Army "Right Sizing"

[Spekkio]

I don't think I'm following you. There would be no line drawing. If you did 18 years before the system changed and got out at 20, you'd get 90% of what you'd have gotten if nothing changed (so that would be 45% of base pay instead of 50%), and then you'd get 10% of whatever the new system would pay someone who did a full 20 under it.

If you did 1 year under the current system and then got out at 20, you'd get 5% of the current system (so 2.5% of base pay) plus 95% of what someone who served entirely in the new system would get.

Suppose the alternative is a TSP match. Or suppose it's a change to no benefits until 62.5 (both options have been tossed around). Suppose (through admittedly poor money management) a terminal E-6 or E-7 with 18 years of service has under $10k saved up in TSP because he's relying on that pension. You're effectively taking away 10% of their retirement pay with very little wiggle room for them to adjust. Even someone at 10 years may have invested more aggressively if he had known his pension was going to be less than what the law stated 10 years prior, which adds up to a lot of money.

So again, it should start with new servicemembers, or at most those in their first tour who haven't made additional commitments to make a career of the military if a compromise has to be made to get an otherwise good deal done. But our leadership's line should be starting with new servicemembers.

 

[villanelle]

Suppose the alternative is a TSP match. Or suppose it's a change to no benefits until 62.5 (both options have been tossed around). Suppose (through admittedly poor money management) a terminal E-6 or E-7 with 18 years of service has under $10k saved up in TSP because he's relying on that pension. You're effectively taking away 10% of their retirement pay with very little wiggle room for them to adjust. Even someone at 10 years may have invested more aggressively if he had known his pension was going to be less than what the law stated 10 years prior, which adds up to a lot of money.

So again, it should start with new servicemembers, or at most those in their first tour who haven't made additional commitments to make a career of the military if a compromise has to be made to get an otherwise good deal done. But our leadership's line should be starting with new servicemembers.

No benefits until; 62 is easy. The member gets is 90%/2.5%/whatever) until 62, and then gets that plus the new amount (at 10%/97.5%) at 62.

TSP match is even easier. They get TSP match for the rest of their years, and upon retirement they get the 90%/2.5% of the old system.

You may be taking away 10% of that E7s retirement pay, but you are also adding something to it, so it certainly isn't a 10% loss, unless the new plan is zero retirement or matching or anything else (which, of course, isn't going to happen). You are taking away 10% *of the old system* and giving him 10% of the new system. So he gets 90% of the expected 20 year pension, but he also gets 2 years of TSP match (if that's the new thing). You make it sound like he'd only be loosing something from the old system, when in fact he'd also be getting some of the new system.

It seems to me like it's a reasonably fair compromise. Yes, there are some less than ideal what-ifs, but it seems like the more it affects someone, the longer they have to adjust. Husband has about 15 years, so he'd lose about 25% of the current retirement if this change happened right now. But he'd get 5 years of the new system (like 5 years of TSP match, for example). It wouldn't be my favorite thing, but it doesn't seem especially unfair, either.

 

[Pags]

Everyone may give their "Share" but some people have varying levels of "Share" expected of them, due solely on their community/rate/mos/etc. I don't understand why R1 immediately jumped on his post and took it out of context as a "Being on subs is harder than everything else". I am fairly certain if someone had said "If anyone has watched a squadron schedule ... blah blah blah" listing all the various hours, activities, etc... it would not have been taken as a dick measuring contest. Renegade, there is the kettle, feel free to read the actual meaning of the post before you automatically discount it based of of your opinion of an individual, or the community in which he came from.

Sincerely, a junior member who is tired of seeing you jump to conclusions, resulting in a counter post that serves no purpose other than to denigrate the individual.

My point, and I think R1s, is that there is no such thing as varying levels of share. It's a common theme throughout the fleet, especially among junior personnel, that X is harder than Y. X and Y are both necessary to the Navy and while there may be different types of suck, everyone has a lot of work to do.

R1 just provides a differing viewpoint based on different experiences, which is ok.

 

[Spekkio]

My point, and I think R1s, is that there is no such thing as varying levels of share. It's a common theme throughout the fleet, especially among junior personnel, that X is harder than Y. X and Y are both necessary to the Navy and while there may be different types of suck, everyone has a lot of work to do.

I disagree. I think big Navy does, too. You have a better chance of screening for promotion in some billets than others, all else being equal, because those billets are more challenging or require a higher level of expertise to perform. Then there are shore duty billets which are harder to fill with actual volunteers because the level of suck is higher than other shore duty billets, such as NPTU instructor.

You guys are saying that in the entire military, every job is equal in terms of difficulty, risk, and hours spent doing it? It's fairly obvious that's not true. I also never said that an easier job is unimportant.

 

[Spekkio]

No benefits until; 62 is easy. The member gets is 90%/2.5%/whatever) until 62, and then gets that plus the new amount (at 10%/97.5%) at 62.

TSP match is even easier. They get TSP match for the rest of their years, and upon retirement they get the 90%/2.5% of the old system.

You may be taking away 10% of that E7s retirement pay, but you are also adding something to it, so it certainly isn't a 10% loss, unless the new plan is zero retirement or matching or anything else (which, of course, isn't going to happen). You are taking away 10% *of the old system* and giving him 10% of the new system. So he gets 90% of the expected 20 year pension, but he also gets 2 years of TSP match (if that's the new thing). You make it sound like he'd only be loosing something from the old system, when in fact he'd also be getting some of the new system.

It seems to me like it's a reasonably fair compromise. Yes, there are some less than ideal what-ifs, but it seems like the more it affects someone, the longer they have to adjust. Husband has about 15 years, so he'd lose about 25% of the current retirement if this change happened right now. But he'd get 5 years of the new system (like 5 years of TSP match, for example). It wouldn't be my favorite thing, but it doesn't seem especially unfair, either.

It's not a reasonable compromise because 90% of the old system + 10% of the new system does not equal 100% of the old system. It would still ultimately cut his retirement benefits retroactively.

 

[Pags]

I disagree. I think big Navy does, too. You have a better chance of screening for promotion in some billets than others, all else being equal, because those billets are more challenging or require a higher level of expertise to perform. Then there are shore duty billets which are harder to fill with actual volunteers because the level of suck is higher than other shore duty billets, such as NPTU instructor.

You guys are saying that in the entire military, every job is equal in terms of difficulty, risk, and hours spent doing it? It's fairly obvious that's not true. I also never said that an easier job is unimportant.

Now you've gone from differentiating between communities to saying that certain jobs available at a given time within a community for a specific rank, ie: JO shore tours, are harder. Which is it?

Just because a community values a specific job more than another doesn't mean that it's necessarily harder than any other job. My community valued the RAG for shore tours. This doesn't mean that there aren't jobs out there where you aren't working harder. Most guys I know put in 10+hr days on there shore tour! regardless of which production job they were in. But the community will value a particular job more so than another.

Same for the dissassocoated tour. My community values the LHD mini boss/handler tour with the OOD U/W letter. Does this mean that your buddies who are shooters have it easier? Nope. Did my bud on PHIBRON staff have it easier? I wouldn't have traded with him for all the tea in china, but his was the lesser valued of the tours.

Some jobs have more risk associated with them. That's why those jobs get special duty pay, eg flight, sub, flight deck pays. But to say that! For instance, a YN has an easier job is a bit disengenious. I'd personally say that an AB has a much more exciting job than a YN. But I'd never say that a YN has it easy. They have a ton of shit to do. Snipes have a ton of shit to do. So do OSs. SWOs would stand two 3hr watches a day underway. I'd stand 14hrs of watch a day. But they thought my life was easy because I'd roll out of bed at 9am for the start of a 1200 flight quarters. They thought I was sleeping in. They forgot that I was up until 0200 the night prior. Who's life was easier? Who cares. We were all working hard and doing the best we could at the jobs we had. And we were all required to execute the commands mission.

Without engineering there is no steam or power. Without air and deck there is no mission. Without the twidgets there is no air. All the pieces have to work. Steaming without a mission is worthless. Trying to fly without steam is worthless.

 

[pilot_man]

Isn't the 20 year things largely a retention program as well, though? Giving some retirement to people who get out at 5, 10, 12 years would, I would think, cause retention issues, and maybe even create additional expenses by requiring bonuses. If Husband could get out now and the only cost would be, say... receiving 30% of base pay instead of 50%, then that option would be very much on the table, depending on how things look for his future.

As for potential changes, it seems to be that the most equitable option, while still being reasonable and allowing for somewhat immediate savings, would be to grandfather people in for the time they've served under the old system. So if the 20 year pension went away and tomorrow, then someone at 10 years who ended up doing 20 would get 25% base pay as lifetime retirement (because half his service was under the old plan, so he'd get half of what he would have if he did 20 under the old plan), and then he'd get half of whatever the new plan gives someone at 20.

That seems to be a pretty fair compromise with the "breaking faith" issue.

Your math is all fine and dandy, but when I said "yes please, I'll take 5 more years of ass pain for myself and my family", it wasn't because I really enjoy the ass pain but because I knew at 20 I could retire with the benefits I was promised and go find another job. I would not have said yes if I knew the retirement / medical / GI Bill / ..... were on the table to be axed.

 

[robav8r]

I disagree. I think big Navy does, too. You have a better chance of screening for promotion in some billets than others, all else being equal, because those billets are more challenging or require a higher level of expertise to perform. Then there are shore duty billets which are harder to fill with actual volunteers because the level of suck is higher than other shore duty billets, such as NPTU instructor.

You guys are saying that in the entire military, every job is equal in terms of difficulty, risk, and hours spent doing it? It's fairly obvious that's not true. I also never said that an easier job is unimportant.

You are displaying an obvious lack of operational experience and trying to polarize communities/designators/NEC's unnecessarily. Read what Pags said again. Being selected for advancement/promotion is based on how hard that individual wants to work for it. And yes, we all have the same levels of "share."

 

[villanelle]

It's not a reasonable compromise because 90% of the old system + 10% of the new system does not equal 100% of the old system. It would still ultimately cut his retirement benefits retroactively.

Which is why it is a "compromise". If the only thing that is acceptable to you is exactly what the old system was, then it's clear you think that any compromise at all is unacceptable. That's certainly a valid position, but it's not one I happen to agree with.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

Which is why it is a "compromise". If the only thing that is acceptable to you is exactly what the old system was, then it's clear you think that any compromise at all is unacceptable. That's certainly a valid position, but it's not one I happen to agree with.

I think his point was that if it's not 100% of the old system, it's considered a reneg on what servicemembers were originally promised when they signed up.

 

[Spekkio]

Villanelle, the compromise is altering retirement starting with new servicemembers.

@ Pags, we will have to agree to disagree. You keep going back to importance of one's job within the military, which I wasn't referring to. I was referring to a journalist, who has never been in the military, cherry picking a military job that has it relatively easy and writing a story about how servicemembers are overpaid relative to their civilian counterparts. It wasn't a sleight against aviation and the fact that I used submarines as an example does not mean I think no other community works hard. And as someone who has never had to sleep under the possibility of mortar fire or go on patrol wondering if I'm going to be ambushed after my buddy got blown to bits on the last one, I don't believe my share is equal to others. YMMV

 

[Pags]

I was referring to a journalist, who has never been in the military, cherry picking a military job that has it relatively easy and writing a story about how servicemembers are overpaid relative to their civilian counterparts.

To put my point more succinctly, this journalist would have to be INCREDIBLY selective to find an "easy" job. The VAST majority of Sailors and Os that I've known have always worked hard at their jobs. Even the ones that I've known that were "retired on active duty" still worked long hours and did their job; just without some of the hunger that someone with a viable career would. I guess I just struggle to think of what this "easy" job might be.

 

[wink]

Last time I checked social security isn't scheduled to become insolvent for another 20-30 years. Nor has it been a serious discussion for any type of cuts in the latest budget buffoonery.

20-30 years with smoke and mirror accounting practices and given current circumstances. Even if you accept your 20 year term that is the point of no shit not making payments. A little late for a fix. If a new military retirement system were only applied to members who enlist today, the savings would not come soon enough to help ensure social security lasts more than 20 years.

...and now you mean we're going to play generational warfare? Grandma and Grandpa's social security and medicare can come from their peers. Like you and other retired age Americans. You shouldn't mind picking up the tab for your fiscally irresponsible citizens. Social security was never meant to be a living wage. Pulling on the heart strings in support of Grandma only goes so far when your friend from grade school got his legs blown off in Iraq, or your buddy who had a 7.62x39 round wrap around his back and rotate out the front of his chest. Save everyone the sob stories.

Not generational warfare. I gave you the choice of reducing social security survivor benefits to a high school age child, and a recently retired E-6. And you are wrong that social security was never meant to be a living wage. But it is true that it was never expected to be the fiscal burden it is now. When SS was enacted 50% of men born didn't reach age 65. Of those that did they would only be collecting SS an average of 13 years. My point is that our society and demographics have changed and too many of our social welfare programs have not kept pace. That includes the military retirement system.

You accuse me of pulling on heart strings, then you bring up war casualties. War casualties and military disability get disability payments. Different system. I am not in favor of adjusting them at all, nor are any in congress. My "sob story" was on point and meant to force a discussion about the hard choices to be made if we are to keep the country from going broke. Since no one is suggesting reductions in disability for casualties, your story is all about emotion and not relevant to this discussion in the very least.

 

[wink]

Villanelle, the compromise is altering retirement starting with new servicemembers.

Really? Just who would the compromise be between? How can you strike a compromise with people that are not known? What obligation does Uncle have to a military not sworn in? I think we all agree that changes to military pensions applied to those not sworn in is completely fair. A compromise would be struck somewhere between newly sworn in and those late in a career unable to make financial adjustments prior to retirement.

 

[roflsaurus]

Maybe junior service members shouldn't be the ones to pay for everyones bankrupt social security system? Maybe we should adjust the age to keep up with demographics? Recent suggestions to keep SS solvent were to raise the age for people under 50. I think that's pretty reasonable. Our opinion on that should really be the one that matters. We're the ones paying for social security and we're the ones who are going to be affected by a change like that. AND military retirement and SS are not intertwined. All of the savings from cuts to military retirement are going to sequestration relief, not to a high school kid saving for college.