"If it Fits, it Ships"

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

I liked this article.... :)

If it fits, it ships
By Louis R. Avallone Friday, 01 October 2010 at 06:55

I know you have seen these commercials from the U.S. Post Office. You know the ones where the mailman happens in upon a bewildered, frustrated, and helpless set of small business employees? The employees who are lamenting the seemingly impossible challenge of comprehending both spatial relations, and using a scale to weigh items, and then pack them all into a box that is proportionately sized larger than the items being shipped? These are the commercials that explain, “If it fits, it ships, for a low, flat fee.” In one commercial, a small businessperson whines about how “shipping is a hassle, weighing every box”, while another almost tearfully confesses that “shipping is complicated”, as if she is being asked to develop a computer algorithm for multiplying fractions. Still, in another of these Post Office commercials, an employee groans that shipping “would be a whole lot easier is we didn’t have to weigh every box”.

Oh, goodness. Save the drama for your mama.

You see, I don’t know any small business employees that become so overcome with confusion, and near incapacitation, during such relatively manageable tasks as operating a scale, or using visual cues to decide if a box is too big or too large to contain an item for shipping.

No, no, no. You see, employees that work for small businesses are resilient and efficient. By contrast to the buffoons in those television commercials, small business employees are often more flexible, self-motivated, plan ahead, and deal more successfully with uncertainty every day, than many of our elected leaders exhibit in an entire term of office. And these same small businesses create over one-half of all private sector employment. This is largely why a recent Gallup poll revealed that Americans' faith in small business has grown, while their faith in big business has not.

You see, unlike the faint hearted folks in those Post Office commercials, small business employees generally have the street smarts to find creative solutions to achieve more with less, and the “can do” spirit to find a way, despite the day’s dilemmas…the least of which is weighing packages these days.

But this is how our federal government views us all: helpless and too dumb to know the difference. Example? We were told that the stimulus package would create more than 4 million jobs by the end of 2010. Instead, the unemployment rate peaked around 10 percent in late 2009 and is now around 9.6 percent.

How about in 2009 when the President signed the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act”, following up to his “Making Home Affordable Program”, which provided $2.2 billion “to help combat homelessness, and helping to stabilize the housing market for everybody.” What really happened? Last month, one in every 381 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing and home seizures reached a record level, for the third time in five months.

Or maybe liberal Democrats in Congress think we forgot that Obama promised that he could lower insurance premiums $2,500 per family per year, right before the healthcare vote last March. But, just last week, Obama explained insurance premiums would be increasing per family instead, "We didn't think that we were going to cover 30 million people for free," he said (but that’s what he promised).

We aren’t too forgetful to remember the Obama promise that he "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." What really happened? Not only did the American public not have the opportunity, but most of our own legislators didn’t read the “Obamacare” legislation, which was only the largest expansion of gov ernment since the Great Society.

Then there was the press conference in 2009, where Obama that he would ban all earmarks. But the first spending bill he signed had over 9,000 earmarks.

Who can forget the administration’s so-called “Cash for Clunkers” program that cost taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold and, according to most economists, had no measurable, economic gain. It artificially boosted demand for automobiles during the program that was offset by declining automobile sales following the program’s conclusion. Total cost, for no measurable gain: $2.9 billion.

Obama promised that, under his leadership, “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes," he said. But that’s not going to be true either because from the first day of 2011, the 15% top tax on dividends will rise to the top of income tax rate—39.6%. Hope you don’t have any life insurance or pension funds that are invested in stocks that also happen to issue dividends.

I mean, even Vice President Biden predicted just in April that the U.S. economy would be adding almost 500,000 jobs each month "some time in the next couple of months." What really happened? Last month, there were 54,000 jobs lost, and the highest level of jobless claims since November, 2009.

This administration’s rhetoric is off the chart. As the ancient Chinese proverb teaches, "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." And as you can see, this administration cannot even claim the same success rate as a stopped clock, on the major policy initiatives facing our nation.

Unfortunately for them, the American people are smart enough to know when the rhetoric simply doesn’t fit. Thankfully, you see that now in one voting precinct after another. And for the benefit of those helpless and bewildered small business employees in the Post Office television commercials, when the rhetoric doesn’t fit, it doesn’t ship…and that’s at any price. Keep your chin up folks. It’s still morning in America.


User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Yeah, I wandered away from the screen when it started making it into a political thing. That was silly, especially the last paragraph

Wake me when we're presented with something that isn't a re-hash of the same talking points that have been floating around for decades.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

Was thinking this article would be a USPS critique. The sneaky intro left me wondering how the new idea is affecting USPS financials.

http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/ar09html/ar_2_069.htm From what I understand they aren't doing so well.

I wonder what would happen if they ran as well as Fedex or UPS?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=ups

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=FDX

The author of the article took a very odd spin on an otherwise seemingly good idea from USPS, though. They know that one of their core customer bases is entrepreneurs. Saving time for entrepreneurs is a good thing, and making a flat-rate shipping box isn't insulting unless you really try hard. :crazy:

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Labeling something a "talking point" doesn't refute the content.

Kinda like saying, "That's not true, it was on Fox News." ;)

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

AZhitman wrote:"That's not true, it was on Fox News." ;)
That does seem to be the theme of late...

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

I'm making no comment as to the veracity of the content, Greg. I'm just saying I've heard it all before, and I can't be bothered to argue about it as if it's fresh.

And Matt, I'd be careful about comparing the USPS to FedEx or UPS - they have very different goals, and with good reason. FedEx and UPS are profitmaking companies, while USPS is a government service to ensure that Americans everywhere in the US can communicate with one another, without discrimination. See how much FedEx charges you to carry a letter into rural Idaho (if you can get them to do it at all), and tell me that the USPS's fee of 44 cents is comparable.

Pointing to income statements by UPS and FedEx aren't really that conducive to discussion about the USPS, as it exists on very different guidelines.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

IBCoupe wrote:And Matt, I'd be careful about comparing the USPS to FedEx or UPS - they have very different goals, and with good reason. FedEx and UPS are profitmaking companies, while USPS is a government service to ensure that Americans everywhere in the US can communicate with one another, without discrimination. See how much FedEx charges you to carry a letter into rural Idaho (if you can get them to do it at all), and tell me that the USPS's fee of 44 cents is comparable.
FedEx and UPS have very similar goals to USPS. That is to move parcels of mail for customers from one place to another. The USPS's main distinction in this case is that they also focus heavily on letter-sized mailing.

The fact that USPS is a government service with a noble cause does not absolve them of operational critique. Perhaps the low fees for sending some types of mail are what contribute to their losses every year? Not sure, and not claiming to be an expert on their micro operations.

FedEx and UPS are profit making companies, indeed. Perhaps USPS could tap their competitors to better run the organization.
IBCoupe wrote:Pointing to income statements by UPS and FedEx aren't really that conducive to discussion about the USPS, as it exists on very different guidelines.
What do you propose the discussion be centered on? For the most part, USPS is great. They just suck at operating with financial integrity.

I don't really have a problem with them, otherwise... Well, maybe the zombie-like atmosphere of most Post Offices I've visited. :chuckle:

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Small government algorithm

if ( _PrivateServiceExists == true )
{
_GovernmentServiceNeeded = false;
}
else
{
try
{
ImplementGovernmentService();
}
catch( MassiveFailException e )
{
BitchAbout( e );
}
}

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Operational critique is fine, Matt, but I'd like to be clear, the USPS has a very different goal, and it operates under very different conditions. Is there room for improvement? Probably so. Are there improvements to be found in looking at the private sector? Probably. But, as I wrote to you, I'd be careful about comparing the USPS's fiscal health to that of its private sector alternatives (I intentionally do not write "competitors"), because in doing so, you run the risk of creating a false equivalence - because they operate on very different principles and with very different requirements, that one struggles and the other flourishes is not indicative that the one that struggles is necessarily doing worse.

First, as I wrote, the USPS is mandated to service the entire country. UPS and FedEx have the liberty to choose to service only the most profitable areas.
Second, the USPS can't discriminate its pricing by destination or source. UPS and FedEx have the liberty to make prices relate to where the shipment must be carried.
Third, UPS and FedEx have shareholders that direct them to make a profit. The USPS only has to fulfill its government mandate, and in all reality, it shouldn't be profitable. At best, it should be operating at cost. When the government profits off of the services it provides, it's charging you too much.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

I'll respond starting from the bottom.

Absolutely agree that they don't need to be aggressively working for profit, as their model is different. You're right to say at best, they should be breaking even. I was simply pointing out their chronic lack of ability to do so.

Your first point is true, but the mandate is actually a monopoly. UPS and FedEx can't even compete if they wanted to in delivering non-urgent postage (e.g., letter-sized mail). Second point is true, but a problem solved by raising prices overall or reducing operating costs.

I think it's incorrect to say that the USPS doesn't directly compete with UPS and FedEx for market share. The USPS may have the roots of a government agency, but in modern times it operates primarily as a business. It competes for the same consumers that their private competition does, but they have the aid of annual subsidization .

There are definite distinctions between leadership and goals between USPS and its private competition, but in the end they are both trying to provide the same services (mostly).

Currently, I hope that what I've said hasn't created any false equivalences. The expectations of USPS as an entity are clear, and pointing out that they fail at one of the more pertinent metrics related to fiscal responsibility in government doesn't feel like a stretch to me.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Again, Matt, I wasn't necessarily saying that your criticism was misdirected. I was simply pointing out that the income statements of UPS and FedEx (which you linked to) might not be all that relevant. How FedEx and UPS don't necessarily pass legal muster for a federal agency.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

I was just trying to run with something USPS related because the author had me thinking about it critically. The net losses were the low hanging fruit in this case. :)

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

I understand, and I was hoping the author was going to go there, too.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

In keeping with the "mail" theme... Good article with a solid argument for privatization of the Postal Service.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-1 ... ssett.html

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Eh, much of that was pretty unconvincing. First, it seems to suggest that the price of labor is unwarranted, when it's made no attempt to justify that suggestion. Then, it points to analysis of the USPS's "business model," which I believe I've already explained to be a somewhat faulty premise. Then it points to a "legal monopoly" over your mailbox, ignoring completely the fact that if another company wants to make home delivery, like, say a newspaper, people are free to buy a receptacle for those services, and remember: there's no requirement that you buy yourself a mailbox in the first place. Then it talks about the gains that could be made from selling it off - a perfectly valid argument, but aside from a strawman here and there, the author makes absolutely no attempt to address the defenses of the postal service.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

IBCoupe wrote:First, it seems to suggest that the price of labor is unwarranted, when it's made no attempt to justify that suggestion.
From what I've read, the average USPS compensation value of $83,000 is nearly double in comparison to jobs in the private sector. This is poor management. The average annual salary (not including benefits, etc.) of the person behind the counter at the post office is around $51,000. Sounds a bit high to me, considering the level of specialty required.
IBCoupe wrote:Then, it points to analysis of the USPS's "business model," which I believe I've already explained to be a somewhat faulty premise.
There is nothing faulty about pointing about poor management of an organization. Inability to keep costs low, poor management of assets (land and buildings), and poor service without accountability are all legitimate critiques and can be backed up with real data in this case.
IBCoupe wrote:Then it points to a "legal monopoly" over your mailbox, ignoring completely the fact that if another company wants to make home delivery, like, say a newspaper, people are free to buy a receptacle for those services, and remember: there's no requirement that you buy yourself a mailbox in the first place.
It has a real monopoly on first-class mail, and the average of $45 billion annual in revenue it generates. 100% market share = monopoly.
IBCoupe wrote:Then it talks about the gains that could be made from selling it off - a perfectly valid argument
Totally agree. :yesnod

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Eh, much of that was pretty unconvincing.
I don't quite know how to word this, perhaps someone more eloquent than I can help me out.

Just the notion that you're "unconvinced" seems a bit haughty and self-assured to me - as if you're already an expert on the topic and the author hasn't quite met your lofty standards for argument. I'm not trying to be personal, but that came off as arrogant.

The price of labor IS unwarranted. Kinda like the UAW chimp who makes $48/hr to monitor a machine that puts lugnuts on. There's no need to "justify" it. The statement stands on its own. The onus to refute that statement is on the person who disagrees.

When I conduct an Operational Review or Efficiency Audit of a program within our agency or a subrecipient, I point out all manner of failures within their business model or internal controls. Now, you, as the reader, may not be convinced - but that doesn't make it a "faulty premise"... I report in such a manner that a reasonable person who reads the report in its entirety can come to the same rational conclusions, based on an assessment of the available evidence, that I did. A failure to comprehend what's presented is the result of one of two things: 1) I've failed to accurately crunch the numbers and present the data, or 2) The reader is incapable of following a logical progression of information to a conclusion. If #2 happens, I'm out of a job. Hasn't happened yet. ;)

I'll leave the next two points alone, as Matt has already stated my sentiments.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

mattblancarte wrote:From what I've read, the average USPS compensation value of $83,000 is nearly double in comparison to jobs in the private sector. This is poor management. The average annual salary (not including benefits, etc.) of the person behind the counter at the post office is around $51,000. Sounds a bit high to me, considering the level of specialty required.
Well, I'd like to see either you or the author of Greg's link point to an actual study which identifies years of experience and education level. This was part of my criticism: there's been no attempt at saying these salaries are unwarranted. Maybe they are, but at least get there before you state the conclusion (not really directed at you, Matt).
mattblancarte wrote:There is nothing faulty about pointing about poor management of an organization. Inability to keep costs low, poor management of assets (land and buildings), and poor service without accountability are all legitimate critiques and can be backed up with real data in this case.
"Low" is entirely relative. "Poor" is entirely relative. Would I be way off in supposing that your real data also draws comparisons to companies like UPS and FedEx?
mattblancarte wrote:It has a real monopoly on first-class mail, and the average of $45 billion annual in revenue it generates. 100% market share = monopoly.
Which is fast disappearing. Ten or twenty years ago, that argument would be convincing. Today, it is not. I didn't say it was a collection of lies, I said it was a collection of unconvincing arguments.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

AZhitman wrote:The onus to refute that statement is on the person who disagrees.
Bzzzzzt, wrong. The onus to back up any argument is on the person that makes it. Now, maybe I failed to explain to you why your guy didn't make the argument - I'll own that - but that doesn't mean the the guy who gets paid to do this (that you linked to) didn't fail, himself.

Let me do it now: RAW NUMBERS ARE MEANINGLESS. If a clerk at Kinko's made $72,000 (I know they don't), the average postal worker salary of $53,000 would be something completely different. But your guy didn't even bother to explain what, in the rest of the world, makes that average seem wrong.

And once he does, then he's got to account for years of experience, education level, and position. Starting salary for a USPS carrier is $25,000. In fact, a breakdown salaries by job title and length of service indicates that most of the high salary is concentrated in people who've been there for 20 years or more and in Office Supervisors and in Superindendents.

He was selling you a vague number, and you bought it. A mail sorter at the USPS starts out with only slightly higher pay as a sorter at UPS - there's just a lot less turnover. A third of "Mail processing clerks" have 20+ years of experience, a third have 10-19, and a quarter sit in the 1-4 years category. Contrast that with a UPS sorter: 46% of them have 1-4 years of experience. 24% have 5-9 years. 18% have 10-19 years. 8% have 20 years or more.

Maybe there's a problem with keeping people in these jobs too long, but that's the argument to make, not "Oh, they're getting paid too much."

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Kinda generic...

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf

"Private industry employers spent an average of $27.64 per hour worked for employee compensation in
June 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged $19.53 per
hour worked and accounted for 70.6 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $8.11 and accounted
for the remaining 29.4 percent. Total compensation costs for state and local government workers
averaged $39.74 per hour worked in June 2010. Total compensation costs for civilian workers, which
include private industry and state and local government workers, averaged $29.52 per hour worked in
June 2010."

There's some interesting stats in that link like:
"Retirement and savings costs were higher, both in amount and as a proportion of total compensation, for
union workers ($2.63 and 7.0 percent of total compensation) than for nonunion workers (78 cents and
2.9 percent of total compensation). Defined benefit plan costs were significantly higher for union
workers ($1.92 and 5.1 percent of compensation) than for nonunion workers (25 cents and 1.0 percent of
compensation)."

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html

"New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year.

New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.

California can’t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on its schools). "

No reference to USPS but does discuss difference between Gov emp and fortune 500.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/Artic ... d=00004418

"Looking at the wages makes it easy to assume that the public sector simply pays more than private employment, but the story is more complex. The average annual private wage is actually slightly above the $39,047 average for all of state government. It is $176 less than the $39,353 average for local government, and $22,228 less than the $61,405 average for all federal employment. Federal government appears to be where average wages diverge significantly from wages in the private sector.

...

While pay differences for a given occupation are a possible explanation, the differences in the gross average wage statistics cited above are more likely the result of vastly different mixes of occupations within the public versus private sectors. Let's look at some of the statistics behind the story.

As seen in Graph 1, there are a few substantial differences in occupational structures between the public and private sectors in Oregon. Foremost is the much larger percentage of public-sector employment in the professional and related occupations category. This occupational group has a higher average annual wage than other occupational categories, as professional jobs tend to require more education than others (Table 2).

The private sector employs more workers than the public sector in transportation and material moving, sales and related, and production occupations. These occupational groups tend to require less education on average."

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/857 ... wages.html

"A new study challenges the belief that government employees in New England earn more than their counterparts in the private sector.

It’s true that the average wage of state or local government employees is higher, but only because the average public sector worker is older and more educated, the study says. When workers are matched by age and education, total compensation in the private sector is greater, according to the report.

...

New Hampshire economist Dennis Delay examined the issue last year and found that public sector employees have an advantage in some fields, while private employees fare better in others.

'It depends very much on what you do and where you are in terms of experience,' said Delay, an economist with the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. 'People in protection services, like police, make more in government. But people in management positions, particularly with a lot of experience, make more in the private sector.' "

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Maybe Oregon is an exception? You asked for some stats and I posted information from the US Bureau of Labor. They can both be right, or only one is right or they can both be wrong.

Your second is from New England. Again, They can both be right, or only one is right or they can both be wrong.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

I looked for a breakdown by demographics, but I didn't see it in your link. I'm not suggesting that your stats were wrong; I'm suggesting that your stats fail to convey the whole truth.

96Qowner
Posts: 2643
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:11 pm
Car: 1996 Q45

Post

Tsk, you have to read more closely:

Not everyone is buying the study’s findings, however. The Concord-based Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy did similar research two years ago and found that average salaries in the public and private sectors were equal at about $45,000 per year, President Charlie Arlinghaus said.

“But the typical benefits for the public sector are dramatically more generous,” he said. “The value of that compensation is great.”


And later, referring to the conclusions in the new study:

Delay’s researched focused solely on wages.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 54538
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 Z32, 91 GTi-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14, 23 Z.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

...and yet I've never made more than I did in 2006.

Haven't seen a raise (including cost-of-living) since 2005, even after we were promised a pair of 8% increases JUST to get us within 10% of market value (those were retracted). Received a 5% CUT last year, in addition to 10 mandatory unpaid furlough days in FY09 and FY10... medical insurance rates went UP 16% (WTF, Obamacare?) and our deductions for the state retirement system were increased.

If gov't employees are making bank, it SURE AS HELL ain't in my agency. Screw the USPS, and spare me your stats. A trained ape can sort mail... my function requires a much higher level of intellect, skill, talent, discretion and judgement.

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

I wonder if the "findings" are more skewed due to Union workers or something. I don't think any of them (research articles) are showing the real truth, just hinting at it.

User avatar
mattblancarte
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:14 pm
Car: 2005 BMW M3 Comp. Coupe

Post

IBCoupe wrote: Well, I'd like to see either you or the author of Greg's link point to an actual study which identifies years of experience and education level. This was part of my criticism: there's been no attempt at saying these salaries are unwarranted. Maybe they are, but at least get there before you state the conclusion (not really directed at you, Matt).
Education has no bearing within the system, says this study on the webz:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Emp ... /by_Degree

I agree that the author of the article could have done a much better job to address counter-arguments to his points... It was a rather short read, wasn't it? No doubt, any organization comparable in size to USPS warrants much deeper study before drawing definite conclusions.

I haven't found numbers describing experience levels, and the average starting carrier annual salary of $25k. Could you link me?
IBCoupe wrote: "Low" is entirely relative. "Poor" is entirely relative. Would I be way off in supposing that your real data also draws comparisons to companies like UPS and FedEx?
I meant poor management in relation to their financial situation. It's also a wag of the finger to congress, as they continually stifle the level-headed ideas of people who want to put USPS on the right track.

From what I've read recently(couldn't dig it up after two minutes, but I will if need be), there are post offices all over the country that are run-down and at lower value than they could be. That's what I meant in regards to poor management of assets.

Poor service... well... :chuckle: Their poor reputation is legendary. Just Google around and see what people say about their experiences at the post office. You could also take a look at employee feedback, which is pretty telling.

I meant "low" and "poor" in relation to the goals and mandates of USPS. While I agree that raw numbers can be useless in some cases, they can also be a reasonable point to start backwards from when finding problems within an organization.

I haven't taken much time to look at UPS and FedEx customer satisfaction. The only comparison I've made was their numbers, and lessons that may be learned from the way they do business. Are you inferring that UPS and FedEx have it "easier" or shouldn't be used for comparison in this case? I'm not 100% certain of what you're saying. Not trying to be snide. I agree that comparisons need context and in some cases can be without merit.
IBCoupe wrote: Which is fast disappearing. Ten or twenty years ago, that argument would be convincing. Today, it is not.
I don't understand... What do you mean? Are you saying that because technological revolutions are afoot, we should allow the government to close off the private sector to a huge chunk of potential revenue?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

96Qowner wrote:Tsk, you have to read more closely:

Not everyone is buying the study’s findings, however. The Concord-based Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy did similar research two years ago and found that average salaries in the public and private sectors were equal at about $45,000 per year, President Charlie Arlinghaus said.

“But the typical benefits for the public sector are dramatically more generous,” he said. “The value of that compensation is great.”


And later, referring to the conclusions in the new study:

Delay’s researched focused solely on wages.
That wasn't the research the article was focused on, though I did put the quote in by him. Here's what the report had to say about those things:
Nashua Telegram wrote:When the workers are matched by age and education levels, government workers have a 3 percent “wage penalty,” according to the report. The disparity is higher for better-educated workers, the study said. The typical high-wage public worker earns 13 percent less than his private sector counterpart, while middle-wage workers in the public sector earn about 3 percent less.

The report acknowledges that state employees receive higher non-wage benefits such as retirement income and health insurance, but maintains those perks aren’t enough to make up for the wage disparity.

“Even after taking benefits into account, state and local government workers in New England continue to face a penalty in total compensation,” the report said.
AZhitman wrote:...and yet I've never made more than I did in 2006.

Haven't seen a raise (including cost-of-living) since 2005, even after we were promised a pair of 8% increases JUST to get us within 10% of market value (those were retracted). Received a 5% CUT last year, in addition to 10 mandatory unpaid furlough days in FY09 and FY10... medical insurance rates went UP 16% (WTF, Obamacare?) and our deductions for the state retirement system were increased.

If gov't employees are making bank, it SURE AS HELL ain't in my agency. Screw the USPS, and spare me your stats. A trained ape can sort mail... my function requires a much higher level of intellect, skill, talent, discretion and judgement.
I get a small raise every six months, and I don't work for the government. Your employer sucks; mine doesn't, Greg, that doesn't mean I'm paid too much.
audtatious wrote:I wonder if the "findings" are more skewed due to Union workers or something. I don't think any of them (research articles) are showing the real truth, just hinting at it.
Probably, to some extent, but I'd love to see what you guys say in a breakdown of unionized government workers and unionized private sector workers.
Mattblancarte wrote:Education has no bearing within the system, says this study on the webz:
Education has a bearing in relation to median wages in the two companies. Which "system" were you referring to?
Mattblancarte wrote:I haven't found numbers describing experience levels, and the average starting carrier annual salary of $25k. Could you link me?
Certainly. I was using payscale.com, too. I don't think I said "average," though - the lowest starting salary (I imagine that's for someone who's just started with no experience elsewhere, who's just a teenager looking for a summer job) is $25,000.

Go to USPS, select "By Job" at the top, then select "Carrier" underneath the graph, then select "By Job Experience" back up at the top, and it gives you a breakdown by years of service.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job ... Experience
Mattblancarte wrote:Are you inferring that UPS and FedEx have it "easier" or shouldn't be used for comparison in this case? I'm not 100% certain of what you're saying. Not trying to be snide. I agree that comparisons need context and in some cases can be without merit.
I'm saying that FedEx and UPS can tailor their routes and their service to account for making a profit. USPS is a government agency with a federal mandate - they don't have that luxury. If you're looking at USPS's books and saying, "Well, here's an inefficiency we can do without," then, yeah, that's a great suggestion. But if all we're doing is saying, "USPS doesn't make a profit, and UPS does, what gives?" then I think we're not really trying hard enough.
Mattblancarte wrote:I don't understand... What do you mean? Are you saying that because technological revolutions are afoot, we should allow the government to close off the private sector to a huge chunk of potential revenue?
I'm saying it's not a huge chunk of potential revenue. That ship has sailed.


Return to “Politics Etc.”