Why is the Army losing so many talented midlevel officers?

[brennan]

'Social security' and 'welfare' are both money paid out by the government to ensure a standard of living for a group of people. The unemployed 'earn' that money whenever they find work - which the vast majority of them do, those in the US military 'earn' that money by working 20 years in a potentially dangerous job representing their country. How it can possibly be so different that one group 'earns' that money then retires on it, where the other gets the money then earns it is beyond me.

If you compare the actual amount an army retiree gets paid for the rest of his life once he's retired with the pittance someone gets when they are unemployed for a year or two, i'm sure it's fairly obvious who is the greater strain on your tax burden.

 

[Ecofarm]

You don't have to pay back unemployment (sorry, taxes don't count as paying for your unemployment). That money is completely unearned.

Totally different.

Besides, unemployment is something different than welfare. Which is also neither earned nor paid back.

I realize that military pensions are a greater tax burden, but I approve of them as they are earned and necessary for a standing professional army. Welfare provides nothing for the common good. Spare me the crime reduction, I can protect myself from criminals, thanks. However, I cannot protect myself from a modern army, nor can I expand US influence like the military does, by myself.


I can't believe people try to equate a pension with welfare and unemployment. How rediculas. They're opposites! With a pension, you get paid for working. With welfare and unemployment, you get paid for not working. Same thing? Boggle.

 

[brennan]

You don't have to pay back unemployment (sorry, taxes don't count as paying for your unemployment). That money is completely unearned.

You fail at understanding socialism. Why am I not surprised?

Welfare provides nothing for the common good.

Damn you're funny!

I can't believe people try to equate a pension with welfare and unemployment. How rediculas.

Yes, totally ridiculous, and yet part of the same welfare system in the UK. How crazy is that?

 

[Ecofarm]

I understand socialism just fine. Your delusional belief that people will work hard to get off welfare instead of adopting a victim and entitlement mindset, thus becomming drags on society, is where we differ.

Just because someone sees socialism as a recipe for failure, a disincentive to progress, and a form of enslavement - and not the salvation of man - does not mean they lack understanding.

Do you always think that people who disagree with you simply don't understand as much as you? It must be nice to write off any disagreement as "they just don't understand as much as I". Makes you feel superior, doesn't it?

 

[brennan]

Most of Europe follows a socialist system, are we all 'failing' as a result? Obviously not. That's the evidence you fail to understand. You believe socialism cannot work. The evidence shows it can and does.

I've been unemployed for over a year myself in the past and I can guarrantee that as a result of our welfare system i've paid a helluva lot more back in tax while i've been working than I got out of the system when I was unemployed. The vast majority of long-term unemployed want nothing more than the self respect that a job will bring.

 

[Ecofarm]

Most of Europe follows a socialist system, are we all 'failing' as a result? Obviously not. That's the evidence you fail to understand. You believe socialism cannot work. The evidence shows it can and does.

Europe is not a superpower. The USSR (granted, communism) collapsed.

The only evidence of socialism working is in small, rich, homogeneous countries (Scandanavia). And even then, those countries enjoy 0 world influence and a complete inability to defend themselves militarily. All of them could be squashed like a bug by the capitalist machine.

ps. "Most of Europe follows a socialist system"... Do you know how much flak I would catch for writing something like that?! I was almost tarred and feathered for saying the same thing a couple months ago. I had to go and provide #s for members in parliament that were members of SI for European countries, and how many seats in the EU parliament, etc. And still people said "NO! Europe is capitalist, not socialist! AHHHH! Stupid American thinks we're socialist! blablablablabla".

The vast majority of long-term unemployed want nothing more than the self respect that a job will bring.

Try living in the ghetto/trailer park for a couple years, then see how true you think that statement is. They want the self-respect that money brings... jobs are for chumps who don't know how to milk the system. Look at Hurricane Katrina, for example. A bunch of 3 (THREE) generation welfare communities that had no home insurance, and apparently could not manage to get out of the way of a storm despite DAYS notice. They couldn't wipe their ass without government assistance. Complete drones. Their humanity stripped from them by the ever-doling government. Minds laid to waste through lack of use. Lives laid to waste because they know nothing except that they are entitled. Welfare is like treating a human as a vending machine, put a few coins in and expect to get something back. Well, that's not how it works. Handouts don't solve poverty - they perpetuate it.

IMHO, of course.

 

[brennan]

Europe is not a superpower. The USSR (granted, communism) collapsed.

Europe is a collection of countries. duh.

The EU is not yet truly a single economic entity, but it will be, probably within the next 50 years, and then it will be far more powerful than the US and I see no reason to suppose that it will not espouse the same socialist values its core countries currently have.

The only evidence of socialism working is in small, rich, homogeneous countries. And even then, those countries enjoy 0 world influence and a complete inability to defend themselves militarily.

What like the UK, France and Germany? Think you may have your FACTs mixed up a little there...

Try living in the ghetto for a couple years, then see how true you think that statement is.

Raised on a council estate by my single (working) mother. This is roughly equivalent to the trailerpark. Any questions?

 

[RedRalph]

Try living in the ghetto/trailer park for a couple years, then see how true you think that statement is. They want the self-respect that money brings... jobs are for chumps who don't know how to milk the system.

total BS. If that was the case then why do so many working class people work crappily paid jobs being treated like . .. .. .. . by their bosses rather than take dole?

 

[Ecofarm]

Because the dole would put them in a higher tax bracket?

Look, if welfare solved anything, we wouldn't have 1/2 the problems we do in America. It is addressing the symptom, not the source.

I just realized we are way off topic, sorry. We can have our clash of ideologies some other time, some other thread.

 

[brennan]

Because the dole would put them in a higher tax bracket?

Dole = £56 per week. That's equivalent to 10 hours work at minimum wage.

Look, if welfare solved anything, we wouldn't have 1/2 the problems we do in America. It is addressing the symptom, not the source.

Correct. And countries like the UK have a number of schemes designed to help the unemployed look for work and address issues of low-skills, lack of motivation etc.

 

[JerichoHill]

My parents are richer than yours and thus have worked harder than you. You just want to keep your own cushy bureaucratic job and want to leech off taxpayers when the free market could do it far easier and much more efficiently. I will most likely work much harder than you and thus earn a lot more money because I will be in the private market and be a vital asset in the economy, unlike your unnecessary job.

Bill, you do not know MB's parents. You are trolling with a deliberate intent to incite. That, and you assume ALL government jobs are unnecessary. I am sur MB does a job that's quite important.

I flagged your post. You need to come down off your high horse.

 

[bhsup]

Weird that, in turn, so many of these same people are against the so-called "welfare state" or "big government" when they suck so very hard on that same teet. Mind you, I don't begrudge them that. I just find it funny, ironic, and unfortunate that so often people who live so highly on the govt. hog in turn want to deny the same to others. And, no, I'm not just talking about easy targets like so-called "welfare mothers."

How do you even compare someone who served their country and put their life on the line for 20 years to help guarantee the freedom for all of us and earn their retirement to any welfare case?

EDIT: Sorry, Shane. Later posts by you clarify what you meant. I think I understand what you are trying to convey, but I still disagree. Spending a career helping defend our freedom pretty much earns military personnel any pension the government can afford.

 

[IglooDame]

Moderator Action: Bill and MobBoss, both of you can either stay out of each other's personal lives or stay out of the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JollyRoger]

Not only is it short, it is a great retirement plan. You get to transfer your life insurance to a low-cost civilian version for military people, and you collect 1/2 your paycheck for the rest of your life. And you get access to some military services. If you do 30 years, you get 3/4 of your paycheck, for the rest of your life.

(Perhaps MB can double-check those numbers for me)

Really, it's tough to beat. I can't blame people for taking it asap, and enjoying the rest of their life (starting at age ~38, for enlisted) retired. Most get some easy part-time work as a top-security guy for walmart, or some other company. Some work full-time jobs and get rich.

I have an uncle who did 20 years in the military, 20 years at the post office and now is a part-time substitute teacher. Very comfortable set up for never working another day in his life if he doesn't want to.

 

[JollyRoger]

Bill, you have been drinking Jollyrogers coolaid lately I see.

It's 2 cents a cup if you want to start living up to your title.

 

[Patroklos]

Awesome for your uncle JR. I would say after two 20 year careers he deserves everything he gets :b:

Now that this thread is back on topic...

There are usually three reasons someone becomes an officer (new, not a prior).

1.) To get money for college.
2.) Do their part in service to their country and move into a civilian career.
3.) Blow . .. .. .. . up for a living.

I don't normally like the guys from number one. Now that they have their degree they treat the service as a burden and act like their lives are miserable while they work off their obligation. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. And they do it in front of everybody, which is horrible for the ratings because here is an officer with the privileges and responsibilities they aspire to and they treat it like a curse. ROTC-nazis fall into this category for the most part. They are not all bad of course. Not surprisingly most JOs of this sort leave when they can.

Number two makes up the most of the officers in my opinion. These guys feel a duty to serve their time, but they also have other dreams and goals. So they do their time happily and competently and then bid their farewells. It is sad to see truly exceptional officers leave in this way, but they did they part and they are entitled to their dreams.

Number three are the losers. These are the guys that joined up to look pretty in smart uniforms and boss people around because they never could before. Inevitably these guys always talk about how they are just about to apply to BUDS, or ranger school, or sniper school or whatever. They thought it would all be shooting guys and driving fast. The reality of being an officer is horrible hours, crushing responsibility and lots and lots and LOTS of paperwork. Not surprisingly these wannabees have little motivation to work long hours, accept crushing responsibility or devote their time to paperwork. These offices are horrible for the military because they make horrible mentors for the junior enlisted, are nothing but a burden for the senior enlisted they are supposed to support, and end up requiring another officer to pull their weight. These guys just mope around until the command can find a place to stash them or their commitment runs out.

So obviously there is a huge attrition rate between the 4-6 year service markers for officers. Where the military makes it money is those from group 1 and 2 that find that they like what they are doing and want to continue on.

The second attrition mark is around 10 years. At that point you are an O-4 and you find yourself to be half way to retirement. It is time to put up or get out, because if you continue on you know you are going to go for twenty and maybe never get to join the FBI like you always wanted or whatever. So we lose a lot here as well.

Now I happened to be number two. My original intention was to serve for four years and get out to be a history teacher. Along the way I did use the military to help pay for college, but that sort of just fell in my lap. So I commissioned and went to my first ship and found out I liked it, a lot. Then my sisters became teachers and I listened to their horror stories of insubordinate brats and how there was nothing they can do and that turned me off to teaching. So when my original four year commitment came up I realized I still liked what I was doing (and was good at it), and I no longer had a clear plan for what I would do afterward.

Now doing what I do in the Navy and graduating form the school I did I could pull down an awesome salary on the outside no problem, but I don't want to do just ANYTHING. So I took the next tour after my required four, which will put me at seven when I finish it. Then I get the option to go back to sea, which is what I like about the Navy, and when I finish that I will be at nine years. Crunch time.

There are a lot of people like me out there that just find the military as where they are at, why not continue? Yeah the service is still important but after 5 years can anyone say I didn't put in my time?

Igloodude's opinion could be helpful, as he was a JO that did leave the service.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm not sure the DoD would learn much from my feedback. I went in wanting to serve my country and to drive ships around. I got out at seven years mostly because I figured making O-4 was a 50-50 shot (that if I didn't make it, I'd end up out of the Navy on terms and timing not particularly as favorable as my departure at that time would be) and also because while I liked driving ships around or messing with computers (and was very good at both), I really disliked dealing with people - and the folks I would be in charge of deserved better. So put me in Patroklos' second and third categories.

Edit: Patroklos, are you married (or in some sort of serious relationship)? Because I did a six-month deployment and while chunks of it sucked, I found it a great experience. Then I hooked up with a girl and got married. Then I did a 3-month cruise and I was uniformly miserable, even while I still enjoyed the same elements of being at sea. Being underway sucks when there's someone on the beach to come home to.

 

[Patroklos]

No, not married. In fact I didn't have a girlfriend for any of my long underways. It showed in my lack of care packages

I totally understand getting married would change things. Thats a good factor to keep in mind for the topic. the 4-7 year mark is also when a lot of people get married, or if they were previously married decide to have children. The children thing is especially important to the female officers.