Saturday mail deliveries are on the budget-cut table...

[beowulf]

That business is going to go away as more and more transfer payments move to prepaid cards.

I doubt it. Prepaid cards still have to be delivered by mail. And people who use money orders will still have to buy them. The USPS accepts both credit and debit cards - the prepaid cards fall into the latter category. I wonder where that post office was - I used to see that in the days when all SS checks were delivered by mail, and everyone had to cash them at the bank and then buy money orders at the post office. Unless they had a checking account.

 

[obgyn65]

No mail on Saturday = great opportunity for UPS, Fedex and others to pick up additional business, especially Netflix deliveries

Over the past several months I have learned that both UPS and FedX partner with the USPS to deliver packages. Several items I have ordered were initially shipped by the private carrier and transferred to the USPS who then delivered the item to me.

 

[kyounge1956]

If it wasn't for that junk mail the post office would be losing a lot more money....

What I hate is the mailman putting in my real mail with the junk so I actually have to look to see if there is a letter that I want tucked inside of all those ads...

I'd be willing to pay them not to deliver the junk mail. You can get an unlisted number by paying extra to the phone company—why can't you get an "unlisted" mailbox by paying extra to the Postal Service?

 

[kyounge1956]

Just what not why. I was at at USPO the other day. Apparently, this was a day when some sort of transfer checks were delivered. The place was crowded with people waiting to get their checks out of their PO boxes. (snip)

That business is going to go away as more and more transfer payments move to prepaid cards.

I doubt it. Prepaid cards still have to be delivered by mail. And people who use money orders will still have to buy them. The USPS accepts both credit and debit cards - the prepaid cards fall into the latter category. I wonder where that post office was - I used to see that in the days when all SS checks were delivered by mail, and everyone had to cash them at the bank and then buy money orders at the post office. Unless they had a checking account.

Maybe not. If "transfer payments" means benefits like welfare and food stamps, the card could be given out when the person applies for the benefit. (I assume you have to appear in person at some point in the application process.) If the application is approved, an initial balance would be transferred to the card and a robo-phone-call and/or letter sent to the recipient to notify them that the application has been approved and the card will be credited every month on this date. People might still need to buy money orders, but the cards wouldn't all be getting credited the same day, which would reduce or eliminate the log-jam at the post office.

 

[veremchuka]

I live in a small rural town and have a PO box. I go to the PO 2 times a week so it doesn't effect me and even if it did we could live with M-F couldn't we?

What bothers me is if the PO closes how do I get my mail? I don't want it delivered here as the sorting stinks, this is why I have a PO box, I was tired of my neighbor opening my mail. If it went to a "PO" box for a private company it would not be in my small town, I'd have to drive 10 miles to get there and then 10 miles to return home just to get the mail. The PO is 3 miles from my house so I view this as a problem.

 

[meierlde]

I live in a small rural town and have a PO box. I go to the PO 2 times a week so it doesn't effect me and even if it did we could live with M-F couldn't we?

What bothers me is if the PO closes how do I get my mail? I don't want it delivered here as the sorting stinks, this is why I have a PO box, I was tired of my neighbor opening my mail. If it went to a "PO" box for a private company it would not be in my small town, I'd have to drive 10 miles to get there and then 10 miles to return home just to get the mail. The PO is 3 miles from my house so I view this as a problem.

You can check the hit list online search for post office closures in your state.
Where is the next nearest post office? Note that during the hearings they said one of the criteria was having less than 2 hours of work a day at the post office. I noted one office on US 60 in NM that is now open 3 hours a day on the list, and recall that the mailbox outside said don't deposit mail except in the AM.

 

[beowulf]

During college I worked as a waiter in an upstate NY hotel in a tiny resort town during the Summers. How tiny was it? During the summer there were several thousand people there - mostly guests and staff. After Labor Day, the town had about 200 people. The library was open one afternoon a week and had less than 500 books. The Post Office was a hole in the side of a store with PO boxes and one clerk - and it was open 6 days a week. I visited that town a few years ago and all the grand hotels were closed and in a state of collapse. The library was gone. But the tiny Post Office was still there - now relocated to a corner of the town office. I don't remember the hours, but I'll bet they were the same as 40 years ago. And the local population is no where as large as it was way back then.

I don't know the answer, but keeping places like that open is what is bankrupting the USPS.

 

[ziggy29]

I don't know the answer, but keeping places like that open is what is bankrupting the USPS.

Well, here's the thing: They've kept places like that (tiny, underutilized places serving a very small population) open since the very beginnings of the USPS and it has never caused repeated financial crises until the last couple of decades. So maybe there's a different root cause to the problem?

There's one such PO in our county, in a very small town (population about 100) that will be holding "public hearings" as publicized in the local paper. Presumably that one may be on the chopping block.

 

[Midpack]

Well, here's the thing: They've kept places like that (tiny, underutilized places serving a very small population) open since the very beginnings of the USPS and it has never caused repeated financial crises until the last couple of decades. So maybe there's a different root cause to the problem?

Like the Internet (email, social media), competition (FedEx, UPS), accelerating Federal deficits/debt to name a few...

It's sad to see jobs lost, but the time has come. But it's no sadder or heartless (as some are trying to spin this) with public employees than with the millions of private sector employees who have lost jobs over the past 40 years. Creative destruction is what it is...

 

[ziggy29]

It's sad to see jobs lost, but the time has come. But it's no sadder with public employees than with the millions of private sector employees who have lost jobs over the past 40 years. Creative destruction is what it is...

Creative destruction used to work wonders in the long run even when it caused painful short-term economic displacement.

Buggy whip makers who were thrown out of work found better, plentiful jobs in the auto industry. When manufacturing started its domestic nosedive in the 1970s, the high tech industry was ready to ramp up its hiring and producing a lot of good jobs.

But the "creative destruction" is global now. The "new jobs" are largely going to other countries. And not nearly enough decent jobs are replacing the "old tech" jobs domestically. And even when it does, employers are far less willing to assume the role of retraining. So they either go overseas or slap US labor in the face by looking to sponsor someone on an H1B visa.

Also, "new tech" doesn't often scale well in terms of producing jobs in the "information age." You needed close to 10 times as many workers to build 10 times as many cars, but we don't need 10 times as many workers to move 10 times as many zeroes and ones. Hence a lot more of the revenue from "growth" in these industries goes straight to the company bottom line, not to more jobs.

 

[Texas Proud]

Well, here's the thing: They've kept places like that (tiny, underutilized places serving a very small population) open since the very beginnings of the USPS and it has never caused repeated financial crises until the last couple of decades. So maybe there's a different root cause to the problem?

There's one such PO in our county, in a very small town (population about 100) that will be holding "public hearings" as publicized in the local paper. Presumably that one may be on the chopping block.

The root cause is that revenue is going down and not expenses...

Now, what do you do about it

Raise the cost of a stamp again and get more people off mail...

Or reduce expenses to the size of your revenue....

Most people are voting for #2.... so then what expenses do you cut

To me it is a no brainer to cut the post offices that are very underutilized such as some mentioned.... but like the federal budget that will not close the gap, so people will have to be let go or benefits will have to be reduced.... which will be hard to do... and productivity will have to increase, which will also be hard to do....

If the UPS was a private company, probably all of these things would happen and quickly... but it is likely that nothing major will happen and we will bail it out and it will slog along for a few more years until it need another bail out....

 

[REWahoo]

The fact is the USPS has been in a death spiral for years and it is now reaching the end game. Even with major layoffs and PO closings the govt. will have to step in to prop it up (no comment on the politics here) or it will go under.

 

[sheehs1]

The fact is the USPS has been in a death spiral for years and it is now reaching the end game. Even with major layoffs and PO closings the govt. will have to step in to prop it up (no comment on the politics here) or it will go under.

+1

I don't think delivering mail one or two less days will be the solution. What would happen say for instance to the daily newspapers that are delivered via USPS? My Wall Street Journal comes that way. Anything else delivered daily that might create an issue for other companies?

Would be interesting to see but I'd wager a guess that it is salaries and benefits that are breaking the back of the USPS. From a quick look, starting salary for a carrier is more than a starting salary for a teacher in most locations...here in Va. anyway.

Bothers me a bit....that the USPS would consider reducing services before they take strong measures to reduce their "other" overhead. But perhaps they ARE also looking at that.

While I know it is unpopular, it just seems government workers at all levels are going to have to start contributing more for their benefits ...just like the private sector has from day one. Goes along with the mantra...that "everyone is going to have to share in this pain".

 

[ziggy29]

While I know it is unpopular, it just seems government workers at all levels are going to have to start contributing more for their benefits ...just like the private sector has from day one. Goes along with the mantra...that "everyone is going to have to share in this pain".

I do think the private sector can, in the long term, only afford public sector wages and benefits that the private sector worker is able to keep up with. (I'd like to think there are other options than having everyone share a race to the bottom, though).

Having said that, in *this* case I think that's a side issue.

The main issue in *this* case is simply that the USPS is a service that is providing an increasingly obsolete product. You could immediately cut the workforce, freeze the pensions and stop retiree health insurance and you'd be okay for a little while... but the same forces of obsolescence would, in this case, come back in a few years. The service needs to either reinvent itself to become relevant in 21st Century communications or accept that it's dying.

 

[Ronstar]

The main issue in *this* case is simply that the USPS is a service that is providing an increasingly obsolete product.

This is precisely the problem and the gov't has propped up the USPS financially for far too long. I agree that cutting PO hours, workers, and benefits will only slightly affect the situation, and won't solve the problem. The USPS needs to be dismantled, and it's assets sold. Let private companies take over the "mail"

 

[REWahoo]

This is precisely the problem and the gov't has propped up the USPS financially for far too long.

Is that the case? I thought the USPS became an independent, non-taxpayer supported entity back in the late [-]50's[/-] 70's.

 

[MichaelB]

I do think the private sector can, in the long term, only afford public sector wages and benefits that the private sector worker is able to keep up with. (I'd like to think there are other options than having everyone share a race to the bottom, though).

Having said that, in *this* case I think that's a side issue.

The main issue in *this* case is simply that the USPS is a service that is providing an increasingly obsolete product. You could immediately cut the workforce, freeze the pensions and stop retiree health insurance and you'd be okay for a little while... but the same forces of obsolescence would, in this case, come back in a few years. The service needs to either reinvent itself to become relevant in 21st Century communications or accept that it's dying.

All that real estate and labor and no real ability to offer additional products or services that have greater value add.

 

[Texas Proud]

Is that the case? I thought the USPS became an independent, non-taxpayer supported entity back in the late [-]50's[/-] 70's.

Was it that far back


Oppps.... see a correction when I quoted you....

 

[Texas Proud]

I disagree a bit... sure, the business is dying over time, but it is not like it is not a service we do not need... just that we need it less..

This is from memory, so it could be off... but the largest industry in New England back in the late 1800s was the shipping ice to other locations... that industry dies with new technology... the buggy whip industry is dead... because of new technology.... I still see the need for someone to deliver 'mail' or 'stuff' to us.. maybe the cost will go up... but we still need the service.

 

[Ronstar]

Is that the case? I thought the USPS became an independent, non-taxpayer supported entity back in the late [-]50's[/-] 70's.

I did a little research and you are essentially correct - wikipedia mentions that it has not received Tax payer dollars since the early 1980's with the exception of subsidies.... I don't know the extent of the subsidies given by the fed gov't, but i have a gut feeling that they are in the millions of $.

And I can not foresee how the USPS is to "pay off" their billions of deficit with decreasing revenues without a lot of financial help from Uncle Sam.

 

[ziggy29]

And I can not foresee how the USPS is to "pay off" their billions of deficit with decreasing revenues without a lot of financial help from Uncle Sam.

They can probably start by selling off excess assets. Or, at the very least, selling them to the federal government by giving Uncle Sam equivalent property value for the financial assistance they are seeking. I don't know what the feds would do with these assets immediately, but they'd have them in case they needed them in the future, or they could sell some of them off to private entities (and that would let local governments collect property taxes if nothing else).

One of the leverage points Uncle Sam had with private sector bailouts to get paid back -- no big executive bonuses until you pay us back -- isn't really in play here.

 

[sheehs1]

Is that the case? I thought the USPS became an independent, non-taxpayer supported entity back in the late [-]50's[/-] 70's.

A quick look says your are right REWahoo....except it is 80's rather than 70's..according to Wiki...

The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters. Revenue has been in freefall due to declining mail volume.[3] The postal service has attempted to look to other sources of revenue while cutting costs to reduce its budget deficit.

ooppss see than Ronstar beat me to this !

And I sort of agree with TexasProud's statement:

"I disagree a bit... sure, the business is dying over time, but it is not like it is not a service we do not need... just that we need it less.."


Maybe they should only deliver junk mail once a week instead of every day. But then they would have to store it...which could present space problems. Still don't think this would help...as the same labor hours are required regardless of delivery times...right?

Thinking out loud: We could have a national "do not deliver junk mail" data base....similar to the national "do not call list". Of course ..If it was done at the point of the marketers...it might take more revenue from the USPS.
What other consequences??

 

[Ronstar]

They can probably start by selling off excess assets. Or, at the very least, selling them to the federal government by giving Uncle Sam equivalent property value for the financial assistance they are seeking. I don't know what the feds would do with these assets immediately, but they'd have them in case they needed them in the future, or they could sell some of them off to private entities (and that would let local governments collect property taxes if nothing else).

One of the leverage points Uncle Sam had with private sector bailouts to get paid back -- no big executive bonuses until you pay us back -- isn't really in play here.

I was thinking of the possibility of selling off PO buildings when I went in to my local one last week. An older building - ornate trim, marble? floors, prime location. I would think that many PO's are similar, and would make great private office buildings.

 

[beowulf]

Well, here's the thing: They've kept places like that (tiny, underutilized places serving a very small population) open since the very beginnings of the USPS and it has never caused repeated financial crises until the last couple of decades. So maybe there's a different root cause to the problem?

There's one such PO in our county, in a very small town (population about 100) that will be holding "public hearings" as publicized in the local paper. Presumably that one may be on the chopping block.

The difference is that the USPS actually made money to a break even level, and never really lost any, until several years ago when it was required to make huge deposits for their retirement plan, and was able to subsidize all those underutilized post offices. If you take away the now required deposits, they are a lot closer to break even, but they can't deal with the loss in mail without cutting people and locations. Not even close in the coming years.

 

[Texas Proud]

The difference is that the USPS actually made money to a break even level, and never really lost any, until several years ago when it was required to make huge deposits for their retirement plan, and was able to subsidize all those underutilized post offices. If you take away the now required deposits, they are a lot closer to break even, but they can't deal with the loss in mail without cutting people and locations. Not even close in the coming years.

But I think they should be making deposits to pay for accrued benefits... look at the states that have not made big enough contributions to their plans and you see what happens when the payments get to big to fund with current revenue...