Dante Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Turn the mail over to UPS, Fed Ex and so on. They will do it better. More efficient. When the USPS guy comes to our place he's in no rush. Will even shoot the shite if somebody is willing. UPS delivery guy can't get out of here fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Turn the mail over to UPS, Fed Ex and so on. They will do it better. More efficient. When the USPS guy comes to our place he's in no rush. Will even shoot the shite if somebody is willing. UPS delivery guy can't get out of here fast enough. And more expensively. And then somebody will B word that mail is an inalienable right under the First Amendment, and the post office is necessary to protect free speech. Then Hedd, Dave_in_Norfolk, and pBills will post some sort of drivel about the subject. So if we get rid of the USPS, we get more Hedd, Dave, and pBills to read. For God's sake, support your post office! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 ...we get more Hedd... It's funny to me that you can change the spelling of one word to refer to a single moronic poster, and completely FUBAR anything enjoyable about an otherwise optimistic sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Turn the mail over to UPS, Fed Ex and so on. They will do it better. More efficient. When the USPS guy comes to our place he's in no rush. Will even shoot the shite if somebody is willing. UPS delivery guy can't get out of here fast enough. I don't get comments like this. In what way is UPS or Fed Ex more efficient than the post office? Is it because they won't leave packages unless I sign for them? That is not convenient. I have been using the post office, personally, almost daily, for about 11 years...over 2600 transactions on EBAY, and in that time, I have had 1 shipping problem with USPS. In my previous job, we used UPS and DHL for everything...there were constant errors. I just don't understand why these are better services, and they certainly aren't cheaper. Honestly, the last thing I want is to shoot the "shite" with a delivery person, but maybe that is just me. A very good friend of mine (my Fantasy Football commish) is a UPS driver, and with the tight schedule he is on, I seriously doubt he would want to shoot the "shite" or hang out with customers either...there really are two Americas.... And more expensively. And then somebody will B word that mail is an inalienable right under the First Amendment, and the post office is necessary to protect free speech. Then Hedd, Dave_in_Norfolk, and pBills will post some sort of drivel about the subject. So if we get rid of the USPS, we get more Hedd, Dave, and pBills to read. For God's sake, support your post office! DC, playing both sides of the issue....brilliant as usual..pointing out the reality that it will be much more expensive, but throwing a few barbs in as well...nobody does it better! Don't know about you, but my pension is by law 100% funded - it's called a 401k. If you are refering only to a traditional pension, private firms offering them are also required to pre-fund. For 75 years? Edited September 7, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 For 75 years? 401k's are the defacto pensions today, and they are 100% funded - the money goes in now, and it is what it is. But for those few companies that still offer a pension component, I believe the requirements vary by the size of the company, with 50 years being the norm. Though to be honest, I'm not sure I understand the significance of that window - how many current employees can be expected to be drawing a pension 75 years from now? Or 50, for that matter? The key parameters appears to be the investment requirement and the estimated return. There is a complicated formula based on the difference between the company assets and the projected outlays, with an estimated rate of return for money set aside now. The amount of pension money invested (under those assumptions) must close the gap within some percentage over that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 For 75 years? What does that even mean? Are there no possible liabilities 75 years in the future? What % of the funding is related to anything 75 years from now? How come you won't discuss the issue of unfunded pensions? It's pretty clear that you don't have the foggiest idea what the requirement entails and you are just regurgitating some bullsh--, pro-union-at-any-cost talking point. You are capable of better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 DC, playing both sides of the issue....brilliant as usual..pointing out the reality that it will be much more expensive, but throwing a few barbs in as well...nobody does it better! Thanks. I'd like to say it's natural talent...but I've had years of practice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Thanks. I'd like to say it's natural talent...but I've had years of practice... What does that even mean? Are there no possible liabilities 75 years in the future? What % of the funding is related to anything 75 years from now? How come you won't discuss the issue of unfunded pensions? It's pretty clear that you don't have the foggiest idea what the requirement entails and you are just regurgitating some bullsh--, pro-union-at-any-cost talking point. You are capable of better. Sure there are liabilites in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue? I am not arguing that the post office doesn't need some fixing, but some of you (maybe not you) are acting as though this issue is caused by the postal employees, who I would argue, do a terrific job, by and large. To pretend that exclusively privatizing postal services will make the service better doesn't really ring true. The post office is self sustaining, and it seems this requirmentr of funding pensions 75 years into the future, for employees that aren't even born yet, is a sure fire way to destroy something that works. What is happening with that money, in the mean time? I seriously doubt it all sitting tidily in some vault somewhere, waiting to be paid out...I would bet it is being borrowed for other government programs. Edited September 7, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) Sure there are liabilites in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue? Uh, isn't this this the exact thinking that got us into this mess, and other messes like Medicare, in the first place? What happens when we apply the same thinking to everything else, like we have since the 1930s? Then everything is 'a budgeting issue'? Then we end up with incremental spending that becomes massive and no accountability. And, what right do we have to determine what is happening 75 years in the future? Do you honestly believe pieces of paper being hand carried from one place to another will be how we do things..75 f'ing years from now? What happens if we had funded pensions for buggy whip makers 100 years ago? Enough of the one-size-fits all. Put every postal worker on a 401k, and be done with this ridiculousness. When I say "progressives" aren't for real "progress", and never will be, this is what I mean. "Progressives" are for holding onto their Norman Rockwellian programs from the last century, with no changes, for as long as possible, or until they die. Look at my sig, think Norman Rockwell, and then think Buftex in her apron, bringing her husband his whiskey and paper. That's your "progressive". Edited September 7, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Sure there are liabilities in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue? I am not arguing that the post office doesn't need some fixing, but some of you (maybe not you) are acting as though this issue is caused by the postal employees, who I would argue, do a terrific job, by and large. To pretend that exclusively privatizing postal services will make the service better doesn't really ring true. The post office is self sustaining, and it seems this requirement of funding pensions 75 years into the future, for employees that aren't even born yet, is a sure fire way to destroy something that works. What is happening with that money, in the mean time? I seriously doubt it all sitting tidily in some vault somewhere, waiting to be paid out...I would bet it is being borrowed for other government programs. They're not paying for them all today. They are paying for a fraction of them today by funding the present value of the future payments that are being earned each day as employees accrue the benefits. That's how you fund a pension. Where is the money? Hopefully in a big pension fund that is used to payout ongoing benefits and whose balance is sufficient (when factoring in future appreciation) to pay out the future benefits employees have accrued to date. If you don't fund the appropriate amount today, than the unfunded liability just gets bigger tomorrow -- and where is the money going to come from to catch up? Once again, this can-kicking is exactly why our state governments are on the verge of bankruptcy. Huge retirement promises to millions of people without putting away the sufficient mimimum amount to cover the future payments. I am not 'blaming the employees' and certainly agree that our postal service is world-class and not having it is an idiotic idea. However, the reality is that if the PS can't afford to put aside the money for the pay and benefits that people are accruing today, than they either have too many employees, are promising those people too many future benefits, or they need to raise postage rates. It's not that complicated. I am blaming the postal management, the union bosses, and the politicians who have conspired to allow this organization (and the government at large) to operate billions in the red just so they can keep themselves in power and in control of vast sums of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 They're not paying for them all today. They are paying for a fraction of them today by funding the present value of the future payments that are being earned each day as employees accrue the benefits. That's how you fund a pension. Where is the money? Hopefully in a big pension fund that is used to payout ongoing benefits and whose balance is sufficient (when factoring in future appreciation) to pay out the future benefits employees have accrued to date. If you don't fund the appropriate amount today, than the unfunded liability just gets bigger tomorrow -- and where is the money going to come from to catch up? Once again, this can-kicking is exactly why our state governments are on the verge of bankruptcy. Huge retirement promises to millions of people without putting away the sufficient mimimum amount to cover the future payments. I am not 'blaming the employees' and certainly agree that our postal service is world-class and not having it is an idiotic idea. However, the reality is that if the PS can't afford to put aside the money for the pay and benefits that people are accruing today, than they either have too many employees, are promising those people too many future benefits, or they need to raise postage rates. It's not that complicated. I am blaming the postal management, the union bosses, and the politicians who have conspired to allow this organization (and the government at large) to operate billions in the red just so they can keep themselves in power and in control of vast sums of money. C'mon Buf. Talk some more about the evil Republicans killing the post office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Turn the mail over to UPS, Fed Ex and so on. They will do it better. More efficient. When the USPS guy comes to our place he's in no rush. Will even shoot the shite if somebody is willing. UPS delivery guy can't get out of here fast enough. Never happen. The dirty little secret is that the USPS is just another misguided liberal social engineering project. http://www.allgov.com/Unusual_News/ViewNews/10_Occupations_with_Largest_Percentage_of_African_Americans_100905 1. Barbers—35.0%2. Nursing, psychiatric, and home health aides—34.0% 3. Residential advisors—29.6% 4. Security guards and gaming surveillance officers—28.6% 5. Postal service clerks-28.3% 6. Baggage porters, bellhops, and concierges—27.1% 7. Postal service mail sorters, processors, and processing machine operators—26.4% 8. Taxi drivers and chauffeurs—25.7% 9. Bus drivers—24.9% 10. Parking lot attendants—24.4% Now they're set the stage where any attempts to reform the post office will be condemned as racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Never happen. The dirty little secret is that the USPS is just another misguided liberal social engineering project. http://www.allgov.com/Unusual_News/ViewNews/10_Occupations_with_Largest_Percentage_of_African_Americans_100905 Now they're set the stage where any attempts to reform the post office will be condemned as racist. You might be right in your assertion, but boy you just don't get it, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 You might be right in your assertion, but boy you just don't get it, do you? I'll put myself out there on topics like these, I don't care. Besides DC Tom is too big of a coward to take on America's real racists. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d63_1292954935 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Uh, isn't this this the exact thinking that got us into this mess, and other messes like Medicare, in the first place? What happens when we apply the same thinking to everything else, like we have since the 1930s? Then everything is 'a budgeting issue'? Then we end up with incremental spending that becomes massive and no accountability. And, what right do we have to determine what is happening 75 years in the future? Do you honestly believe pieces of paper being hand carried from one place to another will be how we do things..75 f'ing years from now? What happens if we had funded pensions for buggy whip makers 100 years ago? Enough of the one-size-fits all. Put every postal worker on a 401k, and be done with this ridiculousness. When I say "progressives" aren't for real "progress", and never will be, this is what I mean. "Progressives" are for holding onto their Norman Rockwellian programs from the last century, with no changes, for as long as possible, or until they die. Look at my sig, think Norman Rockwell, and then think Buftex in her apron, bringing her husband his whiskey and paper. That's your "progressive". Uhhh...I never suggested that the postal service doesn't need tweaking...only taking umbrage with the a-holes here (see Dante, DaveInElma, etc) who are mis-characterizing what is going on with the postal system. Btw- if your example of "progressives" rings true, it sounds a lot better to me than what you "repressives" and proudly "regressive" idiots are usually preaching... C'mon Buf. Talk some more about the evil Republicans killing the post office. ZZZZZzzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I'll put myself out there on topics like these, I don't care. Besides DC Tom is too big of a coward to take on America's real racists. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d63_1292954935 Yes, you really have me pegged. I don't have the moral courage to take on an 80's sitcom muppet. Not like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Uhhh...I never suggested that the postal service doesn't need tweaking...only taking umbrage with the a-holes here (see Dante, DaveInElma, etc) who are mis-characterizing what is going on with the postal system. Btw- if your example of "progressives" rings true, it sounds a lot better to me than what you "repressives" and proudly "regressive" idiots are usually preaching... ZZZZZzzzzzzzz If being "progressive" means getting your sound byte shoved down your throat with a size 16 Red Wing as you have in this thread, then count me proud to be regressive. At the end of the day, the 2 party system survives because there are people who are too stupid to look at things that are clearly black and white and see anything other than whatever color their masters tell them they're supposed to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Uhhh...I never suggested that the postal service doesn't need tweaking...only taking umbrage with the a-holes here (see Dante, DaveInElma, etc) who are mis-characterizing what is going on with the postal system. Btw- if your example of "progressives" rings true, it sounds a lot better to me than what you "repressives" and proudly "regressive" idiots are usually preaching... Two points: 1) The PO doesn't need "tweaking", it needs a major overhaul. Tweaking doesn't close a multi-billion dollar budget gap. 2) It is actually you who has mis-characterized what is going on with the PO by linking and continually referring to (and apparently believing!) some bullsh-- stats in some article on a union propaganda website. I believe DaveinElma just suggested a really dumb fix. I'd be interested in hearing YOUR fix, assuming it's something other than 'do nothing and let the unions keep running the PO billions in the red' Seriously, break out of your pre-conceived notions and recognize the issues involved here and the necessary fixes that are as clear as day to anyone who chooses to open their eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Sure there are liabilites in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue? I am not arguing that the post office doesn't need some fixing, but some of you (maybe not you) are acting as though this issue is caused by the postal employees, who I would argue, do a terrific job, by and large. Not just a good job, but a terrific job? Based on what metrics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Sure there are liabilites in the future...but do you have to pay for them all today? Isn't this a budgeting issue? I am not arguing that the post office doesn't need some fixing, but some of you (maybe not you) are acting as though this issue is caused by the postal employees, who I would argue, do a terrific job, by and large. To pretend that exclusively privatizing postal services will make the service better doesn't really ring true. The post office is self sustaining, and it seems this requirmentr of funding pensions 75 years into the future, for employees that aren't even born yet, is a sure fire way to destroy something that works. What is happening with that money, in the mean time? I seriously doubt it all sitting tidily in some vault somewhere, waiting to be paid out...I would bet it is being borrowed for other government programs. KD in CT answered this at length, but let me clarify the key point: 100% funded doesn't mean what you think, and the money isn't just sitting there. 100% funded means you have invested enough money now so that it is estimated to grow into enough money later. In other words, if you expect to cut a $50,000 pension check in 20 years, paying $5,000 into the pension fund now makes it 100% funded. That $5,000 isn't sitting in a vault, it is busy becoming the required $50,000. In some sense it's like a 401k - a certain amount of your money is set aside for your retirement. The difference is that investing involves risk. With your 401k, your money might grow slower or faster than you expect. With a pension, you get what you expect, and the company gains or loses on the investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts