I am not 18 with no other employment options. I have a full time job that could lead to me being a business owner in 5/10 years. My boss has offered to put me on that path. I am still trying to serve. My boss makes six figures.
I did change my mind that everyone should be hardcore true believers. We do need medical professionals in the service, and there aren't enough crazy 'Merica lovers for that. ETA: True believers in things like servant leadership, just war, et cetera. Not only 'Merica, though that stuff holds hands with my America loving. JIC. Sometimes I forget not everyone knows what I mean and think I'm just loony loving 'Merica.
But it would be nice if I weren't competing with 22 year old college grads who were only joining for the stability, to whom servant leadership means absolutely nothing.
Sorry, for just popping in here but I bounce around from board to board.
Why can't there be a balance? I don't think it is entirely self-serving or indicative of poor leadership capability to want a decent benefits package. Not only are some SMs taking a cut in pay, but their spouses are losing out on career advancement opportunities as well.
I also wonder if changing current recruitment strategies would help decrease our defense budget. I take issue with the fact that in the past decade the Military has been sold as just another way to pay for your education. I realize this has changed a bit in the last five years, but not to the extent that it should.
I would like to see what we pay to train and house these SMs who serve for 3-5 years, and what it costs to provide the GI Bill benefits for them. I have also heard several NCOs mention that the Military has shifted toward serving the Junior Enlisted rather than retaining leadership and that doesn't seem like a great strategy overall. Is it really beneficial to invest more in new recruits, or to retain experienced SMs?
You can totally call me out on this if I'm all wrong, it's just something I've been thinking about lately. This thread just provided a place for my brain to spew
Stan, I agree about the balance. Serving your country is an honorable value. But being an involved parent is another value. Living near family is a value. Not holding a dangerous job since you are responsible for small children is a value. You can hold all those values and struggle with how to prioritize them. And maybe a lifetime of security and healthcare is the tipping point that makes service worth the sacrifice.
I am more in the camp of willing to serve in order to further my career, but my husband is a passionate patriot who cries when the national anthem is played. And we feel the same way about struggling to rectify how to resolve our family values with our values of career and service.
And I agree that ideally all service members would be passionate about service, but you are also right that not nearly enough medical personnel are willing to deploy. People who are drawn to helping professions are not typically the same people drawn to fighting wars. And smart people aren't always athletic or healthy enough to cut the mustard. We need to take what we can get in that sense. Believe me, I'm not taking anyone's place.
Post by basilosaurus on Nov 20, 2012 16:45:34 GMT -5
Retirement is still a carrot for people who believe in being good servant leaders. Having a fulfilling job matters, and the military often gets in the way of that. They're not always the best at matching skills and desires to the job someone has to do.
H and I go back and forth on this all the time. The very first time he's allowed to leave is after 12 years. He's in a job that wasn't what he initially joined for, and it's kind of ... just a job most of the time, although he'll still always strive to perform at his best. He's eminently qualified to do something he'd love, and the military needs people in those roles, but the bureaucracy won't let him move over. Not for real reasons, just bureaucratic. So, stay in an extra 8 years being kind of ho hum and put up with the bs? Or bail and get into a better fitting career? Retirement ties into that quite a bit.
Something has to be done. I would prefer it be in contractor world or Tricare.
I agree. They need to seriously look at how much money they are throwing away to greedy contracting companies.
I worked for a company that was awarded the contract for my position as an office clerk. The Air Force paid the contractor $120K for my job; I was paid $30K/year to fill the slot. The company didn't give me crap for benefits. I know they have some other administrative costs to cover, but a $90,000 profit is ridiculous.
I think that military compensation is a complicated environment. The simplest thing to say is that the compensation someone gets from serving is not all monetary, nor is it all benefits, some of it most definitely comes from the pride of serving and love of country.
I don't think many would serve in the military absent of compensation in some form, though, so the important debate is what is needed beyond the pride of service and love of country. Could benefits be reduced, and still allow for retaining a professional military? Probably. The focus needs to be how much, and on what...
Every individual is going to weigh everything when they make their decision to serve vs. not serve. For folks like Stan, the love of country and desire to serve is _huge_, and it outweighs many of the concerns for compensation that one might have. But, let's be honest, not every servicemember is like that. Nor do I think they all need to be. Nor am I sure that should be the only criteria to use when selecting servicemembers - love of country is important, but so is competence and capability, which may or not be paired with love of country...
There are a variety of elements of the overall compensation that appeal to different servicemembers, and the relative importance of those elements is going to change over the course of someone's career, too. DH has 14 years in, so retirement is a pretty big element for us to consider right now. Modifications to the retirement plan would be a trigger for us to re-examine how things stack up - if the separations, stress, deployments, constant moves, etc are sufficiently offset by the compensation and pride of service.
It's inherently a personal evaluation, and one which, so far, has resulted in DH choosing to stay in. I can't say that will be the case if retirement benefits are drastically cut. And I would consider moving the start-date to receive retirement benefits to age 60 as being a massive cut in retirement benefits. It might be neccessary, but no one can say it isn't a major change in the benefits of service.
I am not 18 with no other employment options. I have a full time job that could lead to me being a business owner in 5/10 years. My boss has offered to put me on that path. I am still trying to serve. My boss makes six figures.
I did change my mind that everyone should be hardcore true believers. We do need medical professionals in the service, and there aren't enough crazy 'Merica lovers for that. ETA: True believers in things like servant leadership, just war, et cetera. Not only 'Merica, though that stuff holds hands with my America loving. JIC. Sometimes I forget not everyone knows what I mean and think I'm just loony loving 'Merica.
But it would be nice if I weren't competing with 22 year old college grads who were only joining for the stability, to whom servant leadership means absolutely nothing.
Sorry, for just popping in here but I bounce around from board to board.
Why can't there be a balance? I don't think it is entirely self-serving or indicative of poor leadership capability to want a decent benefits package. Not only are some SMs taking a cut in pay, but their spouses are losing out on career advancement opportunities as well.
I also wonder if changing current recruitment strategies would help decrease our defense budget. I take issue with the fact that in the past decade the Military has been sold as just another way to pay for your education. I realize this has changed a bit in the last five years, but not to the extent that it should.
I would like to see what we pay to train and house these SMs who serve for 3-5 years, and what it costs to provide the GI Bill benefits for them. I have also heard several NCOs mention that the Military has shifted toward serving the Junior Enlisted rather than retaining leadership and that doesn't seem like a great strategy overall. Is it really beneficial to invest more in new recruits, or to retain experienced SMs?
You can totally call me out on this if I'm all wrong, it's just something I've been thinking about lately. This thread just provided a place for my brain to spew
I've asked myself that question several times. Most recently, I asked myself that question when my husband went to see the retention NCO about reenlistment. He will be hitting his 10 year mark soon. This will be his indefinite reenlistment. I could brag on him with the job he has done and actually doing history making things, as far as the Army is concerned. However, the only bonus being offered to him is $2000 and that's only because he's reenlisting while over seas. A brand new Private just joining can get a $20K bonus for his MOS if they sign up right now. It's really rather pathetic. He's still reenlisting. He's not doing it for the money. I just think it's sad that they offer people with no experience all that money to join but they don't give extra incentive for the people they've paid a shit load of money to train to stay in.
Sorry, for just popping in here but I bounce around from board to board.
Why can't there be a balance? I don't think it is entirely self-serving or indicative of poor leadership capability to want a decent benefits package. Not only are some SMs taking a cut in pay, but their spouses are losing out on career advancement opportunities as well.
I also wonder if changing current recruitment strategies would help decrease our defense budget. I take issue with the fact that in the past decade the Military has been sold as just another way to pay for your education. I realize this has changed a bit in the last five years, but not to the extent that it should.
I would like to see what we pay to train and house these SMs who serve for 3-5 years, and what it costs to provide the GI Bill benefits for them. I have also heard several NCOs mention that the Military has shifted toward serving the Junior Enlisted rather than retaining leadership and that doesn't seem like a great strategy overall. Is it really beneficial to invest more in new recruits, or to retain experienced SMs?
You can totally call me out on this if I'm all wrong, it's just something I've been thinking about lately. This thread just provided a place for my brain to spew
Stan, I agree about the balance. Serving your country is an honorable value. But being an involved parent is another value. Living near family is a value. Not holding a dangerous job since you are responsible for small children is a value. You can hold all those values and struggle with how to prioritize them. And maybe a lifetime of security and healthcare is the tipping point that makes service worth the sacrifice.
I am more in the camp of willing to serve in order to further my career, but my husband is a passionate patriot who cries when the national anthem is played. And we feel the same way about struggling to rectify how to resolve our family values with our values of career and service.
And I agree that ideally all service members would be passionate about service, but you are also right that not nearly enough medical personnel are willing to deploy. People who are drawn to helping professions are not typically the same people drawn to fighting wars. And smart people aren't always athletic or healthy enough to cut the mustard. We need to take what we can get in that sense. Believe me, I'm not taking anyone's place.
The bolded is a fairly large assumption that, as the spouse of an Army physician who knows a LOT of other military doctors, I just don't think is particularly true. Yes, many (if not most) military health professionals join at least in part to help pay for their schooling. They are, however, on the whole an incredibly patriotic bunch (my H, FWIW, joined the Reserves at 17, almost a decade before he commissioned as a Medical Corps officer. Many of our friends are West Point grads who only decided to go into medicine after they graduated) who deploy regularly without complaint. It's also not like they get a choice in the matter. Everyone deploys, even cardiologists and neurologists who are called up to fill battalion surgeon positions.
FWIW, I'm completely in agreement that military retirement benefits have to be on the table for discussion in any major DOD spending cuts discussions. Everyone wants to trim the budget, but (IMO) it takes real courage to put your literal money where your mouth is and be willing to sacrifice on a personal level to make this country a more fiscally sound place.
Stan, I agree about the balance. Serving your country is an honorable value. But being an involved parent is another value. Living near family is a value. Not holding a dangerous job since you are responsible for small children is a value. You can hold all those values and struggle with how to prioritize them. And maybe a lifetime of security and healthcare is the tipping point that makes service worth the sacrifice.
I am more in the camp of willing to serve in order to further my career, but my husband is a passionate patriot who cries when the national anthem is played. And we feel the same way about struggling to rectify how to resolve our family values with our values of career and service.
And I agree that ideally all service members would be passionate about service, but you are also right that not nearly enough medical personnel are willing to deploy. People who are drawn to helping professions are not typically the same people drawn to fighting wars. And smart people aren't always athletic or healthy enough to cut the mustard. We need to take what we can get in that sense. Believe me, I'm not taking anyone's place.
The bolded is a fairly large assumption that, as the spouse of an Army physician who knows a LOT of other military doctors, I just don't think is particularly true. Yes, many (if not most) military health professionals join at least in part to help pay for their schooling. They are, however, on the whole an incredibly patriotic bunch (my H, FWIW, joined the Reserves at 17, almost a decade before he commissioned as a Medical Corps officer. Many of our friends are West Point grads who only decided to go into medicine after they graduated) who deploy regularly without complaint. It's also not like they get a choice in the matter. Everyone deploys, even cardiologists and neurologists who are called up to fill battalion surgeon positions.
FWIW, I'm completely in agreement that military retirement benefits have to be on the table for discussion in any major DOD spending cuts discussions. Everyone wants to trim the budget, but (IMO) it takes real courage to put your literal money where your mouth is and be willing to sacrifice on a personal level to make this country a more fiscally sound place.
I meant out of the entire medical community, not out of the military medical community. I assume we within the military medical community are all willing to deploy.