Economic collapse

Thought I would take a stab at the post office thing. I kind of have to admit to once working in the postal service as a way to get through college. They had a program to help college students and I spent a little less than a year working at the GMF on Perrin Beitel Rd.

While this was in the early 80's at that time I never saw a group of people more lazy, unproductive and clueless. It really did seem as more of a job of last resort for the regulars. (I was what was called a casual hire which is essential a 3 month temp with only two 3 month extensions of hire allowed)

It seemed the only way anyone other than casuals could ever ever be terminated was for theft and more than likely in order to get rid of someone they had to be promoted out of the job.

I recognize the insane monotony of the job and often fell victim to it myself, but for the most part the regulars that work there couldn't ever compete and hold a job anywhere else based upon what I witnessed while working there. They worked at the slowest pace possible, took mandatory breaks every 2 hours, spent their days complaining about their pay and volume of work, and at the end of the day about 2/3 of them filed grievances on anything and everything before they clocked out.

If I wasn't so desperate for tuition money I would have walked out in the first couple of weeks!

Now, having witnessed the utter malaise an total lack of productivity institutionalized into the system I cannot but wonder how the US Postal Service has squandered/wasted/frittered away the greatest distribution network on the planet and allowed Fed Ex, UPS, etc... to beat them as they have. They had the business and pissed it away without a fight! They have capitulated because of this attitude and as result should now be allowed to wither and die on the vine. They never really have been self supporting and have deluded themselves into thinking they are irreplaceable.

They have done nothing I have seen to become more competitive in the marketplace. Not withstanding the advent of electronic communication they could have easily moved heavier into the realm of bulk freight with their distribution system and I'm quite sure managed a presence in the area of secure electronic distribution as well early in the game when it was being defined.

I honestly cannot support the continuation of this archaic beast in its current form. Without real cutting edge reform it would be best to allow this money pit to become and extinct thing of the past. And make no mistake! There would be a private, more responsive and dynamic solution that would emerge that would more than fill the void left over.

Now this is my opinion and I'm sure there will be those who disagree with my evaluation. I have tried to be as objective in my criticism as possible but my personal view of the situation had colored it somewhat. Make of my observations what you will.

How about from the news from various sources, including CNN, FOX, Local news, the newspaper, the internet news. Most of this in in the headlines all the time. As far as the military is concerned, I was part of the military either as a child dependant (18 years) or active duty (8 years). I have seen an lived it. Have you? Originally Posted by Jdriller

Yes, but can you put this stuff into perspective for me J? Can you give me any kind of reference or link that supports any of what you're saying?

I ask you J not because I'm trying to be confrontational but because what you are claiming is counterintuitive to much of what is true and provable that it's impossible to rationalize in a constructive dialog.

Thought I would take a stab at the post office thing. I kind of have to admit to once working in the postal service as a way to get through college. They had a program to help college students and I spent a little less than a year working at the GMF on Perrin Beitel Rd.

While this was in the early 80's at that time I never saw a group of people more lazy, unproductive and clueless. It really did seem as more of a job of last resort for the regulars. (I was what was called a casual hire which is essential a 3 month temp with only two 3 month extensions of hire allowed)

It seemed the only way anyone other than casuals could ever ever be terminated was for theft and more than likely in order to get rid of someone they had to be promoted out of the job.

I recognize the insane monotony of the job and often fell victim to it myself, but for the most part the regulars that work there couldn't ever compete and hold a job anywhere else based upon what I witnessed while working there. They worked at the slowest pace possible, took mandatory breaks every 2 hours, spent their days complaining about their pay and volume of work, and at the end of the day about 2/3 of them filed grievances on anything and everything before they clocked out.

If I wasn't so desperate for tuition money I would have walked out in the first couple of weeks!

Now, having witnessed the utter malaise an total lack of productivity institutionalized into the system I cannot but wonder how the US Postal Service has squandered/wasted/frittered away the greatest distribution network on the planet and allowed Fed Ex, UPS, etc... to beat them as they have. They had the business and pissed it away without a fight! They have capitulated because of this attitude and as result should now be allowed to wither and die on the vine. They never really have been self supporting and have deluded themselves into thinking they are irreplaceable.

They have done nothing I have seen to become more competitive in the marketplace. Not withstanding the advent of electronic communication they could have easily moved heavier into the realm of bulk freight with their distribution system and I'm quite sure managed a presence in the area of secure electronic distribution as well early in the game when it was being defined.

I honestly cannot support the continuation of this archaic beast in its current form. Without real cutting edge reform it would be best to allow this money pit to become and extinct thing of the past. And make no mistake! There would be a private, more responsive and dynamic solution that would emerge that would more than fill the void left over.

Now this is my opinion and I'm sure there will be those who disagree with my evaluation. I have tried to be as objective in my criticism as possible but my personal view of the situation had colored it somewhat. Make of my observations what you will. Originally Posted by Rakhir

rakhir, that funding thing is a weird situation and has something to do with the Post Office, as instructed by Congress, having to fund approx.10 yrs of their retirement healthcare benefits in advance every year and then the fund was looted by Congress.
I don't know how much of this has lead to its demise but I am leery of allowing the free market to dictate our delivery system and then just leave it to the undulations of Wall Street only for it to crash or for some CEO to destroy it and walk off with his contracted millions completely unanswerable to anyone. We cannot do that.
I just can't come to the conclusions that you have because I have never had a problem with my mail. I've never heard of any uproar over undelivered mail or anything of that sort. I'm sure if it were that inefficient it would have been an issue.

Rakhir ===> I would have thought AARP would have kept the postal service operational..


Seriously we have "contract" civilian delivery to our centralized boxes in our neighborhood and many days they drive their own vehicles (wondering how much that costs?). Of course the government saw fit to build a new post office very close to us and state of the art with automation galore available 24/7 and guess what --- real live uniformed postal people during the day who help with refunds to the machines and provide guidance.


The majority of my work comes online, UPS, FEDEX anyway -- and frankly ===> Monday, Wednesday, Friday delivery to the box would work well for us.....

hoping to see the demise of another really ineffective union.....

I agree with Jdriller and have a couple of additional points.

First I did not say they did not accomplish the job. I said they needed to evolve to work in the current environment. I am operating on the assumption that unlimited government subsidies is not the objective.

On roads how much of the gas tax collected has been squandered by politicians on things not related to the purpose of the gas tax. Then we are told that taxes need to be raised so that there is money for road construction and maintanance.

Food quality is just as important to the businesses as the government. Perfection will never be achieved but I believe businesses work on that as much as the government.

I am more worried about Social Securities ability to pay for the next 70 years. This is the first time we have been in a situation where more money will be going out than coming in. Obama's answer is to reduce SS taxes in an ineffective attempt to create jobs. Give companies a reason to hire. That is what creates jobs.

I have a financial planning background and am very familiar with military benefits. They for the most part are very generous. I would be critical of them if it were not for one reality. It is the only occupation where you can be ordered to do something that could easily get you killed or maimed. Given that, they earn every dime we pay them. If there is any waste in government that is the one place I will be less critical of waste. I still think they need to spend money wisely but I want them to err on the side of providing for our troops.

Finally - yes I have considered what you said and I am not a Republican mouthpiece. They have contributed to the problems we have also. We need a change of attitude in both parties to being responsible with the taxpayors money. Originally Posted by Laz

LAZ! You made some good points and I agree with most of it but I just don't know about business self-regulating in critical markets like healthcare, food, banking, Wall Street, and Energy because we know this much, and that is that money corrupts and there is evidence of it in spades from Corporate America.

LAZ! You made some good points and I agree with most of it but I just don't know about business self-regulating in critical markets like healthcare, food, banking, Wall Street, and Energy because we know this much, and that is that money corrupts and there is evidence of it in spades from Corporate America. Originally Posted by Rodram

That is why I hate the government not allowing a business to fail. Take that risk away and the motivation to make careful decision disappears. If a business knows that its survival depends on being responsible it will be. Those that are not will fail and disappear. I would support a law that eleminates the ability for senior management to walk away with millions while the business fails. I also believe that management should not be protected by a corporate shield for fraudulent or neglegent activities.

In the insurance industry when actuaries that signed off of projected values were held personally responsible for the accuracy of the projections the actuaries I worked with were very careful about what they agreed to. Fortunately I worked for a responsible company at the time so there was no conflict of interest.

That is why I hate the government not allowing a business to fail. Take that risk away and the motivation to make careful decision disappears. If a business knows that its survival depends on being responsible it will be. Those that are not will fail and disappear. I would support a law that eleminates the ability for senior management to walk away with millions while the business fails. I also believe that management should not be protected by a corporate shield for fraudulent or neglegent activities.

In the insurance industry when actuaries that signed off of projected values were held personally responsible for the accuracy of the projections the actuaries I worked with were very careful about what they agreed to. Fortunately I worked for a responsible company at the time so there was no conflict of interest. Originally Posted by Laz

I do too, but what happens when that company is so large that it can cause our economy or even the world economy to go into critical mass?
Wall Street and the banks collapsed and what would have been the consequences of not stepping in? I sure as hell wouldn't want to take that risk.
I don't think anyone in the government wants to step in and save any company because it'll cost the party in power a whole lot of political capitol and in the process, derail whatever agenda has been planned.
That's why I advocate for strict oversight on critical industries and not allow them to monopolize.

I do too, but what happens when that company is so large that it can cause our economy or even the world economy to go into critical mass?
Wall Street and the banks collapsed and what would have been the consequences of not stepping in? I sure as hell wouldn't want to take that risk.
I don't think anyone in the government wants to step in and save any company because it'll cost the party in power a whole lot of political capitol and in the process, derail whatever agenda has been planned.
That's why I advocate for strict oversight on critical industries and not allow them to monopolize. Originally Posted by Rodram

If government had not encouraged high risk loans and backed them with fannie mae and freddie mac then we would have never had a problem this large. A small number of large companies failing will not have a significant long term impact. Those failing companies would go through bankruptcy and be sold off or reorganized. The investors would lose and life would go on.

GM would have been better off if allowed to reorganize through the bankruptcy process. They had valuable assets that could have been sold or restructured.

I agree with not allowing monopolies since competition is the best way to make sure prices are lower for the consumer and it also encourages inovation. However, other than that the government should be as hands off as possible. If a company is dishonest let people sue them. The courts will make that option unprofitable.

I must say Laz, I am enjoying this conversation with you as you are an astute conversationalist. I haven't had an exchange like this since the one I had with rakhir.
I only hope that others chime in like Whitedog and rakhir as they are well versed in this subject as well.
I'm down for the count and I'm out for tonight.

If government had not encouraged high risk loans and backed them with fannie mae and freddie mac then we would have never had a problem this large. A small number of large companies failing will not have a significant long term impact. Those failing companies would go through bankruptcy and be sold off or reorganized. The investors would lose and life would go on.

GM would have been better off if allowed to reorganize through the bankruptcy process. They had valuable assets that could have been sold or restructured.

I agree with not allowing monopolies since competition is the best way to make sure prices are lower for the consumer and it also encourages inovation. However, other than that the government should be as hands off as possible. If a company is dishonest let people sue them. The courts will make that option unprofitable. Originally Posted by Laz

I don't think the average American has the time or resources to sue a company like Walmart or Exxon etc. That's an unreasonable expectation and that is why we empower and task our government.

Have you seen the numbers on GM? I don't think that postulating bankruptcy proceedings for GM is a defensible argument.