The Instigator
Mago0o
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Preston
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the US Mail be delivered less?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 453 times Debate No: 39612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Mago0o

Pro

I say yes. The USPS is the largest government employer behind the military. There are 522,000 postal workers in the US. The post office is open 6 days a week. If, by cutting back to 5 days a week we can eliminate 1/6 of the staff, that would free up 4.5 billion dollars (based on a median salary of $52000).
Preston

Con

This sounds like fun. I do not feel claiming we can just lay off all these employees is correct. Your claiming that dropping 522,000 postal workers jobs will free up government costs. However adding this 1% of our population to the unemployment pool doesn't benefit us, your placing these families in the situation where they may become reliant on the government for the wage they once had. All the people who apparently had $52,000 salaries (Which is a ridiculously high salary that I doubt they have, and Ill get to that) are now using the medicaid to support their families. On top of this they will be forced to forfeit their property and this will cost banks money.
I want to address the inadequate amount of evidence your providing for your claims. From the research I have just done while writing this I have noticed one major thing, the base salary for a postal worker is $15,000 the highest wage is around $50,000. so its really a median of $32,500! this cuts your billions saved down.

So to conclude, because of the costs that will result and the fact your using the payout on the highest possible pay scale I negate the topic.

http://www.payscale.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mago0o

Pro

Thanks for responding. For starters, I suggested we let go of 1/6 of the current 522,000 employees (http://about.usps.com...). That would amount to ~87,000 jobs lost. Now, the number of employable Americans is roughly 158 million. 87,000 lost jobs would only add .05% to the country's unemployed. A far cry from the 1% you claim. That would be the worst case but because they would lose some to attrition (retirees), and some would go on to actually find other jobs, the unemployed would be less. Re: the numbers, you can take my word of Google it. You can also read though this- http://www.bls.gov.... On the first page, however, you can see that 148,000 jobs added made virtually 0 impact on the unemployment %.

Regarding compensation- I don"t know how Payscale gets their data, but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "those [US Postal workers] working full-time earn a median $52,200 per year, with a range of $37,950 to $53,700". I believe you are also confusing median with mean. Median is the middle number meaning, in our scenario, that 50% of USPS employees make more than$52k and 50% make less than $52k.

I stand by my numbers. Try again.

*Oh, and the $4.5 billion is from wages alone. That"s not taking into account fuel, healthcare, insurance, etc.
Preston

Con

I would like to start by re-Stating my problems with your numbers. I gave a source stating that the average postal employee has a wage of $15,000. the wage your claiming is for employees who are higher-up and have at-least 10 years of experience. that's not a mailman who delivers letters. so your impact on money inst as impactful as your trying to make it sound.

On top of that its out weighed by the cost of medicaid we would have to provide if your firing people with $15,000 (Starting wage) jobs. it cost a total of around $16,779 (http://medicaid.gov...) to provide for an average family of 4 you're losing $1,000.

If we start firing higher up employees that have 10 years of service with wages of $50,000 then they are not likely to receive another job just based upon the fact they are older. According to the NY times "For those over 50 and unemployed, the statistics are grim. While unemployment rates for Americans nearing retirement are lower than for young people who are recently out of school, once out of a job, older workers have a much harder time finding work.". So your hoping that they can get jobs when statistically its harder.

Another problem i have with your numbers, If $50,000 is for people with more then 10 years how many people actual have this salary, your claiming that 87,000 people have been there 10 years and are expendable. I sincerely doubt it. and just because the unemployed % wont rise a lot, if it rises at all its bad.

Your overall outcome is a loss of money or a higher unemployment, and that doesn't benefit american interests.
Debate Round No. 2
Mago0o

Pro

You go back to your source, but it's not reliable. I can go post to Payscale as a postal worker and say that I make $1 or $1 million. I'm giving you data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To make it more black and white, here is a link to their site stating the mean and median earnings, both hourly and annually.

http://www.bls.gov...

As you can see, you were correct that my numbers were wrong above. The median is actually higher across the board from the top down. You can murder the numbers all you want to make your case, but at least use a source that can back it up.

Seeing as though you were incorrect on your first point (wages for employees), the rest of your argument becomes moot.
Preston

Con

i gave three points, you dropped two and BTW your citing Postmasters and mail superintendents not the average mailman,your assuming, as I said in my second post, that at-least 1/6 of all mailmen are Postmasters and mail superintendents your ONE point that you have , is invalid. You dropped any others you have. My other two points are not refuted, thus you accept the fact that unemployment is bad in any case, so causing unemployment is bad,thus you have submitted to my arguments. nice debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.