I did…but have now read the article. Thanks for the re-direct.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Army "Right Sizing"
- Thread starter picklesuit
- Start date
This guy does a pretty good job of defending said chicken shit.
http://jsbateman.com/2014/01/05/thanks-for-your-service-but-yall-are-way-overcompensated/
Another good piece on the subject . . . . .
http://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-cuts-sacrifice-integrity-2014-1
http://www.businessinsider.com/retirement-cuts-sacrifice-integrity-2014-1
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I would like those who say 'you're way overcompensated' to serve just a year in the submarine force -- you know, one of those 'non-combatant' units that should be cut because we didn't fight on the ground in the war on terror -- while being paid as an E-4/E-5. I can assure you he won't be saying that he's overpaid after that. He'll probably just want to actually be able to get 8 hours of sleep in a row for a change or actually have a weekend off, instead of being relieved at 0800 on a Saturday after he's stood the 0400-0800 watch (or 0000-0600 for nukes) count as his 'day off.'
A submariner who just stands watch underway and does no other off-watch duties would work 56 hours a week. Now add in after-watch cleanup, training, and PMS and you're easily at 60-70. After all that, he gets to sleep in a rack that he shares with two other people, one of whom thinks showering everyday is a waste of time. Inport isn't much better, you don't just turn everything off and go home. Every 3rd night is spent on the boat, so I hope you don't like taking weekend ski trips with the wife and kids or want to take a 4 hour drive to visit mom and dad for Memorial Day weekend, because you'll be on duty or too exhausted from the week that all you'll want to do is sleep. Yeah, he volunteered for it, but he volunteered with the understanding that it comes with a certain level of compensation. To suggest someone who works that much on such a jacked sleep schedule is 'overcompensated' is ludicrous. That is what these journalists don't understand and they really need some perspective if they think that the military writ large is sitting around playing Spades for 8 hours a day waiting for the next war to start while collecting a 'generous compensation package.'
Maybe it goes back to the fact that the military is a heterogenous organization that applies a homogenous payscale to its employees. I realize that there are some ratings/MOSs who don't work nearly as much and I'm sure a biased journalist could find them to use as an example to make their point on why all servicemembers are overcompensated, conveniently ignorning or not understanding the fallacy in inductive reasoning.
A submariner who just stands watch underway and does no other off-watch duties would work 56 hours a week. Now add in after-watch cleanup, training, and PMS and you're easily at 60-70. After all that, he gets to sleep in a rack that he shares with two other people, one of whom thinks showering everyday is a waste of time. Inport isn't much better, you don't just turn everything off and go home. Every 3rd night is spent on the boat, so I hope you don't like taking weekend ski trips with the wife and kids or want to take a 4 hour drive to visit mom and dad for Memorial Day weekend, because you'll be on duty or too exhausted from the week that all you'll want to do is sleep. Yeah, he volunteered for it, but he volunteered with the understanding that it comes with a certain level of compensation. To suggest someone who works that much on such a jacked sleep schedule is 'overcompensated' is ludicrous. That is what these journalists don't understand and they really need some perspective if they think that the military writ large is sitting around playing Spades for 8 hours a day waiting for the next war to start while collecting a 'generous compensation package.'
Maybe it goes back to the fact that the military is a heterogenous organization that applies a homogenous payscale to its employees. I realize that there are some ratings/MOSs who don't work nearly as much and I'm sure a biased journalist could find them to use as an example to make their point on why all servicemembers are overcompensated, conveniently ignorning or not understanding the fallacy in inductive reasoning.
Agreed that in time, the pension plan and benefits may need modification. Also agree the current 1% cut is probably survivable if you just think about the numbers.
The problem is the ethical implications of the cuts and its execution.
What is driving these cuts?
The cost of the Iraqistan wars, estimated to run up to $6T over the lifetime of all benefits to be paid. Or additional OMN for more training costs, more Procurement to make up for the ammo and vehicles expended, or R&D for new systems and requirements like MRAPs and C-IED, and Personnel costs to attract new cannon fodder to fight for Uncle Sam.
So Congress and DOD knew and approved us going to war. When the decision was made, it was decided that it was of sufficient worth to our national security. Meaning all that we were going to expend in, the increased personnel costs of WIA/KIA, was going to be covered.
But now that the butcher's bill is due, they're going to turn around and ask vets to eat it out of what was promised.
If I served from 2001-present (13/20 years for retirement) I'd be ready to go absolutely POSTAL.
Unless there was any point in recent history when matching COLA to inflation was NOT standard, this is nothing more than an artful dodge by politicians and policymakers (to include those at DOD) to pin the blame for piss poor planning and budgeting on servicemembers.
Again, when you just think about it from a numbers perspective...it's not that big a deal. From a moral and ethical standpoint? Plain bullshit is what it is.
Other than the families of servicemembers (who are of course just <1% of the US population), our population hasn't been asked to do shit.
What would ethically be correct would be for all these costs to be rolled up into increased federal tax withholding. Even then, servicemembers and veterans would pay...but at least then everybody would pay their fair share.
In general (for 4 year contracts), if you stay much longer past your initial commitment then you are at a huge disadvantage in the civilian world. The early-mid 30's are when guys are becoming partners at law/accounting firms, beginning to get fast tracked towards upper management at their company, or are a couple years fresh out of b-school. You, on the other hand, get to start all over with no retirement savings or benefit plan other than what you have saved and invested personally, while the dude that chose to work for himself has it much better. The whole 20 year thing can stay or go, but dudes who get out/get forced out before 20 shouldn't be getting out with nothing. For the pittance I make, I'd like to think I've saved and invested successfully a fair amount, but that's only because I'm single and have been living the nomad spartan lifestyle that the article that talked about 18 moves in 32 years described. When you factor in no home equity, then it's even worse.
I can see how I lost RLSO since he didn't even comprehend what I wrote. For the record, I didn't say the 20 year pension or any compensation was chickenshit. I said, regarding only the 1% cola reduction, the angst was chickenshit. I truly wish the traditional 20 year pension survived indefinitely. Just because it has for so long, even when changes were proposed, means nothing. The nation wasn't as broke as it is now ever before. Our demographics were not what they are now. It is my opinion the current pension system will change, possibly for some currently on active duty. And it has nothing to do with foreign aide, gold plated weapons contracts or even 10+ years of war. It has to do with non-discretionary spending. I see no one has chosen which of the aforementioned people he would take money from for his 20 year pension payments while he started a new career. Which of you will insist on cuts to the 82 year old widow who lives ONLY on social security? Who among you is going to take social security survivor benefits from a kid saving for college? I think it is safe to say none of you are that heartless. Certainly not when you are able bodied and can start working on a second career. Bitch all you want about other costs. The only ones that really count are social welfare programs and that includes military retirement. Promises? I was promised a pension. In fact, it was in an honest to God labor contract that makes the promise of a 20 year pension for government service look like a pinky promise between 6 year old girls. Our parents and grandparents have a promise to provide medicare. That is in jeopardy too. Who's promise is more binding, a 10 year military member or grandfather?
It is absolutely true that there are arrangements that would give a military retiree more to live on than the current system. You don't have to take the 20 year pension from guys too far along to have time for adjusting financial plans. It would be more flexible and arguably more fair. Like whitesox says, what about a guy that does 10-12 years and gets out, even booted out? A newer system would reward people for dedicated service less than 20 years, vesting at a much earlier point. Maybe even picking up tricare at at 65 or something. TSPs/401Ks, salary increases, even direct lumps sums. It is a blank sheet of paper. If you want to preserve the current pension and benefits for those late in their career and those currently drawing the pension and using tricare, then some junior folks on active duty will have to accept change. Ignoring the problem and drawing a line in the sand will only make it worse later for those that follow us while most of us are already retired and are very likely to be grandfathered. That isn't leadership. That isn't in our tradition of caring for our troops.
It is absolutely true that there are arrangements that would give a military retiree more to live on than the current system. You don't have to take the 20 year pension from guys too far along to have time for adjusting financial plans. It would be more flexible and arguably more fair. Like whitesox says, what about a guy that does 10-12 years and gets out, even booted out? A newer system would reward people for dedicated service less than 20 years, vesting at a much earlier point. Maybe even picking up tricare at at 65 or something. TSPs/401Ks, salary increases, even direct lumps sums. It is a blank sheet of paper. If you want to preserve the current pension and benefits for those late in their career and those currently drawing the pension and using tricare, then some junior folks on active duty will have to accept change. Ignoring the problem and drawing a line in the sand will only make it worse later for those that follow us while most of us are already retired and are very likely to be grandfathered. That isn't leadership. That isn't in our tradition of caring for our troops.
I'd rather hoped we could have gotten over the whole "my designator/MOS is WAAY harder than your designator/MOS" thing. I guess not. Some are just more fun?
EVERYONE has primary duties (other than watch), collateral duties, "shitty little jobs", Sailors to take care of, "special projects" to nug out, quals to gain/maintain, yadda yadda yadda.
Big takeaway here: it can never hurt to have your own mattress filled with cash tucked away. And when I say mattress, I mean a diverse portfolio that encompasses some cash, some growth, and some retirement funds. Having this fund in hand will make it much easier for you decide which path to take when it comes time, in the eternal words of Strummer, "stay or go."
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.
...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.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
It wasn't meant to be a dick measuring contest. Point was that a journalist would find some airman or sailor who has a cushy MOS or rating and exploit it while conveniently ignoring those who have a tough job to do. I spoke about submariners because it's what I know, not because I think that they have it harder than everyone else. But I do know that no sane person would call them overcompensated if he walked in their shoes.
Yea,.............but at least you guys eat well on deployment.
Your second point/sentence does not seem to align well with your last.
You really need to get over the whole "cushy MOS or rating" versus "those who have a tough job to do" mindset.
It's ALL ball-bearings these days...
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Bullweavels...the other "other" white meat. Also, food stored next to 2 month old cans of garbage and some E-4 who hasn't showered in a week climbs over to take his logs. Yum.
Never ate an MRE, but I suspect it's a bit more sanitary even if it's tasteless.
I think you meant 'eat better during local ops'.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
There is no mindset. It is a fact that some jobs will work harder/longer than others. Choose your rate/choose your fate. Doesn't mean the job is unimportant, but a journalist with an agenda could try to exploit it.