This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Debate: US Postal Service.
The US Post Office is a independent operating agency of the US government that is subject to Congressional Control.The PO lost 15.9 Billion in 2012 and 5.1 Billion in 2011. The major reason the PO is going south is a requirement of Congress called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 which requires the agency to pay 5.1 Billion a year into Future Retirees Health Benefits for 75 years into the future. This is the only federal agency to have this requirement.
The PO has 574,000 workers and the largest vehicle fleet in the world (218,000 vehicles). Just put put this into perspective.
The question is can the PO continue to operate under continuing losses. Since the major problem is the Congressional Act why not have Congress repeal a 5.1 Billion dollar requirement of a agency that only showed a profit of 1 Billion the year before the requirement went into effect.
The PO says they can come closer if they eliminate Saturday deliveries and close rural postal routes and small town post offices.
I am sure that there are other areas of concern I am missing here.
Can TED members collectively suggest a means of saving the Postal Service.
Danger Lampost 10+
T. Davis
Grant Garrett
R. Heschel
Then I had an experience with privatized mail. I "mail ordered" a package of east which was sent here to Ohio from Main via FedEx Smart mail. Smart Mail cost more than First Class and took about two weeks. I had a tracking number so I got to see the data saying how the package of yeast sat on a shipping dock mid way between here and there for about a week. This is wholly unacceptable.
Another unacceptable performance from non-USPS carriers is how I've had merchandise delivered and simply dropped on the doorstep. Last time it was a KitchenAid Pro6 Mixer. USPS, if the item can't fit in the box delivers a notification of a waiting package and holds that item in a secure location until the package can be picked up.
Those of us who do small commerce, need a reliable carrier who performs their duties in a timely manner at a good cost, we think the Post Office should be saved.
Saving the post office will probably require the closing of offices, or reduction of hours, and reduction of service days.
Barry Palmer 50+
The more important question is, do we want to continue to support the infrastructure of democracy?
Democracy does not need the postal service we now have. The postal service we now have was meant to serve a country that was 90% rural. The postal service is obsolete.
Democracy does require communication, for ALL citizens, regardless of their ability to pay.
In a country where most people now live in cities, it is easy to forget or ignore the minority that live outside the cities. We do this at our peril. We have already learned the lessons of divisiveness and exclusion. The benefits of private enterprise are obvious, but the disadvantages can make it impossible to support the ideal of legal equality for ALL.
The lobbyists of the phone industry were very effective in getting permits to service whatever portion of the population that THEY chose. They chose the most profitable markets. Where I sit right now, I very often cannot get cell phone service. That means that in order to have reliable service, including 911 service, I have to pay for a very expensive land line. For most people, the privatization of phone service was beneficial. For some of us, it means higher expense and less service. For some locations, it means no service.
Operating the Postal Service as it now exists is just plain stupid. It is inefficient and ineffective. Many courts are now changing their rules to require electronic filing of many legal items. If we want legal equality for all, we need fast, high quality electronic communications for all. This could be accomplished within the private sector by changing the requirements for their licenses. IMO, it would be wiser for the government to establish a wireless network of cell phone and internet nodes, then lease time on the network to the private service providers. This would have the added advantage of keeping the network immediately available for crises.
Danger Lampost 10+
J. E. Sigler
Do we even NEED a publicly funded postal service anymore? If so, WHAT do we need from it? Let's re-design it around those needs.
John Smith 30+
Raise the US Postal Service's prices of stamps, or privatize and end up paying more for stamps as well.
Robert Winner 50+
Without the 5.1 billion dollar requirement a plan is feasiable to recover the service. Further, the money invested should be refunded proportionally to the expenses already obligated. That would be a good hunk of change that should go to upgrades and rainy day funds.
As Edward stated the term Independent Operating Agency of the US Government is an oxymoron. In my brief readings and limited understanding of the USPO, Congress is the major problem. Having said that, I would also consider Unions to be a problem to the effective operation of the agency. The USPO HQ is shown in the home page a downtown Washington DC 10 story building. That would suggest that there is high executive staffing, high maintenance costs, and overhead expenses as in all federal "controled" agencies. So start at the top and weed out the fat prior to pruning the workers. Sell the expensive property and relocate to a more reasonable location and a much smaller facility. This savings would also go into the account.
Congress need to decide if they "own" this agency or not and butt out. The surest way to bring it down is federal intervention and management. So here is a plan:
1. Everone under Obamacare (except the privliged class) Refund the money collected.
2. Reduced the HQ staffing
3. Sell off expensive property
4. Get out from under Congress
5. Reorganize to fit the budget requirements and adjust as necessary.
This is not everything needed but would be a heck of a start.
Whatchathink?
Conor McPeake
- received something via postal service that could not have been delivered via e-mail
or
- received something that could not have been delivered by a non tax payer subsidised service
For me it is never.
If the USPS cant support itself it should fade away.
J. E. Sigler
That is the question to ask, I think!
(And to answer your questions: Never and never. But the "could not have been" are the operative words in your questions. It might be more appropriate to ask: Could I have received them cheaper and faster and with higher quality and better service via email/a non-tax-payer-subsidized service?)
Mariane Maffeo
Catherine Croutcher
Lawren Jones 10+
edward long 100+
Hector Rosario
Conor McPeake
When postal services were formed they were critical, but with digital communications we need a new vision.
It is currently a government subsidized social service.
90% of what it delivers can probably be served better by private industry.
80 % of what I receive is junk mail and it goes straight into the recycling.
The only people that need this subsidized service are people that live > 20 miles from the nearest population center.
Its a social service that is nice to have but is a relic.
The current waste of tax payers money could be minimized by:
Initially cutting deliveries to three days a week then cut it down to one or two days a week.
Mitch SMith 50+
I am not sure about US legislation or the issues surrounding it, however I can say this:
Governmental postal services have built the best, cheapest logistics distribution service in the world.
Having worked for corporate logistics distribution organisations, i can say with some authority, that the priate sector cannot hope to compete with a postal distribution service created by people who wanted it as an essential function of representative government. A postal service is a clear example of the power of social capital at work.
In this regard, i see anything that represents essential infrastructure is equivalent to the judiciary.
A nation cannot afford to hand over essential infrastructure to non-national control. The practice of this delivers government into the hands of the non-representative and creates a nation within a nation.
On the other hand, the management of community capital cannot be granted to a government if it is not truly representative. I would argue for de-centralisation, rather than privatisation.
And (in the voice of GW) "make no mistake" - private logistics companies are investing enormous resources into destroying national postal services - they simply cannot compete.
If you want a good postal service - keep it public and pay for it, My private logistics friends will screw us all if they win.
J. E. Sigler
Mitch SMith 50+
Traditionally, we have sought to do this by 2 methods:
1 Wholesale privatisation (whole of operation) and
2 incremental serice provision through commercial tender (last loop pickup/delivery and private post-office operational ownership).
Option 1 fails because private operations compete - part of that competition is de-standardisation created to prevent inter-dependance and create brand definition - thus fragmenting the service and destroying economy of scale.
Option 2 has mixed results. Local private ownership of a post office brings the operation into the local community dynamic, while last-loop delivery reduces service quality through competitive operational cost-cutting. So, for instance, the post office becomes a friendly place where you feel comfortable accessing the service, but parcel and registered deliveries are often not executed - and a card is left to shift the delivery back to the post office over-the counter.
THere remains the function of central coordination. This might be divested to a body representative of the local operation owners. Common infrastucture might be provided through small-scale integration of aagreed global standards.
The competitive capitalist system works well in matters of strict reciprocity - community capital is not well served by it. The practices of the distribution of resources need to be re-defined to allow local representation in community services - If the community wants them. Funding is then divested from central allocation and delivered as the responsibilty of teh community to fund whatever level of capital infrastructure they deem appropriate - along with service pricing.
The need for trunk-line distribution then becomes the overview of teh jurisdiction in which it operates - hence state and federal.
Alternative would be cellular distribution hand-off (inefficient)
Mitch SMith 50+
The important principle being to match the community valuation of the service with what actually gets implemented. COmmunity infrastructure tends towards quality - and longevity, while commercial service always seeks to reduce quality in order to increase efficiency - at some point, the service quality fails the definition of the service.
J. E. Sigler
I hope I understand correctly... If I do, then I think you may have an idea worth sharing here, Mitch!
Mitch SMith 50+
However, the trunk and long-leg parts of the distribution network are not well served by the cellular model. This would probably be best served by state and national standards - and, would be nicely covered by commercial operations - so long as a standard system integration is imposed. This bit is still funded by taxation.
I can concieve a fully functional cellular community distribution model, but it would require significant cultural changes for acceptance. The hybrid local/state/national/company model is good for now.
Al lI am proposing is the re-ownership of local postal service by the locality. In most western countries the duty is expected from the state authororities - which I think is an inapropriate divestiture of community responsibility.
To re-integrate that civic responsibility, one would need only withdraw the state service amd offer it to defined communities to take-up within a set postal standards which would apply only to the hand-off points. Even being a small change, it would generate a lot of political resistance. However, if it waas implemented, each community would work out for itself how the local distribution loop was operated.
Rural distribution will always carry greater expense. In such cases, it is an opportunity cost. If one is conducting agricultural activities in such communities, then the cost would be reflected in price of produce. Large scale agriculture usually has no community to speak of, so the distribution cost would remain with the individual or company. Small service centres should have no problem manning a postal service on a part time basis. Being answerable to their own neighbors would ensure adequacy of coverage.
Either way, communities which claim ownership of of community utilities will derive stronger community function. Delegating suich things to distant central authorities and companies has the affect of disrupting civic identity - which is a powerful source of national prosperity.
Robert Hardy
Courtney Pelzel
2. Convert USPS vehicles to electric and manage routes to match range of electric vehicles.
3. Reduce or eliminate retirement benefits for USPS employees.
J. E. Sigler
Given that the USPS does not pay super-high wages, though, wouldn't eliminating their retirement benefits just force us to publicly fund them in their old age anyway? As workers, they've a right to retirement benefits, no?
Shelby See
george lockwood 20+
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Gail . 50+
The way to end that is to have limited free health care for all so that congress can negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for the best deal, like the vets have been doing.
Closing rural postal routes is not just stupid, it's cruel. Look who it will hurt the most. It will hurt Republicans.
The USPO has been making its own problems. It offers subsidies to mass mailings that fill our mailboxes. It says that the mass mailings are the profit center, and perhaps they are, but they force mail carriers to each have their own mail truck which comes with its own expenses. What if it refused to deliver anything but simple, first class mail, and allow the rest of the crap to go to private companies. I bet they won't deliver a catalog for pennies after that, and the cost of vehicles (purchase, fuel, maintenance, and insurance) will tumble.
The USPO has become a big-business subsidy.
Barry Palmer 50+
IMO, if the government is going to subsidize our communications, it makes more sense to build a national wireless network that would provide quality, fast service to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. This is something that the private providers have not done and have no intention of doing. The spectrum they are using belongs to all of us, and we should have demanded, from the very beginning, that they provide service to all of us, everywhere in the country, including the remote villages of Alaska.
Lawren Jones 10+
Hector Rosario
edward long 100+
John Smith 30+
Lawren Jones 10+