I loved the daily show bit about how the government can't efficiently run health care - he mentioned how the USPS can deliver a letter across the country in a few days for a few cents.
It really is an impressively efficient distributed system considering the hassles involved, specifically the diversity of items as listed in this article!
The USPS operates under an insane number of constraints that private competitors don't. They have to serve every single residental address in America, no matter how remote (UPS, and especially FedEx, laugh at this); they have to have outposts in bumblefuck nowhere; they have to offer six days of service even though volumes don't support it; fixed rate pricing for First Class letters even from/to the most remote destinations; and so on, all under their universal service obligation.
Furthermore, the postal service is mandated by the United States Constitution (Article I, section 8, Clause 7).
Look, it's like criticizing Amtrak. It's under congressional (although not Constitutional) mandate to run all those dumbass routes with stops in the middle of fucking nowhere on tracks where the freight companies are blatantly ignoring the law that requires passenger trains to have right of way. No wonder Amtrak's losing money and are late all the time; they're not allowed to do their jobs.
"The USPS operates under an insane number of constraints that private competitors don't"
And private companies are restricted by laws that grant, among other things, a First Class letter monopoly to the USPS. Let Fedex, UPS, and other delivery companies legally offer this service, and we can talk about how the USPS does a great job delivering bulk junk mail to every mailbox in America.
The Congress shall also have the power to set up the court system (aside from SCOTUS). It is well established that this construct in the Constitution obligates Congress to do these things.
In my original comment, I was not arguing about the reasons why USPS doesn't make money. The author suggested that USPS is cheap and that is incorrect because USPS 'feels' cheap only because government takes care of the losses. BTW, correction for my previous post, USPS lost 7 billion dollars in 2008. Link: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gao-postal-service-in-fi...
Coming back to your argument about the constraints USPS has to deal with. If you really think that USPS is losing money because they have to serve every single residential address in America, you are not being honest. By law, USPS has the monopoly to deliver first class mail, UPS/FedEx are not allowed to deliver them. If you really open up the market and let UPS/FedEx compete in the market, I am sure they will deliver better service for even cheaper prices. Link: http://www.jhhuebert.addr.com/articles/stamp.html
Yes, you may not be able to send a mail from NYC to SFO for 45 cents but it was wrong for cross country mail to be so cheap in the first place. I hardly use USPS but I have to pay my taxes every year and in turn I am subsidizing folks who are trying to send cross country mail for 45 cents. A private competitor will make sure that you pay the appropriate amount for your mail. It will be super cheap (may be even less than 45 cents) if the sender and receiver are in the same state! (And yes, UPS/FedEx will deliver to any address in America but you better pony up the cash if you are sending mail to middle of nowhere in Alabama.) Bottom line: price should reflect the cost, not pass it over to the taxpayers.
Also, did you know that USPS pays no taxes? No fuel taxes, no sales taxes, no property taxes, no corporate taxes, etc. Imagine what FEDEX and UPS could offer consumers in pricing & service if they were tax exempt like the USPS. Did you know that USPS makes most of its money from all the junk mail it delivers? There was a legislation on 'Do not Mail' registry (very similar to 'Do not Call' registry) and USPS is opposing it as without direct mail USPS will be in even bigger hole. So all those junk mails are essentially subsidizing your postal cost.
The other day I was in post office and there was a guy who was 2 years short of the retirement and he was making 50,000$/year. Guess what he did? He sold stamps behind the counter. You can hire people to do his job for 7 to 8 dollars per hour but because of Union/labor laws, he makes 50,000$. How is that for efficiency?
The other day I was in post office and there was a guy who was 2 years short of the retirement and he was making 50,000$/year. Guess what he did? He sold stamps behind the counter. You can hire people to do his job for 7 to 8 dollars per hour but because of Union/labor laws, he makes 50,000$. How is that for efficiency?
Were you aware of how long this particular employee had been working for the USPS? Yeah, it's a little old-fashioned, but there is something to rewarding long-time and hard-working employees. (Japan companies get the retirement concept oodles better than the US). Maybe he'd long ago paid his dues as a carrier, and was simply happy to be working the last couple of years before his actual retirement.
Yeah, but only recently. Up until about the mid 00s, they've been running a healthy profit of about a billion a year. But, since it's supposed to be run revenue neutral (i.e., no profit) it gets absorbed back into the general fed budget.
Now that it's losing money, they have to cut back. No federal bailouts for a semi-federated body. Funny how that works.
Thanks, was gonna say... they were profitable for a long time. I always find the USPS to be great, better than UPS many times... but not so much Fedex.
It really is an impressively efficient distributed system considering the hassles involved, specifically the diversity of items as listed in this article!