By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - the postal system in America.

I think the postal system will soon be a thing of the past. It cost 50 cents a stamp now. They keep raising the price every year. the post office is always saying,that there bleeding money and the goverment bails them out every time. I'm probably one of the few people that still pay my bills,through the mail. 2 books of stamps,usually cost around $15. I refuse to have my bank account number known online,if someone hacks into one of my accounts online,then I'm done for. the only way the postal service can compete is shipping packages,but fedex and ups seem to have a good handle on that. So,is the postal sytem in america slowly becaming a thing of the past? Am,I to oldschoolfool in this regard? 



Around the Network

I have no problem with the postal service. I'd also like to correct the idea that the "government bails them out" (they have not received government money since 1982). The postal service would also bring in a sizable profit each year, except they are required by a 2006 law to fund the retirement costs of employees who haven't even been born yet.



noname2200 said:
I have no problem with the postal service. I'd also like to correct the idea that the "government bails them out" (they have not received government money since 1982). The postal service would also bring in a sizable profit each year, except they are required by a 2006 law to fund the retirement costs of employees who haven't even been born yet.

Yeah, i don't know who snuck that one through, but it was really a spear aimed at the heart of the USPS. Trouble is, helping them for some reason is politically unpopular.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

noname2200 said:
I have no problem with the postal service. I'd also like to correct the idea that the "government bails them out" (they have not received government money since 1982). The postal service would also bring in a sizable profit each year, except they are required by a 2006 law to fund the retirement costs of employees who haven't even been born yet.

That's actually not true.

They only have to fund current workers.

what makes people think they have to fund the retirment costs of employees who haven't been born yet is that they have to account for them i'm their financial statements.

 

So it doesn't actually effect their bottom line.

They are losing money because unlike most employers they have to fund a higher percentage of their employees benefits, unlike most other companies who get away with a little mutual fund that maybe covers 10% of the costs, and can just dump retirees like bricks when the company hits hard times.

 

Is it unfair?  Sure... however i'd argue that it's not wrong.

 

In otherwords the problem isn't that the post office's burden is unfair, the unfair part is that nobody else is forced to properly fund promised benefits.



Kasz216 said:

In otherwords the problem isn't that the post office's burden is unfair, the unfair part is that nobody else is forced to properly fund promised benefits.

I actually agree with this, to an extent, but then I'm inherently cautious when it comes to money. As for your other point regarding having to account for workers who haven't joined the roster yet, what's the difference in accounting terms?



Around the Network

I can't believe you pay bills by hand.

You need to try to use your bank's system. SOOOOOOOOO much easier and better tracking.



noname2200 said:
Kasz216 said:

In otherwords the problem isn't that the post office's burden is unfair, the unfair part is that nobody else is forced to properly fund promised benefits.

I actually agree with this, to an extent, but then I'm inherently cautious when it comes to money. As for your other point regarding having to account for workers who haven't joined the roster yet, what's the difference in accounting terms?


Oh.  I could of swore i replied to this.

 

The Post office projections are just a cost ahead of time that they think they'll have to pay.  It basically just exists so congress can use it as a tool to adjust the post office's support.

 

The actual retirement funds for the people they've already hired, require automatic payments that the post office just recently missed.