Does It Make Sense to Buy Forever Stamps?
The United States Postal Service announced yesterday that the one-year-old Forever stamp -- 1st-class postage that will be good any time in the future even if mailing prices go up -- has been a hot seller as the date of a one-cent hike approaches.
Over 6 billion have been purchased since last April comprising roughly 17 percent of all stamps sales.
"We introduced these stamps as a customer convenience to ease the transition during price changes, and they also deliver economic value," the Postal Service said in a press release.
Does that claim hold up? Looking back at rate hikes over the past 30 years, it would be hard to make a good case for buying Forevers as they haven't kept up with inflation.

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.
But because of the small costs involved, the first part of the Postal Service quote above seems accurate: If I was about to buy a packet of stamps before the price hike next month, I'd opt for the Forever stamps. There is something defeating about having to buy one-cent stamps so you can use your old postage.
- Quantifying Mortgage Fraud
- May 13 2008 4:12PM EDT
- Chart of the Day: The Worst Is Over
- May 13 2008 11:15AM EDT
- Is Text Messaging a Rip-Off?
- May 12 2008 5:37PM EDT
- Legalizing Insider Trading, With a Catch
- May 9 2008 5:34PM EDT
- Real Housewives of NYC -- A Lot of Them
- May 8 2008 7:10PM EDT
- When Envy Trumps Ambition
- May 7 2008 8:29AM EDT
- Achieving Universal Coverage at No Extra Cost
- May 1 2008 11:19AM EDT
- Gambling Strategies: Always Bet on White (Referees)
- Apr 30 2008 10:10PM EDT
- Unanswered Questions: To Pause or Not to Pause?
- Apr 30 2008 3:39PM EDT
- Grim Budget Outlook Forces Treasury to Bring Back 1-Year Bill
- Apr 30 2008 11:58AM EDT
- Does It Make Sense to Buy Forever Stamps?
- Apr 29 2008 9:58PM EDT
- When Jews and Christians Compete
- Apr 28 2008 10:05PM EDT
- Questioning the Link Between Commodity Wealth and Oppression
- Apr 25 2008 1:59PM EDT
- What's Up With the Manufacturing Data?
- Apr 24 2008 2:19PM EDT
- Don't Blame China for Rise in Inequality
- Apr 22 2008 6:11PM EDT
Archive
May 2008
Categories
- advertising
- aging
- altruism
- art
- baseball
- basketball
- behavior
- books
- business cycles
- charts
- compensation
- crime
- derivatives
- drugs
- education
- elections
- ethics
- finance
- football
- foreign exchange
- gambling
- gender
- globalization
- golf
- growth
- happiness
- health care
- history
- incentives
- inequality
- interactive
- intolerance
- investing
- jobs
- marriage
- media
- monetary policy
- movies
- music
- obesity
- painting
- politics
- population
- prediction markets
- privacy
- psychology
- racism
- random
- real estate
- religion
- roundup
- sex
- spending
- sports
- taxes
- trade
- war
Links
- Email me

- Bluematter

- Decision Science News

- Economist's View

- EconTalk

- EconPapers

- Freakonomics

- Geary Behaviour Centre

- Institute for the Study of Labor

- Journal of Interest

- Marginal Revolution

- MoneyScience

- NBER Working Papers

- New York Federal Reserve Research

- Research Recap

- Social Science Research Network

- Social Science Statistics Blog

- Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

- Unconventional Wisdom

- VoxEU





