coming back to me and my wife during our retirement from those sources. Just as an aside most professional jobs have contributory pensions that are intended to supplement your retirement. Problem is some corporations have been known to raid those pension funds for their own use and get caught short.
 
Amazon does deliver directly to the local post offices instead of the hubs. They started in our area in September and they are abysmally bad at it. The couple weeks prior to Christmas we had carriers waiting ~2 hours for Amazon to show up with the drop off. Had an entire week where every single day the Amazon contractor was his first day on the job.

They are trying to put their own delivery system into place everywhere. They also use UPS to deliver directly to the local post office, at which point USPS does the last mile. The Amazon delivery drivers I've spoken with
In relation to those calling for privatization of the mail service, what is the USPS's impact on rural areas? Will other companies be profitable in mail operations in low population density areas without significantly raising rates for those areas? If the USPS loses money on this function, we should just go ahead and fund it directly from the government. Since providing mail service is established in the Constitution its hardly excessive government overreach and besides, supporting our rural population is important. (With that said, i don't know what impact the USPS has on rural areas, so it depends. if its not needed, then i suppose we can privatize the post office. Still, like most people note, they do a ton of last-mile work for other private companies so perhaps we are subsidizing and Trump has the right idea regarding raising rates. Still, low cost mail service is important, maintaining that is important, privatization should not change that)

I'd be fine if the postal service stuck to letters. The problem is they are getting into package delivery. Basically just to subsidize private companies and use a government service which loses billions of dollars a year to compete with private companies which actually have to at least break even.

As far as rural areas go? In Utah, the state I reside in, we (UPS) and FedEx deliver pretty much everywhere. I have done rural routes before. There's no need for the post office to be delivering packages for Amazon at a loss. Letters? Sure let them run letters.
 
Yes the post office actually has to attempt to fund their employees retirement benefits instead of just forcing that cost onto the children of the future.
They were already funding them just fine. Congress just made them fund it all upfront decades ahead of schedule with no warning or time to adjust their finances.

It was a pure political move to make the USPS look bad so that Repubs in Congress could make it look like they were doing "something" to look fiscally responsible for their base voters.

privatization should not change that)
Of course privatization will change it though.

If private companies won't make money, or as much money, on it they won't do it or do it as well as the USPS does currently. That is just reality.

Cutting service quality on what is essentially a necessity still for higher cost is dumb.
 
Hell I deliver a ton of packages that are sent through the USPS through a special deal we have set up, called surepost. They can't even deliver their own friggin packages and so they pay UPS to do it.

I think you have that backwards..around here USPS delivers UPS packages, not the other way around.

UPS SurePost® is an economy, residential, ground service.

This service combines the consistency and reliability of the UPS Ground network with final delivery typically provided by the U.S. Postal Service.



https://www.ups.com/us/en/help-center/tracking-support/sp-definition.page
 
And why should those who are in their prime working years not contribute to their elder's retirement benefits? I funded my dad's retirement and now that I am retired my kids are contributing to mine just as my grandkids will contribute toward their parents' retirement. And trust me here - I contributed more to the govt retirement funds over almost 50 years than I will ever hope to see coming back to me and my wife during our retirement from those sources. Just as an aside most professional jobs have contributory pensions that are intended to supplement your retirement. Problem is some corporations have been known to raid those pension funds for their own use and get caught short.

Because it creates perverse incentives, requires a constantly growing population, and is essentially forcing the young into slavery. Do they get to vote if they want to pay for the older generations retirement? No. We vote to force them to pay for it. It's wrong. It needs to stop.
 
They are trying to put their own delivery system into place everywhere. They also use UPS to deliver directly to the local post office, at which point USPS does the last mile. The Amazon delivery drivers I've spoken with


I'd be fine if the postal service stuck to letters. The problem is they are getting into package delivery. Basically just to subsidize private companies and use a government service which loses billions of dollars a year to compete with private companies which actually have to at least break even.

As far as rural areas go? In Utah, the state I reside in, we (UPS) and FedEx deliver pretty much everywhere. I have done rural routes before. There's no need for the post office to be delivering packages for Amazon at a loss. Letters? Sure let them run letters.

This Christmas around me Amazon depended on their own couriers (courier name AMZN) for the last mile for the stuff they handle directly. Their 3rd party vendors use whatever they want to use. Many of those use UPS and Purolator/Puropost.
 
Because it creates perverse incentives, requires a constantly growing population, and is essentially forcing the young into slavery. Do they get to vote if they want to pay for the older generations retirement? No. We vote to force them to pay for it. It's wrong. It needs to stop.
Hahahaha a taxpayer or worker funded retirement pension isn't slavery at all. Or even close to it. The young will eventually benefit from it too when they get old.

What creates perverse incentives is bailing out Wall St, giving a pass to white collar criminals, and making profitable private corps even richer at the taxpayer's expense.

something is wrong if they can't break even with $70 billion in revenue each year
THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BREAK EVEN!!

Geez do you guys not bother to read the thread at all?!

The USPS is legally required to lose money + on top of that Congress (Repub controlled) screwed with their retirement funding on purpose for political optics. Financially there is nothing really wrong per se with the way they run at all.
 
Because it creates perverse incentives, requires a constantly growing population, and is essentially forcing the young into slavery. Do they get to vote if they want to pay for the older generations retirement? No. We vote to force them to pay for it. It's wrong. It needs to stop.

Forcing the young into slavery? Really? Young people who work don't get paid? They can't buy anything because they have no money? You need to understand what the word slavery means. Slaves are not paid. Ever.

Did I get to vote if I wanted to pay for my elder's retirement for 50 years of my working life? No. The deductions came out of every paycheck before I ever saw a dime. That is not going to change. It is a social responsibility for the young to take care of their elders in any society (a lot of conservatives really hate hearing that).

Thing is, what would you prefer? Contribute to retirement funds that you yourself will one day depend upon or instead support all the homeless elders living on the street because they don't have the money to support or house themselves through welfare.

It is easy when you are looking down a long tube at your retirement. It is a whole other thing when you are living it yourself.

At the end of the day not even Trump can get away with stopping society's responsibility of supporting its elder citizens. Like it or not, that is the way it is and will always be.
 
one thing many people forget about the USPS when calling to shut it down or this or that. They employ 600K+ people. That's twice as many people as Target in total. That would be a heck of a lot of lost jobs to absorb somewhere..

It would be hard for postal employees to make a living only say working 3 days a week if we cut mail delivery days in half. How would you like it if your management came to you and said eh, we're cutting your work week to 3 days, have fun finding a second job to make up the difference (which good luck working 2 part time jobs and actually making a decent living, you can live sure, but decently in this country bahahaha good luck..)
 
one thing many people forget about the USPS when calling to shut it down or this or that. They employ 600K+ people. That's twice as many people as Target in total. That would be a heck of a lot of lost jobs to absorb somewhere..
I doubt very much that no matter what the USPS shuts down or what service it removes, it will always be there. It may reduce headcount to balance its books but it won't go away. A large part of that 600K folks will have their jobs for decades to come. Because it is a government regulated corporation (we call them crown corporations where I live, but I bet thy are something similar in the U.S.) and when things get tough the government will bail them out.
 
one thing many people forget about the USPS when calling to shut it down or this or that. They employ 600K+ people. That's twice as many people as Target in total. That would be a heck of a lot of lost jobs to absorb somewhere..

It would be hard for postal employees to make a living only say working 3 days a week if we cut mail delivery days in half. How would you like it if your management came to you and said eh, we're cutting your work week to 3 days, have fun finding a second job to make up the difference (which good luck working 2 part time jobs and actually making a decent living, you can live sure, but decently in this country bahahaha good luck..)

No need to shut them down. Privatize them. Or at the very least have them do letter delivery. If they are going to be a government company then they should not be competing with private companies who can't exist losing $600 billion dollars.
 
Forcing the young into slavery? Really? Young people who work don't get paid? They can't buy anything because they have no money? You need to understand what the word slavery means. Slaves are not paid. Ever.

Did I get to vote if I wanted to pay for my elder's retirement for 50 years of my working life? No. The deductions came out of every paycheck before I ever saw a dime. That is not going to change. It is a social responsibility for the young to take care of their elders in any society (a lot of conservatives really hate hearing that).

Thing is, what would you prefer? Contribute to retirement funds that you yourself will one day depend upon or instead support all the homeless elders living on the street because they don't have the money to support or house themselves through welfare.

It is easy when you are looking down a long tube at your retirement. It is a whole other thing when you are living it yourself.

At the end of the day not even Trump can get away with stopping society's responsibility of supporting its elder citizens. Like it or not, that is the way it is and will always be.

That's fine. But young people should have a choice. Voting to force them to fund the retirement benefits you want now, in the future when you don't know what their circumstances will be, and they have no voice in the matter, is flatly wrong.

Morality never interferes with personal greed, though. Unfortunately.
 
no matter what the USPS shuts down or what service it removes, it will always be there. It may reduce headcount to balance its books but it won't go away
So instead of a large economic blow to those areas where the USPS is a major employer you think a moderate one will somehow be fine? Along with higher cost of service and/or worse service quality too??

If they are going to be a government company then they should not be competing with private companies who can't exist losing $600 billion dollars.
Pure ideology.

All that matters to most is quality of service vs cost and no one beats the USPS for the price they charge.

But young people should have a choice.
If they have a choice of course they won't fund the pension or retirement fund. Young people, and people in generally really, are terrible at saving. This has been true since forever.

The choice you'd offer them would be a stupid one in the long term for nearly all of them.
 
The USPS is the only 'branch of government'** required to pre-fund it's retirement health benefits. NO OTHER BRANCH** OF GOV'T HAS THIS REQUIREMENT. This is by far the main reason the USPS can't cover its costs.

It's also wrong to say that the USPS should be forced to "run profitably" and not use tax money. The USPS has requirements by regulation to provide service even in many areas where the population density is not profitable. It provides service to many places and days where no other delivery service will go. As a nation, it is both socially and economically important to provide a service that connects us all together, especially in an era where online shopping is rapidly displacing large sections of the retail industry. That it needs some tax money to accomplish this is fine.

If the bulk shipping rate that the USPS charges Amazon is too low, then it can be assessed when the contract is up next. However, the USPS has a lot of smart people working on these contracts, and it sounds like Amazon does a lot of the prep work themselves compared to other bulk mailers, so it doesn't sound like a giveaway to me.​

credit (or discredit) goes to jdreyer @ bluesnews forum
source https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/financials/annual-reports/fy2010/ar2010_4_002.htm

**not quite a branch, more like a twig.
Then the people that live in the sticks can drive 30min into town once a week to get the mail or have deliverys only once a week. Most people don't need mail every day anymore
 
So instead of a large economic blow to those areas where the USPS is a major employer you think a moderate one will somehow be fine? Along with higher cost of service and/or worse service quality too??


Pure ideology.

All that matters to most is quality of service vs cost and no one beats the USPS for the price they charge.


If they have a choice of course they won't fund the pension or retirement fund. Young people, and people in generally really, are terrible at saving. This has been true since forever.

The choice you'd offer them would be a stupid one in the long term for nearly all of them.

I take care of my elderly father. I also give money to my elderly aunt. By free choice. Personal greed and/or fear should not be a reason to force anyone else to pay for what you want now. It's very hypocritical to complain when some groups to this (walstreet bailouts) but be totes fine when it benefits you and gives you what you want.

I'm in a non-government labor union. In this union I voluntarily support the pensions of the retired workers, for the contractual benefit of having my pension funded by the younger workers. Who can choose whether or not to join the union and sign the union contract.

Using government power to essentially have children be forced into a contract they have no voice in and cannot refuse for your own benefit today is wrong. I can't understand how you would fail to see this, except that you benefit from it so you are willing to overlook the immorality of the situation. Exactly like the banksters who benefited from the bailouts and so they would rationalize why it was a moral good for society as well. It's wrong to force other people to give you their labour. It's just wrong. Even when you benefit from it.
 
Then the people that live in the sticks can drive 30min into town once a week to get the mail or have deliverys only once a week. Most people don't need mail every day anymore

Or they can pay more for the service. To be honest though the only folks that deliver to my door are the private courier companies. Canada Post (our USPS) delivers to a community mailbox and I go to it usually once a week (unless I'm anxiously waiting for something).
 
Last edited:
I take care of my elderly father. I also give money to my elderly aunt. By free choice.
Good on you but so what?

We're not talking about you, we're talking about a large system that has many people who voluntarily decided to be a part of it. That and the fact that almost 9edit lol damn dyslexia) nobody who actually works for a living can do what you do now since most are only 1 paycheque away from bankruptcy and have little to no savings.

So instead of giving me just so personal anecdotes you're going to have to actually address those facts and square them with reality.

but be totes fine when it benefits you and gives you what you want.
A retirement/pension system that benefits those that pay into it is no way shape or form comparable to a Wall St bailout.

If you think it is then you don't understand a thing about any of this.
 
Last edited:
The USPS also subsidizes Chinese companies.

I order a lot of mainly Dell laptop parts and the cheapest source for actual OEM parts is direct from China over EBay -- free shipping via USPS because there is some international agreement on mail that places most of the financial burden on the USPS.

I hope Trump doesn't figure this one out. ;)
 
Maybe they should get rid of the pensions and each employee enroll in a 401K or other savings plan like the rest of us. And the Gov requirements they set on them are made to make them look like a losing pile of shit.
 
Amazon does deliver directly to the local post offices instead of the hubs. They started in our area in September and they are abysmally bad at it. The couple weeks prior to Christmas we had carriers waiting ~2 hours for Amazon to show up with the drop off. Had an entire week where every single day the Amazon contractor was his first day on the job.

Because doing deliveries for Amazon is absolutely terrible.

I shop from Amazon, but I wonder how people can manage working for them.
 
Of bigger concern to me is the impression that non-Prime free shipping has really declined in quality (IMHO). I feel that Amazon really intends to get everybody on Prime (much like a Costco membership) and you can see that with just how many perks they throw on there. This is potentially bad for a lot of reasons (e.g., many remote places in the U.S. all but rely on Amazon shipping now) but moreover one must realize that Bezos really wants it to be an international company. Him becoming the richest person on the planet (fudged Putin numbers not withstanding) is just the first indicator of this but when you see those giant corporations more powerful than countries in games and movies, well, Amazon has the potential for dystopian scale. Their first real goal is vertical integration with delivery - let's not make it too cheap for them.
 
Of bigger concern to me is the impression that non-Prime free shipping has really declined in quality (IMHO). I feel that Amazon really intends to get everybody on Prime (much like a Costco membership) and you can see that with just how many perks they throw on there. This is potentially bad for a lot of reasons (e.g., many remote places in the U.S. all but rely on Amazon shipping now) but moreover one must realize that Bezos really wants it to be an international company. Him becoming the richest person on the planet (fudged Putin numbers not withstanding) is just the first indicator of this but when you see those giant corporations more powerful than countries in games and movies, well, Amazon has the potential for dystopian scale. Their first real goal is vertical integration with delivery - let's not make it too cheap for them.

I kinda have to agree there but expand that the prime shipping has really gone down in quality. I'm a prime member and had a lot of Christmas deliveries that had to happen. While most pretty much showed up on time they used their own delivery service to get them to me. When most couriers deliver, the ring the bell and wait till you get to the door. Some ring the bell and dash off. AMZN shows up in an unmarked or rental van, throws the package on my porch (seriously they don't even go up the steps and set it down!) and runs off. OK, Christmas season and they are busy as hell. I get it, but c'mon! It really doesn't look good.
 
I kinda have to agree there but expand that the prime shipping has really gone down in quality. I'm a prime member and had a lot of Christmas deliveries that had to happen. While most pretty much showed up on time they used their own delivery service to get them to me. When most couriers deliver, the ring the bell and wait till you get to the door. Some ring the bell and dash off. AMZN shows up in an unmarked or rental van, throws the package on my porch (seriously they don't even go up the steps and set it down!) and runs off. OK, Christmas season and they are busy as hell. I get it, but c'mon! It really doesn't look good.

I've been on/off Prime (usually free trials I cycle, sometimes more recently a month for big game orders) and I agree that shipping across-the-board has declined in quality for me. However I'm mostly in the non-Prime camp and while it used to be really good with free shipping, now it's downright abysmal. I get far better service pretty much anywhere else you could name!
 
It's perfectly reasonable to ask why the taxpayer is subsidizing every package Amazon sends via the USPS.

Even worse is that China is classified as a "developing country" by the international postal commission, which requires the USPS to absorb the costs for delivering Chinese parcels within the US. This is why you can buy some LED's from Shenzhen for 50 cents and they come with "free shipping" to the USA, again paid for by the US taxpayer.

I benefit from these things, since I buy everything on line, but that doesn't make it right.

"The U.S. Postal Service, which runs at a big loss, is an independent agency within the federal government and does not receive tax dollars for operating expenses."

Literally in the OPENING POST.
 
Trump's just got a bone to pick with Bezos, he's jealous because he's better looking, way richer, a better business man, and can speak English in complete sentences.

That said all it would do is take the business from USPS and give it back to ups/FedEx. Delivering Amazon packages is the least if their issues.

Or they would likely just bring it in house with Amazon Flex.

The Postal Service problem is not Amazon.

Their problems are:

- Legacy retirement/healthcare liabilities for employees, exacerbated by the fact that they are in a shrinking industry, so they have way more retirees and way fewer employees today to pay for them
- The fact that congress forces the USPS to pre-fund these liabilities, unlike every other business out there (including their competition)
- The fact that congress mandates that the USPS service every last address in the U.S. no matter how remote, when their competition doesn't have to.
- The fact that they are in a shrinking business where people don't send mail much anymore, and they have legacy capital (buildings, equipment, structures, etc.), debt, etc. needed to support the historical demand, rather than the current one.
- The fact that congress controls how much they are allowed to charge for their services, when the competition doesn't have to deal with this


Granted, they are mostly over the hump now. They have done some radical downsizing, selling off of capital, consolidating, etc. and are in a much better position than they were 5-10 years ago, but they still haven't passed the finish line.

As long as UPS and Fedex can pick and choose how they do the last mile in remote areas, and USPS can't, and as long as congress meddles in how they handle their retirement liabilities they will struggle to be competitive with the competition.

One of the reasons they have been able to offer Amazon such great deals on bulk shipments is because they have all this legacy capital in place for moving massive amounts of mail long distances that otherwise would sit unused. It is better for them to charge Amazon low rates and make SOME money on it, than have it sit unused. Then Amazon and others handle the last mile themselves through solutions like Amazon Flex (essentially Uber for packages) and FedEx Smartpost.

Again, our fearless orange leader has demonstrated that he knows nothing about running a business, how capital structures work, and just wants to greatly oversimplify a complex problem in order to score political points among those who don't know any better.
 
Last edited:
No need to shut them down. Privatize them.
The UK privatized their Royal Mail service. What happened? Rich folks ran off with taxpayer money and are bleeding the Royal Mail dry.

Privatizing basic services like these is a bad idea. Unfortunately, I fear that the Republican "infrastructure" initiative will be a ploy to carve out taxpayer owned resources and dole them to the oligarchs, much like happened in Russia in the 1990s. Why will the administration get away with it? Because they can say that the sales both raise money and reduce government expenditures. Nevermind that we proles also lose valuable services along the way. As others have noted here, Congress has been sabotaging them to rally support for privatization. I guess their strategy works.

What's next? Private corporations owning the local roads, so that you have to pay to leave your driveway? For-profit fire fighting services who refuse to put out expensive fires? Scrapping the military in favor of mercenaries-for-hire? Should restaurants owners be in charge of food safety inspections? Not everything should be privatized; the USPS should be left alone.
 
The USPS was one of the most successful enterprises of all time, thanks to the efforts of Benjamin Franklin. The Royal Mail (as atmartens posted above me) is a piece of crap in comparison but still better than much of the world...
 
- Legacy retirement/healthcare liabilities for employees, exacerbated by the fact that they are in a shrinking industry, so they have way more retirees and way fewer employees today to pay for them
The USPS would've been up by about $1.5 billion if Congress hadn't passed the PAEA though which isn't exactly a sign of financial distress.

While the issues you're talking about were real (ie. shrinking industry + large amount of retirees/soon to retire workers) the guys running the USPS were aware of them and were dealing with fairly well it seems up until a Repub controlled Congress decided to try and score some brownie points with its base.

Again, our fearless orange leader has demonstrated that he knows nothing about running a business, how capital structures work, and just wants to greatly oversimplify a complex problem in order to score political points among those who don't know any better.
Still blows me away how anyone can think he is good at running a business given how many times he has gone bankrupt and how many of his business partners he screwed over.

That is why he could only use Deutschbank for a long time now. No other bank would trust him and even Deutschbank was about ready to drop the hammer on him up until he won the election because of his shenanigans.
 
Good on you but so what?

We're not talking about you, we're talking about a large system that has many people who voluntarily decided to be a part of it. That and the fact that almost 9edit lol damn dyslexia) nobody who actually works for a living can do what you do now since most are only 1 paycheque away from bankruptcy and have little to no savings.

So instead of giving me just so personal anecdotes you're going to have to actually address those facts and square them with reality.


A retirement/pension system that benefits those that pay into it is no way shape or form comparable to a Wall St bailout.

If you think it is then you don't understand a thing about any of this.

Take money from the youth, The unborn, who have no say in any of it? And that money is taken by force? But it's totes ok cause they will benefit from it.

Just like the walstreet bailouts. Can you imagine the massive depression that would have resulted if we had several massive banks collapsing? Everyone just benefits from it. Is all good.

You're really just rationalizing to support what you benefit from. You are not being consistent with your morals. This is why I left the left. All the talk of high morals is just a smokescreen for their own greed.

It's wrong to create benefits for ourselves and oblige the young children to pay for them, when they have no choice. It is not voluntary.
 
Back
Top