Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Darth Biscuit

Postal Service reports massive $5 billion loss

109 posts in this topic

Its free in as much as you are not charged a discrete fee to receive your bills or your jury summons.

Its also why privatization will never work.

You are completely clueless.

Privatization of the mail service would absolutely work.

The person "sending" the letter, bill, etc would pay (just as they do now).

At a minimum, the service shoudl be cut to delivering 3 days a week and massive cuts in the workforce. Getting a gov't job with the postal Service is a major reward for someone. Most inefficient organization in the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its free in as much as you are not charged a discrete fee to receive your bills or your jury summons.

Its also why privatization will never work.

I'd be the first person to sign up for paperless. In fact they can keep the jury summons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so screwed up... and a symptom of exactly what's wrong with this country...

$5 billion... BILLION! That's ONE YEAR.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/15/news/economy/postal_service_loss/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3

What is the solution?

Yet UPS and Fedex(privatized) report gains every quarter. Perfect example of why the government shouldnt be managing business, PERIOD. I love watching those stupid USPS commercials knowing that I paid for them, fuging great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely clueless.

Privatization of the mail service would absolutely work.

The person "sending" the letter, bill, etc would pay (just as they do now).

That assumes that the delivery service makes regular trips down every road. There is a reason you cant send a letter via UPS or FED Ex for less than 10 bucks. Because every residential delivery is essentially a special trip for the delivery vehicle.

Like it or not the logistics of running a for profit business would make serving every address in the country everyday a losing proposition. Just ask the USPS.

At a minimum, the service shoudl be cut to delivering 3 days a week and massive cuts in the workforce. Getting a gov't job with the postal Service is a major reward for someone. Most inefficient organization in the government.

Where have I heard that before?

3 day delivery. Mon, Wed, Fri.

Charge more, not less for bulk mail.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet UPS and Fedex(privatized) report gains every quarter. Perfect example of why the government shouldnt be managing business, PERIOD. I love watching those stupid USPS commercials knowing that I paid for them, f**king great!

Neither UPS nor Fed Ex make a stop at EVERY residential address and most business addresses 6 days a week.

Apples and oranges...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that the delivery service makes regular trips down every road. There is a reason you cant send a letter via UPS or FED Ex for less than 10 bucks. Because every residential delivery is essentially a special trip for the delivery vehicle.

tumblr_lgbilzDkVB1qf8yek.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe if we got them to deliver pizzas as they delivered the mail.......thats the ticket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe if we got them to deliver pizzas as they delivered the mail.......thats the ticket

Then we will really need govt backed healthcare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that the delivery service makes regular trips down every road. There is a reason you cant send a letter via UPS or FED Ex for less than 10 bucks. Because every residential delivery is essentially a special trip for the delivery vehicle.

Like it or not the logistics of running a for profit business would make serving every address in the country everyday a losing proposition. Just ask the USPS.

Well that's certainly a massive problem that "WARGBARGL PRIVATIZE" in and of itself doesn't come close to resolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Postal Service could jack up their prices the same way a private company would have to.

The UPS model is totally inadequate for what the Postal Service does. If it were anywhere remotely possible they felt they could make any money by taking it over, I'm sure we would have heard some kind of proposal from them by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts