Our post office is out of the 39 cent stamps, and they decided not to order any more. I could have, of course, cobbled together the correct postage out of 2’s and 10’s and so forth. Or, I could just buy the new 41’s, usable forever, which is what I did when I went to the post office to stamp and put some bills in the mail. The new ones are not mandatory until May 15, I think. Now, my question is this: Suppose all the post offices across the country were out of 39’s today, or in the next few days. And all the mail that should be paying 39 cents per ounce wound up paying 41 cents per ounce. That two cents raise over two weeks should bring in some money to the USPS, shouldn’t it? I guess it’s sort of a Fermi question, but about how much money would the USPS make in the next two weeks if everyone had to pay 2 cents per ounce more for mailing? Any ideas how to start? I don’t know where to get the data to work from. But, Dopers are legendary researchers. How to get a handle on this? xo, C.
A dirty estimate:
http://www.usps.com/communications/news/press/2003/pr03_048.txt , a USPS press release from 4 years ago.
That gives us about 20 billion pieces of first class mail.
Lets assume they’re all 1 stamp letters.
2 weeks is ~1/25 of the year
that gives us ~800 million pieces of mail in 2 weeks.
at 2 cents extra profit, we’re talking about
$0.02 * 800mill
= ~$16mill
But then, you also have to calculate how much they will lose when the price goes up to 44 cents in a couple of years, and people continue to use the “forever” stamps that they bought in bulk for 41 cents back in 2007.
From here I found this
Now since it doesn’t say, I’m going to assume that’s per year.
So 212 billion / 250 X 10 X .02 should give us a starting number of $169,600,000.
Now that’s assuming every piece of mail is a one ounce or less first class mail, so you’d have to adjust for things that won’t be affected by this and go from there, it’s probably substantially lower but hardly a non trivial amount.
You might be better off emailing the media relations dept and asking them how many first class pieces of mail they deliver on an average day.
So I was off by a factor of 10, but considering my starting number was as well, I think we’re on the same track.
What’s depressing is that our mail is about 90% junk (sure, there’s magazines and such, but I have to figure that the the bulk is bulk)
When doing so, don’t forget to take into account the “float” on the money people have spent on those “forever” stamps - could be substantial.
Your logic is badly flawed for this question. The vast majority of U.S. mail doesn’t have stamps on it. It mainly bulk rate and media mail and that isn’t something affected in the question. I would guess that 90%+ of all mail doesn’t use stamps but you can survey what comes in your own mailbox if you disagree.
If you take ArmenE’s calculation and shrink it down to 10% of that figure, you would see a gain of $2 million for the postal service which is basically nothing for them and certainly not considered a windfall.
To make the math more basic and intuitive, they would have to sell 100,000,000 stamps at the new rates in the next two weeks to get $2 million extra. It may be 3 times less than that or even 3 times more but it still isn’t much.
Why shrink my calcs down? I used USPS’s figures on first class mail volume, not total mail volume.
I have 2 books of the 39’s left. They are just for the mail-in bills which only number 4 per month. Are they still going to be good by the time i reach the end of them?
It’s not that it “could” be substantial. It is substantial. At just 5% interest, that’s 2cents per stamp per year. That’s far greater than the prior postage rate of increase.
Sure, they won’t make as much money as the used to when they had the float AND people had to upgrade leftover stamps every so often. But they’re certainly not losing any money.
Congress passed a postal reform bill and the president signed it, so this is one of the changes. The “break even” requirement that the post office formerly followed has been done away with. Prior postal increases didn’t necessarily mean more money for the post office? The “forever” stamp sounds like a good idea from the consumer standpoint.
First class postage jumps to $.41 in 2 weeks. Yours will be good forever as long as you add the necessary additional postage (2 cents in this case, more later)
You win something on appeal but not all that much. First-class mail is still mostly non-stamped mail. Even small businesses have postage stamping machines (ink). Your credit card bills don’t have stamps either nor do your utility bills. That is only the beginning and I stand by the fact that your rough math is many times too high based on most of it being stampless or unsuitable for the types of stamps we are talking about here. Large envelopes would often be taken to the post office and stamped by machine there for instance (as would some of the others below).
“Postcards, letters, and large envelopes can be sent using First-Class Mail®. This service, along with Priority Mail and Express Mail, can be used for personal correspondence, handwritten or typewritten letters, and bills or statements of account. It may also be used for advertisements and lightweight merchandise. The weight limit for First-Class Mail is 13 ounces. For heavier items, use Priority Mail.”
http://www.usps.com/send/waystosendmail/senditwithintheus/firstclassmail.htm
Touché.
You’re quite right.
How do i get the extra 2 cents? Or can i trade in my stamps and get some rollover 41ers?
Go to the post office and ask for 1 or 2 cent stamps.
They do have such things but given the hassle and transportation costs that may be involved, it may not be a sound move. You can also just double them up on regular mail to get rid of them or maybe a better deal is to use them on small packages and get as close as you can to the postal amount and go just over it. They are all good forever.
Last time the two cent stamps were the turquoise Indian necklace. Looks like they’re still using the same ones.
And those non-denominated stamps sure are ugly. A flag on a tan background. Tan??
Thanks, i didn’t know there was such a thing.