Not that it even matters to me, but first class mail will be replaced by FedEx and UPS priority deliveries as first class mail will become a two day service.

The guy probably does not hate his job's payout because even a SCM makes over 130K including bonuses so I'm sure this guy is rolling in it. Never ever heard about USPS handling FedEx duties.... I still stand by my statement FedEx fucking sucks a corrupt company; but I guess that doesn't make them much different than most corporations in the America? And people seem to be fine with that.

>> ^longde:

@shagen454 Of course within your post you directly addressed the teleprompter guy: "the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top." ; that's why I responded acerbically. I really don't know what you expect that guy to do. I'm sure he hates his job too. No need to dump on him in an empty way if your target is really FedEx.
People didn't "fall for" it; I would guess the 3 upvoters (wow, how many power points will that get me?) were simply rubbed the same way I was with your post.
I am a little familiar with the operations of FedEx, UPS and the Post Office. I wouldn't want to be a grunt in any of those places either; having my times constantly checked. Does that mean I would chuck a monitor over a fence? At least they didn't can that guy.
Since Fed Ex is actually contracted by the Postal Service for some mid- and long-haul routes, shutting down the Postal Service would actually hurt some parts of FedEx. Also, I don't think that UPS or FedEx will offer a replacement for 1st class mail.

@shagen454 Of course within your post you directly addressed the teleprompter guy: "the way this guy speaks, completely disingenuous, stale, planned is exactly the way that company is all the way to the top." ; that's why I responded acerbically. I really don't know what you expect that guy to do. I'm sure he hates his job too. No need to dump on him in an empty way if your target is really FedEx.

People didn't "fall for" it; I would guess the 3 upvoters (wow, how many power points will that get me?) were simply rubbed the same way I was with your post.

I am a little familiar with the operations of FedEx, UPS and the Post Office. I wouldn't want to be a grunt in any of those places either; having my times constantly checked. Does that mean I would chuck a monitor over a fence? At least they didn't can that guy.

Since Fed Ex is actually contracted by the Postal Service for some mid- and long-haul routes, shutting down the Postal Service would actually hurt some parts of FedEx. Also, I don't think that UPS or FedEx will offer a replacement for 1st class mail.

Here is that link again. I don't know why it crashed earlier.

It absolutely supports the argument for the very reason that UPS is unionized. Corporations exist to turn a profit. Many of them can support union employees. The government, on the other hand, does not exist to make money. It simply cannot fund the same types of benefits the private sector does. >> ^NetRunner:

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.
Try this link out for more info.
Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.
>> ^silvercord:
Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.
Try this link out for more info.
Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.
>> ^silvercord:
Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.


good post, but there's a little bit of irony here, your link leads to a 404

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.

Try this link out for more info.

Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.

>> ^silvercord:

Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ghark:
@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as fuck so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys to fight over, sorry. It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces.



What I'm suggesting is that we're running out of shells in which the government can move the money around. It just keeps taking from here and paying out over there; the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet. I reference the Social Security program as one shining example of this dynamic. There should be scads of money there for our retirement. But they took it. They put it somewhere else. That's what they do.

The wars you rightly mentioned and the mismanagement of the people's money has put us, as of this writing, in roughly $15 trillion dollars of debt. There are many people who aren't about to vote one more dime to feed this pig until the pig can find some limits on its own piggery. And they'd better find a way to limit the spending of those they subsidize and bail out, as well. They also need to hurry.

And you're right. This country still has plenty of money. Our average income is only exceeded by Norway and Switzerland. In the eyes of the vast majority of those living on this planet, we are the one percent. So we'd better get it together . . . together.

First, I haven't advocated "getting rid of unions." Those are your words, not mine. I am merely agreeing with FDR that collective bargaining in the public sector is untenable. He made that assertion years ago and looking around today, he was right. But people didn't want to listen, and now we're here in the middle of some horrible mismanagement by the government. Unions aren't going away, but they aren't about to get the benefits outlined in their contracts either. It's pretty much over. Why? Because we've played about as many shell games with the money that we can play.

Second, this, in part, is what I think the government needs to do. Before handing out any more bailouts, it need to pass some good legislation regarding the ratio of pay between corporate officers and the common worker. The jerks we've elected are in collusion in this process, and they stand back acting like 'who struck John' when corporate boards continue to do what corporate boards do. What the hell did they think was going to happen? When you consider the men who are crashing the world, the pathology isn't limited to 'evil' corporations.

Third, therefore, there needs to be an adjustment to the 'bad legislation' as you put it. The government needs to set some limits on its ability to negotiate contracts on behalf of its citizens. Should pensions and benefit packages in the public sector exceed the average pension and benefits of its private citizenry? That kind of self regulation begins in Congress. Those vultures need to get the House in order. They've awarded themselves more perks than Maxwell House Coffee.

Lastly, I think I can help in some small way. Maybe we all can. As for my part, I joined "Create Jobs for USA," which is an effort by Starbucks, et al, to help people who are out of work get back to it. There are lots of opportunity to help people who are hurting. I hope we don't miss that in all the noise.





>> ^ghark:

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

>> ^ghark:

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.


That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as fuck so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys to fight over, sorry. It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces.

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa

Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

It's quite a leap from me saying that unions comprised of government employees are ultimately economically unfeasible to interpreting that as a desire to destroy unions and stifle debate. Debate all you want. The writing is on the wall for all of our government employees. All the states are in trouble. I just picked California as an example. As far as that goes, I am glad you agree that they have made their system F.U.B.A.R. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.

Here is another example: the United States Postal Service. A package sent to me this last week by the USPS cost $8.40. I returned the exact same package to the same sender by UPS for $7.07. Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements. The post office is now discussing closing up to 3,700 branches. Those workers are going to be out of a job; real people, with real lives and real families. So it causes me to think: I wonder if they would rather have a job with retirement that looks similar to the rest of the country's private sector retirements, or be promised a larger retirement and end up with neither a job nor a retirement.

What is important is this: some of the unions made up of government employees are fighting to save a future comprised of an empty bag. The money they are fighting to set back for their members isn't going to be able to be paid. The discussion isn't whether or not we are for or against unions. Unions have done much good for the working conditions in the US. Right now that is beside the point. The discussion is this: how are we going to arrange ourselves together to make this whole unworkable system work. I'm beginning to believe that we don't have the capacity any longer to do so. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.
If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.
You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.
If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

>> ^spoco2:

Exactly, people who espouse to be anarchists or libertarians only really want to be up to a point. They always seem to be quite happy to take those things that are provided by living in a society, but seem to get shirty when that entails paying taxes to fund such things.
Strange that.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

....until a band of vicious outlaws takes them from you, captures you and forces you to fight to the death with other prisoners in a makeshift gladiatorial arena they've dubbed 'The Thunderdome'.


I use the compulsory services I'm forced to pay for. Yes. Government has a monopoly on violence, so I must use their armies and police. They've a monopoly on first class mail, so I use their postal service. They also maintain a monopoly on property, so I use their roads to move about and live on the land they claim to own.

Problem?

1) i'd like to know what unskilled labor jobs the government pays 100k/yr

I'm happy to expand your mind.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Keep in mind that the bulk of these jobs are make-work jobs and bureaucrats who serve no function except to warm a chair and internacinely war for budget share of the federal pie. There's tons more. Teacher union administrators, the construction worker supervisor who stands around 90% of the day, and on and on and on. Even a cursory google search will bag you thousands on thousands of federal and state employees that are unskilled, overpaid leeches on the economy.

2) the solvency of pensions/health care is quite well documented

Supply the data proving that. The Postal Service is due to collapse in November because it can't pay its operating costs AND keep up the retirement benefits of its retirees. Social Security isn't solvent. Medicare isn't solvent. Medicaid isn't solvent. The benefit programs of federal employees is banked entirely on debt spending. "Solvency" is when the program is in the black.

i know you've been led to believe that only private business could figure out a way to make it work, but who instituted these services in the first place?

Private companies. Long before 'government' ever came along, private individuals performed these tasks for money or goods. Government apes private companies - not the other way around. And 99 times out of 100, government does a lousy job at them because they don't operate logically. Case in point...

the education thing just BLOWS my mind

Yes - I have no difficulty believing that a person steeped in leftist theory would have a hard time understanding the concept that education can take place quite easily and well without government subsidies. The best colleges are private, and people who go to private shools (or are homeschooled) do just as well (or better) than students in public schools. And our public schools do such a good job, don't they? Regardless, I don't have a problem with government providing a "School". I have a problem with government meddling in cirriculum, and the associated teacher's union. Have the government provide the 'school', and then get out of the way.

its CLASS WARFARE when the victim speaks up and demands justice

First - there's no victim here. Second, it is class warfare when pinheads like Obama and his supporters talk out both sides of their mouths, lie, and deceive on this issue. Buffet didn't pay 'less than his secretary' on his income - he paid MORE - but he and Obama are lying and equating capital gains as income as a means to raise taxes NOT on "millionaires", but on the middle class. THAT is class warfare.

"Bailing out the rich". Pht - what a crock. Obumma is only wanting to bail out government, which has overspent and overpromised and he wants to sock it to the middle class. If he was serious then he's freeze all government spending today to 2011 levels and keep them there until the system was in the black. Then he'd pass a balanced budget ammendment and everyone would praise him as the greatest president ever. But no - he's a leftist idiot and all he wants is to raise taxes in a recession - which even he said was a stupid thing to do. Stupid is as stupid does - and the stupid people that agree with it.

Assuming hes completely correct in everything. It still doesn't have shit to do with where the USPS is at right now.

E-Mail killed snail mail.... This person is nutters. Like some Pension thing has influence in the fact that they do 20% of the mail they did about 20 years ago.... Seriously WTF. Hell if it wasn't for the government funding it would of gone under long ago.

Agree Budzons.>> ^budzos:

You sure it wasn't e-mail?

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Postal-Service-Such-Great-Heights

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by lucky760.