Sequestration and you...

[Flash]

I just wanted to bring up this chart on recent and projected spending under different scenarios.

Source: Reason.com

It says current dollars but looking a few others I don't think it is inflation-adjusted quite right, a few other charts out there depict it a little better. Plus the war funding is going to diminish rapidly in the next few years, that depiction in not realistic at a steady state.

Another way to measure it would be as a percentage of GDP and in 2005 is was 4.5% of GDP while in 1968 it was 9.6% and in mid-80's it was in the 6% range.

Finally, another interesting note is the military puts more money towards pensions, current and future ones, than it does to for active duty pay. Should we be doing that?

 

[Brett327]

Anyone think that some of these numbers are posturing on the Navy's side to get Congress to DO something instead of sit on their ass?

Bingo. I hope it works.

 

[Tycho_Brohe]

Finally, another interesting note is the military puts more money towards pensions, current and future ones, than it does to for active duty pay. Should we be doing that?

From a budgeting standpoint, it wouldn't appear so. In the corporate world at least, defined benefits plans (pensions) are largely giving way to defined contribution plans like the TSP or a 401(k), because of the cost savings and because it puts the burden of investing that money on the employee as opposed to a financial manager that the company would have to pay for.
From a personnel-management standpoint, the thread this spun off of was about how hard it is to retain skilled workers. Since it takes at least 20 years to get partially vested in the pension (and 40 years to be fully vested), getting rid of it will make it even harder to keep people past their ADSO. It's a lot cheaper to keep trained personnel than it is to hire and train new ones, so that may explain why the pension is still a significant part of the servicemember's benefits package.

 

[helolumpy]

.. was that no one really seemed to grasp what type of business model in corporate America the Military is most like. And what lessons were most relevant. I would hear people talk about what microsoft is doing or how we could go from "Good to great" or whatever the corporate bullshit dujour was, when in fact the only business the Military is most like is an insurance company. And even then, the most important function of a Company is missing from the Military anyway so the lessons are irrelevant.

This is a key point, the Military is not and never has been a business model. The risks of failure between a business and the military are not even in the same universe, let alone ballpark.

We crave redundancy and ponder the 'what if' (branch planning) as a routine. We hedge our bets against the enemy's most dangerous COA. We can't consider things like bankruptcy and failure. Failure for us is catastrophic, as opposed to just 'unemployment'.

I get sick when I hear military leaders speak of 'agile business practices' and 'stewards of the taxpayers investments'. To me that is all crap. I have a single goal and that is to accomplish my mission with the resources provided. Anything less than mission accomplishment is failure. There is no "80% accomplishment" in war.

It kills me that I must quantify metrics to my HHQ. I have to justify training requirements in relation to NMETs and then discuss how my DRRS-N report will suffer is I'm not provided the resources I need to do the job I'm assigned.

I blame the Air Force for all of this. They were the first to really dazzle everyone with metrics to justify that they could not accomplish a task without a plus up in funding. The Navy which always just carried on and accomplished the mission regardless of the ass-pain started to recognize these metrics as a way to 'quantify our readiness'. I mean how could Nelson have fought Trafalgar if he didn't have his readiness reports? It's not like he could just ask his subordinate commanders if they were ready... that would be crazy talk!!
I can just imagine Nimitz pouring over SORTS reports in Hawaii trying to determine if he could engage the Japanese at Midway. It would be completely reckless for Nimitz to communicate directly with his subordinate commanders to ask them if they were ready.... who heard of such foolishness!!


OK, taking a deep breath... Now, I'll go back to filling our my NMETS spreadsheet for CNIC.

 

[HuggyU2]

I blame the Air Force for all of this.

Mehh....
... this is Air Warriors, so that's pretty standard.

But, in reality, we probably deserve the blame.
Too bad you guys decided to follow our lead.

 

[CommodoreMid]

This is a key point, the Military is not and never has been a business model. The risks of failure between a business and the military are not even in the same universe, let alone ballpark.

We crave redundancy and ponder the 'what if' (branch planning) as a routine. We hedge our bets against the enemy's most dangerous COA. We can't consider things like bankruptcy and failure. Failure for us is catastrophic, as opposed to just 'unemployment'.

I get sick when I hear military leaders speak of 'agile business practices' and 'stewards of the taxpayers investments'. To me that is all crap. I have a single goal and that is to accomplish my mission with the resources provided. Anything less than mission accomplishment is failure. There is no "80% accomplishment" in war.

It kills me that I must quantify metrics to my HHQ. I have to justify training requirements in relation to NMETs and then discuss how my DRRS-N report will suffer is I'm not provided the resources I need to do the job I'm assigned.

I blame the Air Force for all of this. They were the first to really dazzle everyone with metrics to justify that they could not accomplish a task without a plus up in funding. The Navy which always just carried on and accomplished the mission regardless of the ass-pain started to recognize these metrics as a way to 'quantify our readiness'. I mean how could Nelson have fought Trafalgar if he didn't have his readiness reports? It's not like he could just ask his subordinate commanders if they were ready... that would be crazy talk!!
I can just imagine Nimitz pouring over SORTS reports in Hawaii trying to determine if he could engage the Japanese at Midway. It would be completely reckless for Nimitz to communicate directly with his subordinate commanders to ask them if they were ready.... who heard of such foolishness!!


OK, taking a deep breath... Now, I'll go back to filling our my NMETS spreadsheet for CNIC.

Wait, so you're telling me that continually having to comment on NMETLS that we're never going to meet anyways just for the sake of funding is retarded?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[phrogdriver]

This is a key point, the Military is not and never has been a business model. The risks of failure between a business and the military are not even in the same universe, let alone ballpark.

We crave redundancy and ponder the 'what if' (branch planning) as a routine. We hedge our bets against the enemy's most dangerous COA. We can't consider things like bankruptcy and failure. Failure for us is catastrophic, as opposed to just 'unemployment'.

I get sick when I hear military leaders speak of 'agile business practices' and 'stewards of the taxpayers investments'. To me that is all crap. I have a single goal and that is to accomplish my mission with the resources provided. Anything less than mission accomplishment is failure. There is no "80% accomplishment" in war.

It kills me that I must quantify metrics to my HHQ. I have to justify training requirements in relation to NMETs and then discuss how my DRRS-N report will suffer is I'm not provided the resources I need to do the job I'm assigned.

I blame the Air Force for all of this. They were the first to really dazzle everyone with metrics to justify that they could not accomplish a task without a plus up in funding. The Navy which always just carried on and accomplished the mission regardless of the ass-pain started to recognize these metrics as a way to 'quantify our readiness'. I mean how could Nelson have fought Trafalgar if he didn't have his readiness reports? It's not like he could just ask his subordinate commanders if they were ready... that would be crazy talk!!
I can just imagine Nimitz pouring over SORTS reports in Hawaii trying to determine if he could engage the Japanese at Midway. It would be completely reckless for Nimitz to communicate directly with his subordinate commanders to ask them if they were ready.... who heard of such foolishness!!


OK, taking a deep breath... Now, I'll go back to filling our my NMETS spreadsheet for CNIC.

While I agree with the metrics thing to some extent, the attitude of "I have responsibilies you can't possibly fathom....you NEED me on that wall..." sometimes prevents us from taking lessons from places that work better. Combat is combat, but what do we spend half our time bitching about on this site? All the bureaucracy, inefficiency, and waste of the military? Yeah. Other places don't do all that.

 

[Brett327]

Uhh, yeah they do. The grass isn't all that greener on the corporate side of the fence it just seems that way.

 

[Pugs]

I get sick when I hear military leaders speak of 'agile business practices' and 'stewards of the taxpayers investments'. To me that is all crap. I have a single goal and that is to accomplish my mission with the resources provided. Anything less than mission accomplishment is failure. There is no "80% accomplishment" in war. .

The problem (and I think you know it and your other examples illustrate it well) is that we gathered metrics and wrote reports and pointed out efficiencies that could be gained and, at least in my experience, it never resulted in change just additions. I cannot think of a single report I wrote as an Ensign that did not still exist when I retired as a Commander 20 years later but they sure added a bunch to the pile.

When I was the safety officer we were required to write a monthly report on shop walk arounds and such and fax to CAG safety. We had a Admin inspection in my last month of Active Duty and the CAG safety dude ask to see my file of reports. I asked "don't you get them every month" he said, "yea but you're supposed to keep a copy" . This from a fellow ECMO who flew with us a couple times a month whom I talked to multiple times a month. Safety was hit on the inspection sheet and I just shook my head and walked out the door.

Friday lime time is near.

 

[MasterBates]

Uhh, yeah they do. The grass isn't all that greener on the corporate side of the fence it just seems that way.

There is some BS shit.. But FAR less than the Navy.

See the thing is here.. If we (corporate guys) add a requirement for training or some process metric, and it cost time (therefore money) to collect, and the ROI is too low or negative.. It goes away.

As opposed to stuff that is constantly added to the Navy's admin load, that does no apparent good, and NEVER goes away.

For example, in the last week I did about $100k of revenue on a small job with me and one technician. My total paperwork time overhead for the whole job, from start to finish has been maybe 4 hours. That's pre job safety, compiling a load list for our warehouse to load on the trucks, actual data recording not specific to the project (aka customer satisfaction stuff and our hours worked and travel data) and making the customer field ticket (which is a prelim invoice to let them know about what the final bill will be +/- 5%)

If they added paperwork and admin overhead to the point where I had to bill more days/hours for a project, it would cost them money. Therefore, while there is some corporate BS, its orders of magnitude lower than what a similar trip would be in the Navy.

Example. I need to go to a meeting in Aberdeen, Scotland.
Boss tells me I need to go to Aberdeen.
I get dates from him.
I log onto company website, click travel, put my travel dates and needs (car, hotel, airfare) in and BAM. I have flights to choose from, and I select my flights, hotel and rental car.
Less than 5 minutes later I have plane tickets, car reserved, and hotel arranged.

For per diem, I just click a box on my time sheet, and select the country from the drop down box. BAM Per Diem done

When I get home, I just scan my hotel reciept and car rental form when I do my monthly expense report.

Total time involved for a 7 day international travel? Less than 10 minutes from "you are going" to "Travel claim liquidated"

In the Navy, how many people would be involved, even once the trip was approved by "higher"?
I'd have to get TAD orders or NATO Travel orders cut (OK, it's the Military, I can see this)
Then I'd have to deal with admin, who then has to deal with SATO, and so forth.
Then I go on the trip
Then I come back. Fill out a claim form which is then routed, and then is put into DTS by a YN or PS.
Then it waits. Then it gets kicked back for some accounting code or whatever (BHIs travel system won't let you submit unless codes are right, and they have a "search for cost center" which remembers your most common ones)
Then, just maybe then I get my per diem.
Possibly, my govt CC gets paid before I start showing up on someone's hit list, even though I did my travel claim the day I returned.

 

[phrogpilot73]

Uhh, yeah they do. The grass isn't all that greener on the corporate side of the fence it just seems that way.

It may not be the most beautiful, perfectly manicured lawn that you'd see on a golf course - but it also isn't the burned brown from a bunch of dogs pissing in the same place.

As Master pointed out, bureaucratic nonsense takes away from the bottom dollar. Becuase the military doesn't have a bottom dollar, when the good idea fairy comes up with some bureaucratic BS that takes time away from the mission/training, no one ever thinks about if the juice is worth the squeeze. On top of that, most of it is accomplished during the workday - so you're taking military members away from their duties to get it done. So someone, somewhere can say they are making a difference.

Case in point. I have NEVER been required to attend any of the following working in the private sector:
Driver Improvement
Motorcycle Safety Course
Experienced Rider's Course
Sport Bike Rider's Course

Likewise, I have NEVER been required to take the following classes in the private sector:
Trafficking in Persons
Operational Risk Management
Annual Sexual Harrasment Training
Annual Hazing Prevention Training
Annual SAPR Training
Suicide Awareness Training
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevent Training
Uniform Victim's Advoctate Training

Oh, and I've never had a manager tell me that it was dark out - so I had to wear a glow belt walking into the office from the parking lot.

If I really sat here and thought about it, the list goes on and on. In the private sector, they have to pay you - to NOT do work, in order to accomplish this training. Some of the important ones they do - but usually it's done at HR on your start date, and is not a continually recurring, time sucking, and money wasting event for the forseeable future. Yes, there are some annual training stuff required by HR - but most of that is mandated by Federal Law and regards your employment benefits and such. There's not a new requirement added everyweek that must be done yesterday - even though it closely mirrors some other training and could be more efficiently accomplished (i.e. - DoD IA, Careless Keystrokes, Anti-Phising. Three separate courses, all with overlap, and all requiring time NOT doing my job).

I'm curious how you can state that "The grass isn't all that greener on the corporate side of the fence it just seems that way." Near as I can tell, you experiences are predominantly with the Navy - is that what you're hearing from friends of yours? Because I would argue that as someone who has experienced BOTH sides of the coin, I can say definitively - I would not go back AD if they paid me a million bucks. And part of it is the bureaucratic BS that doesn't exist out here to the level it does in the military.

 

[jtdees]

I think that's a matter of perspective, though, based on your position on the career track. For FNG's, right now, the Navy has some bureaucratic BS that the corporate world doesn't, but the opportunity, work environment, and cast of coworkers are generally much better than one could find straight out of college. At the end of 8 years, or 20 years, any business would take you right now, because they think you have "experience." That's probably true, but the point is that corporate culture says it values innovation and fresh ideas, but in practice tends to value any opportunity to rely on expertise and to unload liability and hard work whenever possible. The Navy tends to absorb more liability, and values trainability and physical youthful vigour to get the job done.

Maybe that's just been my experience, but I have to say that all the points about sequestration are taking away from the exact things that make the Navy a good entry-level position, where a marginally recovered private sector business world is not.

 

[MasterBates]

Disagree. Done the fresh out of college engineer job, navy and experienced engineer thing.

Civilian always was less bs. And comparable or better pay.

Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk

 

[jtdees]

Maybe the marketing degree at the depths of the recession was part of my mistake. I'll readily allow that a professional degree tends to provide more concrete opportunity.

 

[BigRed389]

Disagree. Done the fresh out of college engineer job, navy and experienced engineer thing.

Civilian always was less bs. And comparable or better pay.

Sent from a van down by the river via Tapatalk

Big company or small?

Been talking to friends from school in the corporate world while I weigh staying in or getting out and it really seems to depend on sector/company.

Guys in I-Banking on Wall Street are more miserable and mentally drained than I was at the lowest points of my DDG tour. WAY better pay though.