What percentage of the mail carried consists of commercial bulk mail?
What percentage of the USPS revenue comes from commercial bulk mail?
If the two above numbers aren’t approximataely the same, i.e. if commercial bulk mail isn’t paying a proportional share, is there anything preventing the USPS from charging them more than at present, rather than (I believe) giving them a bulk discount?
It may be they are paying a more than fair share, but I’d just like to know if so and what are the numbers. It’s still a miracle that I can send a letter cross-country in a couple days for under half a buck.
And maybe the above numbers don’t tell the whole story when one considers different mail types (packages, letters, etc.)
I don’t know if they’re paying a “fair” share as that’s out of the realm of GQ, but they do pay substantially lower rates than a first-class hand-addressed hand-stamped letter because they’re pre-addressed, -stamped, and in many cases -sorted, so it takes the Postal Service less labor time to process.
Pardon the ranting hijack, but I have been reading with dismay the troubles the USPS has been having. I don’t know what others think (perhaps I’ll post a poll), but the service provided is, I believe, grossly underpriced. for less than half a dollar I can have someone come to my house, pick up a letter and hand-deliver it to anyone in the United States within a few days. for slightly more money, I can have a receipt of that delivery (with signature) arrive at my doorstep. I can send important, sensitive documents knowing that there contents are statistically guaranteed to arrive punctually and undamaged.
That, my friends, is truly amazing!
So, as I sit here listening to the financial woes of this fabulous delivery service, drinking my daily $4 coffee (coffee price for example purposes only), I wonder how much I would be willing to pay for this service. How much would a first-class stmp need to cost to make the USPS profitable?
Again, I apologize for the hijack. If the mods wish to banish this post, I unsderstand.
Bulk mail by definition gets a cheaper rate, so it necessarily accounts for a smaller share of USPS revenue then its share of the mail volume.
But its not really an issue of fairness. It gets a cheaper rate because a) the mailer has to pre-sort it, making it cheaper for the PO to process and b) to encourage commercial use of the mail system to create more revenue.
i have not checked anything and am relying on memory of semi-attentive news watching while multitasking.
i recall national tv news story saying somewhere near doubling the cost for the stamp. they said still a bargain compared to the private package delivery services where it would be more than 10 times above that cost.
Labor costs represent about 80% of USPS expenses, so in theory the labor savings associated with pre-sorted mail could justify a significant discount in rate.
However, one problem is that first-class mail was historically the largest portion of USPS volume; it was only around 2005 that bulk mail outstripped it. The agency’s cost models are still built around having first-class mail as its primary mission, and adjustment is going to take a while. The slowing of first-class delivery is one such step, and there will presumably be further job cuts among those offices that process first-class mail.
I’ve heard some rumors (I don’t have a cite–this is just hearsay) that the unions for the general working class (letter carriers, clerks, etc.) are about to head in to negotiations and that management casting the service in a bad light may be a means to try to obtain concessions.
There are regulatory hoops USPS has to do to raise rates (definitely for first class, not sure about other classes) beyond a pre-determined adjustment for inflation.
They did request so an increase above inflation last year that was ultimately rejected. A similar request this year has, I believe, been approved.
Yeah, as has been mentioned in other threads, the USPS is in an unenviable business model. They don’t get to set the rates that they need to break even or show a profit and they get no taxpayer funding.
I wanted to point out this presentation where USPS (or rather, the consultants they hired) summarizes current and future mail volume projections. No revenue numbers, though.
I forget which standup comic said, “The U.S. Mail is a great deal! Try walking up to any stranger in Times Square and say, ‘Hey, I’ll give you 44 cents to take this envelope to Des Moines for me.’”
Due to a bizarre law that makes thempre-fund their pensions, something not required of other companies, and presumably designed to make them look bad so that they can be privatized.
FedEx just delivered a package to me, in what looked like a rented van with a magnetic sign on the door, apparently an add-on to cover the holiday volume. The van was full. The UPS guy makes regular stops here, also with a truck full of packages.
Several years ago the drivers for UPS were threatening a strike. Rather than saying “We don’t strike, we’re always here for you” the Postal Service said “We can’t handle that kind of volume!”
Well, as has been noted upthread, and in several other related threads in the past few days…
They’ve tried to do the first and second things (steeper postage rate increases, eliminating Saturday delivery, eliminating more post offices, etc.). The problem is that, unlike a private company like UPS, they can’t just decide to make such moves and implement them – any such moves have to be approved by the USPS’s board of governors, and said board has repeatedly stopped the USPS from doing so.
The third might apparently require a change to the Constitution, as the postal service is explicitly mentioned and authorized there.
I heard something about this the other day - someone stating that, due to this requirement, they’ve actually funded enough pensions to cover workers that haven’t been born yet. No idea if that’s true.