You're living in a dream world if you think everyone does everything purely for money. There are folks in every walk of life that do the job they love even at the expense of a higher paycheck. An anecdotal example, a friend of mine gave up a $100k a year engineering job and moved back home to Rhinelander, Wisconsin, so he could trap and hunt all he wanted, and would work construction to earn money. He was (and still is) one of the happiest guys I know. Folks in the military are no different.
.
Obviously there are guys who will stay no matter what. Even if that means making less money. That's not the argument here. The argument here is that making the military "competitive with the civilian world" by making it have the same retirement structure is not good for business because the military is NOT the civilian world. There will always be people that stay and always be people that go but the people in the middle are where you're going to lose when you make all else equal. There are plenty of people who will walk when the time comes to choose between staying for the fuck of it and family-time and making more money. No, the "sky is not falling" but it's easy to see that, at some point, human nature will kick in and people will walk.
Also, anyone who says "it'll take a LITTLE more coaching at the divo and chief level to get enlisted to invest" comes off as EXTREMELY out of touch with what goes on at the junior enlisted level. I have about 45-50 enlisted for work for me at any given time. I don't have time to be everyone's financial counselor and my chiefs don't either so thinking that I have time to sit down with 40+ 18-25 year old young men and women and preach to them about their own finances is a bit of a stretch to say the least.