that when I mention my solution of doubling the price of sending junk mail, all I hear afterwards are crickets?

The USPS has become primarily a distributor of trash, and low prices for shipping forest-raped materials has put the organization where it is today. The first-class stuff is a much lower proportion than it's ever been.

Why not have the advertisers who scattergun litter across the land pay the freight for keeping this dying enterprise alive? They're the prime beneficiaries of its continued existence.

The post office has very high fixed cost, and relatively low marginal cost. If they were to double the price of junk mail, the volume would go way down. The marginal cost would go down a bit, but the fixed cost wouldn't change at all, and I think the post office would find themselves deeper in the red then they were before.

I bet you wouldn't need to double it, or even close. But I don't know. And why not raise the price of first class stamp to fifty cents? That's still cheap:

The post office, by law, cannot set postal rates for any mail.

So take that to Congress, who has repeatedly refused to raise any postal rates for mail.

The crickets you hear come straight from the halls of congress.

In the 21st century isn't the Post Office terrible at this? Why not focus on increasing wi-fi access and internet access in rural and impoverished areas? Wouldn't that do more to help out, if that is the mandate?

Bryant

That is inevitable and the Post Office will need to adapt.

has to do with the law passed a few years ago that requires putting money in to future health care/pension funds at an exorbitant rate. No other entity has to do that. Why and how this law got passed is beyond me. Here's a link to that issue:

http://federaldaily.com/articles/2012/06/26/ig-report-says-usps-overpaid-billions-into-pension-funds.aspx

Since the USPS is gradually shrinking and going out of business as media goes digital, there won't be any future business to pay future benefits.

In two years? What other businesses or institutions in the private or public sector have to do this? It was meant to bankrupt the USPS. Just as you having to pay your thirty year fixed in two would destroy you.

Without it, they'd be in the black right now. Are there any other republican talking points, coming in some cases from the office of Daryll Issa, who's gotten a lot of quid from UPS, do you want to repeat?

So either the employees' future benefits have to be an unfunded liability of the taxpayers or the USPS has to create a fund large enough to pay them. The legislation gave them 10 years to do this by contributing about 5.5 billion per year over a decade where there was still a chance that they could make enough money to do it.

Going forward their situation is going to be progressively worse.

Congress needs to authorize those rate raises...

By the way, the mail service controls only the price of packages...they make up the difference in cost in...volume. They are extremely competitive. UPS and FedEx were not happy.

Anyhoo, let's go back to this factoid, no pre funding, they'd be in the black.

I checked price for 10 and 25 lb packages to a destination about 300 miles away.

The higher prices for UPS and FedEx are for the overnight and other expedited services. Regular service costs are within a couple of dollars, and USPS is not the cheapest.

This is consistent with getting things from online merchants, who use the three services about equally unless you ask for rapid shipment.

It fits, it ships.

Have a good day.

I doubt they seriously every think long term to if a universal working package or mail service is left after they ruin the existing system. They are always in it for short term gain.