>The biggest is that they have to have cash on hand to pay out employee pensions for the next 75 years.
>Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money.
This is not true. The law only requires saving money for accrued benefits, which makes sense to me. See section 802 and 803 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006:
This is how deferred compensation should work. If an employer offers deferred compensation, they should be saving sufficient funds such that even if income were to stop today, the accrued benefits would have no problem being paid from the savings.
>This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable.
This is also true, and the proof is "conservatives" exempted governments from the rules it wants the USPS to follow. Politicians do not want to force proper funding of government employee benefits, as then they could not advertise low taxes to voters at the same time they advertise higher compensation (via benefits in retirement) to government employee unions.
>It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with.
Non taxpayer funded organizations do have similar mandates. See Pension Protection Act of 2006.
I did repeat some lies. Thanks for pushing on me to do my research better, haha.
I looked into the details to clarify:
The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service.
The same act also mandated that price hikes at the USPS never move faster than inflation. Very few businesses would want to operate in an environment where you're biggest liability is future healthcare costs of employees, and your revenue is tied to inflation adjusted 2006 prices....
The Pension Protection act does make pension funding more regulated, but the requirements are nowhere near requiring cash on hand to fund 50 years of obligations. Other pensions are also allowed to have assets that aren't cash, meaning they can grow.
The larger point I was making, which I think is supported either way, is that the USPS is actually a viable business. The consistent profit loss is based on legislative mandates that their competitors, or anyone else, don't have to abide by.
>The USPS has to have the cash on hand to pay earned benefits 50 years out. That is unique to the postal service.
I do not see this in the text of the law in sections 802 or 803. Where is this information about specifically having "cash on hand" and "50 years out"?
>The same act also mandated that price hikes at the USPS never move faster than inflation. Very few businesses would want to operate in an environment where you're biggest liability is future healthcare costs of employees, and your revenue is tied to inflation adjusted 2006 prices....
The USPS is unfairly handicapped by being legislated to be operated as a businesses, yet somehow also legislated to have maximum prices. However, you don't have to be an actuary to know that no entity can possibly make good on offering healthcare for the entire life of their employees unless they have a money printing machine (aka federal government).
>The larger point I was making, which I think is supported either way, is that the USPS is actually a viable business. The consistent profit loss is based on legislative mandates that their competitors, or anyone else, don't have to abide by.
I agree with the sentiment of this statement, but I disagree that their competitors (namely UPS and FedEx) don't have to abide by similar legislative mandates. As far as I know, no company provides ridiculous benefits such as healthcare after you retire. And if it did, it would be similarly screwed as USPS.
Is it unfair that Congress forced USPS to actually set aside money for the healthcare that they promised their employees? Maybe the amortization schedule is unfair, but it should have been in effect a long time ago, one could make the argument that USPS prices have been too low considering the lavish benefits they have been promising. However, I also know that Congress has hamstrung USPS from actually being able to properly operate as a business.
Bottom line, USPS is a whipping boy for Congress, but the problem isn't the proper requirements to set aside funds for promised benefits. The problem is Congress using USPS as a political tool, simultaneously not letting them operate as a business, and not letting them have access to the money printing abilities of the federal government.
>Everything that they make goes into a giant pot of money for the retirement fund of workers that haven't been born yet. The holdings must be in cash, so they can't even invest this giant pot of money.
This is not true. The law only requires saving money for accrued benefits, which makes sense to me. See section 802 and 803 of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006:
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ435/PLAW-109publ435.p...
This is how deferred compensation should work. If an employer offers deferred compensation, they should be saving sufficient funds such that even if income were to stop today, the accrued benefits would have no problem being paid from the savings.
>This was a law pushed through by conservatives with the seeming intent to ensure that the USPS is never profitable.
This is also true, and the proof is "conservatives" exempted governments from the rules it wants the USPS to follow. Politicians do not want to force proper funding of government employee benefits, as then they could not advertise low taxes to voters at the same time they advertise higher compensation (via benefits in retirement) to government employee unions.
>It is a mandate that literally no other organization is saddled with.
Non taxpayer funded organizations do have similar mandates. See Pension Protection Act of 2006.