Military retirement under attack

[BFM this]

Flashback to 1992-2000.

There has to be retention data on this era somewhere.

[Smokin]

How many of you honestly think you could make more in the civilian sector?

I could. And I would see my family everyday!

What does a history major make these days? A social worker? The truth is, very few of you had credentials right out of school that would land you the 50k / year salary of a 2nd Lt in the civ sector.

Irrelevant. I might make less for the first few years, but the time after that would make up for it. The comparisons between military and civilian salary depend on averages. Most the people on this board are not average and would do better and make more than the average.

The military is a sacrifice and it is not all about me or money. If it were, I'd already be gone. But it is also nice to know that I'm not going to get thrown out in the cold.

[OverTQ]

The problem with your theory is that the individual doesn't necessarily have total control over what they do, career-wise.

Not speaking for the AF but as a current Army Aviation assignments officer, shack.

[pawnman]

You could probably have a multiplier of some kind for deployment time. A different multiplier for "hazardous duty" time...so you earn more for more flight time, or being deployed to a dangerous location (as opposed to being "deployed" to Dover, for example)...other jobs would apply as well (JTACs, EOD, submarines, etc).

Maybe instead of trying to quantify time spent, they could include the bonus pay in your retirement (so getting 50% of your total pay instead of base pay, for example).

[nsplayr]

Maybe instead of trying to quantify time spent, they could include the bonus pay in your retirement (so getting 50% of your total pay instead of base pay, for example).

That's what I'm talking about...there are smart ways to make this a better deal for those who actually deserve it.

On another note, the President's deficit commission (Bowles-Simpson) released it's full report today. Enjoy.

[Champ Kind]

On another note, the President's deficit commission (Bowles-Simpson) released it's full report today. Enjoy.

I saw nothing in that report saying that the age at which a military retiree could start collecting benefits would change.

Excerpt from the report:

"RECOMMENDATION 4.1: REVIEW AND REFORM FEDERAL WORKFORCE RETIREMENT PROGRAMS. Create a federal workforce entitlement task force to re-evaluate civil service and military health and retirement programs and recommend savings of $70 billion over ten years.

Military and civilian pensions are both out of line with pension benefits available to the average worker in the private sector, and in some cases, out of line with each other across different categories of federal employment. The Commission recommends a federal workforce entitlement review to analyze civil service and military retirement programs in order to 1) Make program rules more consistent across similar programs, and 2) Bring both systems more in line with standard practices from the private sector. The review will have a ten-year savings target of $70 billion; recommendations of the task force would receive fast track consideration in Congress. Examples of program design reforms that the task force should consider include:

Use the highest five years of earnings to calculate civil service pension benefits for new retirees (CSRS and FERS), rather than the highest three years prescribed under current law, to bring the benefit calculation in line with the private sector standard. (Saves $500 million in 2015, $5 billion through 2020)

Defer Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for retirees in the current system until age 62, including for civilian and military retirees who retire well before a conventional retirement age. In place of annual increases, provide a one-time catch-up adjustment at age 62 to increase the benefit to the amount that would have been payable had full COLAs been in effect. (Saves $5 billion in 2015, $17 billion through 2020)

Adjust the ratio of employer/employee contributions to federal employee pension plans to equalize contributions. (Saves $4 billion in 2015, $51 billion through 2020)"

[hindsight2020]

FUBIJAR SWITCH: ON (ALL CREW)

As a Reservist, I disagree with the general notion that the majority of AD officers are above average in their ability to beat income potential in the civilian sector. Not a chance. That's optimism bias talking. All my AD bro's pound their chest and proselytize that they would be bank rolling in the civi sector tomorrow, while the more tempered of their compadres look at them, having just got out from industry and into the military themselves, with this "you're a fool" look. With the incredible amount of engineering and liberal arts majors amongst our officer ranks I can tell you very few of these people would be able to chase a Captain's salary just 4 years from the start of the race. I know because I make 50% of what my AD peers make while performing the same duties and I'm knee deep in the civilian sector hiring day to day. AD cats are just blowing smoke, yall make crazy money for the risk of getting blown out of the sky, more likely die in training for the majority.

I got two degrees in engineering and in order for me to make senior Capt's pay and entitlements, would take me the better part of 15 years and a multiplicity of layoffs and "relocations". You guys have nothing to complain about. Frankly I think most officer ranks are overpaid. A 20 year pension is an afterthought frankly.

Look I'm not bagging on my own plate, I have a vested interest in keeping some form of a civil service retirement alive by the time I hang up the flight suit, but y'all gotta step away from the "FU I got mine" for a second and concede military and civil service retirements ARE out of line from the eroding trend of civilian pay and retirement vehicles. I'm not saying go Greek on the austerity measures and watch the exodus from the all-volunteer force, but stop acting as if the military service you provide keeps you from exceeding your income potential as a GROUP, because it DOES NOT. Come to the guard/Reserves and try to make that argument to the citizen Airmen that do take on TWO jobs and make less than you, and we got Air Force wings and science and math degrees out the ying ya too bra'... You make silly money for what you do. QOL is terrible at times, but you make silly money. The median individual income in this country is 50K and most people in non-technical degrees have median incomes way lower than that, and we got plenty officers with lib art degrees.

I asked my AD bud one day: "hey bra, would you do your job for 60% of what you make and no retirement till 60yo +0/-5? He said "Hell no." Who's the patriot again? We all recognize the opportunity cost of military service, but don't act like you're Jesus.

FUBIJAR SWITCH: OFF

[BFM this]

Ok, let me see if I follow your math here:

1) Mil members are nothing special wrt to the rest of the job market

2) we fetch a handsom reward for our mediocrity compared to the civ sector

And yet, there were so few ivy leaguer's trying to elbow me out of my pilot slot when I applied...

There's a reason you went reserves. On some days, I would too without blinking. But my opinion is that the average 20y O5 might have put in as much time and sweat and training as his law firm counterpart at that point.

[ClearedHot]

FUBIJAR SWITCH: ON (ALL CREW)

As a Reservist, I disagree with the general notion that the majority of AD officers are above average in their ability to beat income potential in the civilian sector. Not a chance. That's optimism bias talking.

Noted… Given the current job market you have a limited point, but with regard to officers you are wrong, proven time and again by a multitude of studies. You argument falls completely flat once a person has served for a few years and been trained in a specialty.

All my AD bro's pound their chest and proselytize that they would be bank rolling in the civi sector tomorrow, while the more tempered of their compadres look at them, having just got out from industry and into the military themselves, with this "you're a fool" look. With the incredible amount of engineering and liberal arts majors amongst our officer ranks I can tell you very few of these people would be able to chase a Captain's salary just 4 years from the start of the race.

Again, untrue…while the rolling in bank argument is nonsense, as an engineer you will start at a higher salary than you will make as a 2Lt. It really comes down to the type of degree especially with regard to engineering and if you are certified or not.

I know because I make 50% of what my AD peers make while performing the same duties and I'm knee deep in the civilian sector hiring day to day. AD cats are just blowing smoke,

Blah Blah based on your situation you assume 50% is the standard….try again. Willing to bet I am a bit senior to you and was offered a job last week making over double what I make on active duty…so if I use your singular logic, all active duty could double their pay by getting out. It is all relative to the situation and qualification.

yall make crazy money for the risk of getting blown out of the sky, more likely die in training for the majority.

Crazy money? Really??? Ever had a friend die in a crash? Ask his family if they have crazy money left. At this point I would say you are a poser. Anyone in this business, especially someone who has been doing it for a while and has lost friends in combat and training, know we don’t make crazy money for the risks we take. You sound like a fucking tool at this point in the discussion.

I got two degrees in engineering and in order for me to make senior Capt's pay and entitlements, would take me the better part of 15 years and a multiplicity of layoffs and "relocations". You guys have nothing to complain about. Frankly I think most officer ranks are overpaid. A 20 year pension is an afterthought frankly.

“I got two degrees”…For fucks sake learn to speak…Notice you said senior Capt’s pay and 15 years. Average engineering pay charts would say that is not true. Again it depends on the type of engineering and while there may be a lag at that point in your career, HOWEVER< senior engineers will more than make up for as they move up the ranks, many of which make well more than the Chief of Staff.

You make silly money for what you do. QOL is terrible at times, but you make silly money. The median individual income in this country is 50K and most people in non-technical degrees have median incomes way lower than that, and we got plenty officers with lib art degrees.

Dear god soulja boy this is not the hood, I can see why you make less. The officers that have liberal arts degrees are also spending years away from home living in tents and exposed to the risk of losing their lives. They give up certain constitutional rights that the average citizen gets to enjoy, and their income should not be related to the median income...a complete apples to walnuts argument.

There are so many aspects to military service that are not part of the average civilians employment. I would go on, but what is the point, you won’t get it and you will likely just reply with a Flo Rida quote.

[Finance_Guy]

FUBIJAR SWITCH: ON (ALL CREW)

AD cats are just blowing smoke, yall make crazy money for the risk of getting blown out of the sky, more likely die in training for the majority.

...but y'all gotta step away from the "FU I got mine" for a second and concede military and civil service retirements ARE out of line from the eroding trend of civilian pay and retirement vehicles.

...we got Air Force wings and science and math degrees out the ying ya too bra'...

FUBIJAR SWITCH: OFF

THIS is crazy money - https://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2010/09/on-taxpayer-dime-lucrative-financial.html

If you got all them degrees, try a different career - A Missouri School Superintendent. Free lifetime healthcare

[hindsight2020]

Nonsensical whining removed for the good of humanity.

Edited December 3, 2010 by ClearedHot

[busdriver]

Why does this have to be True Patriot or money grubbing asshole? On that note, why is wanting to make a lot of money bad? Military officers make good money, but it sure as shit isn't exorbitant.

[OverTQ]

Again, the “I am in the Army disclaimer”. But as someone who has access to all the Aviation numbers on our side of the house, here is my take. The reason we make the money (yes, it is a lot) is not because we do such a dangerous job. Sorry to all of you that like to think that but it is just not true but I am sure the girls in the bar will still believe you. The real reason is that the military unlike the civilian world cannot “hire” mid level managers. Work for brand “X” and need someone with mid level or even senior management? You will have more qualified applicants than you can ever interview. The civilian market is very competitive right now. The military cannot do that. For example, we are short Majors right now. The reasons are simple. We went from 1.3 million men to 440,000. Officers make up about 10%. We commissioned less (keeping 10% for the 440). That same group of commissioned officers is a part of a 540,000 man force that has been deployed more than any group in history. So a lot have gotten out leaving us even shorter. How do we fill this gap? Make the time lines shorter to make MAJ? That will work in a while, but mean while, that mid 90’s class will get promoted to LTC and then we will be short of LTC’s. There is no way for us to close the gap. We can’t just go hire an Army Major. That is why we make so much. Simple numbers. Find yourself in a year group that has far more than it needs and see how important you are. The amount of money we make is trivial compared to the amount of money spent training us and the impossibility of replacing all but the junior officers. Simple business. You would think it would be simple to manage. But as we are discussing now, congress keeps changing the end strength numbers. It is all numbers needed vs numbers on hand vs funding and the possibility to maintain each.

That was the officer in me prospective. The personnel side doesn’t have any friends in the civilian world that have had to spend as much time away from their family as we have. Or get up every morning in their 40’s to do PT because their employer requires it. None of those same friends have ever been shot at. I don’t know any civilian who has had to move 5 times in 3 ½ years. Personally, I do think I make a lot of money and will get a lot for retirement. And I think I deserve every penny.

[disgruntledemployee]

To those here that think we make too much and want to cut our retirement, leave. Just leave because you don't get it and there is no way for anyone to convince you that your pathetic thinking is backwards. If you really want to stay, donate all that you don't think you deserve to charity. Be sure to brag to us about it.

Out

[GoAround]

Good news for military retirement...for now...

https://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/economy/fiscal_commission_vote/index.htm?hpt=T1

A report by a presidential panel commissioned to find ways to pull the United States out its massive debt has failed to win the 14 out of 18 votes required to bring it up for a vote in Congress. But Democratic and Republican members of the panel praised the sweeping plan, which recommends raising the retirement age and cuts in defense spending, saying it has raised awareness that Congress has to take action to reduce the national debt.

President Barack Obama called together a bipartisan panel of 18 current and former U.S. lawmakers and top business and labor union leaders to hammer out a plan to drastically cut the spiraling U.S. national deficit. The panel's recommendations prompted a firestorm of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.

Some Democrats objected to proposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and plans to raise the retirement age. Some Republicans said they oppose the plan because it does not do enough to cut spending and health care costs.

But despite all the misgivings, 11 members of the panel voted for the plan, including progressive Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Durbin said he had been getting a lot of phone calls asking why he voted yes, and this was his explanation.

"I believe that politicians on the left and the right, Democrats and Republicans, have to acknowledge the depths of crisis our nation faces," said Durbin. "When we borrow 40 cents out of every dollar we spend, whether it is in the Pentagon or for food stamps, that is unsustainable. And being indebted for generations to China, OPEC and other nations around the world will not allow us to build a fairer and just America."

Republican Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho also voted for the plan, and said he believes it has already changed the national debate on the country's deficit.

"The fact that we did not hit 14 should not be, and many others have reflected this same sentiment, should not be an indication that there is not powerful support behind this plan, and the need for Congress to engage," said Crapo.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the panel said the commission's plan deserves a vote on the floor of the House and the Senate. The plan would reduce deficit spending by nearly $4 trillion by 2020.

But Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois said the plan would put an unfair burden on lower income Americans and the elderly, while leaving the wealthiest virtually unscathed.

"But there is another grave threat to both our economy and our democracy, and that is the alarming redistribution of wealth that is shrinking the middle class," said Schalowsky. "The top one percent of Americans now own 34 percent of our nation's wealth, more than the entire 90 percent of the rest of Americans combined."

The next Congress will likely take up the national debt issue next year. But first, in its remaining weeks in December, this session of Congress still needs to fund the federal government and to deal with the controversial issue of extending Bush-era tax cuts.

[Murph]

Nonsensical whining removed for the good of humanity.

Thank god. Dudes must love being around you. There's enough of us out there with pt 121 or 135 experience to know you're exaggerating the commercial aviation situation.

[Guest]

And I think I deserve every penny.

Yes, you certainly do.

[Red Fox]

hindsight2020 wrote earlier: "AD cats are just blowing smoke, yall make crazy money for the risk of getting blown out of the sky, more likely die in training for the majority.

...but y'all gotta step away from the "FU I got mine" for a second and concede military and civil service retirements ARE out of line from the eroding trend of civilian pay and retirement vehicles.

...we got Air Force wings and science and math degrees out the ying ya too bra'... "

My questions for him/her are: Did you take your bling off before typing this nonsense? Where did you learn to communicate? Look, I'm not perfect (there are probably grammatical/spelling mistakes in my post), but I respect the audience. This blog is populated by professionals and therefore, I try to communicate like a professional out of respect for them and myself.

I don't recall knowing anyone in the military in my 25 years of serving in the USAF/AFRES that came from a wealthy family (I know that is a relative term). In my opinion, the poor and middle class bear the burden of protecting our country. We deserve to be paid well for doing a job that the majority of our country are not willing to do. Military entitlements should be the last thing cut. If that means the wealthiest in our nation have to pay more in taxes - so be it.

About our huge national debt: I think our government will deny it, but our monetary officials are trying to devalue the dollar. I believe we are trying to inflate our way out of debt. If the dollar is devalued by 50%, then our debt in a sense is decreased by 50%. There are significant consequences with this, like inflation, high interest rates, etc. I believe our currency will eventually no longer be the "safe haven" and will have a status similar to that of an emerging market economy. Our saving grace so far is that much of Europe (can you say socialism/entitlements)is worse off than us and because China manipulates its currency.

In my opinion, the USA and Western Europe are on the downward slope of greatness. We have spoiled our populace to the point where we can't return to the values that made us great (unless there is some sort of drastic event/catastrophe). The wealthiest in our nation (top 1% own/control over 30% of our nation's wealth) will continue to get richer (by looking to the Far East) while the rest of us will get poorer. This is not class envy, but realism, IMHO.

Regards, RF

Edited December 4, 2010 by Red Fox

[afnav]

To the Ali G impersonator that slammed active duty members and what they deserve from earlier - go fuck yourself.

Cutting military retirement is like freezing federal pay. Why is the so-called pay gap growing between the public and private sector? Let's look at the differences between the two.

1. Many in federal employment have security clearances that by the rules should be denied to most members of Congress.

2. How many people in the commercial world have criminal records/bankruptcies, alcohol/drug incidents, etc.? More than in civil service, I bet.

3. There are many civil service jobs that cross lines in terms of relevant skills, like a janitor or a lawyer. However, there are a crap-ton of positions out there that are very rare. Some security clearance shredouts are extremely rare, and the skill sets that go with them are even more hard to find.

One must be very careful about cutting benefits to people that protect your ass. Look at what happens when cities cut fire and police salaries/entitlements.

[Guest]

Why is the so-called pay gap growing between the public and private sector?

There is a very good reason for the pay gap. There is far more accountability for performance in the private sector, especially as you move up the pay scale.

Public sector jobs should be about service to your country with adequate pay. It is a choice. If you want to make more money you can do so in the private sector. If you want to serve you can do so but know you will not be compensated as well.

[C-21.Pilot]

Your thoughts?

************************************************

Second task force seeks to cut retired pay

By Rick Maze - Staff writer

Posted : Wednesday Nov 17, 2010 17:01:47 EST

The military retirement system is under attack from another group trying to cut federal spending, and this time they say they would make the changes apply even to current service members who have less than 15 years of service.

In a report released Nov. 17, the Debt Reduction Task Force of the Bipartisan Policy Group recommends cutting military retirement costs in half by making three changes:

• Instead of drawing a retirement check immediately after completing active duty, checks would not start until age 57.

• Instead of calculating retirement benefits on the highest three years of basic pay, the highest five years of consecutive service could be used as the multiplier to set amounts.

• A new formula would be adopted for calculating cost-of-living adjustments in military and federal civilian retired pay and Social Security — a formula expected to result in smaller increases by disregarding price increases in some goods and services if people could use a less expensive alternative product or service.

The Debt Reduction Task Force was headed by former Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domenici, a Republican from New Mexico, and Alice Rivlin, who was the White House budget director during the Clinton administration.

The report also talks of either freezing defense spending or rolling back the size of the defense budget to pre-2001 levels.

Retirement changes are similar, but slightly less drastic, than recommendations made by co-chairmen of another bipartisan group, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. That panel also recommended a high-five calculation for military retirement with a revised COLA calculation, but would have made retirees wait until age 60 to draw their first checks.

The Domenici-Rivlin task force calculated $131 billion in savings by 2040 from the revised retirement plan, but it noted that by postponing the effect on anyone with 15 or more years in the military, the plan wouldn’t start achieving real savings until 2017.

The recommendations from the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform co-chairmen, former Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, do not include a specific savings estimate from changing military retired pay, instead lumping cost estimates in with changes in federal civilian retired pay. Additionally, the Simpson-Bowles recommendations do not specifically say whether anyone now in the military would be grandfathered or whether the reduced and delayed retired pay could apply to everyone still in the service.

Any change in retirement calculations would require congressional approval, since the formula and timing for payments are set in law. The two reports are expected to get attention from Congress next year when current lawmakers are faced with drawing up a 2012 federal budget plan after the 2010 elections featured a lot of talk about cutting federal spending.

[shiznitobam_allstars]

Cut it. Everyone is going to have to eat a bite of this giant shit sandwich we have made for ourselves, even the military/DoD. The gravy train can't last forever, this stuff isn't free (generally speaking of all things government).

[M2]

Cut it. Everyone is going to have to eat a bite of this giant shit sandwich we have made for ourselves, even the military/DoD. The gravy train can't last forever, this stuff isn't free (generally speaking of all things government).

Yeah? Well, when I see the same thing happening to Congress, I'll agree...

[Red Fox]

In my opinion, no way in hell the military will keep very many trained professionals if the retirement age is changed to 57. Making a career change while one is in their early 40's (usual 20 year retirement age and when many have kids to support) without the safety net of a retirement income is risky business. I would bet most pilots would punch as soon as their commitment has expired in order to start a new career before they start a family or before their kids are older. Braces, college, etc. adds up fast. I know that is what I would do if faced with that choice. To those with less than 15 years AD - good luck, I hope the plan isn't enacted. Regards, RF

[OverTQ]

2. I don't think it would hurt initial recruitment. But, there would be a big difference in the retention rates at the eight year mark. It would be big for RES/NG recruitment. The argument would go, "Why go AC if you can go RES, get the same training, fly about the same, not have to do desk jobs and draw your retirement pay at the same time as AC?"