You ate right, bad phrasing ln my part. I should have said supported by the government, not tax revenue. The usps is tax-exempt and has a monopoly on handling letters that is worth about $45 billion per year.
A post office has to serve a certain number of customers before it will deliver, AFAIK. (I want to say it’s something like 2,000, but I’m probably just pulling that number out of my ass.) If there aren’t enough people, then all you get is a PO box.
I wish they wouldn’t dick with USPS. It’s a great service for the money. Except when I have to deal with the glacier paced lines in the actual post offices. Our processing center is slated for closing. Now when I mail a letter in Eugene it will go all the way up to Portland for sorting and then back to Eugene. Is that really more efficient?
Not in a vacuum but it is overall. I mean currently if you mail a letter someone down the street it has to go to a processing center and back.
They also save FedEx (and UPS, IIRC) a ton of money by providing “Last Mile” service for the packages that aren’t cost-efficient for those companies to deliver out to the boonies. Yes, you can order something shipped via FedEx and have a USPS letter carrier bring it to your house, if FedEx doesn’t feel like sending a truck to your place.
There’s also being required to have FedEx boxes at/outside many post office locations. So it’s not like the for-profit carriers are getting totally shafted by this arrangement, either.
One hand washes the other. Both FedEx and UPS make quite a few bucks delivering bulk mail using their own aircraft. Those big 747s and L1011s landing at major airports carry more than just FedEx and UPS packages.
And for those of you who think FedEx and UPS are the last word in efficiency…
It is not worth the cost to them to deliver letters to rural areas. They will gladly deliver in urban areas where the infrastructure is all in place, but to send a truck out to a rural address? Not cost-effcient. Know who delivers for them? The USPS. That’s right, the private carriers contract with the USPS to deliver to rural areas because the USPS is obligated to reach those customers.
The USPS is older than the country itself. Ben Franklin was the new govt’s first postmaster, but the institution existed when we were still 13 colonies. The current fiscal crisis, as we have discussed, is artificial and imposed in order to downsize (or eliminate) the USPS by legislators lobbied by FedEx and UPS. Destroying an institution that has successfully carried out its mandate for so long for financial gain, to me borders on treason.
If by “bad” you mean “incorrect” then I accept your retraction.
My point exactly.
You are the one who said “Nearly all of my husband’s co-workers at the USPS have a college degree.”
I want to know whether their degree has anything to do with the job they do.
I said that (and was incorrect and admitted as much if you bothered to read my subsequent post) in response to someone bitching that everyone at the post office is “uneducated”, not as a way to prove that they all have postal science degrees or whatever. What a weird way to interpret my post.
[QUOTE=What the … !!!]
My point exactly.
You are the one who said “Nearly all of my husband’s co-workers at the USPS have a college degree.”
I want to know whether their degree has anything to do with the job they do.
[/QUOTE]
Since, you know, that ALWAYS happens.
So do you disagree that the usps is supported bu the government? That it wouldn’t exist were it not for its tax exemption and monopoly?
I disagree that it is taxpayer-supported. When you said it was supported by taxpayers, you didn’t “phrase it badly,” you phrased it completely incorrectly. The USPS is not supported by tax dollars, except for a small pittance earmarked for very specific things.
As for the existence of the USPS, it would not exist if not for the US Constitution. So if you want to go about dismantling it, I suggest you start there.
Even worse, the USPS is obligated to provide free service to Congress via the “Franking privilege”. I’m sure they get more than 70 million dollars worth of free mail service.
Ok, be needlessly pedantic if you want to. And ithink my original phrasing was correct kn the larger sense–the usps isn’t supported by sending it tax revenue, but it is government-supported, so ultimately it is paid for bu tax revenue. It’s like a government-guaranteed loan–tax dollars aren’t going out the door now, but the loan is still government-supported.
No, your original phrasing was incorrect and remains so. The USPS is not supported by tax revenue in any sense. It pays for itself by generating income from the sale of services it provides.
My processing facility is not slated for closure, which is good news for me. While we will possibly be having to absorb some maintenance people from some surrounding P&DFs, the ones that are closing didn’t have the machinery I’ve been trained on.
So I won’t have to transfer to a place that would result in a longer commute.
So how does theusps pay for its monopoly on handling letters?
Bolding mine. Where do you get this? No peformance reviews for postal employees? I call bullshit. Policy 416 agrees with me.
Bolding mine. Also important to note the dinstinction between funds earmarked for something and funds paid out. It’s my understanding—and I am trying to find a cite—that this money has not actually been tranferred to the USPS in many years.
OK, here is a cite that gives some information about the revenue forgone appropriations. They are not always paid out.
Anyhow, I agree that the USPS needs overhaul, but I don’t think they’re the taxpayer-supported buffons they’re being portrayed as here.
The USPS generates income via payments for services it provides. You are trying very hard to cover for your earlier misstatement by dragging this monopoly nonsense into the conversation, when it has nothing at all to do with the USPS’s revenue model. If you feel that the first-class mail monopoly held by the USPS is unfair, that’s a different conversation, and as I said before, it’s one that you’ll need to take up with the Constitution.
Edit: Thanks for the additional info, lorene.