NDAA FY2016 Changes to Military Retirement

[jtmedli]

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.

 

[IKE]

If there a civilian analogue to what their military job is, the talented guys (and even not so talented guys) will leave for better pay. I see it with enlisted nuke retention, they can't throw enough bonuses at them to compete with utilities (nuke or otherwise) and industrial maintenance jobs with union hours, overtime pay, and yes, sometimes even pensions. There are also civil service jobs on the outside that will pay pensions after 20-25 years, why wait to get started if the mil cuts theirs?

So then you raise bonuses to keep people and it still can't compete. I mentioned it before - you want to pay a guy $90,000 to reenlist? That's only $18,000 more than the GI bill will pay them to leave so you have to do better than that.

So, I still think the blanket statement that quality people follow the money is flawed. However, I see Spekkio's and Jtmedii's points. From my current perspective, there's no civilian equivalent to flying gray aircraft at sea (with a real mission). From my previous perspective, as an ET3, I had already decided to leave at the end of my first enlistment, because I liked fixing gear and had no interest in being a paper-pushing ET1/ETC.

That said, I do see a lot of quality enlisted folks who can do the exact same job on the outside. If the pay and freedom of civilian life outweighs the benefits/adventure/fulfillment of military life, I can see why they might leave. Perhaps I would've wanted to reenlist if the quality ET1s/ETCs hadn't all quit to work for BAE, etc.

In short, I think the "money keeps quality people in" argument should be qualified with which ranks/designators one means.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Military compensation WILL eventually be significantly cut. Here are a few quotes.

Defense Secretary Gates2010: “Health-care costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to roughly $50 billion.”[9]

General Ray Odierno, Army Chief of StaffNovember, 2013: “The cost of [an Army] soldier has doubled since 2001; it’s going to almost double again by 2025. We can’t go on like this, so we have to come up with [new] compensation packages.”[10]

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval OperationsNovember, 2013: “About 50 percent of every Defense Department dollar goes to personnel predominantly as compensation. And if we keep going this way, it’ll be at 60, and then it’ll be at 70 in about a decade plus. . . . I think it’s our responsibility to take a hard look at it.”

Again, what do you do when China's military budget equals ours, but they don't have to pay the same personnel costs, nor do they have to pay for worldwide logistics. They can pump their entire budget into procurement and training creating an extremely efficient force while we are paying billions to 45 year old "retirees" working on their 2nd careers. Do you ask the American taxpayer to pony up more money for your 40 year pension and family medical when they have neither or do you cut military benefits to the retired so the active duty force can have modern equipment and thorough training. The status quo is not sustainable over the long term.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Boy, if only there was an explanation for the skyrocketing personnel costs over the past decade (or 14 years)... It's almost like our elected officials and civilian leaders signed us up for something with no idea how to pay for any of it - then kept doubling down... Something about chickens coming home to roost? You want to wage a 14 year war with shitty goals and even shittier leadership? Sure, but know that it's going to cost A LOT of money for a long time. Maybe we ought to consider cashing in a few sacred cows to pay for our people? /end rant/

 

[Spekkio]

Again, what do you do when China's military budget equals ours, but they don't have to pay the same personnel costs, nor do they have to pay for worldwide logistics. They can pump their entire budget into procurement and training creating an extremely efficient force while we are paying billions to 45 year old "retirees" working on their 2nd careers. Do you ask the American taxpayer to pony up more money for your 40 year pension and family medical when they have neither or do you cut military benefits to the retired so the active duty force can have modern equipment and thorough training. The status quo is not sustainable over the long term.

I think that you're making a lot of assumptions about China. Specifically, if they ever get to a GDP where their military spending can match ours I think the population will have enough economic freedom that China will have to likewise pay their troops a decent wage to attract talent... sustaining on compulsory service with little pay won't allow them to ever match parity with us or any other western rival, let alone the fact that they devote a lot of time toward 'training' on communist party doctrine rather than how to fight. They will also have to invest in worldwide logistics if they want to have the same sphere of influence we do. Finally, they will have to start investing much more heavily in their own R&D instead of ripping off the Russians' Cold War stuff if they want to really catch up, and that ain't cheap either.

I think the much more likely case if this happens is that we will simply be forced to accept a smaller technology gap, and not because of personnel costs but because it just won't be feasible from a R&D standpoint.

 

[Randy Daytona]

sustaining on compulsory service with little pay won't allow them to ever match parity with us or any other western rival, let alone the fact that they devote a lot of time toward 'training' on communist party doctrine rather than how to fight.

They will also have to invest in worldwide logistics if they want to have the same sphere of influence we do.

Finally, they will have to start investing much more heavily in their own R&D instead of ripping off the Russians' Cold War stuff if they want to really catch up, and that ain't cheap either.

1) They have communist party doctrine to learn - we have tree hugging hippie doctrine of sexual harassment, security awareness, gay-lesbian-transgender whatever taking up our time...

2) They don't need or have to have a worldwide global presence - just be the preeminent power in that region of the Pacific and able to push us out. Instead of spending massive amounts on a blue water navy, it appears to be a combination of area denial weapons and building islands to push out their air envelope - islands instead of aircraft carriers (hmmm, island hopping, I think I have heard that before.)

3) Their cyber abilities seem to be ripping off our gear as well as the Russians.

 

[Hair Warrior]

2) They don't need or have to have a worldwide global presence - just be the preeminent power in that region of the Pacific and able to push us out. Instead of spending massive amounts on a blue water navy, it appears to be a combination of area denial weapons and building islands to push out their air envelope - islands instead of aircraft carriers (hmmm, island hopping, I think I have heard that before.)

Concur. They are hyper-capitalist, in that they want $$$$$ by any means necessary. They are dominating the SCS by squeezing out commerce. The PRC would love to slowly, steadily hug Taiwan until it becomes an irreversible strangle (economically/politically). If PRC can take control of Taiwan without a shot being fired, even better.

They are learning from Putin how an "invasion" can be limited in scope, slow, and use maskirovka - all achieving political/economic goals without a large scale war with USA/NATO.

 

[Flash]

...just be the preeminent power in that region of the Pacific and able to push us out. Instead of spending massive amounts on a blue water navy, it appears to be a combination of area denial weapons and building islands to push out their air envelope - islands instead of aircraft carriers (hmmm, island hopping, I think I have heard that before.)

In order to secure their energy supply, they are now a massive importer of oil, they need a Navy that will reach beyond their near shores. If not, they remain vulnerable to a blockade that will quickly cripple their economy.

And those islands, they are simply fixed targets.

....They are learning from Putin how an "invasion" can be limited in scope, slow, and use maskirovka - all achieving political/economic goals without a large scale war with USA/NATO .

They are likely learning the lessons of what not to do, the whole Crimea thing has not turned out to be the rousing success that Russia claims it is. At least they know that maskirovka is working on you!

 

[Spekkio]

1) They have communist party doctrine to learn - we have tree hugging hippie doctrine of sexual harassment, security awareness, gay-lesbian-transgender whatever taking up our time...

It's not nearly the same scale.

2) They don't need or have to have a worldwide global presence - just be the preeminent power in that region of the Pacific and able to push us out. Instead of spending massive amounts on a blue water navy, it appears to be a combination of area denial weapons and building islands to push out their air envelope - islands instead of aircraft carriers (hmmm, island hopping, I think I have heard that before.)

I beg to differ. Our worldwide global presence gives our President substantial bargaining power at the political and economic table. We don't like that China is developing a strategy that could make exercising that influence more difficult in the western Pacific, but if China wants parity with the U.S. and a seat at the table for matters outside of the SCS they will need a global military... you know, that whole Clausewitzian thing about not being able to win a war if you can't conduct offensive operations.

3) Their cyber abilities seem to be ripping off our gear as well as the Russians.

Yea, talking to any cyber guy you think the sky is falling and the Chinese are sitting there waiting to hit the magic red button that will turn everything off. The truth is not so dire.

Defense Secretary Gates2010: “Health-care costs are eating the Defense Department alive, rising from $19 billion a decade ago to roughly $50 billion.”[9]

One thing to note is that healthcare costs are down 5% since their peak in 2012. Another thing is that a presentation I saw stated the largest driver in healthcare costs is chronic care and prescription meds that come from treating wounded servicemembers.

I'm also kind of curious how much of purchased care can be cut if MTFs expanded their hours to include up to 2000 on weekdays and 0800-1700 on weekends, thus minimizing the amount of people who rack up a $600 bill going to the ER for a fever.

 

[Hair Warrior]

In order to secure their energy supply, they are now a massive importer of oil, they need a Navy that will reach beyond their near shores. If not, they remain vulnerable to a blockade that will quickly cripple their economy.

And those islands, they are simply fixed targets.

Fixed targets only get targeted in a shooting war. If China keeps playing nice and crosses no red lines (or crosses them slowly, over decades), they can win. Imagine if those artificial islands merely become tax-collecting outposts for fishing/ maritime cargo? The ADIZ is just a means to imposing a tax, like a sort of Panama Canal. Huge $$$$$, no bang bang.

China is paying cash for oil drilling sites and refineries all across Africa (North & Sub-Saharan alike) and the Gulf of Mexico. They'll have plenty.

Also, would you rather have to import your oil, OR, have to import your rare earth metals used to make digital devices and rechargeable batteries?

China is betting on oil imports being easier, and less important, in the long run. They own the world's largest mine for rare earths and control 97% of global production.

It's located here (and visible from space): http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=77723

 

[Spekkio]

China is paying cash for drilling sites and refineries all across Africa (North & Sub-Saharan alike) and the Gulf of Mexico.

Sounds to me like that requires a blue water Navy and global logistics so China can secure its stake.

 

[Hair Warrior]

Sounds to me like that requires a blue water Navy and global logistics so China can secure its stake.

Why? They aren't breaking any laws. China can and will get the U.S. Navy and other navies to protect China's global commerce routes pro bono. We'll do their work for them.

China will keep playing nice and avoid a shooting war. They can outlive the U.S. politicians and voters who care about protecting Taiwan. They are playing the LONG game, my friend. In 50 years, no one alive in the U.S. will remember why it's important to keep Taiwan separate from mainland China. China's culture thinks in terms of centuries, not decades. By 2070 or so, China can absorb Taiwan with little/no fuss. Just like Hong Kong. Taiwan will object... but I bet it will happen so slowly that there will be no single great outrage. Plus, we'll be distracted with some other cause du jour.

 

[Spekkio]

Why?

Is that a serious question?

Because when Boko Haram starts raiding its refineries or Somali pirates start commandeering its cargo ships or whatever other savage group decides it wants to cause trouble in the region, it sure would be nice (from the Chinese point of view) if the Chinese could react to secure its economic supply lines.

If we're the ones doing the work it's because it benefits our national and economic interests to do so. And the Chinese will pay a hefty ransom for it. We will maintain the upper hand because China will need us to maintain its security. We have plenty of oil and natural gas within our borders, we don't need to buy energy from China.

 

[Hair Warrior]

I agree that we ought to try to become energy-independent (through renewables or nukes or fracking or clean coal or cold fusion or whatever).

Is that a serious question?

Yes.

When Somali pirates peaked in the Gulf of Aden, what happened? Well, sure enough, RADM Terry McKnight and Task Force 151 sailed in there guns blazin' to keep the peace, SEAL snipers HALO jumping in to save the day an' everything. And then Hollywood made a movie about it. China's contribution to TF151 was nominal. I read McKnight's book.

China doesn't have to pay 100% of global security costs. They don't need a blue water navy - they have our blue water navy, and it works, because we see ourselves as the world's police force. China now has its first military base on the African continent, right beside ours, but that's pennies in costs compared to the trade they're generating/controlling on the continent.

Regardless of the saber-rattling, China and the U.S. are at peace and are trade partners. We have more commercial interests in common that you'd think. There is no way we would stand by and, for example, let terrorists attack Chinese oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico without the U.S. intervening to help China. It's all about $$$$$ and maintaining stability.

 

[Flash]

Fixed targets only get targeted in a shooting war. If China keeps playing nice and crosses no red lines (or crosses them slowly, over decades), they can win. Imagine if those artificial islands merely become tax-collecting outposts for fishing/ maritime cargo? The ADIZ is just a means to imposing a tax, like a sort of Panama Canal. Huge $$$$$, no bang bang.

Huh? Are they going to set up toll booths on airways?

China is paying cash for oil drilling sites and refineries all across Africa (North & Sub-Saharan alike) and the Gulf of Mexico. They'll have plenty.

If they can get it home. As Spekkio pointed out, just like all overseas oil investment they are all very vulnerable to disruption.

You are making too may presumptions in favor of China, as they become a bigger power they too will run into the same issues we have right now and share many of the same concerns. It is kind of like folks who assume that just because Russia is getting involved in Syria or Ukraine they are winning, they are relearning that war can go just as wrong for them as it has for us sometimes.