And you risk your life for your country while making far less than you could in the private sector, all the while being placed at risk by Republican leadership of having your social security privatized (=wiped out if there is a major drop in the stock market, as in 2008-2009) and your benefits and pension cut.
jjjjjjj wrote:
And you risk your life for your country while making far less than you could in the private sector, all the while being placed at risk by Republican leadership of having your social security privatized (=wiped out if there is a major drop in the stock market, as in 2008-2009) and your benefits and pension cut.
I put my life at risk drinking the water at APG, MD...but other than that I'm of the 80% of the military in a non-combat job.
Alan
ward wrote:
Each military person regardless of where they served gets a pension of 1/2 their salary after only 20 years.
You can retire at 38 and collect 50% of your salary for life?
Yes, why not? You're not going to be a foot soldier and it's not like there's that many desk jobs now that they privatized a lot of the military. People that go into the military give up quite a bit of control over their lives, and it's not like it's a great paying job, so it they take away the generous retirement who's going to do it?
It's not like there's millions of people putting in 20 and retiring, so it's not that big of a deal.
Only someone unfamiliar with the military would carp about the benefits. It's not just the day to day job, it's an entire life, and your families life, that goes into it.
The military is not a day job. Those that serve 20 years deserve what they get.
The dominance of 401k plans is the reason that the vast majority of current workers will be up a creek without a paddle in retirement, their savings running out long before they die. Check the stats. The elimination of guaranteed income pensions has been an absolute disaster but we haven't yet seen all the consequences.
zohan wrote:
Only someone unfamiliar with the military would carp about the benefits. It's not just the day to day job, it's an entire life, and your families life, that goes into it.
The military is not a day job. Those that serve 20 years deserve what they get.
Exactly. We don't want the military to only have people in it that can't do anything else. They sacrifice even if they aren't getting shot at, and if someone wants to stick with that for 20 years I've got no problems giving them a pension.
I don't know about military pensions, but for many Calif public sector workers, it's 2% per year (excluding police and firefighters who often get 3% a year), starting at age 55 earliest (vested after 5 years).
But if you don't have a lot of years of service credit, the pension will be pretty modest (as they should be, that's why many have 457s or IRAs, or at least should have).
So for example, if you top out at 50K salary, have 15 years of service credit, and are 60 years old, your pension would be 15 years X 2% = 30% of 50K = $15,000 a year.
Most state public sector pensions are fairly modest. Of course, there are abuses such as with high level adminstrators (e.g., city of Bell) that the media like to highlight.
tired of leeches wrote:
Binks wrote:Yet since 9/11 the US has been effectively losing or have lost the 5 major wars they have been involved in - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now, Yemen.
Idiot. All these battles were won.
If Europeans once wake up to understand that the fight for Western civilization against Islam is an ongoing war for the last 1400 years, they would allocate more resources to their own defense. Then we wouldn't need to endlessly step up for them.
Actually, we attacked the Moslems first and we've occupied their territories since 12th Century.
p.s. I should also add that many, not all, public sector workers do or will not collect Social Security.
zohan wrote:
Only someone unfamiliar with the military would carp about the benefits. It's not just the day to day job, it's an entire life, and your families life, that goes into it.
The military is not a day job. Those that serve 20 years deserve what they get.
THIS.
I make a lot more now than I ever did in the world of corporate wellness/fitness. Our center director made upwards of 40-45k. So that was pretty much my celing. There are great perks, but also great sacrifices. Pretty much every 3-4 years we move to a new state. Heck, I've moved twice already in 4.5 years. Then there's the days and weeks in the field, the last minute "oh we can't leave until we find this sensitive item", not to mention possible deployments. As I've said before...it's very up and down...you are either very very busy, or very very not busy, and that can change at a moments notice.
Alan
Randy Oldman wrote:
tired of leeches wrote:Idiot. All these battles were won.
If Europeans once wake up to understand that the fight for Western civilization against Islam is an ongoing war for the last 1400 years, they would allocate more resources to their own defense. Then we wouldn't need to endlessly step up for them.
Actually, we attacked the Moslems first and we've occupied their territories since 12th Century.
You’re a bit mixed up historical-wise old chap.
The 12th century is around the time where the Ottoman Empire came into being.
You know, those Muslims who finally, after centuries of trying, captured Constantinople and brought the thousand year old Byzantine Empire to an end.
They swept all over North Africa and up into Eastern Europe and their expansion was only halted at the Battle of Vienna in 1683.
In fact, a century after the death of Muhammad in around 630, Islam had expanded out to the Indus, across Africa, up into Spain and I’d be studying the Koran today had not Charles Martel ended their further expansion into Europe at the Battle of Tours (France) in 732.
It was the Mongol invasions that decimated Muslim lands that brought that period of growth to an end
Incidentally, few Americans know or care about the fact that your contemptible Clinton, illegally bombed a sovereign Christian country, Serbia, in 1999 with 2,300 cruise missiles and 14,000 bombs to guarantee the establishment of a new and radical, extremist Islamic state - Kosovo.
Add that to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and now possibly - the Ukraine?
ward wrote:
The government is paying much more than the market dictates. (Also considering the quality of employee hasn't been the best.)
The market works both ways.
Maybe these individuals wouldn't be able able to get as good a deal in the private market.
But if it's paying more than the market dictates then they should have an overabundance of highly qualified people trying to get these jobs.
And you said the quality of employee hasn't been the best.
If they compensated people the "right" amount who would they get to do this?
If the guy served as a ground combat infantry soldier or cop/agent that dove into armed suspect hideouts, then a 1/2 pension is deserved. Others should have no pension, but of course can opt to contribute to 401K, Roth IRA, etc. like the reest of us.
I did a four year hitch in the Navy in the early '80s. As others have noted, it's not an easy lifestyle. More than half my tour was spent at sea on an aircraft carrier working 12 hours on, 12 hours off, for months at a time with nary a sight of land. Overall it was a good experience, but the Navy did not have to ask me twice if I wanted to get out.
I don't begrudge anyone getting a military pension, but I agree the retirement system does not seem sustainable in the long run. Of course the same can be said about most government entitlement programs, including Medicare and social security.
As an aside, one of my fondest memories of the Navy is running on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, dodging planes and jumping over arresting wires:)
Good point but they actually do hire much more than they need. The armed services of the future will be much more efficient and employ many fewer people. Instead of trying to coordinate different branches the branches of the military will be combined (just a any good business would consolidate). Drone use will increase substantially and effectively.But right now the military is a lumbersome, financial mess.
X-Runner wrote:
ward wrote:The government is paying much more than the market dictates. (Also considering the quality of employee hasn't been the best.)
The market works both ways.
Maybe these individuals wouldn't be able able to get as good a deal in the private market.
But if it's paying more than the market dictates then they should have an overabundance of highly qualified people trying to get these jobs.
And you said the quality of employee hasn't been the best.
If they compensated people the "right" amount who would they get to do this?
Ward wrote:
Good point but they actually do hire much more than they need.
The armed services of the future will be much more efficient and employ many fewer people. Instead of trying to coordinate different branches the branches of the military will be combined (just a any good business would consolidate). Drone use will increase substantially and effectively.
But right now the military is a lumbersome, financial mess.
If they are hiring more than they need then, yes, they could be overcompensating them.
It's a nice financial stimulus for the country.
But maybe the resources could be better used elsewhere.
Can we use them to fix potholes right now?