USPS to end Saturday mail delivery

[Hockeynut!]

Is argument started pages ago when someone suggested FedEx couldnt profitably replace USPS on metropolitan areas (where 90% of the country lives).

No, I said FedEx couldn't provide the same services as the USPS and make a profit. You said they could if they only serviced the metropolitan areas. That is not the same service.

I could make $500K a year if all of my $300 clients placed $2500 orders instead of $300 orders, but I can't force them do that.

[mac5155]

Is argument started pages ago when someone suggested FedEx couldnt profitably replace USPS on metropolitan areas (where 90% of the country lives).

No, I said FedEx couldn't provide the same services as the USPS and make a profit. You said they could if they only serviced the metropolitan areas. That is not the same service.

I could make $500K a year if all of my $300 clients placed $2500 orders instead of $300 orders, but I can't force them do that.

They could, because as pointed out earlier by a postal worker, they wouldnt require $5 billion a year be pushed to employee benefits. Take away the government pensions and I doubt that the service would be that much more.

[Rylan]

It is still a decaying business.

[TheHammer24]

Is argument started pages ago when someone suggested FedEx couldnt profitably replace USPS on metropolitan areas (where 90% of the country lives).

You're saying they aren't allowed to do it. And I'm saying they are. If you pay them $6 to deliver a letter they arent cgoing to say "no were not allowed to do that"

Erg. You're not following the argument at all. They can't use "letter boxes," which precludes the predominant way mail is delivered. As such, they can't deliver the mail in bulk like USPS does, which eliminates the scale economy and prevents them from entering the market. The initial premise from my argument was "what if you eliminate USPS." You keep responding under the opposite premise because you came in late.

I suggested FedEx and UPS would deliver your mail, they'd do it profitably and at a competitive expense at least for the overwhelming majority of the country. Rural people would pay a premium, but I suggested it was better to give them some sort of subsidy instead of artificially lowering the cost of delivering mail to them.

Then people started suggesting FedEx couldn't handle delivery, etc. Then people suggested they couldn't do it profitably.

And HockeyNut: I said that you would have to subsidize the rural farmers for their increased cost, but I posit the cost of the subsidy + (Revenue of Fedex/UPS - Cost) < USPS

What are all of your points other than nitpicking at my suggesting (that has been suggested time and time again) that we should privatize/eliminate the USPS because FedEx and UPS can provide the service.

[Hockeynut!]

Didn't the USPS lose about $15B last year? Even if you remove the pension payment, that's a $10B loss.

[Rylan]

I know little about Fedex's or UPS's shipping, but wouldn't it require a high upfront cost in machinery, vehicles, and personnel not to mention other similar costs that would go into the average delivery of snail mail. Seems like a venture that is not worth the costs.

[mac5155]

Didn't the USPS lose about $15B last year? Even if you remove the pension payment, that's a $10B loss.

Yeah, so what's another $5 billion when you've already lost $10 billion

[Factorial]

Is argument started pages ago when someone suggested FedEx couldnt profitably replace USPS on metropolitan areas (where 90% of the country lives).

No, I said FedEx couldn't provide the same services as the USPS and make a profit. You said they could if they only serviced the metropolitan areas. That is not the same service.

I could make $500K a year if all of my $300 clients placed $2500 orders instead of $300 orders, but I can't force them do that.

They could, because as pointed out earlier by a postal worker, they wouldnt require $5 billion a year be pushed to employee benefits. Take away the government pensions and I doubt that the service would be that much more.

They should just back out on the pension commitments?

[mac5155]

Is argument started pages ago when someone suggested FedEx couldnt profitably replace USPS on metropolitan areas (where 90% of the country lives).

You're saying they aren't allowed to do it. And I'm saying they are. If you pay them $6 to deliver a letter they arent cgoing to say "no were not allowed to do that"

Erg. You're not following the argument at all. They can't use "letter boxes," which precludes the predominant way mail is delivered. As such, they can't deliver the mail in bulk like USPS does, which eliminates the scale economy and prevents them from entering the market. The initial premise from my argument was "what if you eliminate USPS." You keep responding under the opposite premise because you came in late.

I suggested FedEx and UPS would deliver your mail, they'd do it profitably and at a competitive expense at least for the overwhelming majority of the country. Rural people would pay a premium, but I suggested it was better to give them some sort of subsidy instead of artificially lowering the cost of delivering mail to them.

Then people started suggesting FedEx couldn't handle delivery, etc. Then people suggested they couldn't do it profitably.

And HockeyNut: I said that you would have to subsidize the rural farmers for their increased cost, but I posit the cost of the subsidy + (Revenue of Fedex/UPS - Cost) < USPS

What are all of your points other than nitpicking at my suggesting (that has been suggested time and time again) that we should privatize/eliminate the USPS because FedEx and UPS can provide the service.

I am questioning why you're saying FedEx and UPS are not "allowed" to deliver a "letter" and only allowed to deliver "packages". It would take massive infrastructure upgrades from FedEx to do so. I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

[TheHammer24]

Because I'm using that term colloquially. The monopoly prohibits the use of "mail boxes," which means every "thing" FedEx delivers must be in the form of what we commonly refer to as "a package." I.e., a single unit delivered to our front door instead of a dozen "things" dropped in our mailbox.

[Hockeynut!]

What are all of your points other than nitpicking at my suggesting (that has been suggested time and time again) that we should privatize/eliminate the USPS because FedEx and UPS can provide the service.

My point is that I don't believe FedEx UPS could provide the same service at similar costs. Your point seems to be that the Gov. shouldn't provide any services to the people unless they can turn a profit in doing so. That's your opinion and if you feel that way, that's fine and I'm not going to say you're wrong.

Theorizing however that we should give tax credits to people who live in rural areas, yada yada yada just seems silly though. How do we determine what is "rural". 25 miles from the nearest shipping center? What if you're 24.9 or 25.1? Adding more complications to income tax just seems beyond wrong. If you want to say we should close it because it's bleeding money, stick with that. Don't try to figure out ways to say, "But the gov. can dole out cheese to those who live in the sticks to offset the higher costs charged by private corporations."

[mac5155]

Because I'm using that term colloquially. The monopoly prohibits the use of "mail boxes," which means every "thing" FedEx delivers must be in the form of what we commonly refer to as "a package." I.e., a single unit delivered to our front door instead of a dozen "things" dropped in our mailbox.

I'm just not sure why that matters in the grand scheme of things. If FedEx puts an envelope through a mail slot on my front door, I doubt the USPS is going to arrest them.

[TheHammer24]

I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

I find this very hard to believe. Sounds like their costs go up, but that doesn't mean their profit decreases. Otherwise, FedEx would want less business? That is bizarre.

[Rylan]

I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

I find this very hard to believe. Sounds like their costs go up, but that doesn't mean their profit decreases. Otherwise, FedEx would want less business? That is bizarre.

There are points where more volume and income = less profit.

[TheHammer24]

Because I'm using that term colloquially. The monopoly prohibits the use of "mail boxes," which means every "thing" FedEx delivers must be in the form of what we commonly refer to as "a package." I.e., a single unit delivered to our front door instead of a dozen "things" dropped in our mailbox.

I'm just not sure why that matters in the grand scheme of things. If FedEx puts an envelope through a mail slot on my front door, I doubt the USPS is going to arrest them.

You possess a grand naivete about the legal system. A company that relies exclusively on their letter-box monopoly is going to let FedEx start using it?

In any event, FedEx can't supplant the inertia of USPS. People aren't going to suddenly stop using mail boxes and stamps. Like I keep telling you, my initial premise is that we should eliminate the USPS.

[Hockeynut!]

It would take massive infrastructure upgrades from FedEx to do so. I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours.

And, like you and others have said, FedEx replies on the USPS a lot when it comes to the "ground" game. I just don't buy into Hammer's theory that FedEx or UPS would be salivating at the chance to jump into daily mail delivery and collection for a myriad of reasons.

[TheHammer24]

I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

I find this very hard to believe. Sounds like their costs go up, but that doesn't mean their profit decreases. Otherwise, FedEx would want less business? That is bizarre.

There are points where more volume and income = less profit.

no ****. It's not enough to point out that everything I say is not true in every application. A company like FedEx would seem to account for the "problems" of getting a lot packages.

[pfim]

It would take massive infrastructure upgrades from FedEx to do so. I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours.

And, like you and others have said, FedEx replies on the USPS a lot when it comes to the "ground" game. I just don't buy into Hammer's theory that FedEx or UPS would be salivating at the chance to jump into daily mail delivery and collection for the reasons you listed above and a myriad of others.

They all rely on each other and private contractors to handle overflow, each has its own excess capacity.

[Rylan]

I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours. With infrastructure upgrades, sure they could probably do it. Just because they arent putting your envelope in your mailbox doesn't mean they arent delivering it?

I find this very hard to believe. Sounds like their costs go up, but that doesn't mean their profit decreases. Otherwise, FedEx would want less business? That is bizarre.

There are points where more volume and income = less profit.

no ****. It's not enough to point out that everything I say is not true in every application. A company like FedEx would seem to account for the "problems" of getting a lot packages.

Cost Benefit Analysis. Would it be worth it?

[TheHammer24]

It would take massive infrastructure upgrades from FedEx to do so. I bet you didn't know but FedEx actually becomes less profitable the higher their volume is, because they simply can't handle it all, so they have to rent additional trucks, pay additional people, and run longer hours.

And, like you and others have said, FedEx replies on the USPS a lot when it comes to the "ground" game. I just don't buy into Hammer's theory that FedEx or UPS would be salivating at the chance to jump into daily mail delivery and collection for the reasons you listed above and a myriad of others.

They all rely on each other and private contractors to handle overflow, each has its own excess capacity.

I think this is a strong argument why FedEx/UPS wouldn't want USPS to end. USPS relies a lot on FedEx for the highly profitable services of cross-nation air delivery, while USPS takes on high-cost things like having easily accessible Post Offices and delivering mail to the far reaches. But that's a different argument than what I'm making: That FedEx and UPS would do it just fine.

[tifosi77]

Is this more of a theoretical exercise or a concrete proposal? Because establishing Post Offices and Post Roads is a power delegated to Congress in Art I, Sect 8 of the Constitution. Undoing that isn't really the work of a moment. In real terms, the question isn't "Would the private sector be better at this?", it's "Can the Constitution be amended to allow the private sector a shot?"

[TheHammer24]

Is this more of a theoretical exercise or a concrete proposal? Because establishing Post Offices and Post Roads is a power delegated to Congress in Art I, Sect 8 of the Constitution. Undoing that isn't really the work of a moment. In real terms, the question isn't "Would the private sector be better at this?", it's "Can the Constitution be amended to allow the private sector a shot?"

It was theoretical. The post office isn't going anywhere. But I think Congress could eliminate the Post Office. It is empowered to establish a Post Office. It's not required to establish one. So I don't think it requires an amendment, just a statute.

In any event, the greatest question right now is why do I care so much? Decent discussion, everyone, but I can't justify spending any more time on this. Back to work!

[Hockeynut!]

Is this more of a theoretical exercise or a concrete proposal? Because establishing Post Offices and Post Roads is a power delegated to Congress in Art I, Sect 8 of the Constitution. Undoing that isn't really the work of a moment. In real terms, the question isn't "Would the private sector be better at this?", it's "Can the Constitution be amended to allow the private sector a shot?"

We all know it's okay to amend the Constitution when it aligns with your political/economical/moral beliefs. If your beliefs align with the Constitution, then advocating change is tantamount to treason.

[Hockeynut!]

Back to work!

Boo! You'll have more fun here than working.

[TheHammer24]

Back to work!

Boo! You'll have more fun here than working.

Lol. I do want to do some research on this issue though. From what I've found, it seems like FedEx is exploiting USPS's inefficiencies by providing services it provides but can't do itself. Perhaps the reason FedEx and UPS are not "salivating" at this opportunity is that USPS is so inefficient it gets the customers to come to it but then pays FedEx to do the work.