Army "Right Sizing"

[Pags]

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'.

Yawn, you eat just as shittily as everyone else. Everyone else in the service eats the same grade D meat prepared by, quite literally, galley slaves.

And there is no easy job. It's fun to complain about how easy the twidgets have it, or how much less your life sucks than the snipes, and how easy it must be to be a grunt on float, but everyone gives their share.

 

[Spekkio]

...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.

Before anyone complains about grandma and grandpa living off of only social security, we should remember it was their generation that decided that corporate retirement benefits were just too expensive. Now they're pulling the 'I don't get retirement benefits, why should they?' line.

 

[villanelle]

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.

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.

 

[Recovering LSO]

The first guy to like your post is a guy who is completely unaffected by it.

 

[Renegade One]

The first guy to like your post is a guy who is completely unaffected by it.

We call this "passive aggressive". Well-played.

 

[Flash]

I give it even better odds now that this COLA 'adjustment' is going to be repealed, it looks like more and more folks in Congress are lining up behind a repeal of it before it takes effect next year. While this round may soon be over I think it is just the opening salvo, I think there will be a lot more debates about the future of the current military retirement system in the near future. I don't think it will be singled out for a COLA change though, one proposal is to change most or all government benefit systems to a 'chained CPI' which would save an estimated $130 billion over 10 years. I could see military pensions and veteran benefits swept up in that too as part of an overall budget cut/reduction.

I am a little disappointed in some of the hyperbolic venting that some of my peers have seem to have taken to when talking about this, this thread is one of the calmer reactions I have seen to this controversy. While certainly not the smartest or fairest cut, for the pretty small amount of $6 billion, it is not the apocalyptic calamity that some seem to be making it out to be. The COLA reduction would reduce the total retirement pay of an E-7 who retired at 38 from $1.734 million to $1.626 million on average, while a reduction it is still 94% of his original pension (it also shows the real value of retirement pay btw). So was it right to single out the military pensions for this kind of cut? And not grandfather in the folks who are already in the system? Probably not. But it sure as hell ain't the end of the world like some seem to rant on about.

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.......

It is a retention thing but 20 years shouldn't be a magic number for the all or nothing system we have now. I have known quite a few people who have stayed in past 12, 14 or 16 years and just 'marked time' until they qualified for their pension. To be frank I don't think we need a large number of those folks who stay past the 'peak' in their career. Sure there are plenty of jobs out there for them but a hell of a lot of them are just fillers, take a look around any staff (joint, service, base) and you will have no problem finding scores of officers and enlisted in those 'filler' jobs.

A perfect example would be a post-DH non-command select aviator. If not selected for command there are some useful and valuable jobs out there for some who want them but I know plenty of guys who have been on 'cruise control' and just did what was necessary until 20 just to get retirement. Nothing wrong with that since they are dealing with the cards the military has given them but it often doesn't do the military or the sailor/Marine any real service. Giving aviators an option to 'retire' after finishing their flying careers, which is arguably the case for most post-DH non-CO select O-4/5's, would not only save the military money it would get a lot of folks who are 'done' with the military a better incentive to leave to go fly for the airlines while still current or get an earlier start at XYZ corporation/firm. The same applies across quite a few specialties, a lot of maintainers reaching the peak of their skills as an E-5 or E-6 with 6-12 years in.

Conversly, reforming the military pension system so that some people stay in longer could actually help retention overall keeping in the people the military needs in longer rather than just everyone who makes it past a certain goalpost.

 

[Spekkio]

Flash, this is why I hate when people talk in long-term numbers. "Cut 6 billion" sounds like a lot, until you divide it by 10 and compare it to the current budget this year and realize it's a fraction of a percent. $1.7 million pension sounds like a lot, but it's only $25,000-30,000 a year (and continues to be that in real dollars even with the CPI increases).

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.

Yea, and doing this makes people in the 8-14 years of service range very nervous because of where some politician is going to arbitrarily draw the line.

If you want to reform retirement, you start with people who aren't in yet.

 

[Renegade One]

If you want to reform retirement, you start with people who aren't in yet.

^^^ This.

 

[SynixMan]

As a guy who watched GE's Pension and Healthcare get gutted from inside the company and replaced with things that helped "keep the company viable", it's a shitty road. If you expect the "new thing" to be better for anyone besides a budget, you're seriously deluding yourself. I'm still at the beginning of this journey, but I want to stay in, and the Pension is one big reason I want to stay in. And as a guy who just spent his first (of many, probably) Christmas deployed, comparing our benefits to anything in the civilian sector is silly and pointless.

I love what I do, and I'm damn lucky to do it, but we live a different life. I don't want people's sympathy or hang wringing. I want to be fairly compensated for the work I do. I hope the current folks hold the line for the next generation instead of giving in to save their own golden goose and tell us "Well, it was different back when I was in".

Flash, the solution to those terminal, non-command select O4s and O5s is early retirement. Give them what they're wanting and open (or straight eliminate) the billets they're filling until 20. God knows the world needs less staff dudes.

 

[Renegade One]

Isn't the 20 year things largely a retention program as well, though?

Yes…it was. Maybe still is/will be. I dunno…monitor this frequency…

To wit:

I'm still at the beginning of this journey, but I want to stay in, and the Pension is one big reason I want to stay in. And as a guy who just spent his first (of many, probably) Christmas deployed, comparing our benefits to anything in the civilian sector is silly and pointless.

Hope I didn't take something out of context.

 

[Flash]

.....$1.7 million pension sounds like a lot, but it's only $25,000-30,000 a year (and continues to be that in real dollars even with the CPI increases).

It is a lot, period. It may be 'only' $25-30k a year for a retired E-7 but that is far and above what he/she would usually be able to save for retirement and it is still guaranteed, even diminished a little bit, and is not going at risk of diminishing in value like many 401k's recently have done.

.....If you want to reform retirement, you start with people who aren't in yet.

I agree, that has been the practice for as long as they have been changing federal retirement plans in recent years and even this recent attempted change I think it will stay that way.

.....Flash, the solution to those terminal, non-command select O4s and O5s is early retirement. Give them what they're wanting and open (or straight eliminate) the billets they're filling until 20. God knows the world needs less staff dudes.

I agree, but under the current retirement system that doesn't really help things much since we still give early retirees full benefits though reduced monthly pension for less time in service.

 

[Pags]

It is a retention thing but 20 years shouldn't be a magic number for the all or nothing system we have now. I have known quite a few people who have stayed in past 12, 14 or 16 years and just 'marked time' until they qualified for their pension. To be frank I don't think we need a large number of those folks who stay past the 'peak' in their career. Sure there are plenty of jobs out there for them but a hell of a lot of them are just fillers, take a look around any staff (joint, service, base) and you will have no problem finding scores of officers and enlisted in those 'filler' jobs.

A perfect example would be a post-DH non-command select aviator. If not selected for command there are some useful and valuable jobs out there for some who want them but I know plenty of guys who have been on 'cruise control' and just did what was necessary until 20 just to get retirement. Nothing wrong with that since they are dealing with the cards the military has given them but it often doesn't do the military or the sailor/Marine any real service. Giving aviators an option to 'retire' after finishing their flying careers, which is arguably the case for most post-DH non-CO select O-4/5's, would not only save the military money it would get a lot of folks who are 'done' with the military a better incentive to leave to go fly for the airlines while still current or get an earlier start at XYZ corporation/firm. The same applies across quite a few specialties, a lot of maintainers reaching the peak of their skills as an E-5 or E-6 with 6-12 years in.

Conversly, reforming the military pension system so that some people stay in longer could actually help retention overall keeping in the people the military needs in longer rather than just everyone who makes it past a certain goalpost.

I like the idea of having a codified "you've reached terminal rank" early retirement system that would prevent folks from marking time just to reach 20. You were a #3 DH? Here's retirement at 12 with some severance.

 

[Spekkio]

I really think that goes the wrong way, though. With people living longer, the expectation should be to stay in the workforce longer. Isn't the money problem largely due to the expected lifespan rising along with spiraling healthcare costs for hospital care, surgeries, and a coctail of expensive prescription drugs to fend off health problems that come with old age?

I think the military should be looking at longer HYT, not shorter, for jobs that can be done into one's 50s. There must be a better way to get production out of people who are no longer on track to command-at-sea or CMC than to kick them out earlier along with retirement and severance pay, which may solve the 'empty uniform' problem but won't solve the budget problem.

 

[villanelle]

Flash, this is why I hate when people talk in long-term numbers. "Cut 6 billion" sounds like a lot, until you divide it by 10 and compare it to the current budget this year and realize it's a fraction of a percent. $1.7 million pension sounds like a lot, but it's only $25,000-30,000 a year (and continues to be that in real dollars even with the CPI increases).

Yea, and doing this makes people in the 8-14 years of service range very nervous because of where some politician is going to arbitrarily draw the line.

If you want to reform retirement, you start with people who aren't in yet.

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.

 

[KilroyUSN]

Yawn, you eat just as shittily as everyone else. Everyone else in the service eats the same grade D meat prepared by, quite literally, galley slaves.

And there is no easy job. It's fun to complain about how easy the twidgets have it, or how much less your life sucks than the snipes, and how easy it must be to be a grunt on float, but everyone gives their share.

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.