Army "Right Sizing"

[Spekkio]

Might work for officers, but HYT times for enlisted would need to be changed as only E-8 and E-9 can go past 24, and the way the enlisted structure works they need HYT limits to prevent stagnation.

I think adjusting HYT to 30 years in non-infantry jobs with some kind of mechanism to prevent people from becoming an empty uniform when they know that they are a terminal E7 to E9 (or O4 to O6) would go a long way. Pair that with a 401k/match pension system vice the current all-or-nothing annuity and you just fixed the retirement budget.

Thing is you'd see the gains 20-30 years from now and Congressmen are going to want to see results NOW (but they won't talk about their $174k/year salary and full healthcare benefits that they get for life the moment that they swear in, even as a junior house member).

With TSP authorized for the military for >10 years now (and IRAs have always been), nobody should be leaving with "nothing" in retirement. Speaking for the officer side, even if you only contributed your flight pay (and nothing else) to either or both for your minimum commitment, that would absolutely be worth something when you hit 59.5.

Still doesn't help people transition when they are forced to retire at 38-48 and transition to another career. There's a 10-20 year 'deadspace' that one will have to fill to sustain themselves and their families while being on the other side of their prime had they started a civilian career sooner.

 

[wink]

It doesn't help the conversation to play out hypothetical ideas that don't have any basis in reality. Re-enlistments are not intended to operate as reset button. When a Chief reenlists, do we make him regress to an Airman?

Really, hypothetical serve no purpose? The sciences, the study of law, ethics, morals, logic, economics and others rely on the hypothetical. Even absurd hypotheticals serve a valid academic purpose. If you don't want to answer fine. I wasn't meaning to be a dick. The question was formed to clarify how you see the problem.

While a reenlistment isn't meant as a "reset" it most certainly does change the terms of the contract. I am trying to understand how one can logically support certain unilateral changes that benefit the member, but changes that may not benefit the member are a violation of a contract or promise. The "mutually agreed upon compensation" when I came on in 1979 was altered quit a bit and made substantially better by the time I left. Guess I am lucky DOD didn't see the terms of my employment the way you do. Please understand, I am fundamentally against sweeping substantial changes to military benefits packages. Simply crying about promises made does not influence policy makers who will be told to find cost savings one way or the other. They will not be able to get to the number they need to by applying it to new recruits of an ever smaller force. For God's sake, do you know one of the most critical medical specialties BUMED faces? Geriatrics! Some members actively serving WILL see changes. That is the reality you are talking about but can't accept. Our goal should be to ensure changes do not effect those currently retired and those nearing retirement. Junior serving members with time to make adjustments to personal finances will see changes. Your position is, sadly, not realistic.

 

[Renegade One]

I am trying to understand how one can logically support certain unilateral changes that benefit the member, but changes that may not benefit the member are a violation of a contract or promise.

"Contract" = "something" (save a copy…)
"Promises" =/= "anything" (don't bother…)

Our goal should be to ensure changes do not effect those currently retired and those nearing retirement. Junior serving members with time to make adjustments to personal finances will see changes. Your position is, sadly, not realistic.

Concur, albeit some would find that self-serving in my case. Fair enough.

 

[pilot_man]

Really, hypothetical serve no purpose? The sciences, the study of law, ethics, morals, logic, economics and others rely on the hypothetical. Even absurd hypotheticals serve a valid academic purpose. If you don't want to answer fine. I wasn't meaning to be a dick. The question was formed to clarify how you see the problem.

While a reenlistment isn't meant as a "reset" it most certainly does change the terms of the contract. I am trying to understand how one can logically support certain unilateral changes that benefit the member, but changes that may not benefit the member are a violation of a contract or promise. The "mutually agreed upon compensation" when I came on in 1979 was altered quit a bit and made substantially better by the time I left. Guess I am lucky DOD didn't see the terms of my employment the way you do. Please understand, I am fundamentally against sweeping substantial changes to military benefits packages. Simply crying about promises made does not influence policy makers who will be told to find cost savings one way or the other. They will not be able to get to the number they need to by applying it to new recruits of an ever smaller force. For God's sake, do you know one of the most critical medical specialties BUMED faces? Geriatrics! Some members actively serving WILL see changes. That is the reality you are talking about but can't accept. Our goal should be to ensure changes do not effect those currently retired and those nearing retirement. Junior serving members with time to make adjustments to personal finances will see changes. Your position is, sadly, not realistic.

Funny you should list ethics in that list. That is exactly what the problem is here. Yes, the government can take away all of our benefits. Every last one of them. But when I signed up on the dotted line, I had an understanding of what the benefits would be throughout my career. To change those benefits now is completely unethical and immoral.
The only changes happening to my contract when I reenlist is the time of service. I didn't sign anything when I agreed to stay in that changed any of my benefits and neither did you so please stop acting like this is some sort of contract negotiation.
You're right in that crying about promises made won't do anything, but telling our elected representatives how we feel about their voting decisions can make a difference. Just because we are owned by the man doesn't mean we don't have a right to vote and let our officials know we take offense to their actions.

And are you implying that there are no other programs out there that can be cut before taking this 1% of COLA? Nothing at all? That there is no way for us to survive as the DOD without these cuts? That it is unrealistic for us to expect the US Government to keep their end of a promise they made to the men and women protecting this country? Our goal should be to protect everyone that has started day 1 of bootcamp / USNA / ROTC / OCS .....
Or we can bend over and take it in the ass because you say it's not realistic.

 

[wink]

Funny you should list ethics in that list. That is exactly what the problem is here. Yes, the government can take away all of our benefits. Every last one of them. But when I signed up on the dotted line, I had an understanding of what the benefits would be throughout my career. To change those benefits now is completely unethical and immoral.

So would it be unethical for you to accept changes to your "contract" that are beneficial to you when those changes we not part of the "understanding"? Using the same logic a tax payer could claim it is unethical for you to benefit from enhancements to military benefits at the expense of taxpayers who understood what military personnel costs would be at any given time.

The only changes happening to my contract when I reenlist is the time of service. I didn't sign anything when I agreed to stay in that changed any of my benefits and neither did you so please stop acting like this is some sort of contract negotiation.

Of course it isn't. In a real contract one party does not get a benefit without consideration from the other.

You're right in that crying about promises made won't do anything, but telling our elected representatives how we feel about their voting decisions can make a difference. Just because we are owned by the man doesn't mean we don't have a right to vote and let our officials know we take offense to their actions.

Agree. Not saying you don't have a voice. I just think the whole promise thing is a bit weak given how so many taxpayers have seen much worse in their personal financial situation. Lots of pensions completly lost over the last 10 years. No guaranteed cola for most working Americans.

And are you implying that there are no other programs out there that can be cut before taking this 1% of COLA? Nothing at all? That there is no way for us to survive as the DOD without these cuts? That it is unrealistic for us to expect the US Government to keep their end of a promise they made to the men and women protecting this country? Our goal should be to protect everyone that has started day 1 of bootcamp / USNA / ROTC / OCS .....
Or we can bend over and take it in the ass because you say it's not realistic.

Not saying there are not other cuts to be made, or even that they shouldn't be made first. I am saying the military members should be responsible and accept the fact personnel costs across the board active, reserve, retired, medical, GI Bill, is a burden that will have to be relieved. I am saying we must lead. I will not ask a widow on Social Security, a retired E-6, a 12 year old saving her father's social security survivors benefit for college, or the indigent on medicaid to take a cut before a 25 year old active duty O-1 with 15+ good years of service ahead of him. Don't be playing the ethics card before you consider that scenario, because those are you choices. There is simply not enough money to be saved in non discretionary spending like national parks, education, and federal law enforcement. Your goal is unrealistic. Nice to have. Never happen. I don't see how our military is willing to take a bullet in the line of duty but are not willing to accept, at this point, little financial pain to benefit fellow Americans they serve at sea and under fire?

 

[Recovering LSO]

ensure changes do not effect those currently retired and those nearing retirement.

you.

Junior serving members with time to make adjustments to personal finances

me (13.5 years in).


I can see why we may seeing this from different perspectives....

 

[pilot_man]

I can see why we may seeing this from different perspectives....

I'd like to say it's funny how quickly someone's opinion can turn against those actively serving once they've got theirs (or decided that they aren't going to make it to 20), but it really isn't funny at all.

 

[robav8r]

I'd like to say it's funny how quickly someone's opinion can turn against those actively serving once they've got theirs (or decided that they aren't going to make it to 20), but it really isn't funny at all.

^ This. I am at 32 years and will have a "final" pay plan retirement - pretty nice. But I think often of those like RLSO and many others who will get shafted because of the budget balancing imperative that "must" be borne by those currently serving. I would imagine the COLA decrease will be evaluated by those who want to take even more from the DoD personnel accounts - they're just waiting to see how much of an uproar those of us in uniform are willing to make.

 

[wink]

RLSO,
If you are to be protected (and at your point in service I think you should be) because you would not have time to make financial adjustments for retirement, then it stands to reason those already retired should be protected. I am being consistent and realistic. Are you?

As to your implication that I am keeping my ox from being gored, I currently have a military retirement approximating what some are proposing for the active forces and you would scream bloody murder if it were a reality. I am a retired reservist. My pension is a fraction of an active pension, proportional for the time I put in. I have been "retired" for 10 years before I see a time a Uncle's money or use TRICARE. There isn't a big fat ox to gore there, but have at it if you can find a better place for the money (within DOD). I took a 23% pay cut in 2003 to keep my company out of bankruptcy and got back just 2% of that in the following 10 years. The company still went bankrupt, so now I have no "promised" pension 6 years from retirement. I get less vacation time and pay more for my medical insurance. I still am doing ok. My point is that publicly complaining about a reduced cola for a portion of your pensionable years when you will likely still be employed is not going to fly with civilians who have been really hurt.

 

[robav8r]

So, it's OK to spend money on this stuff, but not OK to fund COLA for our retirees:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-3-years-helping-other-countries-deal-climate

 

[robav8r]

Looks like a lot of folks will be losing IDP starting June 1st . . . . .

Interesting how the Mediterranean Sea stays on the list and almost all of CENTCOM comes off.

http://www.stripes.com/news/dod-announces-changes-to-imminent-danger-pay-1.260479

 

[lowflier03]

So, it's OK to spend money on this stuff, but not OK to fund COLA for our retirees:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-3-years-helping-other-countries-deal-climate

Or the $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since '01. A country known to train and harbor terrorists.

The list of money spent on bullshit is long and includes some really absurd stuff. Yet the politicians decide to "save" money by breaking faith with the people they sent to do all of their fighting.

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

Shipmates, I understand why we all believe that the guaranteed pension after 20 years of service is going to be available to us. After going to countless retirement ceremonies throughout a career and watching others being life anew at 40-50 with a steady stream of income, it is hard to imagine a different system.

Times have changed, not just for us, but for the whole world. Guaranteed pensions are going the way of the dinosaur. Yesterday, Washington state Boeing workers voted to give up their pensions to keep their jobs. You can debate the merits of our qualifications for a pension that we all believe will be there for us when we get out, or second guess the balance sheets of our government, trying to find a way to make sure we keep getting paid in retirement, but that line of thinking doesn't mesh with the way things are going to be done 20 years from now.

My advice is to:
1) Save money. Don't even need to invest it, just throw 10% of your income in a savings account.
2) Develop a second skill set. Perhaps this is getting the ATP and having a backup plan in case the shit hits the fan, or getting an advanced degree. Think about how you could enter the job market and what you would do if your job gets axed. Following step 1 makes this easier.

For every duty station I've been in the Navy, it has been considered a big no-no to discuss career options in the outside world. I understand why this culture exists, but it also harms the career outlook of our sailors and entices them to stay in the navy due to a lack of information and discussion. Keep your options open.

I do believe that servicemembers deserve the pension at 20, but I also think that our personell management system needs a major overhaul. Unfortunately, I believe that our leaders will do a pension overhaul first as a way to solve their personell problems. It will be an initiative that only rewards the worst performers.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

^Agree with everything except:

Save money. Don't even need to invest it, just throw 10% of your income in a savings account.

Savings rates absolutely suck now, so if you're just stuffing it under your mattress for a rainy day, inflation is gonna wear it away. You need to save about as much as several months' worth of your current paycheck to cover unexpected big purchases or unemployment, but beyond that you should really be investing it, even if you just mindlessly put it in an index fund and/or Treasuries.
But while I love the idea of getting a pension at 43, there's a reason it's going out of style in the corporate world. They need to get away from it eventually, or keep it only for members who are medically retired or who actually reach retirement age while in service or something close to it. As someone mentioned, a 401(k) match would be better, but in the meantime, why don't they just grandfather people in so everyone's not pissed? Or maybe offer pension buyouts, like the automakers did when their pension obligations were too overwhelming?

 

[Hotdogs]

My advice is to:
1) Save money. Don't even need to invest it, just throw 10% of your income in a savings account.
2) Develop a second skill set. Perhaps this is getting the ATP and having a backup plan in case the shit hits the fan, or getting an advanced degree. Think about how you could enter the job market and what you would do if your job gets axed. Following step 1 makes this easier.

...or you could just plan on leaving the service after your initial commitment. Save everyone the headache.

Why would relatively young professionals stick around and deal with the military BS for 20 years if they're going to take away the only thing that truly separates the military and civilian compensation systems? In addition to limiting military pay raises and basically revert to the 1990s era 13% pay gap and retention/recruiting issues. Everyone can see the writing on the wall except the morons on Capitol Hill. That puts civilian compensation on par or better than the military sans the administrative minutia, collaterals, over-bearing political correctness, and deployment cycles. The only thing that's keeping lots of young SNCO and officers around that long is the pension. If you want to take about retention problems, I'm sure people would be unable to comprehend the unpredictable nature that would cause to manning the force for the future.

The Pentagon wants a highly skilled, technical, and adaptable force, but it doesn't want to pay for it.