It's never a buyer's market in the military.
-
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
SECNAV to Implement Sweeping Changes
- Thread starter usnavymle
- Start date
I highly disagree that there is no monetary effect on mil-mil couples. If they have children, they have no option but to put them in day care because it's not like either parent can work from home. This is especially the case when one parent is deployed.
If the Navy is going to investigate the BAH of every sailor to make sure they're not banking BAH by sharing a house with another sailor (or soldier, or airman) then I am willing to consider a debate on reducing the BAH of dual mil couples. Ultimately, this is an attention-grabbing proposal that will never be voted upon. If it is, there is no way it's approved.
'Diversity' isn't skin deep but apparently that doesn't matter to some. Good luck getting the number to 25%....
My claims are:
(1) All else being equal (e.g., rank, quals, billets, fitreps, etc.), members with collocation requirements are less valuable than those without.
(2) It is natural for the Navy to consider lesser compensation for lesser value. (We pull ACIP when people lose wings or fail to make aviation gates, and VFA types get a bigger ADHRB than we helo bubbas do).
You seem to agree with (2), do you deny (1)? Do servicemembers not sign up to be PCSed where the service sees fit? Would this be less controversial if we were talking about paying non mil-mil folks more for their higher value instead of reducing existing pay?
Your example of taking a travel job and then welching on the travel aspect is analogous to mil-mil couples asking for collocation (assuming the marriage occurred after service entry).
The two parts of your post are not consistent.
I believe your pay is yours and whether you invest it or buy a house outside of your means or whatever is your business, not the Navy's. Which I think you are effectively espousing with the 2nd part. That being said, why should the Navy care whether you had to pay for childcare. It should only be concerned with compensating you commensurate with your value to the service.
You are basically making my point for me. The military can't control and doesn't give a shit about a civilian spouse. They very much care about the fiscal cost of a military servicemember.
I know that.
There's a whole hell of a lot of ways to skin that (1) cat, thought, because all else is never equal. Are they less valuable to a detailer putting butts in seats? Yup. Is that the only perception of "value?" Nope.
The only reason I brought the private sector in is because of your "any company" comment, and my point was that companies do many kinds of work and require many things out of their employees. "Flexibility" is not necessarily one of them. It can be. It isn't always. But now that we're there, "value" can be defined as work product the customer is willing to pay for. Who is the "customer?" The detailer having to place butts in fleet seats, or the head shed and Sailors who will be "consuming" the work product of that officer? Assume for the sake of argument you have an absolute wizard of a WTI who wrote the TACMAN, is the best teacher ever, and increases the proficiency of his/her squadron so markedly it blows the Skipper's mind. But maybe that individual has an exceptional family member with very specific needs. Or maybe that individual's mind gets blown by the 4790 and utterly tanks as a MO. Define their value.
If this...
makes your point for you, then after all this, we're in violent agreement.
The WTI's value is tangible and productive in the sense that he is capable of training those around him - in that position - which you're presumably thinking of as a TO. His value as an upwardly mobile officer is capped. I don't need a DH who is an "absolute tactical wizard"; his competency at that point is assumed - if it's not, you've got other issues. Further, one guy's wizard is another guy's pompous patch wearing jackass - lots of room in between those two extremes and that's were most of who you're describing actually fall, thankfully. Further further, I don't need a CO who is an "absolute tactical wizard" either. Again, his tactical competence is assumed.* I need him to understand how to lead, develop, mentor, manage, and account for his entire squadron, not just his aircrew.
Bottom line, the individual you've described has limited value to the Navy. For sure, it's tremendous worth in the here and now, but rapidly diminishing going forward.
*Yes, I know they're out there...
seems like we've got two threads running parallel here?
That was really my point, that value means different things to different people, and is of differing amounts depending on the position. Yes, someone with colocation requirements is of less value to the detailer, but that says nothing about the impact they may be able to have on a unit despite their potential inability to be detailed to career-enhancing places.
There. I had more time, so I wrote a shorter post.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I'm kind of curious how the "married people shouldn't get more benefits" crowd feels about employers (including the Navy) providing family healthcare plans to servicemembers/employees? That's probably a lot more costly to the DoD than the ~$200/mo a person gets in extra BAH.
I think the military should charge at least something for Tricare, just as I think BAH should be one rate (per rank), without regard to dependents. (And yes, both of these changes would cost my family money. And yes, we are one of the families who has lost a great deal of income due to military moves, so I am not oblivious to that factor.) I think most civilian workplaces require the employee to pick up at least some small part of the tab for providing benefits. If you want to have a Quiver-full, have at it. But each of those 19 kids is going to cost you $25/mo for health care. If you have benefits from some other source, like a spouse's workplace, you'd be free to turn down Tricare, just as you can currently do with dental.
Of course, my understanding is that part of the reason there is a housing allowance and probably part of the reason there is free and mandatory health insurance is they no one wants Ensign Timmy's work performance to suffer because he's worried about his wife living in a box while suffering from untreated syphilis. So allowing him to turn down insurance for her in order to save himself the cost of a weekly Starbucks doesn't protect him from himself. And not giving him a couple hundred dollars extra for housing supposedly increases the chances of box-living. (I don't know that I actually buy that, because where one person can live, two can live. And if you have 10 kids, the w/dep rate isn't going to go very far.) If the purpose of both programs is more "nanny" than it is "compensation", then I suppose in that context, they make sense. If not, then I think pay and compensation (to include health insurance, or at least some insurance costs) should be based on the work and on performance, not on decisions about marriage and procreation.
Copays are good at reducing health care system abuse when designed and implemented judiciously - which is to say, with actuaries: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...eatured-articles/hitting-the-copay-sweet-spot
Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. I think that a premium share, either instead of or in addition to copays, makes sense. You pay a small amount just to have the coverage at all. This would discourage people from turning down coverage at their own work in order to negotiate a higher salary, because they know they have Tricare for free. That's pretty common, IME. Tell your employer they don't have to give you medical, and then ask for an extra $5000. I think people would largely avoid that, even if their monthly Tricare costs were less than that $5000, because we aren't entirely rational beings. Then judiciously used co pays--free vaccinations and basic preventative care--to encourage people to use what they should but also encourage them to think carefully about whether something is actually a "should", to further keep down costs.
I don't know if it is feasible, but I also think someone should look at urgent care/emergency medicine overseas. We have, essentially, not urgent care here in my corner of Germany. Sometimes, the small base clinic can squeeze you in, but sometimes not, and there is nothing after hours. Our only choice after 430 pm or on weekends is the German ER. That's got to be extremely expensive. Having an on-call doc (or PA, if military medicine has those) seems like it would save a ton of money. In Japan, I believe you could call someone 24/7 for urgent but not emergent situations, and they would meet you at the clinic, even after hours. And that base was significantly smaller than this one. But this is probably drifting way too far off-subject...
I don't know if it is feasible, but I also think someone should look at urgent care/emergency medicine overseas. We have, essentially, not urgent care here in my corner of Germany. Sometimes, the small base clinic can squeeze you in, but sometimes not, and there is nothing after hours. Our only choice after 430 pm or on weekends is the German ER. That's got to be extremely expensive. Having an on-call doc (or PA, if military medicine has those) seems like it would save a ton of money. In Japan, I believe you could call someone 24/7 for urgent but not emergent situations, and they would meet you at the clinic, even after hours. And that base was significantly smaller than this one. But this is probably drifting way too far off-subject...