Hudson_Hawk
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,541
Date: 2/10/2009 10:37:44 PM
Author: mayachel
Regarding forever stamps...I stole this from Portfolio.com
If the Forever stamp had been introduced in 1978, you would''ve been better off spending the $0.15 on most anything else. At all points in the following 30-years the inflation-adjusted price of stamps was less than $0.15. There would have been no point in hedging against rising stamp prices.
For individuals, the economic loss is tiny, if you''d stocked up with $100 worth of Forever stamps in 1978 and used them over the next 30 years, you''d be out $2. But for the postal service, the overall gains would''ve provided a small boost to revenues. (People who would''ve put off buying stamps until after a price hike would now have some incentive to buy Forevers instead.)
Going forward, the Forever stamps still won''t make sense economically for consumers since rate hikes are capped at C.P.I.![]()
I see your point. But who really cares what the stamp looks like? I didn''t create the stamp and I don''t think anyone would care or be like "OMG this stamp is ugly...I hate her entire invite!" lol If it saves money, I''d do it..Date: 2/10/2009 5:46:25 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
Yea, the only problem is that the forever stamps are usually pretty ugly and not wedding related.
For me, using Forever stamps is definitely not about the cost. It is for a practical purpose: I want to put one stamp on my response card envelopes, and I cannot buy 44-cent stamps when I''m sending out invites. Forever stamps allow my guests to send the replies anytime before the response date. Forever stamps make economic sense when you are using them very soon after a postage rate increase has occurred, e.g. you paid 42 cents last week for a stamp that would cost 44 cents this week, and the rate of inflation has not yet risen enough to make the actual value of the 42-cent stamp equivalent to the higher-rate stamp. Buying Forever stamps to use two years from now doesn''t make much economic sense, but it might be worth it for the convenience.Date: 2/10/2009 10:37:44 PM
Author: mayachel
Regarding forever stamps...I stole this from Portfolio.com
If the Forever stamp had been introduced in 1978, you would''ve been better off spending the $0.15 on most anything else. At all points in the following 30-years the inflation-adjusted price of stamps was less than $0.15. There would have been no point in hedging against rising stamp prices.
For individuals, the economic loss is tiny, if you''d stocked up with $100 worth of Forever stamps in 1978 and used them over the next 30 years, you''d be out $2. But for the postal service, the overall gains would''ve provided a small boost to revenues. (People who would''ve put off buying stamps until after a price hike would now have some incentive to buy Forevers instead.)
Going forward, the Forever stamps still won''t make sense economically for consumers since rate hikes are capped at C.P.I.![]()