Should the US Mail be delivered less?
Debate Rounds (3)
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://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.
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.