QuoteThis Plan Could Save the Post Office From Extinction
Go to the post office, send a package, pick up some stamps and deposit your paycheck or pay a bill? That's the newest idea for rescuing the cash-strapped USPS floated in a report published by the U.S.P.S. Office of Inspector General.
"One in four U.S. households lives at least partially outside the financial mainstream," it says. The FDIC puts the number of entirely unbanked Americans at about 8%, but that's still a lot of families stuck conducting financial transactions with check-cashing storefronts, services that wire money, payday lenders and even pawnshops.
Exclusion from the financial mainstream isn't cheap: "The average underserved household spends $2,412 each year just on interest and fees for alternative financial services," the OIG says. It estimates it could turn a profit by offering basic services like check-cashing, bill pay, small-dollar loans and the like at a fraction of the prices charged by fringe providers.
The report points out that more than 90% of bank branches closed since 2008 are in lower-income towns and neighborhoods. Post offices, on the other hand, are in both rich and poor areas.
The plan has already drawn early praise from some on the political left. On its website, the Center for American Progress, hails the idea, saying it "could spare the most economically vulnerable Americans from dealing with predatory financial companies."
"If the Postal Service offered basic banking services — nothing fancy, just basic bill paying, check cashing and small dollar loans — then it could provide affordable financial services for underserved families, and, at the same time, shore up its own financial footing," Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.) argues in a recent editorial. "USPS could partner with banks to make a critical difference for millions of Americans who don't have basic banking services because there are almost no banks or bank branches in their neighborhoods."
"Banks don't want these customers; if they did, they would actually make a play for their business," an article in the New Republic argues. "Instead of partnering with predatory lenders, banks could partner with the USPS on a public option, not beholden to shareholder demands, which would treat customers more fairly."
It's this "partnering with banks" thing where the details get tricky.
Although the OIG report says it's not out to replace banks, banks — perhaps not surprisingly — don't feel quite the same way.
Banks might not be raking in money in poor neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean they're happy about the Post Office filling in the gaps. A representative of the American Bankers Association tells the Washington Post, "We're deeply concerned that the U.S. Postal Service is trying to drive the creation of a new [government-sponsored entity] engaged in banking services, which is not subject to the same level of regulation... This new entity could be perceived by many as a government-endorsed and preferred provider of financial products," he says.
BloombergBusinessweek points out that plenty of non-banks, including Wal-Mart and T-Mobile, offer bank-like services via prepaid debit cards, and it suggests that the future of banking services, especially at the lower end of the income spectrum, increasingly lies with businesses (or entities) that aren't banks themselves. "I perceive banks as becoming increasingly good at commercial banking and increasingly bad at retail banking," Arjan Schutte, founder of Core Innovation Capital, tells the publication. "Just from an economic perspective, there are better places than banks."
The OIG report seems to recognize this; one of its initial suggestions for entrance into the financial services market is a reloadable prepaid card, the same product that has become a de facto checking account for many low-income people priced out of mainstream banking by the escalating fees for both routine account use as well as penalties.
To experts who study the Postal Service, there are some questions: Can the post office really make money from this? And — should it? How should it balance revenue generation with some sort of civic duty?
For starters, if serving low-income Americans with financial services is such a good way to make money, why aren't banks already doing it?
It's a good question, and there are a couple of (related) reasons: Banking regulations require that when a bank sets up shop, it can't just take residents' money for deposit and not also offer lending services (like, say, mortgages). Some banks, especially after the subprime crisis and real estate bubble bursting, are reluctant to lend under these conditions, so they stay out of these areas entirely.
The Post Office, on the other hand, has a huge, well-known network of facilities, already established, staffed and paid for. "It could be that the Postal Service has a bigger retail network than the banks and could make use of that," says James Campbell, an attorney and consultant on postal policy. "It doesn't sound crazy, but it doesn't sound like a big moneymaker, either."
Campbell is also skeptical of the plan because it doesn't address the post office's biggest problem: a sharp decline in first-class mail volume. "This doesn't get to the fundamental challenge the Post Office faces, which is how to make the delivery business profitable," he says.
But the Postal Service has been tackling that slump in other ways, argues Mark T. Williams, a former bank examiner for the Federal Reserve who teaches banking at Boston University, who compares the banking plan to other recent private-sector initiatives the Post Office has undertaken, like its partnership with Amazon.com. "This is a really entrepreneurial and aggressive thing they're doing," he says.
He points out (as the OIG does in its report) that a number of other countries offer financial services through their postal agencies and make money doing so. "I think this is a good time for them to continue to recreate who they are," Williams says. "They have great locations to serve this population... I think this would be a very positive step for them."
Success might not come without cost or risk, though. Given that the Post Office is still losing billions of dollars, Rick Geddes, an associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, thinks this is a risky time to set off in a new direction. "Would this be an additional drain or could the Postal Service do this in a way that would make it profitable?" he says.
"I'm often supportive of the Postal Service innovating and trying new products and services that are in its areas of expertise," he says. "I would have a real question about where is the core expertise to do bill paying and check cashing."
In fact, even defining success in this case could prove tricky. "What exactly is the goal?" Geddes says. "Is the goal to make the Postal Service more efficient, more like a utility, more profitable, or is the goal to address this fundamental problem of poor communities not having adequate banking?"
From the OIG report, it's clear that the Postal Service thinks the answer is one that melds both profitability and public service. Although it touts the revenue-generating possibilities of financial services offered by other countries' postal agencies, it argues that the benefits of entering the market would be social as well as financial.
"Promoting the financial health of all citizens and meeting the needs of the unbanked are longstanding federal priorities," it says. "Postal financial services could assist underserved families in making steps toward the mainstream financial system."
The OIG even says the economy as a whole could benefit: "Because the underserved tend to spend nearly every penny they make, any money they save by using Postal Service financial products would immediately go back into the economy," it says.
Williams thinks the two goals aren't mutually exclusive. "I'd argue the USPS would bring competition to these folks that have been able to prey on the underserved, so that's a real positive," he says.
I heard of this on NPR this morning; (and I learned that from the Taft administration until 1967 the USPS did actually offer banking services.) I'm curious what the Languish armchair economists think of this.
Heard about it on NPR. I don't like it. I don't like it at all.
You know what would save the USPS from extinction? Stop taking money from it to pre-fund pension plans for future employees that aren't even born yet. There's a novel fucking idea.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:34:31 PM
You know what would save the USPS from extinction? Stop taking money from it to pre-fund pension plans for future employees that aren't even born yet. There's a novel fucking idea.
That was all Haig's fault.
I like it.
The nice thing about doing it through the Post Office is that they have a stand alone budget so their would be no leakage of taxpayer money into the program.
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2014, 03:35:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:34:31 PM
You know what would save the USPS from extinction? Stop taking money from it to pre-fund pension plans for future employees that aren't even born yet. There's a novel fucking idea.
That was all Haig's fault.
Fuck you. Foch had a hand in it as well.
There's still post offices in the US? How quaint.
FUnny, over here they split off the banking part from the postal service.
Quote from: The Brain on February 07, 2014, 03:38:52 PM
There's still post offices in the US? How quaint.
Unfortunately for all the GOP fucktards and Yi Marketeers that want to privatize the entire operation by optioning it out to shareholder-driven companies, along with the added bonus of shitcanning Federal employees--omg, with pensions to boot!--it's in the Constitution.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:45:08 PM
Yi Marketeers
I see Seedy has gotten some new material.
I snickered.
My bank is just an atm. <_<
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 03:35:36 PM
I like it.
The nice thing about doing it through the Post Office is that they have a stand alone budget so their would be no leakage of taxpayer money into the program.
That was the idea behind fannie and freddie.
What could possibly go wrong.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 07, 2014, 04:40:24 PM
That was the idea behind fannie and freddie.
What could possibly go wrong.
Fair enough.
But Fannie and Freddie owned the entire US mortgage market. There would be a lot less downside exposure for a national check cashing facility.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:45:08 PM
Unfortunately for all the GOP fucktards and Yi Marketeers that want to privatize the entire operation by optioning it out to shareholder-driven companies, along with the added bonus of shitcanning Federal employees--omg, with pensions to boot!--it's in the Constitution.
That's what they did in most European countries. It worked.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
But Fannie and Freddie owned the entire US mortgage market. There would be a lot less downside exposure for a national check cashing facility.
Does nobody write bad checks where you live? Because in 2007, my office was entering 20,000 bad checks a night into a certain financial institution's "bad check writer" database, and we weren't the only office working that account.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:45:08 PM
Unfortunately for all the GOP fucktards and Yi Marketeers that want to privatize the entire operation by optioning it out to shareholder-driven companies, along with the added bonus of shitcanning Federal employees--omg, with pensions to boot!--it's in the Constitution.
The Constitution says, "The Congress shall
have power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads;". Nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. Certainly nothing in the Constitution requires the Federal Government to own a postal service; in fact, in the early days the opinion of the courts was that the government could *not* own postal property, merely designate roads and sites for postal use. The current state of the USPS is purely created by an act of Congress acting under that clause, and can be changed under that clause in any way Congress sees fit, including the dissolution of the USPS and the end of the First Class Mail monopoly.
If banks don't want these customers, what makes the post office think that they can do better than the banks and profit from the same customers?
Quote from: Monoriu on February 07, 2014, 06:17:02 PM
If banks don't want these customers, what makes the post office think that they can do better than the banks and profit from the same customers?
Depends on whether the banks don't want the customers because they're
not making money or if they're not making
enough money. The bigger money would be in investing services, and that market's not likely to be tapped in a really poor area.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 07, 2014, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 03:45:08 PM
Unfortunately for all the GOP fucktards and Yi Marketeers that want to privatize the entire operation by optioning it out to shareholder-driven companies, along with the added bonus of shitcanning Federal employees--omg, with pensions to boot!--it's in the Constitution.
The Constitution says, "The Congress shall have power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads;". Nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. Certainly nothing in the Constitution requires the Federal Government to own a postal service; in fact, in the early days the opinion of the courts was that the government could *not* own postal property, merely designate roads and sites for postal use. The current state of the USPS is purely created by an act of Congress acting under that clause, and can be changed under that clause in any way Congress sees fit, including the dissolution of the USPS and the end of the First Class Mail monopoly.
The same thing could be said about our court system and the Judiciary Acts. But nobody's going to touch them, either.
So fuck all you Post Office haters. Good luck trying to remove the Postal Clause.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 05:41:23 PM
Does nobody write bad checks where you live? Because in 2007, my office was entering 20,000 bad checks a night into a certain financial institution's "bad check writer" database, and we weren't the only office working that account.
Plenty of people write bad personal checks. Virtually no one writes a bad payroll check, which is the only kind check cashing places take.
Quote from: Monoriu on February 07, 2014, 06:17:02 PM
If banks don't want these customers, what makes the post office think that they can do better than the banks and profit from the same customers?
They'd be looking to break even, for one thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 07:32:46 PM
Plenty of people write bad personal checks. Virtually no one writes a bad payroll check, which is the only kind check cashing places take.
In Baltimore, most of the check cashing places that are run by the Greeks or Jews charge a flat 5% service fee, unless they're one of those Korean-owned combo liquor/check cashing joints, and then it's around 7%.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 07:41:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 07:32:46 PM
Plenty of people write bad personal checks. Virtually no one writes a bad payroll check, which is the only kind check cashing places take.
In Baltimore, most of the check cashing places that are run by the Greeks or Jews charge a flat 5% service fee, unless they're one of those Korean-owned combo liquor/check cashing joints, and then it's around 7%.
Was that a misquote? Because that didn't say anything about the sources those Baltimore check-cashing places will take.
Anyway, Yi, probably half of the bad checks I entered were DBAs, which are registered in that book the check-cashing places pull out to verify. Doctors were the worst offenders, but I put in a
lot of stuff reading "John Smith DBA John's Towing" or suchlike. Long story short, bad checks from business accounts happen a lot more than you might realize.
And some of those were even honest mistakes! Best common example I can think of is a franchisee with poor bookkeeping running in the red. They're legit, they frequently employ exactly the kind of ultra-low-income employee that would gravitate toward check cashing, and their payroll checks do bounce from time to time.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 08:08:47 PM
Was that a misquote? Because that didn't say anything about the sources those Baltimore check-cashing places will take.
Why would I misquote myself?
In my 28 years of various employment I have never had a payroll check bounce, or not been paid exactly on payday.
Fuck the post office. Fuckers won't stop talking to the old people in front of me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 07:32:46 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 05:41:23 PM
Does nobody write bad checks where you live? Because in 2007, my office was entering 20,000 bad checks a night into a certain financial institution's "bad check writer" database, and we weren't the only office working that account.
Plenty of people write bad personal checks. Virtually no one writes a bad payroll check, which is the only kind check cashing places take.
Is that the only kind the Post Office would take if this plan goes into affect?
Quote from: sbr on February 07, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
In my 28 years of various employment I have never had a payroll check bounce, or not been paid exactly on payday.
The very last bail company I worked for, my boss had developed a nasty coke + $500/hr GFE escort habit, and the ensuing nasty divorce; I'd have to wait as long as Tuesday to deposit Friday's paycheck sometimes, he was even bouncing the premium checks to the bond insurance company.
When he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
The very last bail company I worked for, my boss had developed a nasty coke + $500/hr GFE escort habit, and the ensuing nasty divorce; I'd have to wait as long as Tuesday to deposit Friday's paycheck sometimes, he was even bouncing the premium checks to the bond insurance company.
When he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Yep. Ironically, the company I was just talking about that
tracked financial misbehavior folded when the CEO managed to go on a month-long hookers and blow binge that cost $83 mil of our VC.
I like that idea.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 07, 2014, 08:52:00 PM
I like that idea.
Killing Seedy or a month long blow-and-hookers bender?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 07:23:53 PM
The same thing could be said about our court system and the Judiciary Acts. But nobody's going to touch them, either.
Correct. The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. All lower courts are created based on Congressional will and authority. The Judiciary Acts are not going to be repealed, but they *could be*. Nothing in the Constitution stops Congress from doing so.
QuoteSo fuck all you Post Office haters. Good luck trying to remove the Postal Clause.
Nobody is talking about removing the Postal Clause. We are talking about Congress using their Postal Clause powers to remove the USPS.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2014, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
The very last bail company I worked for, my boss had developed a nasty coke + $500/hr GFE escort habit, and the ensuing nasty divorce; I'd have to wait as long as Tuesday to deposit Friday's paycheck sometimes, he was even bouncing the premium checks to the bond insurance company.
When he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Yep. Ironically, the company I was just talking about that tracked financial misbehavior folded when the CEO managed to go on a month-long hookers and blow binge that cost $83 mil of our VC.
That's just the market being free.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on February 07, 2014, 08:14:03 PM
In my 28 years of various employment I have never had a payroll check bounce, or not been paid exactly on payday.
The very last bail company I worked for, my boss had developed a nasty coke + $500/hr GFE escort habit
That's not so bad. Tell me more.
QuoteWhen he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
For five hundred clams an hour, I'd want video for later reference.
I'm not saying it's a monthly expense. More like a birthday present for myself.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
When he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
^_^ I love it, Seedy. We really do need the autobiographical short fiction collection sometime soon.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 07, 2014, 11:50:20 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 07, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
When he suddenly wanted to get me personally insured under a $250,000 essential personnel small business policy, that's when I knew I was going to be murdered in the office one evening in the very near future, and felt it was prudent to tender my resignation.
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
^_^ I love it, Seedy. We really do need the autobiographical short fiction collection sometime soon.
Why must you mock him like that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2014, 04:52:50 PM
There would be a lot less downside exposure for a national check cashing facility.
could they really make money offering only these basic services? If they aren't as competitive as private banks, why bother? If they generate losses, you'll want it shut down (I would too).
If they make money, then, they'd have found a revolutionary new way for a government office to make money in the absence of a monopoly. I can't see that happening, can you?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 07, 2014, 09:42:42 PM
Nobody is talking about removing the Postal Clause. We are talking about Congress using their Postal Clause powers to remove the USPS.
I am not rich enough for that to happen yet. I boxed up all my gifts and took them to UPS in 2012 for Christmas and it cost me over $100.00 motherfucking dollars. I did the same damn thing last year and took them to the Post Office and it cost me $14.00. Both took roughly the same amount to time to get there. SOmebody want to explain that crap to me? I am never using UPS or Fedex again that is some borderline extortionate bullshit.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2014, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 07, 2014, 09:42:42 PM
Nobody is talking about removing the Postal Clause. We are talking about Congress using their Postal Clause powers to remove the USPS.
I am not rich enough for that to happen yet. I boxed up all my gifts and took them to UPS in 2012 for Christmas and it cost me over $100.00 motherfucking dollars. I did the same damn thing last year and took them to the Post Office and it cost me $14.00. Both took roughly the same amount to time to get there. SOmebody want to explain that crap to me? I am never using UPS or Fedex again that is some borderline extortionate bullshit.
UPS at least gives good service for the money. FedEx is an abomination.
UPS keeps making me go to their fucking hub. It's like a 40 minute round trip.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 02:34:28 AM
UPS keeps making me go to their fucking hub. It's like a 40 minute round trip.
#zeroth world problems
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2014, 08:14:29 PM
Fuck the post office. Fuckers won't stop talking to the old people in front of me.
No shit. must be in the manual.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2014, 11:53:00 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 07, 2014, 11:50:20 PM
^_^ I love it, Seedy. We really do need the autobiographical short fiction collection sometime soon.
Why must you mock him like that?
It doesn't fit in the cover letters.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
Actually, the thought of slowly bleeding out behind a shitty second-hand industrial office desk in the 'hood at 1am, surrounded by empty speed-loaders as I load the last couple rounds into the revolver in my lap with one hand, wondering how long it's going to take before somebody feeds my cats, sounds pretty fucking attractive right about now.
Certainly a more romantic fate than
http://youtu.be/6R03BVIyAdY
Of course, you'd probably give my death a
B-, for its Tarantino-esque unoriginality.
Quote from: fhdz on February 08, 2014, 03:02:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 02:34:28 AM
UPS keeps making me go to their fucking hub. It's like a 40 minute round trip.
#zeroth world problems
I dunno. I think you can legitimately complain about having to take an hour out of work, wear your car down by another 20 miles, plus the cost of gasoline.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2014, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
Actually, the thought of slowly bleeding out behind a shitty second-hand industrial office desk in the 'hood at 1am, surrounded by empty speed-loaders as I load the last couple rounds into the revolver in my lap with one hand, wondering how long it's going to take before somebody feeds my cats, sounds pretty fucking attractive right about now.
Certainly a more romantic fate than
http://youtu.be/6R03BVIyAdY
Of course, you'd probably give my death a B-, for its Tarantino-esque unoriginality.
I don't have minuses. Maybe I should. Maybe I will.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 08, 2014, 11:10:26 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2014, 09:50:28 PM
Whoa. What was it like, living in a film noir?
Actually, the thought of slowly bleeding out behind a shitty second-hand industrial office desk in the 'hood at 1am, surrounded by empty speed-loaders as I load the last couple rounds into the revolver in my lap with one hand, wondering how long it's going to take before somebody feeds my cats, sounds pretty fucking attractive right about now.
Certainly a more romantic fate than
http://youtu.be/6R03BVIyAdY (http://youtu.be/6R03BVIyAdY)
Of course, you'd probably give my death a B-, for its Tarantino-esque unoriginality.
Well, at least you have your hair.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 02:47:35 PM
Quote from: fhdz on February 08, 2014, 03:02:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 08, 2014, 02:34:28 AM
UPS keeps making me go to their fucking hub. It's like a 40 minute round trip.
#zeroth world problems
I dunno. I think you can legitimately complain about having to take an hour out of work, wear your car down by another 20 miles, plus the cost of gasoline.
I think the notion is that you can complain about pretty much anything.
EDIT: "You" meaning "one", not you specifically.
Quote from: viper37 on February 08, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
could they really make money offering only these basic services? If they aren't as competitive as private banks, why bother? If they generate losses, you'll want it shut down (I would too).
If they make money, then, they'd have found a revolutionary new way for a government office to make money in the absence of a monopoly. I can't see that happening, can you?
They don't need to make money, they just need to break even.
After a little investigation, payroll check cashing seems to be a pretty competitive industry. My supermarket offers it, as does Walgreen's, both for around 5% it seems.
Quote from: viper37 on February 08, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
could they really make money offering only these basic services? If they aren't as competitive as private banks, why bother? If they generate losses, you'll want it shut down (I would too).
Post Offices already generate massive losses. The alternative to shutting them down is to have them adopt another revenue stream, that doesn't cost much more (because you already have the employees in place and they have a lot of excess time on their hands), so that the losses are staunched.
QuoteIf they make money, then, they'd have found a revolutionary new way for a government office to make money in the absence of a monopoly. I can't see that happening, can you?
There are many government offices that make money in the absence of a monopoly. The Sheriff's Office makes money writing traffic tickets, even though it doesn't have a monopoly on writing tickets. The post offices could take in more money by offering more services, whether you can see it it not.
I know a fair number of people who work or have worked at the Post Office. Before they can start that they'll have to change the whole workplace ethos they have there. Its very much a dog eat dog kinda place.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2014, 04:47:57 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 08, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
could they really make money offering only these basic services? If they aren't as competitive as private banks, why bother? If they generate losses, you'll want it shut down (I would too).
If they make money, then, they'd have found a revolutionary new way for a government office to make money in the absence of a monopoly. I can't see that happening, can you?
They don't need to make money, they just need to break even.
If the goal is simply to offer low-cost check cashing services to low-income citizens, yeah, that's true.
However, if the goal is to try to offset the USPS's operating losses, then it's not true.
Fair enough.
Although I suppose if you wanted to get extra pointy headed about it, we could say that any business line that helps cover existing fixed costs will decrease operating losses.