Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
1. Okay, so they're overpaid. Your point?
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:17 PM
Feb 2012

Even if you clipped all those salaries down under 100k, the savings would not be enough money to make up even a tiny fraction of the USPS shortfall. That's due to the pre-funding requirement for the pensions.

 

orpupilofnature57

(15,472 posts)
4. If the contributed funds were invested
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:23 PM
Feb 2012

instead of contributing to Overpaid executives salaries ,there would be no shortfall ,executives punishment for running institutions in the ground ,bonuses.

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
9. No, there would still be a shortfall.
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:39 PM
Feb 2012

The shortfall is many BILLIONS of dollars. Billions, with a B. All these salaries together are less than one percent of the shortfall, a shortfall exists because the USPS is being placed under a hugely unreasonable expectation of funding their pension programs vastly in excess of what's expected of any other agency. It's an artificial crisis.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
7. My point is these overpaid cretins are threatening to kill the service with their stupid decisions.
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:29 PM
Feb 2012

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)
8. Their decisions have nothing to do with it.
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:35 PM
Feb 2012

The Post Office was doing fine until they were placed under ridiculously unrealistic requirements for funding their pensions, which no other agency is required to abide by. That's what's strangling the Post Office.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
11. Those "strangling" requirements were okayed by the current group of morons running the USPS back in
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:50 PM
Feb 2012

2006 when the PAEA was passed.

These Postal Nostradamus' didn't see the oncoming speeding locomotive.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
6. What?
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:26 PM
Feb 2012

The function of the USPS isn't to "bring in more revenue"...it's a "service" not a capitalist enterprise.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
10. Whey the quotes around the word executives? These ARE executive positions and the salaries...
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:49 PM
Feb 2012

are not terribly high for executive positions.

 

matmar

(593 posts)
13. The "Executives" make too much money for the work they do....
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 10:55 PM
Feb 2012

...and the poor decisions they've made.

bhikkhu

(10,718 posts)
14. Those salaries are about ten times the base worker's salaries
Wed Feb 29, 2012, 11:05 PM
Feb 2012

...that's actually good - excellent, in fact. If the salaries of the guys at the top in other US corporations were held to 10 times the average salary, this would be a completely different kind of country. That 10-1 ration is an outstanding number for any industry in any country.

So - find something real to complain about!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US Postal Service "E...