Remix.run Logo
▲ CodingJeebus 2 hours ago

USPS is in really rough shape, budget-wise, to the degree that they needed an emergency cash infusion earlier this year (I highly recommend reading up on it, it's a bad situation). Sadly, it's not that surprising to see that they're charging commercial rates for this service.

▲0cf8612b2e1e 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s not an accident. Congress made it a requirement that the USPS pre fund their pension plans, decades in advance. The only government institute required to do such a thing.

It is great for governments to run responsible budgets, but this was such a unique constraint, it seems designed to strangle the USPS.

▲LanceH an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> pre fund their pension plans, decades in advance

Which is to say "fund their pension plans."

▲bragr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I know of no other pension plan that has to prefund 75 years of projected pension liabilities.

▲lotsofpulp 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

PAEA 2007 required funding of accrued liabilities for the USPS, same as PPA 2006. However, other governments in the US are not required to fund any liabilities for post employment benefits, at all, as they are excluded from both ERISA 1974 and PPA 2006.

https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.p...

Page 55 discusses setting money aside for retiree healthcare benefits:

>Not later than June 30, 2007, and by June 30 of each succeeding year, the Office shall compute the net present value of the future payments required under section 8906(g)(2)(A) and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year.

"Net Present Value" is accrued, i.e. benefits owed to current and past employees.

It makes sense to require an organization to set aside money it promised to pay someone...otherwise organizations would just go around paying people today with future taxpayers' money (which is what governments literally do).

Page 53 discusses the same for defined benefit pensions. All of the present values are of accrued benefits, not projected benefits.

However, I do suspect this was a clever way to handicap the USPS specifically, since it did not apply to any other governments such as state/county/city.

▲KerrAvon 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yup.

https://ips-dc.org/how-congress-manufactured-a-postal-crisis...

> The Trump Task Force acknowledged that without the costs imposed by the Post-Retirement Health Care Mandate, USPS would today be profitable on an operating basis.

▲underlipton an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is more like barring you from kindergarten if you don't start paying your college tuition.

▲throwaway27448 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Who knew republicans loved big government so much

▲coryrc an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Due to Baumol's Cost Disease and email, it doesn't make sense to be paying labor to drop off junk mail every single weekday. Cutting this by 2/days a week in urban areas and by 3 days/week in rural would save incredible amounts.

▲snowwrestler 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The U.S. Postal Service doesn’t make financial sense because it is fundamentally not a financial idea. Like other aspects of Constitutional U.S. governance, its purpose is to stitch a people together into a nation.

▲underlipton an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sure Amazon would love that. Need to overnight a letter? Guess you're stuck with FedEx or UPS.