You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] cyclops1771 ago 

The Amazon deal is a great deal for the Post Office - the Sunday deliveries basically train all the part timers, and you can wean the shitty ones out before they become a drain on the system, and is extremely profitable due to utilizing and leveraging low cost delivery persons.

IN addition to this leveraging low cost delivery on Sundays, the Amazon deal is profitable. Chase's so-called "analysis" included all costs, fixed and variable when calculating the cost of the deal. It must have been bought and paid for, because no one counts fixed costs when evaluating a specific deal, you only use variable costs. This is Finance 101 people. Adding Amazon deliveries does not require the Post Office to hire every single full time and part time person. It does not require them to purchase and maintain an entire fleet of vehicles for delivery. It does not require them to open and maintain every single post office and sorting center, much less every clerk, postmaster and national and local HR, Admin and payroll, etc. The "analysis" took the entire cost of running the Post Office multiplied by the % of delivery that is Amazon, divided it by the number of Amazon packages and said, "WHAT A BAD DEAL! HURR DURR!" as if the Post Office was starting from scratch. I hate fucking dishonesty.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] cyclops1771 ago 

No what?

I read the analysis, it's fucking retarded. You never worry about fixed costs when assessing the profitability of an add-on deal.