I would be curious to hear the justification(s) for a statement like this.


This in the wake of changes at the Post Office that are working to slow the mail delivery process:

Quote:KING: He has reassigned or displaced 23 postal executives. He's changed delivery policies, banned overtime and done other things to cut costs. So what has this all meant for employees? Kimberly Karol is the president of the Iowa Postal Workers Union and a postal clerk herself in Waterloo, Iowa. Hi.

KIMBERLY KAROL: Good morning.

KING: Are you feeling these changes that are being made in Iowa?

KAROL: Yes, we are beginning to see those changes and how it is impacting the mail. Mail is beginning to pile up in our offices, and we're seeing equipment being removed. So we are beginning to see the impact of those changes.

KING: Curious - I hadn't heard about this one - equipment being removed. What equipment?

KAROL: The sorting equipment that we use to process mail for delivery. In Iowa, we are losing machines. And they already in Waterloo were losing one of those machines. So that also hinders our ability to process mail in the way that we had in the past.

KING: Sure. Sounds like it would. You've been a postal worker for 30 years? How do you feel about Louis DeJoy?

KAROL: I am not a fan. I grew up in a culture of service, where every piece was to be delivered every day. And his policies, although they've only been in place for a few weeks, are now affecting the way that we do business and not allowing us to deliver every piece every day, as we've done in the past.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901219097...ng-workers

(08-13-2020 10:32 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

I would be curious to hear the justification(s) for a statement like this.


This in the wake of changes at the Post Office that are working to slow the mail delivery process:

Quote:KING: He has reassigned or displaced 23 postal executives. He's changed delivery policies, banned overtime and done other things to cut costs. So what has this all meant for employees? Kimberly Karol is the president of the Iowa Postal Workers Union and a postal clerk herself in Waterloo, Iowa. Hi.

KIMBERLY KAROL: Good morning.

KING: Are you feeling these changes that are being made in Iowa?

KAROL: Yes, we are beginning to see those changes and how it is impacting the mail. Mail is beginning to pile up in our offices, and we're seeing equipment being removed. So we are beginning to see the impact of those changes.

KING: Curious - I hadn't heard about this one - equipment being removed. What equipment?

KAROL: The sorting equipment that we use to process mail for delivery. In Iowa, we are losing machines. And they already in Waterloo were losing one of those machines. So that also hinders our ability to process mail in the way that we had in the past.

KING: Sure. Sounds like it would. You've been a postal worker for 30 years? How do you feel about Louis DeJoy?

KAROL: I am not a fan. I grew up in a culture of service, where every piece was to be delivered every day. And his policies, although they've only been in place for a few weeks, are now affecting the way that we do business and not allowing us to deliver every piece every day, as we've done in the past.

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/11/901219097...ng-workers

There seem to be plenty of assumptions you're quite comfortable making on your own... like that the purpose of these actions are to slow the mail delivery process, as opposed to perhaps simply be trying to get people to work more efficiently like in any other industry.

She represents the postal workers union. Her job is to present the most one-sided view of 'management's' actions. I think she's done that.

I have no idea how much 'truth' there is to her perception and neither do you, but I do know that she has a lot of incentives to not support manpower efficiency and productivity.


Here is a 10yr chart of the USPS, presented by the USPS.

https://facts.usps.com/table-facts/

in just the past 10yrs, first class, single piece mail volume (which would use sorters) is down from almost 30byn pieces to around 16byn. Packages are up from 3byn to about 6byn. Net, fewer pieces need less machinery.

Employment is down overall, but has been pretty steady since 2013 as has revenue.

Retail visitors are down by about 1/3... total mail volume is down...

Looks like the industry is/has been changing... so one should reasonably expect changes in the workforce and equipment. The guy was appointed in May.


Let's look at UPS during that same time....
2010 revenue 50byn
2019 revenue 75byn
+25byn

Fed Ex
2010 revenues 35byn
2019 revenues 70byn
+35byn

USPS
2010 revenue 61byn
2019 revenue 71byn
+3byn

Maybe THAT has something to do with it?

Seems like the best course of action would be to simply remove the USPS monopoly on first class mail.

https://fee.org/articles/an-expert-expla...-monopoly/

Quote:The USPS actually has two legally enforced monopolies, as per Title 39 of the US Code. One is over the delivery of anything defined as a “letter,” which is within certain size and weight limits. The second is over the use of your mailbox. That is correct: there are criminal violations if anyone puts anything in your mail box that is not US government approved “mail.” The US is the only country that I know having that latter monopoly, while most countries (including all 27 member EU countries) have done away with the first, the delivery monopoly.

I mean it's pretty well-established that monopolists charge higher prices and have lower output than competitive markets. In this situation the monopolist is getting a subsidy to boot. And honestly this should be part of the Green New Deal...to eliminate all the bulk mailing and paper waste that causes.

The logical result of allowing competition in first class mail delivery is lower prices and higher level of service. Of course the users of those services (including states and cities sending out ballots) would have to pay their fair share, which is fine by me.

As for Trump's "quote" - it is like most everything he says. Kind of rambling, sometimes incoherent, and you have to listen to it first-hand in context to understand what he was really trying to say. I have no idea who Abby Phillips is, but I know that relying on some random journalist's summary of what Trump "said" is a recipe for disaster.

Kudlow might want to think about not saying the quiet part so darn loud:

Quote: So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal left wishlists we don't want to have -- voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That's not our game.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/12...64290?s=21

I’d be very happy to hear that somehow the comments about voting rights not being “their game” was taken out of context.

(08-14-2020 05:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Kudlow might want to think about not saying the quiet part so darn loud:

Quote: So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal left wishlists we don't want to have -- voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That's not our game.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/12...64290?s=21

I’d be very happy to hear that somehow the comments about voting rights not being “their game” was taken out of context.

Easy. Remove the commas.

If you do that it means something different... and would be consistent with many of the arguments you've heard the right make for some time (whether true or not) that democrats are trying to give voting rights to (illegal) aliens.... so it makes sense that this is what he meant, since he's said it before.

Not to mention that because of the use of 'and', especially the last one, they don't really make sense. The last one is clearly unnecessary.

Privatize the USPS. That's hardly a right-wing idea.

Such "right-wing" countries as New Zealand and Germany have done it, for starters.

(08-14-2020 05:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Kudlow might want to think about not saying the quiet part so darn loud:

Quote: So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal left wishlists we don't want to have -- voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That's not our game.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/12...64290?s=21

I’d be very happy to hear that somehow the comments about voting rights not being “their game” was taken out of context.

It think is more like Biden's comment on blacks - he said it but it is not what he meant. But I guess the left and right can each assume the comments are exactly what he meant.

I presume he was referring to the Democratic boogeyman of voter suppression, and he is for the rights of properly qualified people to vote, one time, while breathing, in places and times as prescribed by law.

Kudlow has never been as precise with his words as Barr.

Edit: I think Ham has it right, so there are two alternate theories. How many do you need, lad? Oh, yeah - infinity +1.

(08-14-2020 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Privatize the USPS. That's hardly a right-wing idea.

Such "right-wing" countries as New Zealand and Germany have done it, for starters.

Would a sort of joint venture be an option?

One issue with privatizing the USPS is that we'd likely see much higher rates to deliver mail to rural areas.

The USPS is a service, and if we're going to privatize it, I'd like to try and maintain some of the service features it has, like making sure people in both urban and rural areas can send/receive mail without exorbitant costs.

(08-14-2020 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Privatize the USPS. That's hardly a right-wing idea.
Such "right-wing" countries as New Zealand and Germany have done it, for starters.

Would a sort of joint venture be an option?
One issue with privatizing the USPS is that we'd likely see much higher rates to deliver mail to rural areas.
The USPS is a service, and if we're going to privatize it, I'd like to try and maintain some of the service features it has, like making sure people in both urban and rural areas can send/receive mail without exorbitant costs.

What sort of joint venture? Between whom and whom?

New Zealand is way more rural, and thus has a bigger issue with that than we do, and it worked there.

(08-14-2020 09:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Kudlow might want to think about not saying the quiet part so darn loud:

Quote: So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal left wishlists we don't want to have -- voting rights, and aid to aliens, and so forth. That's not our game.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/12...64290?s=21

I’d be very happy to hear that somehow the comments about voting rights not being “their game” was taken out of context.

Easy. Remove the commas.

If you do that it means something different... and would be consistent with many of the arguments you've heard the right make for some time (whether true or not) that democrats are trying to give voting rights to (illegal) aliens.... so it makes sense that this is what he meant, since he's said it before.

Not to mention that because of the use of 'and', especially the last one, they don't really make sense. The last one is clearly unnecessary.

I could see that - when I listened to it, they didn't seem connected. My guess is that Kudlow will respond to this, given how it comes off (potentially arguing that voting rights are a liberal wish list).

Of course democrats want to give voting rights to illegal aliens. The vast majority would vote democrat.

(08-14-2020 09:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I could see that - when I listened to it, they didn't seem connected. My guess is that Kudlow will respond to this, given how it comes off (potentially arguing that voting rights are a liberal wish list).

I didn't listen to it so I could only respond to what was written. I have on occasion, like right here, used commas to try and add emphasis even when not actually grammatically correct... or if I started with 2 thoughts and then added a third, I might have both commas and 'ands' in an inappropriate manner...

But lots of people speak while they are thinking and thus they can add pauses that can allow for inferences that weren't remotely intended.

I tend to focus on 'does this really make sense that they would say that'... and if there is an obvious, similar comment that's been made before...then I usually assume that this is what they meant. I mean, it can be 'fun' to read crazy things into people's comments... and yes, people can make mistakes in what they say... especially today where every word by every person is recorded and parsed 1,000 times... and many of these people didn't 'grow up' in that environment or age.

(08-14-2020 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 09:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 09:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Privatize the USPS. That's hardly a right-wing idea.
Such "right-wing" countries as New Zealand and Germany have done it, for starters.

Would a sort of joint venture be an option?
One issue with privatizing the USPS is that we'd likely see much higher rates to deliver mail to rural areas.
The USPS is a service, and if we're going to privatize it, I'd like to try and maintain some of the service features it has, like making sure people in both urban and rural areas can send/receive mail without exorbitant costs.

What sort of joint venture? Between whom and whom?

New Zealand is way more rural, and thus has a bigger issue with that than we do, and it worked there.

With a current provider like UPS or FedEx?

The rural delivery issue in the US is real - without a government service, there is no incentive for a private company to deliver to our rural communities, unless they charge a really exorbitant fee. And we should not do hike rates for routine mail on those communities - this is a service we should provide.

New Zealand may be “more rural” but shall we compare land mass? Our larger area exacerbates the issue.

But doing a bit of cursory reading, the NZ post is legally obliged to have a certain number of locations open, and it is still given a monopoly on low cost mail. So that’s how they handled the issue I’m discussing, and did it in sort of a joint venture way - government basically mandates that they need to maintain a basic level of service for plain mail, and they can do what they want for the rest.

We already have a private-public partnership. Private carriers deliver my packages to the post office, who take them the final leg of the journey.

Thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins. But your concerns for us could easily be alleviated by the same mechanism that I and many of my neighbors have used for years - a P. O. Box. My closest neighbor has never taken mail at his house,as is the case with the ATF agent who lives nearby.

In the wild, spread out regions of West Texas, the Post Office could deliver the mail to one central location (more efficient) similar to the way mail to newer apartment complexes is delivered to one central location. People can pick up at their leisure.

I further note that the box need not be at the PO, it could be at a private Pack ‘n Mail type facility.

Or we could use the tried and true method of General Delivery. Every few months when we lead out miles into town to stock up on virtues,we could drop by the Post Office and get our mail. Nothing in the Constitution says it has to begiven to us at whatever place we call home that day.

(08-15-2020 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We already have a private-public partnership. Private carriers deliver my packages to the post office, who take them the final leg of the journey.

Thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins. But your concerns for us could easily be alleviated by the same mechanism that I and many of my neighbors have used for years - a P. O. Box. My closest neighbor has never taken mail at his house,as is the case with the ATF agent who lives nearby.

In the wild, spread out regions of West Texas, the Post Office could deliver the mail to one central location (more efficient) similar to the way mail to newer apartment complexes is delivered to one central location. People can pick up at their leisure.

I further note that the box need not be at the PO, it could be at a private Pack ‘n Mail type facility.

Or we could use the tried and true method of General Delivery. Every few months when we lead out miles into town to stock up on virtues,we could drop by the Post Office and get our mail. Nothing in the Constitution says it has to begiven to us at whatever place we call home that day.

I don’t think this alleviates the issue I’m talking about. While it would increase efficiency, I would be surprised if it actually made it profitable for a private carrier to manage small parcels and letters at a low price.

But that could be a potential option for reducing the costs of USPS for remote locations if implemented on a wide scale. Then if people have mobility issues, there could be some sort of process to deliver mail directly to those individuals. Mail service, while more outdated than it used to be, still serves a vital role in society on multiple fronts. I agree that we don’t seem to be constitutionally bound to deliver mail to individual homes, but that seems to be addressing a separate issue of whether or not we should fund such a service - we don’t have government services solely because they are constitutionally mandated.

Also, I don’t know why you say some condescending things like “thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins.” Why add that kind of commentary?

(08-15-2020 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We already have a private-public partnership. Private carriers deliver my packages to the post office, who take them the final leg of the journey.

Thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins. But your concerns for us could easily be alleviated by the same mechanism that I and many of my neighbors have used for years - a P. O. Box. My closest neighbor has never taken mail at his house,as is the case with the ATF agent who lives nearby.

In the wild, spread out regions of West Texas, the Post Office could deliver the mail to one central location (more efficient) similar to the way mail to newer apartment complexes is delivered to one central location. People can pick up at their leisure.

I further note that the box need not be at the PO, it could be at a private Pack ‘n Mail type facility.

Or we could use the tried and true method of General Delivery. Every few months when we lead out miles into town to stock up on virtues,we could drop by the Post Office and get our mail. Nothing in the Constitution says it has to begiven to us at whatever place we call home that day.

I don’t think this alleviates the issue I’m talking about. While it would increase efficiency, I would be surprised if it actually made it profitable for a private carrier to manage small parcels and letters at a low price.

But that could be a potential option for reducing the costs of USPS for remote locations if implemented on a wide scale. Then if people have mobility issues, there could be some sort of process to deliver mail directly to those individuals. Mail service, while more outdated than it used to be, still serves a vital role in society on multiple fronts. I agree that we don’t seem to be constitutionally bound to deliver mail to individual homes, but that seems to be addressing a separate issue of whether or not we should fund such a service - we don’t have government services solely because they are constitutionally mandated.

Also, I don’t know why you say some condescending things like “thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins.” Why add that kind of commentary?

It was the sudden concern for rural people.

I presume you have never lived in the country. It is a trade off. I have privacy, and wildlife, and no problems with unruly neighbors. But I also have to provide my own water, sewer, and road repair. People who chose to live “out” are not going to quibble over petty things like at-home delivery of mail. To use my example for the ease of remote people to get picture ID, they can pick up their mail when they they make their biweekly trip to town, along with getting groceries, getting a haircut, and seeing a dentist. Oh, and dropping by their DPS office for an ID.*

*I drove into town this week to renew my DL. The sign outside directed those there to renew a DL OR TO OBTAIN AN ID how to proceed. Took me about an hour, including driving to and back.

(08-15-2020 09:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 08:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We already have a private-public partnership. Private carriers deliver my packages to the post office, who take them the final leg of the journey.

Thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins. But your concerns for us could easily be alleviated by the same mechanism that I and many of my neighbors have used for years - a P. O. Box. My closest neighbor has never taken mail at his house,as is the case with the ATF agent who lives nearby.

In the wild, spread out regions of West Texas, the Post Office could deliver the mail to one central location (more efficient) similar to the way mail to newer apartment complexes is delivered to one central location. People can pick up at their leisure.

I further note that the box need not be at the PO, it could be at a private Pack ‘n Mail type facility.

Or we could use the tried and true method of General Delivery. Every few months when we lead out miles into town to stock up on virtues,we could drop by the Post Office and get our mail. Nothing in the Constitution says it has to begiven to us at whatever place we call home that day.

I don’t think this alleviates the issue I’m talking about. While it would increase efficiency, I would be surprised if it actually made it profitable for a private carrier to manage small parcels and letters at a low price.

But that could be a potential option for reducing the costs of USPS for remote locations if implemented on a wide scale. Then if people have mobility issues, there could be some sort of process to deliver mail directly to those individuals. Mail service, while more outdated than it used to be, still serves a vital role in society on multiple fronts. I agree that we don’t seem to be constitutionally bound to deliver mail to individual homes, but that seems to be addressing a separate issue of whether or not we should fund such a service - we don’t have government services solely because they are constitutionally mandated.

Also, I don’t know why you say some condescending things like “thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins.” Why add that kind of commentary?

It was the sudden concern for rural people.

I presume you have never lived in the country. It is a trade off. I have privacy, and wildlife, and no problems with unruly neighbors. But I also have to provide my own water, sewer, and road repair. People who chose to live “out” are not going to quibble over petty things like at-home delivery of mail. To use my example for the ease of remote people to get picture ID, they can pick up their mail when they they make their biweekly trip to town, along with getting groceries, getting a haircut, and seeing a dentist. Oh, and dropping by their DPS office for an ID.*

*I drove into town this week to renew my DL. The sign outside directed those there to renew a DL OR TO OBTAIN AN ID how to proceed. Took me about an hour, including driving to and back.

I think you perceive this as a “sudden concern” because we often don’t talk about policies focused on rural Americans. Our conversations very regularly end up focusing on more urban issues. But you shouldn’t be surprised that liberals who view the government as a positive that can balance out the inefficiencies of the free market apply the view to the entire country.

And I agree about the trade off, inherently living someone where rural means that services of all kind are less accessible. As I said, I agree that your proposal could be a good option to reduce costs while still providing a vital service, but I don’t think that private industry would view it as profitable unless prices went way up.

I think we could compare this to rural medical care and hospitals, which really struggle to provide services due to costs, but which provide vital services to the people in the area. I’m of the opinion that we should try and identify and address access issues for urban and rural Americans.

(08-15-2020 09:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, I don’t know why you say some condescending things like “thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins.” Why add that kind of commentary?

It was the sudden concern for rural people.

And the condescending way in which that concern was expressed.

(08-15-2020 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 09:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 08:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also, I don’t know why you say some condescending things like “thank you for your concerns about us poor country cousins.” Why add that kind of commentary?

It was the sudden concern for rural people.

And the condescending way in which that concern was expressed.

Seriously? You’re going to have to explain that one to me.

(08-14-2020 11:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But doing a bit of cursory reading, the NZ post is legally obliged to have a certain number of locations open, and it is still given a monopoly on low cost mail. So that’s how they handled the issue I’m discussing, and did it in sort of a joint venture way - government basically mandates that they need to maintain a basic level of service for plain mail, and they can do what they want for the rest.

That's not a bad model. They also include a postal bank. I'm not entirely sure how that works, but that has been included in several privatization proposals.