Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As someone else pointed out, my intent was for this to apply to NEW employees.
Why? Makes no sense to continue going down this road of eliminating pensions in favor of 401k plans when having BOTH was the idea in the first place. The intent of the 401k was NEVER to replace pensions, but to work as an addendum to a pension.
Why? Makes no sense to continue going down this road of eliminating pensions in favor of 401k plans when having BOTH was the idea in the first place. The intent of the 401k was NEVER to replace pensions, but to work as an addendum to a pension.
I fully understand the history of 401k's but as that same poster pointed out, the market has made a determination of what works best in these times. Until someone can find a way to make pensions as portable as 401k's then they will continue to disappear.
Not sure what generation you are a part of but I think it's pretty common knowledge among my cohorts that no one will take care of us when we're ready to retire. Not a company we gave our lives to, not a government we paid our taxes to, no one. We will have to fend for ourselves and the decisions we make today are the ones that will determine when we can retire 30-40 years from now.
The selfishness inherent in your posts is simply astounding. Some use it, some don't and neither of those two groups should have the final say on the matter. We all have a say.
If you don't like the fact that every American has a voice and say in how this country is run then I strongly suggest you leave and start your own country somewhere else.
Seriously.. you have some issues. The great thing about this country is, everyone can have an opinion, even though you think if someone disagrees with you they should leave the country. And yet you say I am selfish?
Plain and simple, we need cuts to government spending, and if less and less people are using a specific service one way to make cuts is to make significant cuts to that service. If a private organization was losing business and running in the hole, they would know they need to make cuts to be able to keep running.
Seriously.. you have some issues. The great thing about this country is, everyone can have an opinion, even though you think if someone disagrees with you they should leave the country. And yet you say I am selfish?
Plain and simple, we need cuts to government spending, and if less and less people are using a specific service one way to make cuts is to make significant cuts to that service. If a private organization was losing business and running in the hole, they would know they need to make cuts to be able to keep running.
Yes, I do say you are selfish. YOU don't use it, therefore you believe delivery service should be cut to one day a week. That's selfish. So what services do you use that others don't? What if someone who didn't use said service told you that it shouldn't exist because THEY don't use it? How would you react to that?
The USPS would love to make cuts but they can't. It requires congressional approval. I've heard that lately they've had a hard time agreeing on much so you can see what kind of position they're in.
The USPS could go to one day a week delivery and that would be more then sufficient for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
For me as well. I only go out to the box every week or two anyway. An informal servey of my colleagues yielded this minimum number of home delivery days per week: 1, 2, 2, 3, and 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmanuelGoldstein
...therefore you believe delivery service should be cut to one day a week...
That's not what was said. Mail ain't what it used to be. It's something I get around to every week or two when I have a little time to kill and an empty wastebasket in front of me. So *for me* once/week would be *sufficient*. Therefore anything between once/week and what they have now would be sufficient. Did either of us say "I believe delivery service should be cut to one day a week?"
"The USPS has not directly received taxpayer-dollars since the early 1980s with the minor exception of subsidies for costs associated with the disabled and overseas voters."
Don't forget they have a monopoly enforced by the federal government.
This is nothing more than placing a bandaid on a hemmorhage. Just enough for him not to lose the vote from the postal union. I'm shocked and bored (yawn) with the predictability of Obama's reluctance to solve real problems rather than instill more bureaucracy to forward his central planning agenda.
Obama isn't going to lose the postal vote regardless.
What do you suggest we do with the lost jobs? Where are the postal workers going to turn to for employment?
We've known this was going to be an issue for years. Why not criticize Bush also?
Reading some of these comments it is pretty apparent that most people really don't understand the USPS. Postal service is in the constitution. Obama can't just wave a magic wand and fix it.
Yes, I do say you are selfish. YOU don't use it, therefore you believe delivery service should be cut to one day a week. That's selfish. So what services do you use that others don't? What if someone who didn't use said service told you that it shouldn't exist because THEY don't use it? How would you react to that?
The USPS would love to make cuts but they can't. It requires congressional approval. I've heard that lately they've had a hard time agreeing on much so you can see what kind of position they're in.
So you are selfish and I am selfish.. the difference is my selfishness is about making cuts to government spending, and yours is about people disagreeing with your viewpoint.
I never said that the USPS shouldn't exist, and also, it isn't just because I don't use it, but an increasing number of citizens are moving away from using it. You don't want the delivery days cut because you use it all the time, which is selfish and not caring what the rest of the US wants.
That's not what was said. Mail ain't what it used to be. It's something I get around to every week or two when I have a little time to kill and an empty wastebasket in front of me. So *for me* once/week would be *sufficient*. Therefore anything between once/week and what they have now would be sufficient. Did either of us say "I believe delivery service should be cut to one day a week?"
Fair point. So out of this disagreement and misunderstanding comes a positive...why not let individuals (addresses for the USPS) opt out of daily mail delivery in order to save some money? Yeah, it might require some investment to set up a system to manage that info and some re-training of the carriers, but I could see that being a big money saver in the long run.
I forget the exact figure but the US postal service loses a huge pile of money every year. That is the kind of thing that gives the government a bad name for being incompetent and unable to run a business. The Canadian PO makes a profit and it sure is up against it compared to the USPO. Huge territory to cover with a small population, no economy of scale etc. If you look at it historicaly the USPO has always been the plum of political patronage. It's very likely the same today and that makes it an albatross around the necks of American taxpayers. I would care less if they reduced mail delivery to 2 or 3 times per week. In this computer age it really is not as necessary to have daily delivery as in the past. I don't know if it's still the case or not but in the UK they had mail twice a day. To prevent hardship by all the postal workers that would be out of a job the postal service should be reduced by attrition and just not replacing people as they retire, quit etc.
The reason the Postal Service has been recording financial losses....2006 law imposes a 5 Billion dollar annual burden on the Postal Service that no other agency or company is forced to bear. The Postal Service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts.
Bill H.R. 1351 (intro by Lynch (D-MA) would address the crisis without cutting pay, reducing benefits, eliminating collective bargaining rights, or slashing services.
All those things are GOOD for middle class average AMERICANS who want to work and support YOUR/OUR economy!!!
Of course, Rep. Issa(R-CA) wants to block it. His "I hate average working Americans" bill would order 2 billion worth of of closures and empower a board to unilaterally cut wages, ABOLISH benefits and end lay off protection.
Think a "board" in your company should do that to you? To every American?
How would that help the economy?
Republicans want to crush teachers, firefighters, Highway maintenence workers, police, postal workers...
These people are YOUR neighbors, legal Americans who want to work. There are thousands of them. If they lose their homes do you ever think how that will affect the value of YOUR home?????
If they can't buy a car or clothes or school supplies or snomobiles or bicycles ...if the majority of Americans can't afford anything HOW does that help YOUR/OUR economy???
WHY do the Republicans want to crush these people into the dirt?
HOW will that help the economy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
