The thing with USPS, though, is that it's really not their fault. For instance, they are the only governmental agency that has to pre-fund retirement benefits. This is something that isn't common in the private sector either, as private businesses are under no legal obligation to pre-fund retirement benefits, and only about 25% do (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-office-s-benefits-mess).

Now, USPS could change quite a few things to increase profitability, but their hands are tied in many different ways.

The reasons for this will take a bit to explain. One of the hallmarks of democratic government is that everyone has equal access to governmental services. For instance, everyone has the ability to get a library card, regardless of political view, skin color, etc. Where this gets tricky is when services start running deficits. A very busy urban library (supported by a constant stream of donations) might be running a small profit or be under budget, whereas a remote rural library could be running a deficit or there might not be enough in the budget to pay for it. Should the rural library be closed? It would mean that the only library some people (mainly the poor) have access to would be gone, giving those that live near the urban library additional governmental benefit, solely due to proximity alone.

Now, you might argue that a library is not an essential governmental service, and, for most people, is probably not run by the federal government. However, the United States Postal Service is run by the federal government and really is an essential service, especially when you consider everything that can be and is delivered by mail (think medicines, packaged food, replacement parts, not just letters.) Indeed, USPS sees themselves as having a "Universal Service Obligation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_service_obligation_and_monopoly_status). Also, remember that internet access is not a federal service and therefore access is determined by the market - which means that some parts of the country are not appealing when profit is considered (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/fcc-rural-internet-access_n_1821478.html).

This also means that rural locations are not appealing to other carriers either, like UPS or FedEx. In fact, it may be surprising to learn that both companies use USPS to make the last part of a delivery in areas where the cost is too high to do it themselves. In 2011, in was reported that over 30% of all FedEx Ground shipments are delivered by USPS (http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/editors-pick/articles/postal-service-usps-post-office-post/8/3/2012/id/42951).

The Post Offices that are losing the most money are in these rural (and poorer) areas where the next closest Post Office can be much farther away (http://www.washingtonpost.com/gIQANOdnJR_story.html). The most expensive part, though, is most likely not the Post Offices themselves, but rural delivery as a whole (which is why UPS and FedEx avoid it.) However, if you were to end rural delivery completely, those rural U.S. citizens, who follow the same rate of taxes as everyone else, would not be getting the same basic governmental benefits as everyone else. It goes further than that, though, because while closing a nearby Post Office would likely have a negative impact on real estate values and the local economy, not getting mail delivered at all would have a much larger impact.

So, while cutting off the parts of USPS that are losing money is good for business, it's bad for democratic government (and most likely bad for the economy as a whole.)

Congress is really the one in control here, not the Postal Service, because in fulfilling its legal mission it has to do things that lose money. Also, it was Congress in 1971 that spun USPS off as a self-supporting entity, but it was Congress in 2006 that told the Postal Service it had to pre-fund future retirement liabilities, and it is Congress themselves that sets the costs of postage (imagine if you had to run a business that was losing money but couldn't raise prices at all.) And why does Congress control pricing? Ostensibly to keep prices fair, which is, again, not a profit maximizing business principle, but one that sacrifices profit for the benefit of those governed.

Another thing to consider: why does the Post Office have to run a profit (or break even) in the first place? Even though U.S. citizens pay for the mail that they send, they also pay a nominal fee for a replacement driver's license and we don't expect the Department of Motor Vehicles to run a profit (they just need to stay under the budget of the tax dollars they were given. Does Congress run a profit?) The payment for postage should be there to cover the variable costs of sending mail (around Christmastime more workers are needed because of the additional mail) and not necessarily the fixed costs (rent, electricity for the building, minimum labor costs, etc.) Also, economics-wise, there absolutely has to be a cost for sending mail, otherwise, if it was made free, it would be abused (just like it could be for any other agency - how about one of those selfies-a-day videos made from free replacement driver's licenses you kept "losing".)

More importantly, I'm sure USPS as a whole creates economic benefit far beyond what it costs, so even if the tax payer had to pay more directly out of taxation, they're getting a bargain. Imagine the impact to the US economy if USPS was phased out and UPS and FedEx were all that were left.

Another factor to consider is that if you look at some more data, it appears that losses (less pre-funding) may be decreasing: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43162.pdf . This means that while pre-funding certainly didn't help, it was more likely the U.S. recession that carried the blame for USPS's losses the past few years. This could mean that as the economy continues to recover, so will USPS, and the numbers in the posted article above seem to support that, as losses with pre-funding are flat to where they were a year ago, which is better than an increasing loss.

USPS is very different. As congress, which runs under bribes from private business, passed law to require USPS to 100% back fund retirement, which no other business is required to do. Giving their corrupt business donors an advantage over their biggest competitor, USPS. USPS also has requirement to support USA international mail treaty agreements. For example, it must deliver international mail and packages for nearly free. Yes, all the cheap China camera stuff I buy, which ships using Chinese postal rates, must be delivered to me by USPS. Not FedEx. Not UPS. No USA government compensation for their USA international commitments. That was great for them when USA exported more than imported, and before FedEx started skimming the most profitable parts of the business. But that's reversed and buying international using internet is now simple for most anyone. If they want USPS to compete, they should at least let them compete on even grounds. Instead the corrupt Congress is doing all it can to put USPS out of operation, to benefit their corrupt business donors. Privatization is nearly always an expensive disaster for the rest of us.

New methods to battle issues, charge more for basic services

USPS won’t offer tracking and scanning if an international post hasn’t upgraded its capability to offer products with “visibility.”

The Postal Service will no longer offer scanning and tracking services for some international Registered Mail destined for the United States.

If an international post hasn’t upgraded its capability to offer a product with “visibility,” USPS will not offer tracking and scanning. This change takes effect Oct. 1.

The change is being made to improve the profitability of import Registered Mail items and to encourage international posts to shift their items from the import Registered Mail stream to the import ePacket product.

http://postalemployeenetwork.com/news/2015/09/registered-mail-change-to-take-effect-oct-1/

Good habits continue:

The U.S. Postal Service reported a net loss of $5.1 billion for fiscal year 2015 (October 1, 2014 - September 30, 2015).

It is not something new for them: