US postal service

[MUBurrow]

The big question we have to ask is: Do People Exist for Government? Or, Does Government Exist for People? Secondly, one must ask whether government exists to employ people or to serve people?

In the private sector, having only 74% "good or excellent" could get you fired.

If this pandemic has shown me anything, it is that swallowing the costs of a couple of services designed to service everyone - even/especially the people that private sector profitability would otherwise leave behind - is worth it.  It provides a service in itself, binds us all together, and creates infrastructure for on-the-fly adjustments when we need to reach everyone. E.g. we're talking about eliminating USPS for being unprofitable at a time when showing up to the polls in person is literally killing us.  You just aren't going to convince me that isn't a perverse way to look at this.

If, god forbid, in subsidizing those services (which still isn't a point I'm willing to concede on USPS, but it also isn't a point I need to debate to reach this conclusion) we can give people socially-mobile jobs that the private sector wouldn't otherwise provide, even better. No one working for the post office or in an on-the-ground government post is getting rich.  Lamenting my mail carrier's salary while every upper-level function of government is increasingly designed to privatize public resources on a mass scale is confusing to me at best.  Sure it'd be nice if USPS evolved more quickly and was utilized as a network for other services we should be providing - vote by mail, maybe the census.  But of the battles to pick right now, this will always strike me as strange.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This thread just reminded that we hadn't seen my regular mailman if over 3 weeks.  We finally saw him Saturday and he said he was out sick with Coronavirus.

[shoothoops]

In the private sector, having only 74% "good or excellent" could get you fired.

Morning Consult surveyed 400,000 Anericans asking their 25 most favorite brands (divided into four categories.) The highest score was 261.9 out of 400.

https://morningconsult.com/most-loved-brands-2019/

Amazon finished first. Here is their score:

79.1% of consumers have a favorable opinion
58.7% of consumers say Amazon has a positive community impact
68.3% of consumers trust Amazon
55.8 is the Net Promoter Score for Amazon
79.1 + 58.7 + 68.3 + 55.3 = 261.9 (their index score)

The United States Post Office finished 6th on the list of Americans 25 favorites.

[warriorchick]

Morning Consult surveyed 400,000 Anericans asking their 25 most favorite brands (divided into four categories.) The highest score was 261.9 out of 400.

https://morningconsult.com/most-loved-brands-2019/

Amazon finished first. Here is their score:

79.1% of consumers have a favorable opinion
58.7% of consumers say Amazon has a positive community impact
68.3% of consumers trust Amazon
55.8 is the Net Promoter Score for Amazon
79.1 + 58.7 + 68.3 + 55.3 = 261.9 (their index score)

The United States Post Office finished 6th on the list of Americans 25 favorites.

It's too bad that you can't drill down to get just the favorable opinion rating on all of the brands.  Then you really could compare apples to apples.   My guess is that the USPS gets higher rating in some of the other categories  that boosts their overall score.

[shoothoops]

It's too bad that you can't drill down to get just the favorable opinion rating on all of the brands.  Then you really could compare apples to apples.   My guess is that the USPS gets higher rating in some of the other categories  that boosts their overall score.

The overall point is that the USPS has had the highest rating from a government standpoint, and, it also has a very high rating even compared to the apples and oranges of the private sector vs public sector. And, it also shows that favorable percentage ratings aren’t as high as you may think in general for even the best rated corporations and brands.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The overall point is that the USPS has had the highest rating from a government standpoint, and, it also has a very high rating even compared to the apples and oranges of the private sector vs public sector. And, it also shows that favorable percentage ratings aren’t as high as you may think in general for even the best rated corporations and brands.

With the point being it doesn't make sense for one political party to try and kick the USPS around because mostly everyone regardless of political affiliation likes the USPS.

[WarriorFan]

Big fan of the USPS here... What they do vs. the cost to consumer is pretty amazing.  The last mile is very important.  I've lived in a lot of countries where that just doesn't exist... and you must go to a post office and queue to get your mail / package /etc. 

Having said that, paying top dollar for semi-skilled work is never a good practice.  They pay about 50% more than Amazon based on what I can find.

Overall, their (mis) management by the federal government is proof that the government should not be allowed to run anything... they will screw it up somehow.  In the case of the USPS, the pension thing is bizarre and stupid, but I'm sure if it wasn't that, there would be any number of other ways the government could screw it up. 

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Having said that, paying top dollar for semi-skilled work is never a good practice.  They pay about 50% more than Amazon based on what I can find.

IMO, maybe that is OK. Maybe it is OK to pay workers above subsistence wages--and I say that as an AMZN shareholder.

The USPS was still paying its own way and making a profit prior to the Republicans ramming through the pension funding requirement. Like any other entity, they should continue to evolve, but they are pretty good at what they do while doing it at a fair price and while paying workers living wages.

Rather than trying to push down their workers' pay, I'd like to see companies pay wages that DON'T force their employees to rely on government subsidies.

[shoothoops]

IMO, maybe that is OK. Maybe it is OK to pay workers above subsistence wages--and I say that as an AMZN shareholder.

The USPS was still paying its own way and making a profit prior to the Republicans ramming through the pension funding requirement. Like any other entity, they should continue to evolve, but they are pretty good at what they do while doing it at a fair price and while paying workers living wages.

Rather than trying to push down their workers' pay, I'd like to see companies pay wages that DON'T force their employees to rely on government subsidies.

Yep, this. Many are finding out during the pandemic that many of the workers they were previously dismissive of, are the essential workers that deserve higher pay, better benefits, paid sick leave. Hopefully some people will learn the definiton of essential worker, and understand much more more needs to be done for them, not less

[Warriors4ever]

Agree with both of those posts. We should not want to keep pushing wages down.
I am always think of a fan group I was part of decades ago. While most of us were college students looking forward to careers, one guy was just not capable. You could ‘train’ him for jobs from now until doomsday, but pretty much all he was ever able to work at was low-tech factory jobs and as a messenger.
He is retired now, living simply, but I remain steadfast in my belief that we have to have a way for everyone to have a decent life. And driving pay down is not the way.

And certainly those working what I call the unseen and unacknowledged front lines deserve the same.

[jesmu84]

Bunch of socialist heathens in here

[vogue65]

Bunch of socialist heathens in here

It is the end of Ayn Rand, trickel down economics, free market globalization, employer provided health care, the IRA "investor society",  hedge fund fortunes,  income inequality,  and deregulation of Wall Street and banking.

Way back in 1965 I had an economics professor at Marquette promoting an economist named Joseph Schumpeter.  I was too young, too conservative, and too right wing to get the message.   The politicians, pundits, and propagandists can't stop the unfolding of economics.  I have sad news for you, the end game is socialism. 

Economics determines our politics, not the other way round.  Economics evolves toward socialism, the politics can delay the inevitable, but it can't change the inevitable.

I agree with you, we have lots of socialist heathens here, but are they economists or politicians? 

[jesmu84]

It is the end of Ayn Rand, trickel down economics, free market globalization, employer provided health care, the IRA "investor society",  hedge fund fortunes,  income inequality,  and deregulation of Wall Street and banking.

Way back in 1965 I had an economics professor at Marquette promoting an economist named Joseph Schumpeter.  I was too young, too conservative, and too right wing to get the message.   The politicians, pundits, and propagandists can't stop the unfolding of economics.  I have sad news for you, the end game is socialism. 

Economics determines our politics, not the other way round.  Economics evolves toward socialism, the politics can delay the inevitable, but it can't change the inevitable.

I agree with you, we have lots of socialist heathens here, but are they economists or politicians?

No it isn't. It trends more in that direction everyday.

[vogue65]

No it isn't. It trends more in that direction everyday.

Good luck, must admit, it was good while it lasted.
GO WARRIORS!

[mu03eng]

This will merely accelerate the automation of the essential workforce.

Every single role that is semi-skilled but essential is now brought into focus the need to automate. Take the human out of the loop and both your normal cost exposure and your risk exposure go away.

Take the USPS, no reason they couldn't move to a drone model on the urban/suburban locations. Think mothership driven by a human that then dispatches drones that put the mail in mailboxes within a building/subdivision. The more rural areas are harder but the risk profile is lower. At a minimum you can reduce the human labor pool by a third while maintaining or increasing efficiency.

So short term those roles may see a pay increase/more support but in the medium/long term they'll be scrapped

[jesmu84]

This will merely accelerate the automation of the essential workforce.

Every single role that is semi-skilled but essential is now brought into focus the need to automate. Take the human out of the loop and both your normal cost exposure and your risk exposure go away.

Take the USPS, no reason they couldn't move to a drone model on the urban/suburban locations. Think mothership driven by a human that then dispatches drones that put the mail in mailboxes within a building/subdivision. The more rural areas are harder but the risk profile is lower. At a minimum you can reduce the human labor pool by a third while maintaining or increasing efficiency.

So short term those roles may see a pay increase/more support but in the medium/long term they'll be scrapped

While understandable, this will devastate the country.

I say "devastate" because there's no way we institute a UBI or other social programs to offset the loss of jobs and further movement of wealth toward the top of society.

[mu03eng]

While understandable, this will devastate the country.

I say "devastate" because there's no way we institute a UBI or other social programs to offset the loss of jobs and further movement of wealth toward the top of society.

Yes and no, just like with the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution there will be displacement and "upheaval" but new jobs with different skill sets will be created....say drone repair person or mail route optimizer, etc.

The fallacy of automation is that it's all job loss, which there is typically a net loss but jobs are also created and efficiencies gained that are passed on to consumers reducing their costs, etc.

[vogue65]

This will merely accelerate the automation of the essential workforce.

Every single role that is semi-skilled but essential is now brought into focus the need to automate. Take the human out of the loop and both your normal cost exposure and your risk exposure go away.

Take the USPS, no reason they couldn't move to a drone model on the urban/suburban locations. Think mothership driven by a human that then dispatches drones that put the mail in mailboxes within a building/subdivision. The more rural areas are harder but the risk profile is lower. At a minimum you can reduce the human labor pool by a third while maintaining or increasing efficiency.

So short term those roles may see a pay increase/more support but in the medium/long term they'll be scrapped

Interesting, but economics isn't science fiction.   Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  All jobs can be automated, outsourced, or reconfigured.

Accountants, actuaries, lawyers, doctors, teachers, architects, reale estate professionals, air trafic controllers, bankers, secretaries/administrative assistants, you name it, everything is subject to downsizing.  Why pick on the postal workers?  Why pick on the teachers?  Oh, unions, politics, got it.

My town has 1,644 people and hasc 7 banks???   No jobs, lots of banks, go figure.

We have reached end game for the small business, service based economy.   Forget pie in the sky dreams, its over.   The problem is not a lack of automation, it is millions of unemployed people with no future. 

Increases in productivity is not the solution.  That is old "supply side" vudo economics.  We need to revisit old concepts like the multiplier effect, value added tax, tax on wealth not income, inheritance taxation, infrastructure investment, etc.. 

"Believe me", the post office is the least of our problems.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Interesting, but economics isn't science fiction.   Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  All jobs can be automated, outsourced, or reconfigured.

Accountants, actuaries, lawyers, doctors, teachers, architects, reale estate professionals, air trafic controllers, bankers, secretaries/administrative assistants, you name it, everything is subject to downsizing.  Why pick on the postal workers?  Why pick on the teachers?  Oh, unions, politics, got it.

My town has 1,644 people and hasc 7 banks???   No jobs, lots of banks, go figure.

We have reached end game for the small business, service based economy.   Forget pie in the sky dreams, its over.   The problem is not a lack of automation, it is millions of unemployed people with no future. 

Increases in productivity is not the solution.  That is old "supply side" vudo economics.  We need to revisit old concepts like the multiplier effect, value added tax, tax on wealth not income, inheritance taxation, infrastructure investment, etc.. 

"Believe me", the post office is the least of our problems.

Ok boomer.

[warriorchick]

While understandable, this will devastate the country.

I say "devastate" because there's no way we institute a UBI or other social programs to offset the loss of jobs and further movement of wealth toward the top of society.

People have predicted the permanent loss of jobs from technology since the invention of the wheel.  Somehow, the world always manages to produce new ones.

How many people have jobs now that didn't even exist a generation ago? 

How many social media directors were there in 1985?  How many web designers? How many network administrators?  How many electric car battery technicians?  How many solar panel installers?  How many "smart home" consultants?

[MUBurrow]

The fallacy of automation is that it's all job loss, which there is typically a net loss but jobs are also created and efficiencies gained that are passed on to consumers reducing their costs, etc.

People have predicted the permanent loss of jobs from technology since the invention of the wheel.  Somehow, the world always manages to produce new ones.

How many people have jobs now that didn't even exist a generation ago? 

How many social media directors were there in 1985?  How many web designers? How many network administrators?  How many electric car battery technicians?  How many solar panel installers?  How many "smart home" consultants?

Of course this is true, but the real story is how the profit margins created by this automation are (or are not) put to work for societal gain.  The number jobs that are created through these processes are fewer than the number eliminated. And even if the new jobs are higher paying, the new jobs' aggregate wages are less than the aggregate wages of the old jobs, or there wouldn't be any incentive for the automation.  The profit margins realized by automation are via the increased productivity per worker, and those margins are going somewhere.  Unless you subscribe to trickle down economics, there isn't enough new value being created to offset the automation margins that are leaving the community, and life just gets crappier for most people.

We have de facto decided that all of those margins belong to the owners of capital who have instigated the automation, larger scale consequences be damned.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Of course this is true, but the real story is how the profit margins created by this automation are (or are not) put to work for societal gain.  The number jobs that are created through these processes are fewer than the number eliminated. And even if the new jobs are higher paying, the new jobs' aggregate wages are less than the aggregate wages of the old jobs, or there wouldn't be any incentive for the automation.  The profit margins realized by automation are via the increased productivity per worker, and those margins are going somewhere.  Unless you subscribe to trickle down economics, there isn't enough new value being created to offset the automation margins that are leaving the community, and life just gets crappier for most people.

We have de facto decided that all of those margins belong to the owners of capital who have instigated the automation, larger scale consequences be damned.

Are you sure about the bolded?

[jesmu84]

Are you sure about the bolded?

Does the bolded matter much if the rest is true?

[Hards Alumni]

Yes and no, just like with the invention of agriculture and the industrial revolution there will be displacement and "upheaval" but new jobs with different skill sets will be created....say drone repair person or mail route optimizer, etc.

The fallacy of automation is that it's all job loss, which there is typically a net loss but jobs are also created and efficiencies gained that are passed on to consumers reducing their costs, etc.

Totally on board.  One ideal I hold is that with the advent of automation, there needs to be some sort of way to keep people around.  UBI and a hefty tax on automated systems alongside with reduced work schedules should be something we should all strive for as a society.

[mu03eng]

Of course this is true, but the real story is how the profit margins created by this automation are (or are not) put to work for societal gain.  The number jobs that are created through these processes are fewer than the number eliminated. And even if the new jobs are higher paying, the new jobs' aggregate wages are less than the aggregate wages of the old jobs, or there wouldn't be any incentive for the automation.  The profit margins realized by automation are via the increased productivity per worker, and those margins are going somewhere.  Unless you subscribe to trickle down economics, there isn't enough new value being created to offset the automation margins that are leaving the community, and life just gets crappier for most people.

We have de facto decided that all of those margins belong to the owners of capital who have instigated the automation, larger scale consequences be damned.

For your view to be correct, you have to assume that 1. the efficiency gains of automation are essentially consumed by the wage provider and 2. the capital and labor that is freed up through automation isn't put to work in a way that generates greater value than that of the value "lost".

Take math as an example, the advancement of math is the ultimate example of the automation of "redundant" activities to free up capital and labor to produce things of even higher value. Take the human computers from Hidden Figures, their jobs were essential and critical, but automation (in the form of computational mathematics) rendered those jobs obsolete but in turn (bigotry aside) it freed that labor pool to do other jobs resulting in greater and greater space-based achievements (while doing it safer and safer). Nobody complains when we find a new way to do math faster/better so the engineer or mathematician can do other more important work, why should the post office be different?

My argument isn't that the concentration of wealth/power isn't a problem (I may not view it as a large of a problem as some but it is no doubt an issue) but that the concentration of wealth is an entirely different problem with a different solution than through the labor pool. I'd also argue that societal ills and their resolution should be enumerated within the capitalistic structure as value outcome of corporations not as a "confiscatory" tax policy but that's not a hill I'm gonna die on at all (a lot of companies are adopting EHS policies in recognition that publicly traded companies have an expectation of being a "good corporate citizen", etc). But bottom line, the automation of the repetitive jobs is a tale as old as time and is not the core of the problem you are actually trying to solve IMO.