ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I agree with Nords that most people don't join the military for the pension, but I think the promise of a good pension after 20 years of honorable service certainly influences people's decision to stay in past their initial commitment and make it a career...it certainly did for me. I originally joined the military because:
...
I chose to stay in the military because:
1) I view the profession of arms to be a noble profession
2) I enjoy the high caliber of people with whom I work
3) there is a promise of a generous pension after 20 years of service
...
The promise of a pension after 20 years of service is what convinced me to stay in the military and make it a career...without it, I would not have stayed in this line of work. I suspect that I'm not alone.
Hey - this is on topic!
So getting back to the OP, it does seem that this would still hold if the pension wasn't paid out until a later age (65, reduced if taken earlier) . There would still be motivation to earn it. And I imagine there are plenty of jobs for these people in their later years, ones not requiring the same level of physical demands. Why wouldn't we want to keep these trained people on for another 5, 10 or more years?
And if I understand it, most of these pensions are a "gate" little/nothing at 19 years, the whole enchilada at 20 years? If that's the case, it's not good (I think "gates" are bad in almost all cases). There clearly are people (I know some of them), who did what they needed to to 'hang on' for those last few years. I'm sure they weren't performing at their peak (and I don't blame them, it the way it goes sometimes). It's a "golden handcuffs" situation. We'd be better of with a more linear "earn as you go" system - some people would leave earlier and that might be best for all, and some would stay longer and that might be best for all.
-ERD50
Last edited by a moderator: