Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are not retention rates on page 12, those are goals and what percentage of the goal was achieved. Those figures do not tell you how many were available to be retained it just tells you how many they wanted to retain and how many actually did stay in. Retention rate would tell you what percentage of those that are available to stay in actually stayed in, that chart does not show that.
For one, not everyone can stay til retirement even if they want to. I've known lots of people in a job field that was locked and were forced out.
Honestly, a majority of enlisted I've known felt they were underpaid until they got out and saw how tough the real world is in comparison.
Lol, are you kidding me? You're arguing my side of the argument now. That was the point I was arguing with you about, not everyone can make it to 20 and get that retirement package that you say is compensation for everyone that joins the military. Only 17% that join are currently making it to retirement so it's only a benefit for 17% of those who join. Many get out on their own or are forced out as the system is not designed to keep more than 17% to retirement. That was my whole argument that it can't be considered compensation for the entire force when the system is only designed so 17% can ever achieve it.
You're all over the place so I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you.
II was always amazed at the number of young soldiers that drove much nicer cars than I did.
That still amazes me!
Few months ago, I saw a guy I went to basic with, it's been about 5 years since and he's still a PV2 and he's driving a BMW SUV around.
Of course, with the litany of buy here, pay here places, it doesn't surprise me young SM's are driving what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtsurfer05
I think the idea of the military being underpaid is misleading. Officers make good pay, especially the higher you go. The enlisted side is where the issue is, and varies per individual. In my situation, I believe I am underpaid in comparison to my peers due to my knowledge, education, intelligence and skills. Seeing I can make 2x more in a GS or Contracting position gives me no real reason to stay in the military. Now for someone with no skills or education, few or no bills, and no wife or kids, military pay is not all that bad and probably beats what they'd be doing back on the block.
Yes, Officers make good pay but one bad OER and you won't be promoted. Not only will you not be promoted but if you are looked over twice, you will be separated from service. It happened to quite a few of my buddies when they were looked at for CPT.
One thing that a lot of lower enlisted guys think is that if they collect BAH then they'll be making a lot of money but don't factor in the extra expenses of living off post. That's why I always suggest guys living on post if they're <E5 and drawing BAH.
Lol, are you kidding me? You're arguing my side of the argument now. That was the point I was arguing with you about, not everyone can make it to 20 and get that retirement package that you say is compensation for everyone that joins the military. Only 17% that join are currently making it to retirement so it's only a benefit for 17% of those who join. Many get out on their own or are forced out as the system is not designed to keep more than 17% to retirement. That was my whole argument that it can't be considered compensation for the entire force when the system is only designed so 17% can ever achieve it.
You're all over the place so I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you.
First, the system is not designed for only 17% to achieve it. That's a false argument. The system is designed to allow members who complete 20 years to earn a retirement. The number allowed to make it there depends on the state of the military and leadership.
It's part of your compensation. Not making it to 20 has nothing to do with whether it's part of your overall compensation package. You can even calculate by year how much extra your pension is worth if you really wanted to.
After a certain number of years you will be given a certain amount of money if you're no longer allowed to continue until retirement if you're separated (besides misconduct). After 20, you can calculate exactly how much extra money you're making for every year you stay in.
It doesn't matter if only 17% get it. It's a tool used for the overall retention of members. It's just like stock options, partnerships, etc...
Some posters claim that 20 year retirement is a benefit that few achieve, however, they claim many don't stay on their civilian job for 20 years.
apples to oranges
In a civilian job most places have matching 401k's and even if you don't stay 20 years you get to keep the company's retirement contribution.
Exactly, I can't figure out why Pyramidsurf is so confused by this and keeps comparing it to the civilian sector. The civilian sector retirement plan is designed to pay everyone that stays in the program and if you decide to leave the program you take your contribution if not vested, if you are vested you draw on the pension EVEN if you didn't stay their until retirement age. 401k's you take with you when you leave along with your employers contribution. Your contribution to the civilian retirement program is NEVER taken from you and you always get it back.
The military system is designed so very few (less than 20%) can legally ever get to the point of collecting it. If you choose to leave early (before 20) you get NOTHING. The military recruits for an initial enlistment of 4 years mostly, they are not recruiting you to stay 20 years. Some will be able to make it to 20 years (less than 20%) but the military certainly isn't recruiting you originally with the intention you'll stay 20 years. Matter of fact, the system is setup to make sure the majority either voluntarily walk away or they will force them out to make sure more than the desired amount never make it to 20. He then wants to compare a $30,000 severance package one might get if forced out to the $1 million retirement (his number not mine) that one would receive if they lasted until 20. And then he ignores that the vast majority walk away voluntarily and get absolutely NOTHING from the system that he is trying to say is compensation for the entire force. It can't be compensation for everyone if the vast majority get nothing from it (and legally can't).
I even pointed out his flawed logic using the very website he linked that shows that retirement isn't in the compensation portion of the website and is a whole separate category because it only applies to a very small number of people. I also debunked his stock option argument yet he keeps bringing that silly argument up.
His lack of understanding of this basic premise takes away from the other points he's trying to make.
Last edited by LBTRS; 11-09-2013 at 12:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and he's driving a BMW SUV around.
