OT: Temporary Postal Rate Increase

[Buythatcard]

USPS has announced a temporary rate increase that will raise the price of all domestic shipping services during the upcoming holiday season.
USPS is raising rates to help them cover increased costs from dealing with 3 big headaches; the coronavirus pandemic, record-breaking shipping volumes, and Congress not helping them out

October 18th–December 27th USPS temporary rate increase:
• First Class Package: 25 cents/package
• Priority Mail (including Flat Rate, Regional Rate, and Cubic): 40 cents/package
• Parcel Select Ground: 40 cents/package
• Priority Mail Express: $1.50/package

The cost of shipping a card will be more than the actual value of the card.

The cost of shipping is going up, the cost of a top loader is going up. What's next?

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

USPS has announced a temporary rate increase that will raise the price of all domestic shipping services during the upcoming holiday season.
USPS is raising rates to help them cover increased costs from dealing with 3 big headaches; the coronavirus pandemic, record-breaking shipping volumes, and Congress not helping them out

October 18th–December 27th USPS temporary rate increase:
• First Class Package: 25 cents/package
• Priority Mail (including Flat Rate, Regional Rate, and Cubic): 40 cents/package
• Parcel Select Ground: 40 cents/package
• Priority Mail Express: $1.50/package

The cost of shipping a card will be more than the actual value of the card.

The cost of shipping is going up, the cost of a top loader is going up. What's next?

I know it says temporary, but things have a habit of staying certain ways for a long time. Hopefully the rates will be lowered again after the holidays season and this doesn't become permanent. It's still vastly cheaper than the other alternatives which shows how important the USPS is. Thanks for posting this.

[ClementeFanOh]

Hmm, thanks for this information. I am troubled, because I actually prefer (and usually insist on) Boxed Priority shipping for my collectibles. The problems are twofold- the reasoning for the increase is weak/off point, and the comment above that business costs don't decrease once raised, rings VERY true.
For starters, having an increase in business doesn't equate to needing more money. Isn't the opposite true? If you have more business, revenue isn't the problem. Worker efficiency? Now that may be another story.
Regarding the increases being temporary, I'd take that bet against. Several years ago, when gasoline prices shot through the roof, the company that hauls my trash increased their monthly rate and explicitly said it was because of higher fuel costs. 4 years later, guess what? Gas costs have lowered but, mysteriously, the hauling prices remain the same. Go figure...
The short version is that this sounds like a chance to gouge customers who have stayed loyal, which is nice. Anyone remember when cell phone usage became prevalent in the very early 2000s? Pay phone companies saw the threat, and in my area responded...by DOUBLING the cost of pay phone calls. That was smart, it really worked out for them... Disappointing and manipulative.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

What's next?

You forgot to mention that the value of every single card you own has gone up. things don't always go up in price in tandem, but they do more often than not.

[Steve D]

Here's the announcement on the USPS' website (from August 14th):

https://about.usps.com/newsroom/nati...e-increase.htm

It appears, based on this comment; "This time-limited adjustment will increase prices for our commercial customers in line with competitive practices without impacting customers at the retail level.", that it will not affect everyone. A person selling cards on ebay, and going to the post office to mail packages, will still pay the same price they are paying right now.


Steve

[Exhibitman]

No, it is not a "gouge". All of the gouging examples referenced are by private companies. The USPS is not a business and pretending it is, well, that's just ignorant of the law establishing the USPS and governing its conduct. The USPS has several legally-mandated duties that are contrary to what is required of private enterprises:

39 USC 101(a) states the fundamental policy of the USPS to place prompt and reliable service to the entire country above costs:

§101. Postal policy
(a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

Subparagraph (b) of the law requires deliveries to rural areas even if unprofitable:

(b) The Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining. No small post office shall be closed solely for operating at a deficit, it being the specific intent of the Congress that effective postal services be insured to residents of both urban and rural communities.

In other words, it is illegal for the USPS to decide that delivering the mail to Podunk, IA is unprofitable and therefore drop the route, and it cannot close the post office there just because it is a money-losing dog. Ever wonder why the USPS doesn't make you drive to an urban center to post a letter? Because the USPS cannot close your local post office just to save money.

"Gouging"--charging more than an equitable cost across all users--is illegal per subparagraph (d) of the law:

(d) Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.

Profit is not the priority of the USPS, by law, as stated in subparagraph (e):

(e) In determining all policies for postal services, the Postal Service shall give the highest consideration to the requirement for the most expeditious collection, transportation, and delivery of important letter mail.

In addition to the above, in 2006 Congress established a pension funding rule for the USPS that is unlike anything in the private sector. Under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act the USPS is required, "beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056. [and] each year, to pay into the above Fund such net present value and the annual installment due under the amortization schedule." Cutting through the gobbledygook, the USPS has to prefund its retiree health benefits, something that no private employer is required to do under Federal law. That punches a giant hole in its finances every year. Try making Fed Ex prefund and see how much it jacks up the rates.

Now, as far as current services are concerned, two more misconceptions need correcting:

1. It is not the fault of Congress that the USPS is in financial trouble. The House passed a $25 billion funding package that it offered to reduce to $10 billion. The Senate and the current occupant of the White House flatly refused to consider funding the post office at any level because:

2. The financial crippling of the USPS is part of an intentional effort to impede the mail in order to discourage voting by mail--which the current occupant of the White House expressly admitted to (“If we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money,” Trump told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox, “That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting; they just can’t have it.”). Memos obtained by The Associated Press show that Postal Service leadership has pushed to eliminate overtime and halt late delivery trips that are sometimes needed to ensure mail arrives on time, and cuts to hours at post offices, including reductions on Saturdays and during lunch hours.

Alright, rant over. Now here's a card:



Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns it lonely eyes to you...

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, it is not a "gouge". All of the gouging examples referenced are by private companies. The USPS is not a business and pretending it is, well, that's just ignorant of the law establishing the USPS and governing its conduct. The USPS has several legally-mandated duties that are contrary to what is required of private enterprises:

39 USC 101(a) states the fundamental policy of the USPS to place prompt and reliable service to the entire country above costs:

§101. Postal policy
(a) The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities. The costs of establishing and maintaining the Postal Service shall not be apportioned to impair the overall value of such service to the people.

Subparagraph (b) of the law requires deliveries to rural areas even if unprofitable:

(b) The Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining. No small post office shall be closed solely for operating at a deficit, it being the specific intent of the Congress that effective postal services be insured to residents of both urban and rural communities.

In other words, it is illegal for the USPS to decide that delivering the mail to Podunk, IA is unprofitable and therefore drop the route, and it cannot close the post office there just because it is a money-losing dog. Ever wonder why the USPS doesn't make you drive to an urban center to post a letter? Because the USPS cannot close your local post office just to save money.

"Gouging"--charging more than an equitable cost across all users--is illegal per subparagraph (d) of the law:

(d) Postal rates shall be established to apportion the costs of all postal operations to all users of the mail on a fair and equitable basis.

Profit is not the priority of the USPS, by law, as stated in subparagraph (e):

(e) In determining all policies for postal services, the Postal Service shall give the highest consideration to the requirement for the most expeditious collection, transportation, and delivery of important letter mail.

In addition to the above, in 2006 Congress established a pension funding rule for the USPS that is unlike anything in the private sector. Under the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act the USPS is required, "beginning in 2007, to compute the net present value of the future payments required and attributable to the service of Postal Service employees during the most recently ended fiscal year, along with a schedule if annual installments which provides for the liquidation of any liability or surplus by 2056. [and] each year, to pay into the above Fund such net present value and the annual installment due under the amortization schedule." Cutting through the gobbledygook, the USPS has to prefund its retiree health benefits, something that no private employer is required to do under Federal law. That punches a giant hole in its finances every year. Try making Fed Ex prefund and see how much it jacks up the rates.

Now, as far as current services are concerned, two more misconceptions need correcting:

1. It is not the fault of Congress that the USPS is in financial trouble. The House passed a $25 billion funding package that it offered to reduce to $10 billion. The Senate and the current occupant of the White House flatly refused to consider funding the post office at any level because:

2. The financial crippling of the USPS is part of an intentional effort to impede the mail in order to discourage voting by mail--which the current occupant of the White House expressly admitted to (“If we don’t make a deal, that means they don’t get the money,” Trump told host Maria Bartiromo on Fox, “That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting; they just can’t have it.”). Memos obtained by The Associated Press show that Postal Service leadership has pushed to eliminate overtime and halt late delivery trips that are sometimes needed to ensure mail arrives on time, and cuts to hours at post offices, including reductions on Saturdays and during lunch hours.

Alright, rant over. Now here's a card:



Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns it lonely eyes to you...

Thanks Adam. Wish I still had the energy to point simple stuff like this out to people. Sadly it will fall on lots of willfully deaf ears.

[ClementeFanOh]

Adam-

You aren't getting away with calling me "ignorant" and vomiting your politics onto readers, partner (at least, not without a rebuttal)...

1) Since you replied with the Gettysburg address and love to type, go ahead and supply a word/short phrase in place of "gouge" that makes you feel good. (On second thought, don't- I don't care).

2) Your fascinating digression into rural postal delivery was apropos of nothing, not even remotely relevant to the conversation in the thread

3) USPS service cost increases have been going on well before "the current occupant of the White House". A very basic example is that the price of a stamp has increased 9 times since 2010; yes, 9 times in 10 years. Huge increases? No. Increases? Yes- even with "other" occupants in the White House.

4) Before this goes totally South, I'll reiterate that I initially pointed out that I prefer USPS delivery and will stay with it, and made ZERO political references. I'm just not willing to buy the pretzel logic you offered.

At least you got it right when you called your reply a "rant".

Trent King

[ClementeFanOh]

To D Bergin- nice passive aggressive reply! I wish I LACKED the energy to call out snide replies like yours. Oh well, this may fall on deaf ears anyway. Geesh.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

To D Bergin- nice passive aggressive reply! I wish I LACKED the energy to call out snide replies like yours. Oh well, this may fall on deaf ears anyway. Geesh.

I'm just gonna let out a big Sigh and move on.

[ClementeFanOh]

Dave- excellent choice, much better than your first comment,

[Exhibitman]

I didn't call you ignorant, Trent. If I want to call you ignorant believe me, you will know it. The facts are the facts, though, and the law is what it is. The USPS isn't trying to make a profit, it is trying to cover the cost of operations, which includes fulfilling a legal mandate that requires it to maintain money-losing rural routes and small town post offices without charging the people on those routes and in those towns the true cost of service. You may not like that fact because it does not match your belief that there is some nefarious cabal intent on price-gouging you, but it does not change the law or the results: if the USPS could dump rural deliveries and close small post offices it would save a ton of money, but it cannot. Another thing I forgot to mention about the 2006 bill was that it prohibited the USPS from offering additional services--like banking and ATMs--in post offices under its own brand. That is why Chase is negotiating to install for-profit ATMs in post offices rather than the USPS simply doing it directly. As for the length of my post, most of what I posted is statutory language, which I quoted verbatim rather than summarize precisely because without seeing a direct quote people like you will just claim it is fake or politics or whatever else it is one says to avoid acknowledging facts that don't do what you want them to.

Now, I don't see any productive reasons to continue this debate so I will wish you good health and a good weekend, and leave it there.

[ClementeFanOh]

Adam- "people like me" would turn it into a political debate? Nice try, but I think you meant "people like YOU", since you actually did it. Careful, your politics are showing...

"Don't go away mad, just go away"

[realbigfatdog]

Exhibitman, thank you for putting that information up here. People forget (or dont even know) that the Postal Service is just that, a service. Not a business. It's supposed to operate like a giant non-profit, not like a government money making machine. And thank you for pointing out the horrible 2006 legislation that has really had a huge hand in crippling the USPS. Most people genuinely dont know about that. As a 16 year postal employee (mail carrier in a RURAL office), I was happy to read this here.

Mike

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[keithsky]

All the gas surcharges UPS and FEDEX implemented back when gas was 4.00 a gallon was supposed to be temporary to but they still have them. Any company that charges something temporary you can bet its not going to be.

[Orioles1954]

I used to live in very rural West Texas and the goal for most in those towns (I'm talking less than 500 people) was to either work at a nearby Wal-Mart or the USPS. The reason being that being a federal agency, the USPS offered a decent wage AND pension. There are several reasons for the demise of the USPS but the main reasons are 1.) mandated outposts in small towns; 2.) pensions and 3.) 6-day delivery. It would be wise for the USPS to contract more and go to 5-day delivery.

[Tabe]

The USPS lost a little less than $9b in 2019. That's about $28 per person in the US. Consider that a fee we all pay to have the best postal service in the world - which we do. We don't all the Air Force to break even. Why? Because it's a *service*. Same with the USPS. Any changes made should focus on efficiency and improving service way before "turning a profit".

[GaryPassamonte]

And an additional point, the USPS receives ZERO tax dollars for operating expenses. Hence the need to raise stamp and postage prices regularly to come close to breaking even with regard to operating expenses. That's the mandate.