|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 12, 2009 21:24:22 GMT -8
Why do Right wing talk show hosts continue to say that recent (since Obama) Post Office difficulties are "another example of "Govenment failure"? Why no mention that the digital age has greatly affected the Post office due to a huge reduction in the sheer volume of letters generated? examples are many, but payment of bills online is one. Also the economic downturn has resulted in less direct mail advertising. Another is saying that the reason certain "left leaning" newspapers are failing is because the general public is on to them and are dropping these newspapers because of their liberal bias. What kind of joke information is this? All print media is down. Again due to the advent of the Web and more people getting their news online. How many people under 30 do you know who read the newspaper? I should know, a significant part of my buisiness over the years has been direct sales of images to print and advertising media....from Time Magazine to the "Watch Tower". For all the venom spewed towards NPR, at least you can hear some analysis of a major issue. I guess you can spoon feed the true beleiver Right wing audience any kind of shi* if it fits the format.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 9:46:55 GMT -8
USPS is inefficient in quite a few ways. It's practices for choosing managers is atrocious and many of the managers turn out to be incompetent bullies. It needs to do away with Saturday mail delivery, since that would do away with rotating days off and the need to have a replacement carrier who fills in on 5 routes as the rotated days come up. And it definitely needs to get rid of the arrogant attitudes that I experience from management when I was carrying mail. Not so much the line foremen who were bullies but rather the central office management, who think USPS is somehow better than other businesses and doesn't have to follow successful business plans.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 13, 2009 11:23:26 GMT -8
USPS is inefficient in quite a few ways. It's practices for choosing managers is atrocious and many of the managers turn out to be incompetent bullies. It needs to do away with Saturday mail delivery, since that would do away with rotating days off and the need to have a replacement carrier who fills in on 5 routes as the rotated days come up. And it definitely needs to get rid of the arrogant attitudes that I experience from management when I was carrying mail. Not so much the line foremen who were bullies but rather the central office management, who think USPS is somehow better than other businesses and doesn't have to follow successful business plans. =Bob ....which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.... I was referring to affects of the digital age on print media in general and the Post Office. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2009 14:53:09 GMT -8
USPS is inefficient in quite a few ways. It's practices for choosing managers is atrocious and many of the managers turn out to be incompetent bullies. It needs to do away with Saturday mail delivery, since that would do away with rotating days off and the need to have a replacement carrier who fills in on 5 routes as the rotated days come up. And it definitely needs to get rid of the arrogant attitudes that I experience from management when I was carrying mail. Not so much the line foremen who were bullies but rather the central office management, who think USPS is somehow better than other businesses and doesn't have to follow successful business plans. =Bob ....which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.... I was referring to affects of the digital age on print media in general and the Post Office. If you think =Bob was off the mark in staying on topic, wait till you hear this!  Although I pretty much agree with your assessment of the reasons that print media is struggling, I must point out that it was Obama who fueled the fire with his comments on the Post Office. You can hardly blame "right wingers" for jumping on an obvious and easily usable gaffe on the part of the President to their advantage. I must further point out that if the USPS (I have a wife retired from USPS and a son currently working there) were private they would have had to just get out of the parts of the business that can not turn a profit and let competition with Fedex, DHL, UPS, et al set the prices and dictate what the business model would be. In that sense it is an example of government failure. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 13, 2009 16:40:36 GMT -8
USPS is inefficient in quite a few ways. It's practices for choosing managers is atrocious and many of the managers turn out to be incompetent bullies. It needs to do away with Saturday mail delivery, since that would do away with rotating days off and the need to have a replacement carrier who fills in on 5 routes as the rotated days come up. And it definitely needs to get rid of the arrogant attitudes that I experience from management when I was carrying mail. Not so much the line foremen who were bullies but rather the central office management, who think USPS is somehow better than other businesses and doesn't have to follow successful business plans. =Bob Bravo, Bob! Bravo! Well said, indeed. A private company with that kind of track record would decline and be pushed aside by companies both more efficient and, dare I say it, with more humane ways of dealing with employees. The USPS will not go out of business because the feds will not let it go out of business. Any "company" that is de facto a dependent of the federal government will always be babied and bailed out for political reasons. Such "too big (or politically influential) to fail" operations will just stumble along for decades. Their on-government-life-support status puts a constant strain on the whole economy by soaking up money that could be better used by private enterprise. Genuine capitalism is a harsh mistress (couldn't help myself! ;D). But, in the long run we are better off dealing with the creative destruction of the free market than the political dealings of state capitalism or outright socialism. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:02:34 GMT -8
USPS is inefficient in quite a few ways. It's practices for choosing managers is atrocious and many of the managers turn out to be incompetent bullies. It needs to do away with Saturday mail delivery, since that would do away with rotating days off and the need to have a replacement carrier who fills in on 5 routes as the rotated days come up. And it definitely needs to get rid of the arrogant attitudes that I experience from management when I was carrying mail. Not so much the line foremen who were bullies but rather the central office management, who think USPS is somehow better than other businesses and doesn't have to follow successful business plans. =Bob ....which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.... I was referring to affects of the digital age on print media in general and the Post Office. How does that differ from what I wrote about what USPS has to do in order to stay in business? Are you claiming that USPS should go out of business? Do you understand that it would take a Constitutional amendment in order to do that? I'm sorry, Rich, but if all you want to do is offer commentary without understanding the basic problems involved with postal delivery, what you write isn't worth much. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:04:28 GMT -8
....which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.... I was referring to affects of the digital age on print media in general and the Post Office. If you think =Bob was off the mark in staying on topic, wait till you hear this! Although I pretty much agree with your assessment of the reasons that print media is struggling, I must point out that it was Obama who fueled the fire with his comments on the Post Office. You can hardly blame "right wingers" for jumping on an obvious and easily usable gaffe on the part of the President to their advantage. I must further point out that if the USPS (I have a wife retired from USPS and a son currently working there) were private they would have had to just get out of the parts of the business that can not turn a profit and let competition with Fedex, DHL, UPS, et al set the prices and dictate what the business model would be. In that sense it is an example of government failure. YAWN. Wonder who would have delivered mail to you in BF Montana if all mail delivery was privatized. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 13, 2009 18:21:00 GMT -8
Bravo, Bob! Bravo! Well said, indeed. A private company with that kind of track record would decline and be pushed aside by companies both more efficient and, dare I say it, with more humane ways of dealing with employees. The USPS will not go out of business because the feds will not let it go out of business. Any "company" that is de facto a dependent of the federal government will always be babied and bailed out for political reasons. Our Constitution guarantees mail service. If you'd like to change that, you need to convince a lot of elected officials to engage in a Constitutional amendment. I'm sure that would go over quite well in our rural areas. Of course, if that were to happen, no private company would deliver mail on a daily basis anywhere except the urban areas. Apparently you've never lived in any environment other than urban, so you really don't have a clue.Such "too big (or politically influential) to fail" operations will just stumble along for decades. Their on-government-life-support status puts a constant strain on the whole economy by soaking up money that could be better used by private enterprise. And which private company would deliver mail to your hottie up there in Alaska?Genuine capitalism is a harsh mistress (couldn't help myself! ;D). But, in the long run we are better off dealing with the creative destruction of the free market than the political dealings of state capitalism or outright socialism. I see. There is no government function that's worthwhile other than protecting your sorry ass. Anything else should go by the wayside. Reminds me of what that idiot, Dick Rider, wrote on a local BBS back in the '80s, when he was arguing that police and fire protection should be privatized and only those who were capable of paying for it were worthy of getting protection (he will deny it now, but I remember quite well his BS libertarian arguments which I'm sure you would not agree with because no matter how you've voted, you are a right-wing Republican, not a libertarian).
I do find it interesting that you'd rather see the "creative destruction of the free market". Exactly how far are you willing to carry this ideology? The radical libertarians would do away with most all government in favor of people paying for every service they get. Given that notion, please tell me how far you are willing to go to destroy government control of anything in favor of total free market capitalism? Are you willing to pay for fire and police services if it means they come directly out of your pocket instead of coming out of your taxes? Are you willing to tell those who are not capable of paying those "dues" that they are on their own and should be forming neighborhood vigilante organizations so they can keep the peace?
I'm sorry, Will, but you really have no clue as to what you're advocating because you are incapable of understanding what it means to take an argument to its logical extreme. Until you can do so, your arguments carry little weight.
Engaging in introspection is a virtue. You should try it sometime.=Bob |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Sept 13, 2009 19:27:12 GMT -8
....which has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.... I was referring to affects of the digital age on print media in general and the Post Office. How does that differ from what I wrote about what USPS has to do in order to stay in business? Are you claiming that USPS should go out of business? Do you understand that it would take a Constitutional amendment in order to do that? I'm sorry, Rich, but if all you want to do is offer commentary without understanding the basic problems involved with postal delivery, what you write isn't worth much. =Bob I'm afraid you still don't get it Bob... you still have not addressed what I said re: digital age, which is all I was bringing up. I'm not good with this digital interchange...where you say things to people you would not say in person. Please see me at the next game and tell me in person what I write is not worth much. Too easy to do it on here. It's exactly what I disliked about the last Poli Board. I'm done with politics. Sports only and maybe environment. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 13, 2009 21:07:29 GMT -8
Bob, I love the way you ask a question, then go ahead and comment on what I haven't said before I get a chance to post anything in response to your post. ;D
As far as libertarianism is concerned, I am not close to being as radical as those (are there really any?) who suggest that fire and police protection should be provided by private contractors. While I still hold that the main role of government is to limit the freedom of individual citizens, I do feel that there are a number of cases in which it is appropriate that such freedom in fact be limited. Obviously, we want a police and justice system to deal with thieves, rapists, and murderers.
It was a good thing to have guaranteed mail service for the first two plus centuries of the United States. Times do change, however, and there is far less justification for such a guarantee in the 21st Century. Anything that can be sent electronically should be sent electronically. That takes care of probably most of what the USPS does. As for the rest, let the USPS compete with FedEx and UPS.
The USPS is a perfect example with what is wrong with the government's handling of tasks that could just as well be done by private firms. Politics, and in the case of the USPS we are largely talking about the postal unions (NALC and APWU), will always trump the economic factors. No matter how much the USPS should be left to fend for itself, such will never happen because political pressure will ensure that government subsidies in one form or another will never cease.
Today we have a President who is on record as believing that the only factor involved in determining the size of the government is how efficient that government is. Well, that is just nonsense, unless one is unconcerned about the fact that the worst horrors visited upon the peoples of the world have been done, not by corporations, but by governments.
How about selling off the auto companies and banks and insurance companies? How about not demonizing whole industries (health insurance today, somebody else tomorrow) in a painfully obvious attempt to convince the public that those industries should either be run directly by the government or else so heavily regulated that the companies involved become de facto arms of the government?
How about, in other words, just slowing down the trend toward so much government regulation and interference that the whole idea of independent and privately owned companies becomes a meaningless concept?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 14, 2009 13:19:09 GMT -8
If you think =Bob was off the mark in staying on topic, wait till you hear this! Although I pretty much agree with your assessment of the reasons that print media is struggling, I must point out that it was Obama who fueled the fire with his comments on the Post Office. You can hardly blame "right wingers" for jumping on an obvious and easily usable gaffe on the part of the President to their advantage. I must further point out that if the USPS (I have a wife retired from USPS and a son currently working there) were private they would have had to just get out of the parts of the business that can not turn a profit and let competition with Fedex, DHL, UPS, et al set the prices and dictate what the business model would be. In that sense it is an example of government failure. YAWN. Wonder who would have delivered mail to you in BF Montana if all mail delivery was privatized. =Bob Go ahead and wonder. I would be getting the same advertising and my periodicals as I get now. It would cost the mailers a little more, but that would more than be made up in the reduced subsidies. UPS and Friends might even be able to deliver for less if USPS were to have to pass most of their business over to private companies. You pointed out the really poor management teams at USPS, pre-historic management style and methods and we could throw in the cost of the Postal Inspectors that add very little to the efficiency, add greatly to cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 14:40:29 GMT -8
YAWN. Wonder who would have delivered mail to you in BF Montana if all mail delivery was privatized. =Bob Go ahead and wonder. I would be getting the same advertising and my periodicals as I get now. It would cost the mailers a little more, but that would more than be made up in the reduced subsidies. UPS and Friends might even be able to deliver for less if USPS were to have to pass most of their business over to private companies. You pointed out the really poor management teams at USPS, pre-historic management style and methods and we could throw in the cost of the Postal Inspectors that add very little to the efficiency, add greatly to cost. In a city, yes. Very far outside a city, most likely not. But yes, I forgot the Postal Gestapo and I totally agree with you on them. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 14:45:44 GMT -8
How does that differ from what I wrote about what USPS has to do in order to stay in business? Are you claiming that USPS should go out of business? Do you understand that it would take a Constitutional amendment in order to do that? I'm sorry, Rich, but if all you want to do is offer commentary without understanding the basic problems involved with postal delivery, what you write isn't worth much. =Bob I'm afraid you still don't get it Bob... you still have not addressed what I said re: digital age, which is all I was bringing up. I'm not good with this digital interchange...where you say things to people you would not say in person. Please see me at the next game and tell me in person what I write is not worth much. Too easy to do it on here. It's exactly what I disliked about the last Poli Board. I'm done with politics. Sports only and maybe environment. Rich, while I agree with you on disagreeing with what the right has to say, it's not just the digital age that is causing USPS to decline. It is also the things that I mentioned in my first reply. My point wasn't that your comments were worthless, but rather there are things USPS could do to offset loses from such things as email, but the management is too entrenched in the 19th Century to do them. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 15, 2009 15:08:13 GMT -8
author=aztecwilliam board=np thread=185 post=1451 time=1252904849] It was a good thing to have guaranteed mail service for the first two plus centuries of the United States. Times do change, however, and there is far less justification for such a guarantee in the 21st Century. Anything that can be sent electronically should be sent electronically. That takes care of probably most of what the USPS does. As for the rest, let the USPS compete with FedEx and UPS. Well, that works if everyone has the means to send and receive things electronically. However, they don't. That's particularly true of the elderly and the poor. And quite frankly, I don't especially trust electronic transfers. I tried that with SDGE, got told my payment was posted but the bucks never cleared the bank and I got a nastygram from SDGE telling me my bill was past due.
The other thing is that USPS delivers everywhere while neither FedEX or UPS does. Hell, when there is an incorrect address on a UPS package, they send a notice via USPS because they know that the carrier will most likely recognize the name (after 3-4 weeks, 90 percent of carriers know the names of every household on their route.The USPS is a perfect example with what is wrong with the government's handling of tasks that could just as well be done by private firms. Politics, and in the case of the USPS we are largely talking about the postal unions (NALC and APWU), will always trump the economic factors. No matter how much the USPS should be left to fend for itself, such will never happen because political pressure will ensure that government subsidies in one form or another will never cease. Oh yeah, APWU is such an icon of a radical union  . Once, when APWU was holding its national convention here, I got handed about a dozen very heavy Express Mail boxes to deliver to the convention. When I delivered them, so guy said, "Oh great, Chuck's been waiting for those." I jokingly replied, "Tell Chuck to ship them UPS the next time" because they were quite heavy. The asshole called my supervisor and told him he was going to call national management in DC to complain about what I had said. Yup, really looking out for the worker, wasn't he?
But aside from that, please explain to me exactly how much power a union that is forbidden by law to strike, really has.Today we have a President who is on record as believing that the only factor involved in determining the size of the government is how efficient that government is. Well, that is just nonsense, unless one is unconcerned about the fact that the worst horrors visited upon the peoples of the world have been done, not by corporations, but by governments. Usually with corporations going along with them or demanding action, such as United Fruit every time someone they didn't like took over a Banana Republic.How about selling off the auto companies and banks and insurance companies? How about not demonizing whole industries (health insurance today, somebody else tomorrow) in a painfully obvious attempt to convince the public that those industries should either be run directly by the government or else so heavily regulated that the companies involved become de facto arms of the government? The health insurance industry totally deserves any demonization it receives. Two companies, United Health and another whose name I cannot remember, control 37 percent of the market at the moment and I'm sure that will go higher. There simply is no choice in many states, especially the smaller, rural states. UH owns Blue Cross and Blue Shield and in many states, that's the only insurance available. Hell, they're fighting the idea of offering people the same wide choice that Congress has, with or without a public option.How about, in other words, just slowing down the trend toward so much government regulation and interference that the whole idea of independent and privately owned companies becomes a meaningless concept? Yup, deregulating the financial industry has sure stood us in good stead. But hey, if it's that great for the country, let's do away with FAA and NTSB and let the airline industry supply their own air traffic controllers and investigate their accidents on their own. Let's repeal the Pure Food and Drug Act - after all, companies are basically honest, right?
Your comments are meaningless for this reason - we have deregulated unto death under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II and we are in a mess because of it. It is totally naive for you to think that deregulation will somehow result in a better quality of life for us. The problem isn't the industry being an arm of the government, the problem is the regulators being an arm of the industry. With decent regulation and people who weren't looking to put in their 20 with the government and then head off to take a job with those they regulated, an asshole like Madoff would have never been ignored for years by the SEC.=Bob |
|
. Once, when APWU was holding its national convention here, I got handed about a dozen very heavy Express Mail boxes to deliver to the convention. When I delivered them, so guy said, "Oh great, Chuck's been waiting for those." I jokingly replied, "Tell Chuck to ship them UPS the next time" because they were quite heavy. The asshole called my supervisor and told him he was going to call national management in DC to complain about what I had said. Yup, really looking out for the worker, wasn't he?