Gpax7 said:
Today, the military pays their people much more than the civilians who build and repair their equipment. In fact, the non combat arms of the army, air force, and navy allow them the time, opportunity and the funding to complete a bachelors and a masters degree over the course of a 20 year career. Soon the navy and the others will follow will require a bachelors degree to advance above E7.
Interesting. You would think that (1) there would be better retention instead of people jumping from the military into that contractor's job, as happened every year over the eight years I spent at training commands, and (2) more than a minority of enlisted & officers getting their degrees. Even at my last training command, where arguably we had the college-degree program down cold, I was only seeing a degree completion rate of 10%/year in the enlisted and 20% among the officers. (Most were there for 2-3 year tours.) Many conversations revolved around "#@$% tuition assistance program is out of money again", "the college doesn't offer that course in the right sequence" or "my $#%^ credits lapsed after that last sea duty" or "Nords, please go on this trip for me so that I don't miss my mid-term exams." That last request came from one of my commanding officers.
The situation has dramatically improved over the last generation. However I think much of the improvement comes from competition in the civilian sector, improved access to education (especially the Internet), and humongous recruiting/retention efforts. DoD isn't driving the initiatives-- it's being beaten into them.
Gpax7 said:
I think its really time to change the concept of the 20 year retirement and start it at age 60 or so. As much as we need them, the concept of the 20 year retirement was predicated on living in virtual poverty and then earning the brass ring. not being paid $40K or $50K ( and yes folks for those of you who don't know E5s and E6s do make that when you crank in health care and housing allowances, separation incentives, tax free allowances, etc.)
Last time we cut retirement benefits, the JCS went before Congress in 1999 and begged them to restore the retirement system as a way of improving recruiting/retention.
The military times newspapers (Army Times, Navy Times, etc) publish annual "How much do you make?" articles comparing pay & allowances to civilian-sector wages. The DoD runs a website calculator comparing your military compensation to civilian salaries. Again based on retention rates, I think many feel that the military's virtual-poverty concept is alive & well, just as it is for some jobs in the civilian world. And after earning all those special pays, most military would gladly give back the family separation allowance, combat pay, & hazardous duty pay if they didn't have to repeat the experience. No one should join the military for the money.
I'm trying to remember the last time I've seen a separation incentive. The most noteworthy recent incentive has been the Navy's "Blue to Green" program to pay sailors a bonus for transferring directly into an equivalent Army MOS. I bet that's real popular.
In the mid-'90s I was at a retention meeting for junior officers. The admiral went into fatherly-advice mode and said "Now, you young guys can't count on leaving the service after five years and being able to snag one of those $100K/year jobs that you've been reading about. That's a bunch of Internet hype." To which one JO raised his hand and responded "Sir, my wife's salary just went from $110K to $125K, not including her bonus. I've submitted my resignation letter and I have two job offers over $100K/year. I'm willing to reconsider, but what's the submarine force going to offer me for a bonus next year? And how many deployments will that require?" The flag officer should have quit while he was behind-- it never occurred to him that JOs would have a working spouse, let alone spouses who made more money, or JOs half his age making as much as he was.
Gpax7 said:
It may be time to separate the combat arms of the services from the non combat arms. A grunt who goes out on partol daily is in greater danger than a sailor who sits off the coast on a carrier and chips paint or an airman who processes supply parts in the AC.
When's the last time you were in a combat zone, Gpax? (15 years for me!) Can you show me the line around the Green Zone that separates "safe" from "hostile fire"? Which part of that carrier's crew would you classify as "combat" vs "non-combat"? What would be the survival rate of the grunts who were only considered eligible for "combat" jobs? Or the civilians working in the World Trade Center?
I'll point out that much of the Navy's shore-duty jobs have been outsourced to civilian contractors. Outsourcing another shore duty job means that an afloat sailor can't rotate to a shore job after five years at sea. (If I wanted to spend my entire Navy career on sea duty, I would have joined the Merchant Marine and gotten paid much better for it.)
And I don't know if this is still the case, but in the '90s many aircraft carriers deployed with civilian contract employees in the galley, the logistics department, and for some advanced/test systems. However when the carrier actually entered the Arabian Gulf, a painful minority of those employees had a way of disappearing-- for very good reasons and some not-so-good reasons that were quite frustrating to both the military and the contract company.
You have to maintain both combat & non-combat jobs and rotate veterans between them. During WWII the military's aviators complained that they felt expected to stay in combat until they were captured or killed. Widely-publicized programs put quotas on the number of bomber flights or the length of carrier combat tours. Aviators rotated to non-combat jobs in training or logistics where they worked on solving the problems they'd had on the front lines. (Especially submarine torpedoes.) Each wave of returning warriors trained the next generation, and the personnel & systems dramatically improved throughout the course of the war.
Compare that to the German submarine force or the Japanese aviators. Both were expected to do their jobs until they were killed. By 1943 the average age of a German submarine's commanding officer was... 23. With six years of service, darn near all of it in combat. The Japanese aviators were also killed instead of training their reliefs, and the training/logistics staffs never had the feedback or the motivated officers to fix their problems. That led directly to battles such as the "Great Marianas Turkey Shoot".
I think the military is barely treading water on retention/recruiting with today's programs. Most young'uns join for the excitement & adventure, not for the healthcare benefits or the retirement plan, but every second- or third-enlisted military member with a family lists family/benefits as their top reason for staying in or getting out. If the retirement programs are hollowed out by these proposals, the force will be too.