U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2013, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Newport Coast, California
474 posts, read 475,953 times
Reputation: 1135

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBTRS View Post
Then you would be incorrect, they tried to monkey with the retirement program in the 80's (REDUX which also lowered the COLA by 1%) and had to repeal it and offer an alternative as it was having an effect on people decision to stay for 20.

The problem with lowering the retirement benefits is that the best and most talented people will leave for the civilian sector and the only ones staying until 20 will be the poor performers and the ones that would struggle to make it on the outside. The way it is now, they get some talented people willing to stick around for 20 years and deal with the crap for low wages and use programs to weed out the poor performers and those that are a drain on the system so they never make it to 20 years.
Unfortunately the answer is no, the best and brightest won't be leaving because the civilian employment sector is very very weak and the military is still a better option.

The biggest take away is that our country is in deep trouble overall and something needs to change to provide better jobs overall and more money. That is a much bigger question beyond the discussion in this thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2013, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,555 posts, read 8,040,152 times
Reputation: 6304
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr View Post
Unfortunately the answer is no, the best and brightest won't be leaving because the civilian employment sector is very very weak and the military is still a better option.
That is true for the mediocre and poor performers but the best and brightest have a much better opportunity to excel financially as a civilian and as soon as they don't see the reward being enough to stick around for the sacrifice they are making they will make their mark in the civilian sector.

The best and brightest NEVER feel like you're describing as they always know they can make it at whatever they do. It's the mediocre and poor performers that believe like you and feel they are limited in what they can achieve and are stuck in a specific circumstance due to reasons beyond their control. The best and brightest NEVER feel that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 12:53 PM
 
504 posts, read 629,604 times
Reputation: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBTRS View Post
Then you would be incorrect, they tried to monkey with the retirement program in the 80's (REDUX which also lowered the COLA by 1%) and had to repeal it and offer an alternative as it was having an effect on people decision to stay for 20.
The retention problems that contributed to the repeal of Redux in 1999 had to do with the opportunities available outside the military in the booming economy of the time and the dissatisfaction some people felt with the post-cold war military environment. The repeal of Redux was one of several financial incentives designed to improve retention at that time.

The decision to stay for 20 years or not is a complicated one for each service member and their family. Although there is a financial component to the decision, here is why I don't think this change will make a measurable difference:

Is someone who will retire as an E-6 going to decide to stay for a $2350 monthly check 10 years after retirement (3% COLA) but get out if that check will be only $2150 per month (2% COLA)? I doubt it.

Is someone who will retire as an O-5 going to decide to stay for a $5200 monthly check 10 years after retirement (3% COLA) but get out if that check will be only $4800 per month (2% COLA)? I doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBTRS View Post
The problem with lowering the retirement benefits is that the best and most talented people will leave for the civilian sector and the only ones staying until 20 will be the poor performers and the ones that would struggle to make it on the outside. The way it is now, they get some talented people willing to stick around for 20 years and deal with the crap for low wages and use programs to weed out the poor performers and those that are a drain on the system so they never make it to 20 years.
I agree the best and most talented people are often the first to go since they have the best options on the outside. However, there are more cost efficient ways to retain top performers such as targeted bonuses, accelerated advancements, "good" orders, as opposed to relying on a retirement system which also rewards a "just putting in time" mentality among some of the less than best performers.

Retention is very high right now and the military is starting to enter a phase of shrinking force structure. Until those factors change we will see continued downward pressure on pay and benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 04:45 PM
LLN
 
Location: Upstairs closet
4,917 posts, read 8,378,286 times
Reputation: 6355
If you want to get pissed, get pissed about this.

In the budget, a body is inserted at a given rate. That rate includes pay, allowances, MOVING cost, all kinds of crap. Well, we all know that we don't move every year.

All that EXTRA Money gets swept up and used for, well lets just say, fancy, super secret stuff ain't cheap.

In defending HOLA, COLA or whatever, you are addressing the chump change. You just cannot believe the way the military budget really works. You just don't know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 07:02 PM
 
18,060 posts, read 9,904,130 times
Reputation: 17546
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrock847 View Post
The retention problems that contributed to the repeal of Redux in 1999 had to do with the opportunities available outside the military in the booming economy of the time and the dissatisfaction some people felt with the post-cold war military environment. The repeal of Redux was one of several financial incentives designed to improve retention at that time.

The decision to stay for 20 years or not is a complicated one for each service member and their family. Although there is a financial component to the decision, here is why I don't think this change will make a measurable difference:

Is someone who will retire as an E-6 going to decide to stay for a $2350 monthly check 10 years after retirement (3% COLA) but get out if that check will be only $2150 per month (2% COLA)? I doubt it.

Is someone who will retire as an O-5 going to decide to stay for a $5200 monthly check 10 years after retirement (3% COLA) but get out if that check will be only $4800 per month (2% COLA)? I doubt it.



I agree the best and most talented people are often the first to go since they have the best options on the outside. However, there are more cost efficient ways to retain top performers such as targeted bonuses, accelerated advancements, "good" orders, as opposed to relying on a retirement system which also rewards a "just putting in time" mentality among some of the less than best performers.

Retention is very high right now and the military is starting to enter a phase of shrinking force structure. Until those factors change we will see continued downward pressure on pay and benefits.
That's what it looked like in the mid-70s (Vietnam War "dividend") and that's what it looked like again in the early 90s (Cold War "dividend").
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 07:23 PM
 
5,106 posts, read 6,084,524 times
Reputation: 9677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That's what it looked like in the mid-70s (Vietnam War "dividend") and that's what it looked like again in the early 90s (Cold War "dividend").
yep, when you have seen it before you know when you see it again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 08:22 PM
 
Location: Fayetteville, NC
437 posts, read 578,012 times
Reputation: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamrock847 View Post
I agree the best and most talented people are often the first to go since they have the best options on the outside. However, there are more cost efficient ways to retain top performers such as targeted bonuses, accelerated advancements, "good" orders, as opposed to relying on a retirement system which also rewards a "just putting in time" mentality among some of the less than best performers.

Retention is very high right now and the military is starting to enter a phase of shrinking force structure. Until those factors change we will see continued downward pressure on pay and benefits.
Good points. Another option, although it would be unpopular, would be to make the retention control point for E6 16 years. In other words, if you are an E6 and not promotable at your 16 year mark, you start outprocessing. A similar point for officers could also be created. A 36 year old E6 still has a options if they had to get out at that point, and maybe this could be sweetened with a lump sum amount of money as a thank you for playing for 16 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2013, 09:00 PM
 
18,060 posts, read 9,904,130 times
Reputation: 17546
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPRetired View Post
Good points. Another option, although it would be unpopular, would be to make the retention control point for E6 16 years. In other words, if you are an E6 and not promotable at your 16 year mark, you start outprocessing. A similar point for officers could also be created. A 36 year old E6 still has a options if they had to get out at that point, and maybe this could be sweetened with a lump sum amount of money as a thank you for playing for 16 years.
That was done in the AF with the early retirement option for E5 and E6 in the mid 90s.

Rather sucked for those of us who were left, however. The Air Force promotes more slowly than other services--a 16-year E6 may well be a very hot and valuable troop. We saw the very ones we depended on for getting the work done and doing the 1st-line training take the money and run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2013, 12:02 PM
 
1,423 posts, read 2,160,512 times
Reputation: 1472
Quote:
Originally Posted by victimofGM View Post
Military life isn't so great that you have enlisted people fighting to stay all 20 or more years. For many, the mental and physical demands are too difficult after about 10 years. The pay is so little that contributing to your own retirement, even with military matching contribution, is worthless. You want to cut military budget, order troops home and use them only for "national defense". I served on the 6th Fleet Flag Ship in Gaeta Italy. It wasn't a warship at all. It was the admiral's personal cruise liner and we were his servants. It seemed our ship's mission wasn't to provide a platform to command the ship's at sea. Our purpose was to provide a platform for diplomats and officers to get drunk on very expensive booze. Virtually every port was a diplomatic party. We burned huge amount of fuel to get people drunk. My time overseas convinced me Congress would never close any US foreign bases because it was Congress people's excuse for a vacation paid for by taxes. Make all the excuses you want to justify keeping open bases from WW 2, but that's what I saw.
Actually, the Navy is throwing people out in the middle of their contracts because no one will leave.

The fact is that the military is probably the safest and most lucrative place for many people at the moment. They're throwing people out to downsize the force. I highly doubt many people will throw in the towel because of a minimal COLA increase during their working retirement years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2013, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,555 posts, read 8,040,152 times
Reputation: 6304
No, they are throwing them out because they are lowering the end strength. There are plenty getting out but they are continuing to recruit like they did at the higher end strength so they are screwing those on active duty to make room for new recruits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top