Works for me, shut em down. I never get a single piece of mail that I don't just throw away anyways. I get packages, sure, but I'd rather use FedEx for that anyways. We have all of our USPS mail sorted, 90% of it bitched out, and then the rest is FedEx'ed to me anyways.
Do you think this mail will stop if someone else delivers 1st Class Mail? You'll still get the stuff, it will just be delivered by someone else. Also, looking at the USPS as a "huge machine" it sounds great to just shut 'em down, but it probably does not sound very nice to any of their 596,000 employees and their families who would be left without (one of) their primary source(s) of income, one of which is my mother.
Speaking of DHL are they still in business have not seen them for awhile.
When I was in Afghanistan in 05-06 and Iraq in 07-08, to the best of my knowledge, DHL flew in all of our mail for the USPS. I may be wrong, but thats what it looked like to me. I never saw a USPS aircraft. I'm guessing they make a decent revenue from that alone.
UPS and others Take longer, and cost more already. Further they have nowhere near the infrastructure to even attempt such a feet. I dont think most here have a true understanding of just how much mail the USPS moves and how quicly they do so. UPS and the others are charging more for less currently.
The initial cost for these companies to even set up shop would be astronomical. I would venture in over a billion. They would need fleets of vehicles and massive amounts of automation that they dont have. Hundreds of thousands of more employees.
My issue with the private sector and car industry argument is these were still small undertakings when started with nowhere near the obligation that any company undertaking this would assume. With 300+ million citizens and growing the undertaking would be massive again I say billion for set up and no huge profit line to recover this outlay of money unless prices are raised.
The government would never allow the postal system to be dissolved anyway, lets be realistic.
My guess is they will never be "shut down". If anything, they will resort to civilian contracting. It is cheaper for the gov't to pay a contracted employee than it is to pay a gov't employee and provide the necessary benefits. This would eliminate the $5.5 billion in costs due to their prefunded future retiree program. Unfortunately, this would more than likely still result in leaving many USPS employees without a job, which is contrary to one of the current administration's "ralley cries". Many of those eployees would probably be employed by the contracted company, but they would most likely still lose many of their benefits. It's a lose-lose situation. :sadpace:
This practice of contracting has been done on a large scale in the military. In the past, military service members provided food service, transportation, security, etc. Now, civilian agencies are completing tasks which were once completed by the service members. They did not have to purchase new equipment and start from the ground up, they simply picked up where the gov't left off in food service (dining facilities) and security (facilities). In the case of the USPS, these contractors would more than likely utilize the same facilities and equipment. Worst-case scenario, the gov't vehicles or equipment they would "enherit" would be sold by auction and new vehicles or equipment will be purchased with the funds raised by selling the vehicles or equipment, as was done (to the best of my knowledge) with vehicles for transportation and security in the military.
Again I point to power deregulation and how huge of a disaster it is and how much more is paid now.
Just to back it up:
U.S power deregulation creating skepticism
The main reason behind the effort to return to a more regulated market is price. Recent U.S. Energy Department statistics show that the cost of power in states that embraced competition has risen faster than in states that had retained traditional rate regulation.
Just like broody said, deregulation may not be the perfect solution.
the USPS is subsidized by all of US. So you are paying for that mail service whether you ever even send a piece of mail through them. You pay for the USPS in your income tax plain and simple. I don't know about you but I don't like paying for **** I'm not using/not consuming.
USPS News: Press Releases
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2001
Press Release #01-046
BACKGROUNDER
SETTING POSTAGE RATES
It is the Postal Service's mandate under law to break even over time. Each class of mail is also expected to cover its share of the costs, a requirement that causes the percentage rate adjustments to vary in different classes of mail, according the costs associated with the processing and delivery characteristics of each class. Since the Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operations and relies solely on the sale of postal products and services to cover operating costs, price adjustments are necessary to respond to changes in the cost of doing business.
Washington
Congress denied the Postal Service a deferral for its latest payment, Potter said. While the agency was able to make the payment it still runs the risk of defaulting on other financial obligations without legislative action.
It is clear to me that, although subsidized, they are required by law to support themselves and break even over time. This goes both ways. However, in the
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, Title II SEC 201, the USPS was authorized to retained earnings, to maintain financial stability. However, they are still required to maintain a positive balance. Because they were negative (like many non-gov't corporations in the US) they chose to receive the equivalent of a bailout. However, just as all other corporations that received bailouts were required to pay it back, the USPS is required to pay their funds back also.
Washington
In July, the Postal Service proposed increasing the price of first-class postage from 44 cents to 46 cents in an attempt to compensate for decreasing revenue and declining mail volume. This was the first time the commission considered a rate increase higher than the rate of inflation, Chairman Ruth Goldway said.
Washington
Postage rates have increased twice since new regulations were enacted in 2006. The regulations require rate increases to remain below current inflations rates, Norman Sherstrom, a PRC spokesman said. Before 2006, rate increases were determined by a "break even" standard that required the rate to cover the Postal Service's costs.
Copyright © 2010, Tribune Interactive
In short, it is clear to me that, with the exception of the most recent request, the price of postage via USPS has gone up for the same reason the price of a can of green beans has gone up: inflation. Guys Im sorry, but our dollars just not worth as much as it used to be. So, all items wil increase as inflation increases. I am glad their most recent request was denied because theyre clearly operating beyond their means.
However, considering the recent decision of the PRC, as well as the activity of orginzations such as the
AFFORDABLE Mail Alliance which has "over 1,000 members [including] non-profits, Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, major trade associations, consumer groups and citizens" and is simlar in context to the NRA, I think the danger of unprecedented hikes in postal rates is not likely.