Like the USPS? Get ready to kiss it goodbye...

dohdough

dohdough

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://www.boston.com/business/arti..._slow_delivery_of_first_class_mail/?page=full

All thanks to a little piece of legislation about 9 years ago that required the USPS to deposit $5,000,000,000 a year into a retirement fund that is of right now, will cover over 20 years of retirement benefits. Without the retirement contribution, the USPS would have actually been operating at a PROFIT for the entire time. Even if contributions were cut in half, there'd still be a profit.

So one might wonder, why was legislation put in place to indirectly destroy the USPS? Well that answer is simple: the USPS represents the last and largest remaining labor union. Once they're eliminated, collective bargaining is effectively dead in the US. Even the police unions won't be safe.

The funniest thing about this is that the USPS isn't actually allowed to make a profit...lolz.
 
Too bad as I like USPS over FedEx Ground any day of the week.

This is to kill competition against FedEx Ground and how shitty they are in my opinion.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Too bad as I like USPS over FedEx Ground any day of the week.

This is to kill competition against FedEx Ground and how shitty they are in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
All of the delivery companies are heavily dependant on one another as they use each others infrastructure and resources. While the goal of UPS and FedEx would be to take more of USPS's profitable routes, neither would be able to survive if USPS was completely eliminated and had to deliver to the booniest of the boonies like the Consitution mandates.
 
Hopefully EBay will adjust the estimated delivery date for when you sell a game, I already have to add a 3 day handling time whenever I sell a game since the estimated delivery date is usually not accurate if I put 1 or 2 days handling time, so I can see a lot of angry customers about slow delivery.
 
[quote name='YoshiFan1']Hopefully EBay will adjust the estimated delivery date for when you sell a game, I already have to add a 3 day handling time whenever I sell a game since the estimated delivery date is usually not accurate if I put 1 or 2 days handling time, so I can see a lot of angry customers about slow delivery.[/QUOTE]
Huh?

You're a little off topic, but 1-2 day delivery is something that only happens if you're relatively close to the receiver unless you do priority or express. First class and media mail will take at least a week to get across the country. It's not USPS that's being slow; it's you not selecting the appropriate shipping service to coincide with your shipping estimate on your sale.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Why would this affect any other labor union?[/QUOTE]

Because it's the GOP goal to destroy them all by ending collective bargaining, just like they've done in Wisconsin and attempted to do in Michigan until voters repealed it.

Unions represent the biggest contributors to Democrat's campaigns, by destroying unions you destroy much of the money flowing into Democratic campaigns, while the GOP corporate masters like the Koch Bros. can continue to fill the coffers of their GOP puppets and spend as much they want to dupe Americans into voting against their own interests by electing Republican candidates.

The privatizing of America means huge corporate profits while the end of unions means the continued death spiral of what's left of the middle class in America and the continued rise of McDonald's and Walmart wage jobs.
 
Are we really sure about that whole "Unions are the biggest (D) contributors thing"? That seems like one of those myths that are perceived as reality situations. What's really strange about that is that some of the most extreme (R)'s that I know are union carpenters and such.

Back to the USPS, it needs to be refined for one thing. The service has gotten worse as the prices have gone up. This seems counterintuitive really. I think we can drop saturday mail and we can probably close a few of the branches that aren't so busy.
I don't see why anyone would have a beef with their $5b forced contribution, at least it guarantees solvency.
 
Unions themselves donate heavily to the democrat party nasum, but many of their members vote (R). At least that is the truth for many of the cops/firefighters I personally know. Teachers in Wisconsin are on their own field of crazy, so I tend to not bring up anything politically related to any of the teachers I know.
 
[quote name='nasum']Are we really sure about that whole "Unions are the biggest (D) contributors thing"? That seems like one of those myths that are perceived as reality situations. What's really strange about that is that some of the most extreme (R)'s that I know are union carpenters and such.[/quote]
When counted as a monolithic group, unions are the biggest contributors, BUT corporations, as a group, completely blow unions away by that metric. The problem here is the word-play and dishonest framing of the people that use that argument because they're not grouping corporations the way they group unions.

Back to the USPS, it needs to be refined for one thing. The service has gotten worse as the prices have gone up. This seems counterintuitive really. I think we can drop saturday mail and we can probably close a few of the branches that aren't so busy.
I don't see why anyone would have a beef with their $5b forced contribution, at least it guarantees solvency.
Click to expand...
I don't philisophically disagree that they should contribute to a pension fund, but it shouldn't cripple them financially due to insolvency caused by the deposit. I mean that's as stupid as it gets when they're good for more than the next 20 years of retirement benefits.

[quote name='perdition(troy']Unions themselves donate heavily to the democrat party nasum, but many of their members vote (R). At least that is the truth for many of the cops/firefighters I personally know. Teachers in Wisconsin are on their own field of crazy, so I tend to not bring up anything politically related to any of the teachers I know.[/QUOTE]
Now you need to tell us why teachers in Wisconsin are crazy because we already cleared up that controversy.
 
to your first part there, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's one of those tricky facts that gets distorted into a myth by leaving out the rest of the story.
 
I hate the USPS, so there will be no tears lost if they are required to crash and begin anew. The pensions are what destroyed them, which of course is a recurring theme throughout the country.

If they are allowed to start over and be forced to operate like a business, then I would be willing to spend money with them. As it is now, I try to ship everything with UPS of FedEx.
 
I use USPS semi regularly to ship out games via Goozex. Hard to beat the prices when using paypal shipping.

Anyway, seems the problem here is more pensions than unions--though of course the union is what got the pension put in place.

As I've said before, pensions just need to go away. A company (public or private) shouldn't be responsible for employees after retirement. They should just offer 401k type plans and make it up to the individual employees to plan well for retirment.

The problem with pensions--especially for a job like postal workers where many probably started right out of high school is you have people putting in their 30 years and retiring around age 50, and then the business is on the hook for them for another 20-50 years with increasing life expectancies. Just not a viable system. Just have a decent private retirement plan and force employees to work until they have enough saved to support themselves through retirement.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Huh?

You're a little off topic, but 1-2 day delivery is something that only happens if you're relatively close to the receiver unless you do priority or express. First class and media mail will take at least a week to get across the country. It's not USPS that's being slow; it's you not selecting the appropriate shipping service to coincide with your shipping estimate on your sale.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong. The other poster was on the money. eBay considers first class to be "expedited shipping" with a delivery estimate of 2-3 days regardless of where you live in the country.

His point was that if he as the seller sold an item on Monday and had a handling time of "1 business day" as his default handling itme eBay would tell the buyer to expect their item on Wednesday or Thursday.

Because first class mail takes longer then 2-3 business days to most parts of the country, even if the seller had mailed the item out the same day it wouldn't get to the buyer by wednesday or thursday like eBay had informed them. This means angry buyers who in return leave negative feedback and low DSR scores.

The poster merely stated that he pads his handling time an extra day or two so that eBay will tell the buyers not to expect the item until later in the week. He also made a very valid point; hopefully eBay adjust its esimted arrival dates on packages sent via USPS proprotionally to account for longer transit times once sorting stations start to close and Saturday delivery becomes a thing of the past.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I hate the USPS, so there will be no tears lost if they are required to crash and begin anew. The pensions are what destroyed them, which of course is a recurring theme throughout the country.

If they are allowed to start over and be forced to operate like a business, then I would be willing to spend money with them. As it is now, I try to ship everything with UPS of FedEx.[/QUOTE]
You don't seem to understand the problem...not the first or last time I bet. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR BENEFITS ON TOP OF THE LEGISLATED $5,000,000,000+ PENSION DEPOSITS. USPS used to be enrolled in the federal pension fund and had to make payments to them as well, which actually is what covers most USPS employees.

I don't give shit how you "feel" about them when USPS provides a necessary service to millions of people that literally depend on it to live. And if the moral obligation argument doesn't do it for you, and I know it probably won't, even from a business perspective, there is no way in hell that any private carrier can manage to do what USPS does without heavy government subsidies that would end up costing more than what USPS currently needs to operate on.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I use USPS semi regularly to ship out games via Goozex. Hard to beat the prices when using paypal shipping.

Anyway, seems the problem here is more pensions than unions--though of course the union is what got the pension put in place.

As I've said before, pensions just need to go away. A company (public or private) shouldn't be responsible for employees after retirement. They should just offer 401k type plans and make it up to the individual employees to plan well for retirment.

The problem with pensions--especially for a job like postal workers where many probably started right out of high school is you have people putting in their 30 years and retiring around age 50, and then the business is on the hook for them for another 20-50 years with increasing life expectancies. Just not a viable system. Just have a decent private retirement plan and force employees to work until they have enough saved to support themselves through retirement.[/QUOTE]
I think you should refresh yourself on the history of labor and it's relation to wages as well as the trend of wealth distribution in relation to production. I know you know it's not as simple as having people "take care" of their own retirement. Telling someone that's making $30k a year to plan to retirement isn't at all realistic and neither is telling them to go to college especially now, when college grads are facing the toughest job market in 20 years.

edit: And when it comes to USPS workers, it's not an easy job regardless of the benefits. Because of the necessity of these types of jobs, the least that society can do is ensure that there is some sort of security when they aren't able to work anymore.

[quote name='GBAstar']You're wrong. The other poster was on the money. eBay considers first class to be "expedited shipping" with a delivery estimate of 2-3 days regardless of where you live in the country.

His point was that if he as the seller sold an item on Monday and had a handling time of "1 business day" as his default handling itme eBay would tell the buyer to expect their item on Wednesday or Thursday.

Because first class mail takes longer then 2-3 business days to most parts of the country, even if the seller had mailed the item out the same day it wouldn't get to the buyer by wednesday or thursday like eBay had informed them. This means angry buyers who in return leave negative feedback and low DSR scores.

The poster merely stated that he pads his handling time an extra day or two so that eBay will tell the buyers not to expect the item until later in the week. He also made a very valid point; hopefully eBay adjust its esimted arrival dates on packages sent via USPS proprotionally to account for longer transit times once sorting stations start to close and Saturday delivery becomes a thing of the past.[/QUOTE]
If he can't meet the estimated delivery date that ebay dictates, how is that any fault of ebay or USPS when there are clearly many options for shipping upgrades from first class? If he doesn't want to pony up for priority and eke out a couple extra bucks from the sale by going snail mail, I'm not going to be very sympathetic if he's that concerned about feedback.
 
[quote name='dohdough'][...]USPS provides a necessary service to millions of people that literally depend on it to live.[/QUOTE]


"Millions" depend on the USPS to live?

Aside from those who get mail-order prescriptions (and then, assuming they have absolutely no other options at all), who depends on the USPS to live?
 
[quote name='dohdough']You don't seem to understand the problem...not the first or last time I bet. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR BENEFITS ON TOP OF THE LEGISLATED $5,000,000,000+ PENSION DEPOSITS. USPS used to be enrolled in the federal pension fund and had to make payments to them as well, which actually is what covers most USPS employees.

I don't give shit how you "feel" about them when USPS provides a necessary service to millions of people that literally depend on it to live. And if the moral obligation argument doesn't do it for you, and I know it probably won't, even from a business perspective, there is no way in hell that any private carrier can manage to do what USPS does without heavy government subsidies that would end up costing more than what USPS currently needs to operate on.


I think you should refresh yourself on the history of labor and it's relation to wages as well as the trend of wealth distribution in relation to production. I know you know it's not as simple as having people "take care" of their own retirement. Telling someone that's making $30k a year to plan to retirement isn't at all realistic and neither is telling them to go to college especially now, when college grads are facing the toughest job market in 20 years.


If he can't meet the estimated delivery date that ebay dictates, how is that any fault of ebay or USPS when there are clearly many options for shipping upgrades from first class? If he doesn't want to pony up for priority and eke out a couple extra bucks from the sale by going snail mail, I'm not going to be very sympathetic if he's that concerned about feedback.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry I didn't mean "you're wrong" in the sense that you didn't make a valid point.. your point is very valid; but eBay provides an estimate arrival time for each package dependent on the shipping method you choose.

Examples (Domestic):

Express Mail = 1 day
Priority Mail = 2-3 days
First Class = 2-3 days
Parcel Post = 2-8 days
Media Mail = 2-8 days

All of those estimates (except Priority) do a HUGE disservice to the buyer. Their are many parts of the country where Express Mail is NOT a 1 day service. Also, in most instances Media Mail and Parcel Post can take in excess of two weeks.

You won't survive long selling on eBay with poor feedback and low DSR's. Buyers (and even many CAGs) have this sense of entitlement where items should arrive in two days like Amazon Prime. eBay makes this worse when they give estimated transit times that are unreasonable.

I'm just trying to make the point that if USPS shortens the work week and closes distribution centers those estimates (Provided by eBay) are going to have to be tweeked or things for sellers will only get worse
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Millions" depend on the USPS to live?

Aside from those who get mail-order prescriptions (and then, assuming they have absolutely no other options at all), who depends on the USPS to live?[/QUOTE]


I'm going to agree with dohdough on this. USPS is essential. Their are many areas of the country that USPS and FedEx won't deliver too. In fact both those carriers (UPS and FedEx) actually use USPS to finish the delivery in rural areas.

If any of you have or plan on mailing outside the country LMAO if you want to mail something UPS or Fedex. Plan on spending at least 5-10x to use their services.

USPS could do itself a big favor and stop delivering spam mail and charge higher fees for junk mail and bill delivery.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm going to agree with dohdough on this. USPS is essential. Their are many areas of the country that USPS and FedEx won't deliver too. In fact both those carriers (UPS and FedEx) actually use USPS to finish the delivery in rural areas.

If any of you have or plan on mailing outside the country LMAO if you want to mail something UPS or Fedex. Plan on spending at least 5-10x to use their services.

USPS could do itself a big favor and stop delivering spam mail and charge higher fees for junk mail and bill delivery.[/QUOTE]

I'm not advocating for the dissolution of the USPS by any means. I'm just questioning the idea that "millions" depend on the USPS "to live".

As for not delivering spam mail/junk mail... my guess is that's where the USPS makes a good chuck of their money any more. I'd love to see some numbers regarding percentages of mail by type...

Charging higher for bill delivery? Heh. I can see it now - companies would simply continue with what several have already done - Get your bill via e-mail - Free. Want a paper bill via mail? $2.
That would help the poor folks without internet access.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Telling someone that's making $30k a year to plan to retirement isn't at all realistic and neither is telling them to go to college especially now, when college grads are facing the toughest job market in 20 years.
[/quote]

Then you keep working as long as you are physically able. Retiring before being unable to work anymore isn't a right, it's a privilege for people who both made something of themselves and were smart with their money.

And once one becomes unable to work we have disability benefits, social security if they're of that age etc. Its society/the governments responsibility to deal with that kind of stuff, not employers IMO. Especially silly for something like the USPS as it's just wasting more tax payer money. If USPS employees didn't save enough to retire when they're unable to work any more, they already have the disability and social security safety nets there, why give them a pension on top of that?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"Millions" depend on the USPS to live?

Aside from those who get mail-order prescriptions (and then, assuming they have absolutely no other options at all), who depends on the USPS to live?[/QUOTE]
How many elderly people do you think live in the country and how good do you think the social safety net is considering the increasingly high cost of living expenses as you get older or have a sickness?

[quote name='GBAstar']I'm sorry I didn't mean "you're wrong" in the sense that you didn't make a valid point.. your point is very valid; but eBay provides an estimate arrival time for each package dependent on the shipping method you choose.

Examples (Domestic):

Express Mail = 1 day
Priority Mail = 2-3 days
First Class = 2-3 days
Parcel Post = 2-8 days
Media Mail = 2-8 days

All of those estimates (except Priority) do a HUGE disservice to the buyer. Their are many parts of the country where Express Mail is NOT a 1 day service. Also, in most instances Media Mail and Parcel Post can take in excess of two weeks.

You won't survive long selling on eBay with poor feedback and low DSR's. Buyers (and even many CAGs) have this sense of entitlement where items should arrive in two days like Amazon Prime. eBay makes this worse when they give estimated transit times that are unreasonable.

I'm just trying to make the point that if USPS shortens the work week and closes distribution centers those estimates (Provided by eBay) are going to have to be tweeked or things for sellers will only get worse[/QUOTE]
My apologies as well. I can get worked up from time to time. More often than not...heh.

To speak for myself, whenever I sell something, I always go priority with dc and insurance. The extra piece of mind is worth the extra $3 out of my pocket and packages generally arrive in 2 days. $3 isn't worth fussing over when stuff like feedback counts.
 
doh, can you just fast forward to the part where this is about racism? I barely cared enough to comment, and definitely don't care enough to keep discussing it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Then you keep working as long as you are physically able. Retiring before being unable to work anymore isn't a right, it's a privilege for people who both made something of themselves and were smart with their money.[/quote]
Actually, there's an argument for worker churn that shows that we actually need people to retire so that younger workers can enter the market.

We've already had this argument before and even though you're big on agency, I know you know that there's a lot of dissonance when you use that argument. As an academic, I expect more from you.;)

And once one becomes unable to work we have disability benefits, social security if they're of that age etc. Its society/the governments responsibility to deal with that kind of stuff, not employers IMO. Especially silly for something like the USPS as it's just wasting more tax payer money. If USPS employees didn't save enough to retire when they're unable to work any more, they already have the disability and social security safety nets there, why give them a pension on top of that?
Click to expand...
Social security barely keeps people out of poverty. Also, USPS is a self-funded operation.
 
[quote name='berzirk']doh, can you just fast forward to the part where this is about racism? I barely cared enough to comment, and definitely don't care enough to keep discussing it.[/QUOTE]
Well I would think something which is so ingrained in our society would be a part of just about any issue to some degree at least. Of course finding it sometimes requires digging a little deeper.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not advocating for the dissolution of the USPS by any means. I'm just questioning the idea that "millions" depend on the USPS "to live".

As for not delivering spam mail/junk mail... my guess is that's where the USPS makes a good chuck of their money any more. I'd love to see some numbers regarding percentages of mail by type...

Charging higher for bill delivery? Heh. I can see it now - companies would simply continue with what several have already done - Get your bill via e-mail - Free. Want a paper bill via mail? $2.
That would help the poor folks without internet access.[/QUOTE]


Why should they need more help? Most of them are already being handed free electricity, internet, computers, etc through social welfare programs. Also, almost all "check cashing" stores have a bill pay service as well.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, there's an argument for worker churn that shows that we actually need people to retire so that younger workers can enter the market.

We've already had this argument before and even though you're big on agency, I know you know that there's a lot of dissonance when you use that argument. As an academic, I expect more from you.;)
[/QUOTE]

Not making any kind of academic argument here. Just a personal opinion that people aren't entitled to retirement. It's a privilege for people who make something of themselves and are smart with their money.

Now I don't want people to just rot. We need minimal social safety nets for people who fail at saving for retirement. And having them set to where they can live just above poverty is fine IMO. If you failed in life so be it. Society owes you nothing more than making sure you have health care, food, clothing and shelter IMO.

It's just stuff we'll never agree on as it's one area that I'm fairly conservative as I just fucking hate people in general and don't much care what happens to people outside of my small circle of family and friends, where as you're very liberal and altruistic on this social justice type of stuff. :D
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Why should they need more help? Most of them are already being handed free electricity, internet, computers, etc through social welfare programs. Also, almost all "check cashing" stores have a bill pay service as well.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, those check cashing places probably charge more than $2 per transaction.

And as much as it pains me to say it, bob is actually correct with all of his points, even if the last one was sarcastic.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And as much as it pains me to say it, bob is actually correct with all of his points, even if the last one was sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I was being sarcastic. Charging people more money on their bills (in particular, poorer folks) isn't helpful.

[quote name='dohdough']How many elderly people do you think live in the country and how good do you think the social safety net is considering the increasingly high cost of living expenses as you get older or have a sickness?[/QUOTE]

Living in the country doesn't make your life dependent on USPS (again, unless you're in the group that gets some prescription via mail order that actually sends via USPS and you have no other options) as far as I know. What vital-for-living service can one only get via USPS?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']If USPS employees didn't save enough to retire when they're unable to work any more, they already have the disability and social security safety nets there, why give them a pension on top of that?[/QUOTE]

You are joking right? Do you not understand that when the postal workers accepted the job, the pension was presented as part of their total compensation. In essence, they *did* save for retirement. In lieu of more cash in their paycheck every week, they opted for the deferred compensation in the form of a pension. Because they already earned the money that was supposed to be used for retirement, there should be no expectation that they needed to save money to retire. The pension *is* the money to retire.

Now, if you want to argue that pensions are a bad idea in general, well perhaps that's an argument worth having for future employees. But it is totally inappropriate to agree to an amount of total compensation upfront and then try and change the amount *after* the work has been done.

BTW: The idea of a "full pension" for Postal Worker (well the vast majority of Federal workers), is a moot point going forward. The full pension was a part of the old retirement system: CERS - Civil Employees Retirement System. But all new hires as of 1984 are under FERS - Federal Empolyees Retirement System which is primarily a defined contribution (401(k)-like) system. Oh and NOTE: those covered by CERS generally do *NOT* receive Social Security payments.

So really today's workers are being affected by a system they neither implemented nor will benefit from.
 
Yeah, I was just arguing for the future, not advocating scrapping pensions for people who started with them.

Just saying I don't like pensions in general and going forward they should scrap them and just go with a 401(k) type plan for new hires. Not just USPS, but anywhere. Pensions are just a bad idea IMO as I just don't think employers should be stuck paying for employees from retirement through death. They should just offer a generous 401(k) type plan with match, and then not owe employees anything more once they choose to retire.

In short, employers should only be on the hook for their current employees, not retirees. Just ends up being to costly when people retire early and live to very old ages vs. just providing decent retirement investment packages to working employees during their working years.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Then you keep working as long as you are physically able. Retiring before being unable to work anymore isn't a right, it's a privilege for people who both made something of themselves and were smart with their money.

And once one becomes unable to work we have disability benefits, social security if they're of that age etc. Its society/the governments responsibility to deal with that kind of stuff, not employers IMO. Especially silly for something like the USPS as it's just wasting more tax payer money. If USPS employees didn't save enough to retire when they're unable to work any more, they already have the disability and social security safety nets there, why give them a pension on top of that?[/QUOTE]

Here's a question: What if the type of work you're doing causes you to sicken prematurely and thus become unable to work and be a burden on society? I seem to remember a study a while back regarding workers operating jackhammers getting their wrists destroyed. Should the government take care of them? Should the cost of health damages be built into the workers' pay scale?

What would you consider a fair way of accounting for this cost using your "Work until you drop" methodology? :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I was just arguing for the future, not advocating scrapping pensions for people who started with them.

Just saying I don't like pensions in general and going forward they should scrap them and just go with a 401(k) type plan for new hires. Not just USPS, but anywhere. Pensions are just a bad idea IMO as I just don't think employers should be stuck paying for employees from retirement through death. They should just offer a generous 401(k) type plan with match, and then not owe employees anything more once they choose to retire.

In short, employers should only be on the hook for their current employees, not retirees. Just ends up being to costly when people retire early and live to very old ages vs. just providing decent retirement investment packages to working employees during their working years.[/QUOTE]
I forgot to mention earlier:

Considering what happened to retirement funds in the market a couple years ago, I think there's a good argument for 401k plans, and the like, being less than great ideas. This is also the argument made to privitize social security when Bush jr was in office. Not to mention the kleptocracy that's running in full force that we call our current financial system.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I forgot to mention earlier:

Considering what happened to retirement funds in the market a couple years ago, I think there's a good argument for 401k plans, and the like, being less than great ideas. This is also the argument made to privitize social security when Bush jr was in office. Not to mention the kleptocracy that's running in full force that we call our current financial system.[/QUOTE]

You think that pensions are less exposed to the risks of the market than 401k's?
 
Still up to a person to be smart with their 401k and other investments and be aggressive early on and gradually get more and more conservative/safe as you get closer to retirement age.

I don't support privatizing social security though. That should remain a guaranteed source of retirement income. It just obviously needs some tweaks and more funding to remain solvent.
 
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']Here's a question: What if the type of work you're doing causes you to sicken prematurely and thus become unable to work and be a burden on society? I seem to remember a study a while back regarding workers operating jackhammers getting their wrists destroyed. Should the government take care of them? Should the cost of health damages be built into the workers' pay scale?

What would you consider a fair way of accounting for this cost using your "Work until you drop" methodology? :D[/QUOTE]

I'd think some combination of workers comp funded by the company and disability income would be the way to handle it....and is how I think it is handled currently.

Puts the burden on both corporations and society at large to take care of those doing work that wears down the body that someone has to do.
 
[quote name='chiwii']You think that pensions are less exposed to the risks of the market than 401k's?[/QUOTE]
You think pensions are the same as 401k's?:roll:

Receiving a pension is different from managing a pension fund. I'm fully aware of how pension funds are used in financial markets and with the USPS example, we can clearly see that not all of them are funded through investment, nor should they be.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You think pensions are the same as 401k's?:roll:

Receiving a pension is different from managing a pension fund. I'm fully aware of how pension funds are used in financial markets and with the USPS example, we can clearly see that not all of them are funded through investment, nor should they be.[/QUOTE]

Of course I don't think that pensions are the same as 401k's. Where did you get that from?

That article that you posted stated that the forced contributions from the USPS are for retiree health benefits, not for pensions. Yes, there are unfunded pensions out there (some are set up that way on purpose, some end up unfunded because of insufficient contributions and/or investment returns). Would you want your retirement income to depend on an unfunded pension?
 
[quote name='chiwii']Of course I don't think that pensions are the same as 401k's. Where did you get that from?

That article that you posted stated that the forced contributions from the USPS are for retiree health benefits, not for pensions. Yes, there are unfunded pensions out there (some are set up that way on purpose, some end up unfunded because of insufficient contributions and/or investment returns). Would you want your retirement income to depend on an unfunded pension?[/QUOTE]

The USPS pension plan is unique because it is more or less prefunded to an insane degree.
 
...and that insane prefunding accomplished exactly what it was intended to do - convince the American populace that unionized employes contribute to such an incredible degree of bloated inefficiency in business that they must be stopped at any cost.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Of course I don't think that pensions are the same as 401k's. Where did you get that from?[/QUOTE]

From this:
[quote name='chiwii']You think that pensions are less exposed to the risks of the market than 401k's?[/QUOTE]


That article that you posted stated that the forced contributions from the USPS are for retiree health benefits, not for pensions. Yes, there are unfunded pensions out there (some are set up that way on purpose, some end up unfunded because of insufficient contributions and/or investment returns). Would you want your retirement income to depend on an unfunded pension?
Click to expand...

I already addressed that with this:
[quote name='dohdough']...with the USPS example, we can clearly see that not all of them are funded through investment, nor should they be.[/QUOTE]
 
Dohdough - come on, you really don't recognize that pensions aren't necessarily safer than 401k's? It's not only the inherent market risk, either. There is a real risk that the company (or government) won't be able to contribute sufficient funds.

Do you know anyone near retirement who wants to receive pension payments for the rest of their life instead of getting a lump sum? EVERY person that I know that is near retirement is planning to take the lump sum and move it into alternate retirement and investment accounts. No one seems to trust that the pension will be sufficiently funded, so they want their money out of there.

Regarding the USPS retiree benefits, my understanding is that federal government pension funds are invested. I don't know exactly what they're invested in, maybe just treasury bonds. The employer contributions are based on actuarial calculations and pension regulations that have been around for a lot longer than 2006. The USPS has overfunded their pension obligations, but they were not forced to by Congress.

The mandated contributions are for retiree health benefits, not for pensions. It doesn't change the fact that the contributions are most likely too high, of course.

By the way, where did you get the stat that the postal employee unions are the largest labor unions? Based on the numbers I've seen, none of the postal employee unions are even near being the largest, even when combined.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Dohdough - come on, you really don't recognize that pensions aren't necessarily safer than 401k's? It's not only the inherent market risk, either. There is a real risk that the company (or government) won't be able to contribute sufficient funds.[/QUOTE]
There's a deeper problem here that you're not seeing and I've pretty much laid it out in my responses to dmaul.

Either way, any company or corporation large enough to give employees pension benefits isn't really in danger of folding overnight and any beneficiaries would've had to have been vested into the benefit anyways. Having a stronger social safety net and equitable wages would negate a lot of the necessity for needing to give your money to financiers that gamble with it on high-risk instruments.

Do you know anyone near retirement who wants to receive pension payments for the rest of their life instead of getting a lump sum? EVERY person that I know that is near retirement is planning to take the lump sum and move it into alternate retirement and investment accounts. No one seems to trust that the pension will be sufficiently funded, so they want their money out of there.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I already addressed this more than once and in different ways...

Regarding the USPS retiree benefits, my understanding is that federal government pension funds are invested. I don't know exactly what they're invested in, maybe just treasury bonds. The employer contributions are based on actuarial calculations and pension regulations that have been around for a lot longer than 2006. The USPS has overfunded their pension obligations, but they were not forced to by Congress.

The mandated contributions are for retiree health benefits, not for pensions. It doesn't change the fact that the contributions are most likely too high, of course.
Click to expand...
I initially said retirement benefits and got sidetracked into using pensions, but like you said, it doesn't change the fact that the contributions are way too high.

Anyways, the contribution to the retiree health fund was renewed in 2006, but was started and mandated in 2003. Even the renewal required congressional approval. And if you really want to be a stickler about terminology, this doesn't negate the fact that USPS was still paying into the federal civil service worker fund at the same time and that USPS is the only organization(public or private) that's required to have this level of funding in the US.

edit: To be more precise, payments into the civil service retirement system fund was reduced to allow for the massive balloon payments into the current retiree health benefit fund that would amount to 75 years worth of retiree coverage to be paid over 10 years.

By the way, where did you get the stat that the postal employee unions are the largest labor unions? Based on the numbers I've seen, none of the postal employee unions are even near being the largest, even when combined.
Click to expand...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...contributions-into-employee-pension-fund.html

It's about halfway down.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm curious - anyone read anything with regards to the mindset when this rule about paying so much into the pension system went into effect?

I'm curious how the party lines voted for it and if the Postal Workers union, at the time, was endorsing it.

Aside from that, dohdough - you've mentioned that the USPS, as a private company, would be unable to survive if they had to provide service to small/rural areas. You've also pointed out that, without the government stepping in with this pre-payment into the pension system, the USPS would actually have made money these previous years. I'm curious how that works - the USPS doesn't get tax money or any other real money from the government (although they do receive some special treatment via legal matters and such). What secret formula do they have that allows them to provide the services they do - at a profit - that a private company would be unable to do?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - anyone read anything with regards to the mindset when this rule about paying so much into the pension system went into effect?

I'm curious how the party lines voted for it and if the Postal Workers union, at the time, was endorsing it.[/QUOTE]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdque...umm2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=109

House - Voice vote, not recorded.
Senate - Passed via unanimous consent.

As for the response, all I found from 15 minutes of Googling news results from 2006-07 was a lot of furor about President Bush authorizing warrantless searches of mail via signing statement.

Conclusion: A crippling lack of foresight.
 
Hmm... I'm curious if anyone went on record at the time talking about how it was going to destroy the postal system or how it was needed to protect postal workers or something. I.e.: How it was marketed and sold and if anyone seemed to raise any objections to it at the time.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Hmm... I'm curious if anyone went on record at the time talking about how it was going to destroy the postal system or how it was needed to protect postal workers or something. I.e.: How it was marketed and sold and if anyone seemed to raise any objections to it at the time.[/QUOTE]

You can try wading through the legislative history. The final bill came actually came out of a conference committee after the Senate had some issues with the original bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top