Thus the internet has had little effect on the Post Office. It has affected the amount of bills and payment of bills, but letters died out in the 1960s with AT&Ts ad campaign to get people to call instead (Which could be done with completion of direct computer operated phone switching systems to all of the US by 1964).
From that point forward the main source of revenue for the Post Office has been "Junk Mail, NOT First Class Mail. Bills and payments were a major source of income after the 1960s, but minor compared to "Junk Mail". Letter Carried today and carrying TWICE as much mail as they did 20-30 years ago, but it is mostly "Junk Mail".
Third Class Mail (Which is what most "Junk Mail" is) is a huge profit center for the Postal Service. With Third Class mail, if the address is bad, the mail is destroyed NOT returned to center. The difference in price between First Class and Third Class is based on the Difference do to the fact if First Class Mail can NOT be delivered it is sent back to the mailer (Or to the dead letter office to open to see where the letter is suppose to go, or to find out where to send the letter back to).
Thus the Postal Service throws out a lot of "Junk Mail" as un-deliverable and still makes money.
The problem with the Postal Service is NOT the decline in First Class mail due to the Internet, but this pre funding of Pensions. I always believed the plan was made to make the Postal Service have large amount of cash in its Pension's plan so that if the Postal Service is ever sold off, who ever gets it will have a huge Pension Plan to loot (Which is what Romeny and Bain was noted for whenever they took over a company and later bankrupted it).
Now, the Postal Unions had agreed to the level of Funding of the Pensions, but relied on information given to them, Congress and the Public that it was a good way to make sure they members will have Pensions. No one mentioned that this level of funding was unheard of anywhere and would bankrupt the Postal Service. Thus based on the Information they had the Unions supported the law the set up this Pension funding (the law did NOT set up the Pensions themselves, the Pensions have been around for decades, the change only affected how much was to be paid into the Pension fund).
There is an old rule when looking into a debacle, the rule is "Who benefits?". Who benefits if the Postal Pension funds are over funded? If this was a defined contribution plan, the excess would go to the survivors of the Postal workers (thus Defined Pension Plans are NEVER over funded, in fact all are underfunded). Since this is a defined CONTRIBUTION plan, the excess stays with the Postal Service, but that makes no sense, since that means it should go back to Congress, the "owner" of the Postal Service.
On the other hand, if the GOP does what it wants to do, sell of Government asserts for "Private Business does it better", then the Postal Service, with a huge Pension fund, looks like a good investment to anyone who wants to Post Office.
Before this contribution plan was adopted, the Postal Service was looking at a future deficit in its Pension Plans, and since it was a GOVERNMENT Pension plan, Congress would have had to come up with the difference. This was based on drop in revenue from First Class Mail do to the Internet and an expected drop in third class mail, that never occurred. The plan adopted, was like most laws passed by Congress written by lobbyists and as such reflected what the lobbyists wanted more then want Congress or the Postal Service wanted. Ideally the Postal Service were doing most of the Lobbying (followed by the Postal Unions) but it appears someone else, people who support privatization of the Post Office, managed to get a hold of the lobbying and get want they wanted, probably by getting the Postal Service and Postal Unions to agree they plan was better then no plan. Thus we ended up with what we have, should be repealed and replace by what the Postal Service and the Union want now (Given
Yes, A slight change in the funding of the Pension plan would have solved the potential problem (or the problem would never have occurred due to the lack of drop in Third Class Mail). A cut back to three times a week mail delivery would have been sufficient to "Solve the problem" (by Law, everyone in the United States, with very limited exceptions, must be able to get mail six days a week).
A similar cut back occurred from the 1940s to the 1980s as more and more areas of the United States lost its twice a day Postal Delivery (Yes, in the 1940s you received your mail TWICE a day in Urban Areas, in Central Business districts that stayed the norm till the 1980s, it was common for someone to mail something in the morning in most Central Business Districts AND it be received in the same Central Business District in the Afternoon, the raise of the bicycle messengers was the result of the Post Office ending this twice a day delivery system).
All Congress has to do is repeal the law requiring mail delivery six days a week, and require it only one day a week, but permit six days a week delivery if reasonable, i.e. permit the Post Office to decide who gets delivery more then once a week, but force the Post Office to delivery at least once a week). This would give the Postal Service the flexibility ti needs to deliver all the Third Class Mail it wants (and keep the Postal System open for legal papers that MUST go through the Postal System). People who use Third Class mail will have to objection to such a system, all they want is for you to get third ad during the week, the exact day of the week is unimportant to them. The Legal System will have to adjust, they assume six days a week mail service, but extending time to reflect actual mail service would be sufficient (i.e. assume three days instead of one day mail service).
The Postal Service needs to have some flexibility, ending the legal requirement of six days a week service would be a good step. I foresee the Postal Service did what the Post Office did from the 1940s to the 1980s slowly cutting back service to what is actually needed and expected but keeping up service in areas where it is needed and expected (i.e. Central Business Districts). Most people no longer need six days a week mail service, so lets get rid of the LEGAL requirement for such service and leave the Postal Service to decide who retains six days a week service, and who loses it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
