New Retirement Plans

[villanelle]

I recently took a survey for CNAF regarding retention and incentives. At the end the survey asked "what question didn't we ask that we should have?"

I answered with the following:

You need to find where the line is when people say "screw it, I'm staying anyway" when retirement plans for currently serving service-members are drastically changed. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that (at 14 years) that I would not be getting 50% at 20 years, I would immediately submit my resignation. At that point, every additional day I spend in uniform is a day I'm not earning more income on the outside.

They need to find out where the "I'm staying anyway" line is.

Additionally, how many of you were surveyed for the poll that concluded we would all prefer more up front cash to deferred in-kind benefits? I suspect this was a result driven survey where the respondents were selected based on the likelihood they would provide the DESIRED response... If it needs spelling out - how many of the PO3s in your command are going to say "No, I don't want more cash now - keep it and give it to me later."? I'd be very interested to see the demographics of those who were asked to participate - specifically, how many of them had more than 8 years of service.

Husband (well over your 8 years of service line) was sent something asking him to participate, and he did. I can't tell you what his answers were as I have no idea, but I know he did the survey.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Fast forward to 57:00 to hear SECNAV explain how it's not about the money and that patriotism should be enough. This is from visit to Naval War College last week that was broadcast on the web.

 

[Renegade One]

Fast forward to 57:00 to hear SECNAV explain how it's not about the money and that patriotism should be enough. This is from visit to Naval War College last week that was broadcast on the web.

Says a guy who, so far as I know, NEVER served a day in uniform. I guess, for him, it was more about the money…but for Service men and women:

"It's not about the money, money, money
We don't need your money, money, money
We just wanna make the world dance
Forget about the price tag…"

 

[azguy]

Says a guy who, so far as I know, NEVER served a day in uniform.

FWIW, he was a SWO. It doesn't really matter though. I find that statement very pejorative.

Weep all you want about cutting LCS or F-35. If you reduce this profession to a lower middle class job the net effect on national security will be much more dire.

ETA: I'm referring to SECNAV here, not R1.

 

[nittany03]

Another article:

http://www.militarytimes.com/articl.../DoD-Give-reservists-immediate-retirement-pay

Interesting. I wonder if this is intended to give The Powers That Be™ an option to later shrink the AC by transferring billets to the RC. After all, we're cheaper to keep around.

 

[Renegade One]

FWIW, he was a SWO.

You are correct, sir, although it doesn't show up "writ large" in the on-line info (but it IS there…on second reading…), but my bad. I apologize for my lack of better due diligence.

 

[Renegade One]

...I'm referring to SECNAV here, not R1.

"Tally on R1…no threat…out of the fight…press!"

 

[Spekkio]

Weep all you want about cutting LCS or F-35. If you reduce this profession to a lower middle class job the net effect on national security will be much more dire.

No one's weeping over the F-35. At this point, cuts to the JSF program are simply not negotiable, and my bet is that cuts to the JSF won't even be in one of the 20 something analyses that Brett alluded to. The Navy is also cutting operations costs by homeporting some more units overseas and putting CGs into layup to be cycled back into service when the older CGs reach end of life, but that's not going to be enough depending on what Congress allocates to the DoD in FY2015.

Hence why the DoD is looking toward pay and retirement benefits. It's the only thing left. From the bean counters perspective, cutting retirement for new servicemembers who may retire in 2035 doesn't fix the potential budget crunch of 2015, so I don't have much faith in grandfathering.

A few things jump out at me. First is the TSP...contribution? I can't call it a match because you don't even need to contribute to get it. After you're vested two years, the government starts putting deposits equal to 5% of your basic pay into your TSP account (actually, it's a separate account from your own, because you won't be able to touch this money until age 59.5), with absolutely no action required on your part. Pro: you don't need to put up a match, good luck finding anything like this on the civilian side. Con: you can't touch it until retirement. This won't make a difference to most, since if it were in your TSP, you probably wouldn't touch it anyway, but if you were civilian, you could roll it into a Roth IRA after employment, and then there would be a few ways to get that money with no taxes or penalties. The two main ways are disability and first-time home buyer.

I don't like comparisons to civilian employment. When civilian jobs spit people out at 20-30 years regardless of performance, frequently with little transferrable skills to be able to earn a comparable salary, then you can start likening the two. Also, I think what has become common practice of eating loyal employees in the civilian workplace is deplorable. I think you are going to see a lot more 'retired' people working in retail and other low-wage jobs to supplement social security income in the next decade.

 

[Spekkio]

Agreed. Existing members SHOULD be grandfathered in. I suggest the above question be used to drive the point home to decision makers just how dire their retention problem will be (or how much worse it will get) if they decide to dick around and not grandfather-in existing members.

As far as post 9/11 GI Bill. I wouldn't hold my breath on that remaining transferrable much longer. I also wonder how much longer it will remain available in its current format for new accessions. I can see a much stingier form of Montgomery GI Bill coming back.

The GI bill is a powerful recruiting tool, so I wouldn't think that too many reforms would come to it. I think that transferability might be axed if it is shown that its goal of being a carrot on the stick for people to obliserv up to 10 years is only working for people who planned on staying in anyway.

 

[azguy]

No one's weeping over the F-35. At this point, cuts to the JSF program are simply not negotiable, and my bet is that cuts to the JSF won't even be in one of the 20 something analyses that Brett alluded to.

People said the same thing about F-22 a few years ago... No room for sacred cows when the music stops.

 

[bert]

You need to find where the line is when people say "screw it, I'm staying anyway" when retirement plans for currently serving service-members are drastically changed. If I woke up tomorrow and found out that (at 14 years) that I would not be getting 50% at 20 years, I would immediately submit my resignation. At that point, every additional day I spend in uniform is a day I'm not earning more income on the outside.
...
Fast forward to 57:00 to hear SECNAV explain how it's not about the money and that patriotism should be enough. This is from visit to Naval War College last week that was broadcast on the web.

[None of this is directed at RLSO - he isn't one of our big offenders on this - but his quotes were a good jumping off point].

A number of people on this board like to jump all over any wanna-be that doesn't seem to want to join just for the honor of serving our country. Then those same people turn around and lose their minds over proposed changes to pay and benefits. Here is my two cents: I do think the military owes you the same pay/benefits that you signed up for until you reach the end of your initial obligation. At that point they can be free to change it, and you should be free to leave. From a retention POV, I would extend that so that anybody who had extended past their initial obligation could retain the same retirement benefits (a standard which our military leadership seems more than willing to meet). But we have to remember that our leadership will not be the ones making that decision; Congress will.

Having said that, the increase to pay and benefits since the early 90s, coupled with the stagnation/reduction in pay and retirement benefits in the civilian world means that people ought to think really carefully before they bail on the military if changes are made. Looking at the other piece from RLSO that I quoted, I would just want to point out to people that just because some folks can make more money in the outside world, that doesn't mean you can. I've said it before in my thread covering transitioning to the civilian world, but I've seen a lot of people get a rude awakening on their salary/benefit prospects upon transitioning to the real world.

 

[BigRed389]

People said the same thing about F-22 a few years ago... No room for sacred cows when the music stops.

If the "music stops" then the next step is to start cutting down on the force entirely. If we can't afford the necessary steps to modernize the force to stay viable for the coming decades, you might as well start drawing down the force across the board. Anything else is just trying to stave off the inevitable.

 

[Spekkio]

People said the same thing about F-22 a few years ago... No room for sacred cows when the music stops.

Apples and oranges. The only similarity is that both programs built something that flies... sometimes.

 

[azguy]

Apples and oranges. The only similarity is that both programs built something that flies... sometimes.

I find your statement to be uninformed. Care to explain? My point is that, when the well dries up, no program, regardless of political nexus, will survive cuts.

 

[Spekkio]

What part do you find uninformed? The JSF and F-22 were created to fulfill different mission requirements. The JSF is also being created for 3 different services. The F-22 is costly as far as maintenance and the JSF flies when the Lockheed Martin actually builds it right, hence my comment that they fly 'sometimes.'

So yea, apples and oranges.