Veterans!!

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:08 pm

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:The military should never be a place where the pay is above the pay scale of the average Joe or professional.
I'm sure you work with a lot of retired military. I know that I have. I don't think there is a single one of them that did not make less in the military than they did in the private sector. I'm sure the retired colonels that I have worked with earned as much or more than they did in the military. My experience is that the pay scale is still at or below the average professional and that is before you factor in any of the other things that are true that SH mentioned.


Really? And why do they make more now in the private sector? They make more in the private sector mostly doing work unrelated or completely different than what they did in the military. They got the job after their careers in the military precisely because they were in the military as officers; they were connected.

Your comparison is farcical. You cannot state that these men would've achieved the same success in the private sector that they did in the military. Nice try.

If you don't know what the currect military pay scale is, look it up. You might be surprised. I sure was.

I was just responding to your example of the colonels. The same is true of retired NCOs and nearly all other ex-military that I have I have worked with and am familiar with and it wasn't because they were connected. People that come out of the military are reliable, disciplined, and skilled. These are a significant premium to their value as an employee. I don't know how you would do an apples to apples comparison, but in my experience, they all make more in the private sector. The only ones that aren't making that much did not make much in the military and did their minimum commitment and got out.

BTW, I looked at the pay scales and I just don't see a problem.

Now like anything else, they should pay no more and no less than they have to to get the number of people with the talent they need. In my experience, they pay less than these same people could make in the private sector. They are allowed to give an intelligence test and do a better job of weeding out the morons than their counterpart in the private sector. For the same job, they are on average better. Sure an 18 that just enlisted as a private is still a dumbass kid, but on average is smarter than the 18 year old in the general population.

When I was 17, a buddy of mine was in the Navy and convinced us to go to the recruiter. Sure, why not? I went with another friend. They gave us a short version of the ASVAB. My friend was told that if he studied hard enough, they MIGHT be able to get him into the Navy.

Apples to apples, I just don't see them being over paid. Maybe there are some exceptions and maybe things have changed quite a bit with combat being the norm and not some theoretical possibility when I was that age. Back then, the Navy offered my a crapload of money to join and bothered me all the freaking time. I did just a tad better than my friend on the test :yes: The reason I did not join the military is precisely the reason you suggest. It was purely to get and education and training. Had I turned 18 shortly after 9/11/01, I'm pretty certain I would have chosen a different course. And I do know that if I was not blind as a bat without my contacts, I'd be flying jets today, but there was no way they were going to let me do that with uncorrected vision that was about 20/600 :eek: :eek: :eek:


How do you know if they are getting paid what they should or more appropriately what the market will bear? You understand economics. What seems to be reasonable may not be. The military has been getting pay raises every year based on feel-good legislation, not retention. Cut the raises and we will be able to see what the real wages should be.

How do you know? You BELIEVE that raises should have been less. And maybe you are right. That is not what my experience suggests to me.

There are so many things changing simultaneously, I fully concede that I do not know. I never said that I knew. Just that my experience suggests that your initial statement is not consistent with my experience and I'd be surprised if it was true of yours as well given what you do and what you and those you work with probably make doing it.

vincentpa wrote:The military is far overpaid in comparison to our historical norm and compared to every other nation.

Our military is a highly skilled force compared to our historical norm - so it would be expected to pay more to get the higher IQ recruits that are needed to perform higher skilled positions.

Compared to other nations we are far more skilled on average. Same thing.

vincentpa wrote: They were getting pay raises when everyone elses salaries were either stagnant or falling. They should get a pay freeze.
Did the growth rate in the level of skill stagnate during that period? I think not, and suspect it continued to grow and therefore the pay would expect to continue to grow.

Also over this time period, the cost of skilled labor, especially highly skilled labor grow while low and unskilled labor stagnated or declined. Given a work force that is more skilled on average than the national average, you would have to compare it to a more representative skill mix.

Maybe they are overpaid, but it would be very difficult to figure that out. Your argument seems to be based on what the politicians said.

vincentpa wrote:The military has been getting pay raises every year based on feel-good legislation, not retention.
Why was it feel good? Because of what dumbass politicians said? Because you studied the issue? Even retention is more complex in a highly-skilled work force. The difference between the best and the worst is far greater than the same for unskilled labor, so if you are retaining the bottom and losing the top, that is a problem. The politicians are stupid. The career military is not and they have dedicated and risked their life for their country. To presume they do these things for feel good reasons is also not consistent with my experience.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Veterans!!

Postby boney fingers » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:21 pm

vincentpa wrote:
assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:Stating the deprivations and sacrifices of military life is not a rebuttal to my argument. It has nothing to do with the thrust of my position. I've already acknowledged the sacrifices and stated they are part of the job.


Yes, it is. Unless you believe that hours worked, and the job conditions should have nothing to do with compensation.

In the civilian world, there is a differential for shift work. 3rd shift gets paid more than 1st shift, for example. But by your argument, that should not be the case, because compensation should have "nothing to do with the thrust of your position". Because working 3rd shift is "just part of the job". Nor should someone who is expected to work 60 hours a week expect to be compensated more for the same job than someone working 30 hours a week. Because it is "part of the job". As I said- silliness.


In your mind, what factors SHOULD be used to determine compensation?


The factors shouldn't determine the pay at all. What should determine the pay is the market. Yes, the free market. People have all sorts of decisions about a career path or job path or path in life, etc. The military is one of those choices. The choice to pursue the military is a little different in that it involves many considerations including service, life and death, surrendering certain freedoms, lower pay to name a few. People are motivated to pursue a military path for different options than those that pursue careers in the private sector. In a way, the detriments of a military life are a great determination of motivation in the individual. How much should those in the military be paid? As much as it takes to attract enough people with the right qualifications to maintain the type of fighting force we require to defend our nation and not a penny more.

I was dating a Navy NCO while living in Washington DC. She wasn't really hot but she was a great @!$%. Anyway, at that point in time, the Navy was losing a lot of NCOs to the private sector, more than they could afford to lose. So the Navy started to offer the NCOs larger signing bonuses and other incentives to stay. I'm perfectly fine with that. The NCOs started to get what the market would bear. Their price had gone up.

Giving raises to the troops is the Republican feel-good thing to do much like redistributing money from rich to poor is for the Democrats. Who could resist? We love the troops right? Of course we do. However, we don't have to show our love by paying them more than they would accept otherwise. The repercussions could be terrible for future generations if the military were to become politicized. Military life shouldn't be as comfortable as life in the private sector. And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.



My current unit is at 70% strength, retention is a huge problem; your line of thinking supports a raise for soldiers, especially the middle enlisted E5-E7.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:33 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:The military is far overpaid in comparison to our historical norm and compared to every other nation.

Our military is a highly skilled force compared to our historical norm - so it would be expected to pay more to get the higher IQ recruits that are needed to perform higher skilled positions.

Compared to other nations we are far more skilled on average. Same thing.


The military trains them. They do not come in skilled. That is a big difference.

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote: They were getting pay raises when everyone elses salaries were either stagnant or falling. They should get a pay freeze.
Did the growth rate in the level of skill stagnate during that period? I think not, and suspect it continued to grow and therefore the pay would expect to continue to grow.

Also over this time period, the cost of skilled labor, especially highly skilled labor grow while low and unskilled labor stagnated or declined. Given a work force that is more skilled on average than the national average, you would have to compare it to a more representative skill mix.

Maybe they are overpaid, but it would be very difficult to figure that out. Your argument seems to be based on what the politicians said.


The cost of skilled labor was not uniform. You can't extrapolate that to the entire military.

Please don't infer or try to frame my argument for something that it is not. You have a bad habit of doing that. If you need a clarification, ask.

My argument is based on pay raises not tied to studies determining any were required. It would not be difficult to determine if they are overpaid. Stop the raises and measure retention. Fairly simple.

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:The military has been getting pay raises every year based on feel-good legislation, not retention.
Why was it feel good? Because of what dumbass politicians said? Because you studied the issue? Even retention is more complex in a highly-skilled work force. The difference between the best and the worst is far greater than the same for unskilled labor, so if you are retaining the bottom and losing the top, that is a problem. The politicians are stupid. The career military is not and they have dedicated and risked their life for their country. To presume they do these things for feel good reasons is also not consistent with my experience.


Pay raises were giving without retention losses. It was always about showing our support for the troops, not based on actual recruitment and retention needs. This suggests that there wasn't a problem with the pay, which has historically been lower than the private sector. All recruiting objective since 9/11 were met, which includes the quality of the personnel. You're correct in stating neither you nor I know for sure if the military is overpaid. I have a sneaking suspicion based on political objectives and recruiting needs, it is. One thing is for certain, they military is either paid too much or just right. They are not underpaid or they would not meet their recruiting needs.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:34 pm

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
assateague wrote:

In your mind, what factors SHOULD be used to determine compensation?


The factors shouldn't determine the pay at all. What should determine the pay is the market. Yes, the free market. People have all sorts of decisions about a career path or job path or path in life, etc. The military is one of those choices. The choice to pursue the military is a little different in that it involves many considerations including service, life and death, surrendering certain freedoms, lower pay to name a few. People are motivated to pursue a military path for different options than those that pursue careers in the private sector. In a way, the detriments of a military life are a great determination of motivation in the individual. How much should those in the military be paid? As much as it takes to attract enough people with the right qualifications to maintain the type of fighting force we require to defend our nation and not a penny more.

I was dating a Navy NCO while living in Washington DC. She wasn't really hot but she was a great @!$%. Anyway, at that point in time, the Navy was losing a lot of NCOs to the private sector, more than they could afford to lose. So the Navy started to offer the NCOs larger signing bonuses and other incentives to stay. I'm perfectly fine with that. The NCOs started to get what the market would bear. Their price had gone up.

Giving raises to the troops is the Republican feel-good thing to do much like redistributing money from rich to poor is for the Democrats. Who could resist? We love the troops right? Of course we do. However, we don't have to show our love by paying them more than they would accept otherwise. The repercussions could be terrible for future generations if the military were to become politicized. Military life shouldn't be as comfortable as life in the private sector. And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.




So you said "the market" should determine the pay. I agree. And part of "the market" is the available labor force. If you are offering $20,000 a year for 60 hours a week, and $20,000 a year for 30 hours a week, which one do you think "the market" is going to fill first? And as a result, "the market" will raise the compensation for the 60 hour a week job in order to fill necessary positions, correct? But yet you act as if this dynamic doesn't occur at all in the military.

As for comparisons, where in "the market" will you find a job in combat arms? I'm not sure how you could even suggest that a "civilian" infantryman should be paid more than a "military" infantryman, but somehow you've got that one figured out in your mind.



I would cut your pay in half. That's for sure.

The market will determine the pay by the number of recruits and the number of retentions. If the pay is too low, the military won't meet its recruiting and retention needs based on numbers and quality.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:35 pm

So do American civilian contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan make more or less than in the US? And do those civilians over seas make more or less than our folks who are serving?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Dec 09, 2013 12:41 pm

vincentpa wrote:And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.
Or it just leads to lower quality which leads to more corruption and eventually to disaster.

I think this is your huge false premise. You assume that there is a negative correlation with love of country and military pay. What evidence do you have for this? I don't think the pay is anywhere close to where it needs to be for this to be true. There are much easier ways to make a lot more money with a lot less effort. We have another thread on one of them :biggrin:

However, I guess in your view that those that would work for free would be the best recruits of all. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

vincentpa wrote:My argument is based on pay raises not tied to studies determining any were required.
How often does an employer need to do a study to know he needs to pay more to get a better quality of employee than he currently has? :huh:

Maybe it is my time in government. I'm highly dubious of the value of these types of studies because they are very difficult and very easy to pick the people doing the study to get the answer that you want. Also much of the legislation happens because of personal relationships. This can be good or bad.

vincentpa wrote:It would not be difficult to determine if they are overpaid. Stop the raises and measure retention.
You are WAY over simplifying it. Retention in aggregate is not the only thing that is important. Quality matters more than quantity went it comes to most things that the professional military does. Quality is a very difficult thing to measure.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:11 pm

I love when you argue based on your feelings. Your defense of your position here is almost as poor as your defense of the government shutdown by the Tea Party. You are so guilty of what you accuse liberals of doing. You use your intelligence to justify your emotion. I love when you make an emotional argument. I really do.

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.
Or it just leads to lower quality which leads to more corruption and eventually to disaster.

I think this is your huge false premise. You assume that there is a negative correlation with love of country and military pay. What evidence do you have for this? I don't think the pay is anywhere close to where it needs to be for this to be true. There are much easier ways to make a lot more money with a lot less effort. We have another thread on one of them :biggrin:


What evidence do I have of this? History. How close are we to it. Don't know and neither do you. That is why I stated we should not pay the military any more than what they would serve for anyway. I never stated that we were close to the point of the military becoming politicized but only that it was a risk we shouldn't take for the future generations. Oh, that's right; you chose to ignore that part of my prior post. It didn't fit your narrative. I understand that's your M.O. but please try to debate honestly.


SpinnerMan wrote:However, I guess in your view that those that would work for free would be the best recruits of all. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

No just for the right price.

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:My argument is based on pay raises not tied to studies determining any were required.
How often does an employer need to do a study to know he needs to pay more to get a better quality of employee than he currently has? :huh:

Maybe it is my time in government. I'm highly dubious of the value of these types of studies because they are very difficult and very easy to pick the people doing the study to get the answer that you want. Also much of the legislation happens because of personal relationships. This can be good or bad.


You can't be serious. This is how the private sector works. When the private sector needs to fill a position, they consider the position and the qualifications and how much it commands in the market place or at least what they think it commands. They then advertise and try to fill that position. If they get no takers for the quoted salary, they realize they have to offer more to fill the position. The private section WIL NOT, I REPEAT WILL NOT pay more than they "feel" they should to fill a position. The same is true for the military. They have a numbers and qualifications quota. If they don't get the number of people they need with the proper qualifications, they would do a study to discover the reason. Pay is usually the culprit but there are other reasons. If pay is the problem, the military needs to pay more. (I agree that they will almost always say pay because of the people picked. However, quite often they uncover other useful reasons as well.) It's that simple. There hasn't been a problem recruiting and retaining since 9/11. Therefore, pay was just right or even more than it should've been before the raises. You can't argue with facts. Your argument will never be able to overcome that reality.


SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:It would not be difficult to determine if they are overpaid. Stop the raises and measure retention.
You are WAY over simplifying it. Retention in aggregate is not the only thing that is important. Quality matters more than quantity went it comes to most things that the professional military does. Quality is a very difficult thing to measure.


It is simple. It's the way it is. That's how the market works. See my explanation above.

That's funny, I thought I mentioned quality quite often in my previous posts. Perhaps you need to change your myopic glasses to read the entire sentence instead of just what you want to read. Or perhaps, you are willfully misstating my position because yours is weak. I think it's the latter since it is a bad habit of your that you do quite often.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:12 pm

beretta24 wrote:So do American civilian contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan make more or less than in the US? And do those civilians over seas make more or less than our folks who are serving?


Why yes, they do. Thank you for supporting my position with your support of the free market.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:32 pm

But you said they should get a pay freeze. Why when the free market says the person working along side them is making more?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:37 pm

beretta24 wrote:But you said they should get a pay freeze. Why when the free market says the person working along side them is making more?



That just wouldn't be fair. Would it?
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:44 pm

I'm not assessing fairness. I'm asking you why you think they should get a pay freeze when you said the market should determine pay, and the market is paying more than they make.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:49 pm

beretta24 wrote:I'm not assessing fairness. I'm asking you why you think they should get a pay freeze when you said the market should determine pay, and the market is paying more than they make.


But you are making a statement of fairness. Everything you've just asked for in this post can be found in my previous posts. Go back and read them. I don't need to restate anything. Everything I've written has been perfectly clear.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:15 pm

I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:23 pm

beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:24 pm

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:So do American civilian contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan make more or less than in the US? And do those civilians over seas make more or less than our folks who are serving?


Why yes, they do. Thank you for supporting my position with your support of the free market.

Wait, this is confusing……..beretta asked whether a certain group makes more or less than another group and you seem to have answered "yes". Shouldn't the answer be "more" or "less", or perhaps "the same"? It can't be just "yes"
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6290
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:05 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:So do American civilian contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan make more or less than in the US? And do those civilians over seas make more or less than our folks who are serving?


Why yes, they do. Thank you for supporting my position with your support of the free market.

Wait, this is confusing……..beretta asked whether a certain group makes more or less than another group and you seem to have answered "yes". Shouldn't the answer be "more" or "less", or perhaps "the same"? It can't be just "yes"

He hasn't said it plainly, but if I haven't misinterpreted Vince, a sense of duty and service makes up the difference. Thats a simplistic recap, but I think you'll understand what I'm saying.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:06 pm

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.

Then I guess you have no issue with stop loss orders.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:07 pm

vincentpa wrote:You are so guilty of what you accuse liberals of doing.


So you had your chance to do a bunch of name calling. I hope you feel better now.

I have a simple question, how much more does the lowest paid person in the military love his country than you do?

vincentpa wrote:And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.

There is just so much in this is just flat out silly, but it seems to be at the core of what you think would enhance military performance.

Love of country is far from the deciding factor of the effectiveness in modern army.

But, love of country does not trump love of family nor does it trump your responsibilities to your family.

I don't know if you ever contemplated serving in the military, but was the only reason you chose not to because you didn't love your country enough?

Also, do you honestly believe people that are paid more are MORE corruptible than those paid less. Please explain how paying less leads to people to be less corruptible. How low should we go given that the salary for an E-1 is 18,000 per year which with time and a half for overtime is a minimum wage job if they average about 45 hours per week.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

And if you look at starting salaries for military school grads and compare them to starting salaries. They start at 35,000 per year.

http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/Articles/Pages/Class-of-2013-Salaries.aspx

This is below the starting salary of a humanities degree. If they took engineering, they are making way less.

The salaries are not double what they should be.

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.

BTW, if you cut them in half, that would put them back to well before 9/11/01. Pay has only rise 3% per year since then and that is not inflation adjusted.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/2001-military-pay-scale-chart.asp

It is the people that have no skills that have done really poorly, but what do you expect they have to compete with huge numbers of illegal aliens which greatly depresses the labor rates at the low end.

Maybe we could save a lot of money if we just started using illegals in the military. I'll bet they love their country more than either of us do. Think about :tongue: They'd be happy to do it for less, so clearly that is the way to go. That's sarcasm BTW.

Could we move the numbers by 10% and have a hard time seeing the difference. Of course. Had we doubled the salaries, how many lives would have been saved in Iraq because of the higher talent it would have attracted. But I'm glad you have such confidence that you are right. I guess it's that vast military experience. :umm:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16433
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:22 am

beretta24 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.

Then I guess you have no issue with stop loss orders.


Stop loss orders are temporary measures based on unexpected needs. And I don't have any problems with it. It is a factor to consider before enlisting as death would also.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:24 am

blackduckdog2 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:So do American civilian contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan make more or less than in the US? And do those civilians over seas make more or less than our folks who are serving?


Why yes, they do. Thank you for supporting my position with your support of the free market.

Wait, this is confusing……..beretta asked whether a certain group makes more or less than another group and you seem to have answered "yes". Shouldn't the answer be "more" or "less", or perhaps "the same"? It can't be just "yes"


I didn't read that properly. Civilian contractors make much more than the regular army. The free market dictates the pay of the civilian contractors as well.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:50 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:You are so guilty of what you accuse liberals of doing.


So you had your chance to do a bunch of name calling. I hope you feel better now.

I have a simple question, how much more does the lowest paid person in the military love his country than you do?

vincentpa wrote:And if the pay is lower and the life not as comfortable, we are more sure of the motives of those in the military; they are there for the love of country and not personal gain, which leads to corruption and eventually to disaster.

There is just so much in this is just flat out silly, but it seems to be at the core of what you think would enhance military performance.

Love of country is far from the deciding factor of the effectiveness in modern army.

But, love of country does not trump love of family nor does it trump your responsibilities to your family.

I don't know if you ever contemplated serving in the military, but was the only reason you chose not to because you didn't love your country enough?

Also, do you honestly believe people that are paid more are MORE corruptible than those paid less. Please explain how paying less leads to people to be less corruptible. How low should we go given that the salary for an E-1 is 18,000 per year which with time and a half for overtime is a minimum wage job if they average about 45 hours per week.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp

And if you look at starting salaries for military school grads and compare them to starting salaries. They start at 35,000 per year.

http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/compensation/Articles/Pages/Class-of-2013-Salaries.aspx

This is below the starting salary of a humanities degree. If they took engineering, they are making way less.

The salaries are not double what they should be.

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.

BTW, if you cut them in half, that would put them back to well before 9/11/01. Pay has only rise 3% per year since then and that is not inflation adjusted.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/2001-military-pay-scale-chart.asp

It is the people that have no skills that have done really poorly, but what do you expect they have to compete with huge numbers of illegal aliens which greatly depresses the labor rates at the low end.

Maybe we could save a lot of money if we just started using illegals in the military. I'll bet they love their country more than either of us do. Think about :tongue: They'd be happy to do it for less, so clearly that is the way to go. That's sarcasm BTW.

Could we move the numbers by 10% and have a hard time seeing the difference. Of course. Had we doubled the salaries, how many lives would have been saved in Iraq because of the higher talent it would have attracted. But I'm glad you have such confidence that you are right. I guess it's that vast military experience. :umm:


Spinner the liberal! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Justifying your position again. Let's look past your attempts to make it personal, your attempts to reframe the argument and your silly tangents. You started this argument from the circumstance of being in check mate. It's tough to argue from that predicament. You cannot argue the economics. So you dance around the issue.

I saw what the military (actually an officer with whom I'm familiar) was being paid. It appeared to be more than I had anticipated. I did not know for sure because I, you, AT, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the president cannot possibly know. The salary should be set by the market. Because I didn't know, I had a gut feeling it was inflated. I used a little reason and basic economics to deduce the pay was inflated. My conclusion was based on the pay increases over the past many years were not given for retention of personnel or a lack of recruitment. In fact, the military was surprised it was able to recruit and retain so well even though we were fighting two wars. The pay increases were given for purely political reasons, thereby distorting market based pay, i.e. military pay. All of the other issues you want to discuss and make the main thrust of the argument are only factors each person in the military must consider before he enlists. And yes, the driving force behind most enlistments is service to country. Other reasons exist for sure. Each person considers his reason for enlisting along with all of the factors and consequences, including pay and death.

The simple fact is that pay increases were given over the inflation rate to the military when retention and recruitment were not problems. In economic terms, this means that pay was increased unnecessarily. As you well know, you only make as much as it costs to pay your replacement.

The end result of the politicization of the military its disastrous consequences I would like to avoid is based on historical examples. At what point this occurs, I do not know as I've clearly stated. I also have clearly stated that I would like to avoid this result for future generation. It's kind of like the Second Amendment. You hope you never need it but you want it in the tool box just in case.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:02 am

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:I'm getting there, and I may not disagree with you. What raises(timeframe etc) are you against?



Since 9/11.

Then I guess you have no issue with stop loss orders.


Stop loss orders are temporary measures based on unexpected needs. And I don't have any problems with it. It is a factor to consider before enlisting as death would also.

To the letter of the law yes, but bait and switch tactics are largely to blame for the rate of stop loss seen after 9/11. They sold a bill of good to kids, and when those kids saw the bs they were told "too bad you have one more year". That's garbage in my book. And it's only legal when the government does it.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby assateague » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:24 am

vincentpa wrote:
I saw what the military (actually an officer with whom I'm familiar) was being paid. It appeared to be more than I had anticipated.


So your argument is based on your expectations, realistic or not (hence the "than I had anticipated").



vincentpa wrote:I did not know for sure because I, you, AT, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the president cannot possibly know.


But yet your argument is based on the premise that you DO know, and have determined that it is currently too much. Interesting.



vincentpa wrote: Because I didn't know, I had a gut feeling it was inflated. I used a little reason and basic economics to deduce the pay was inflated.


Says you. Again, no "proof" or logic whatsoever. Just your "deduction" based on a "gut feeling".

Oh, but wait. Maybe it wasn't just a "gut feeling":

vincentpa wrote: My conclusion was based on the pay increases over the past many years were not given for retention of personnel or a lack of recruitment.


Perhaps it was due to an increased workload, and a proactive attempt to PREVENT retention from dropping, with the drastically increased deployments. Because it makes sense to retain people who hhave learned the skills which will help the military, rather than simply turning them over and starting from scratch.

vincentpa wrote: In fact, the military was surprised it was able to recruit and retain so well even though we were fighting two wars. The pay increases were given for purely political reasons, thereby distorting market based pay, i.e. military pay. All of the other issues you want to discuss and make the main thrust of the argument are only factors each person in the military must consider before he enlists. And yes, the driving force behind most enlistments is service to country. Other reasons exist for sure. Each person considers his reason for enlisting along with all of the factors and consequences, including pay and death.


So because one must "consider" those factors, the military shouldn't compensate for them. Again, stupid. How about better qualified people who would "consider" it, and then decide not to join because of the compensation? It seems as if you're ok with simply keeping/enlisting numbers, and ignoring quality.

vincentpa wrote: The simple fact is that pay increases were given over the inflation rate to the military when retention and recruitment were not problems. In economic terms, this means that pay was increased unnecessarily. As you well know, you only make as much as it costs to pay your replacement.


Again, you apparently don't understand force readiness, and the factors which go into it.

vincentpa wrote:The end result of the politicization of the military its disastrous consequences I would like to avoid is based on historical examples. At what point this occurs, I do not know as I've clearly stated. I also have clearly stated that I would like to avoid this result for future generation. It's kind of like the Second Amendment. You hope you never need it but you want it in the tool box just in case.


How is pay "politicization"?


I just can't help but believe your entire argument is based on a false premise. But yet you cling to it, with no real rationale behind it, other than "I decided it was too inflated". In your mind, should one's paycheck only reflect inflation? After you have been at a job for 2 years, do you expect to make the exact same pay as you did on day one? There is no such thing as a "monetary performance review" in the military.

We'll use an E5 as an example. An E5 is basically equivalent to middle management in the civilian world. An E5 will be in charge of 5-12 employees. They will have a budget of around $1 million, and will be responsible for approximately $4 million in equipment. They will generally have been an "employee" in the organization for about 4 years.They will be responsible not only for ensuring that their employees are doing their job, but also ensuring that their employees are participating in continuing education classes, that their pay is not effed up, that they have food to eat, that they are current on all their medical issues, and that they are maintaining their personal lives in a manner that won't impact their job performance. We won't even go into combat operations at this point.

In exchange for this, in 2001 they received $19,476. In 2012 they received $28,500. Adjusted for inflation, the 2001 pay would equate to $25,697. So with the advent of repeated combat deployments, and two wars, as you say, their compensation increased $3,100 in 11 years. Hardly seems drastic to me.

And now let's contrast a civilian job. Tom has been an employee for 4 years. Tom supervises all the daily activities of 10 employees. He is directly responsible for their job performance, and must ensure that they function as a highly productive team. Tom works approximately 55 hours a week, and is at the office at least an hour before his employees, and leaves at least an hour after they have gone home. Tom must also work several overnight shifts per month, to help out in another department. If any of his employees screw up, Tom's performance review may prevent him from being promoted in the future, and may lead to him being fired. In exchange for this management position, Tom is compensated $28,500 a year.


But Vincent thinks this is too much.


http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
http://www.navycs.com/2012-military-pay-chart.html
http://www.navycs.com/charts/2001-military-pay-chart.html
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:38 am

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
I saw what the military (actually an officer with whom I'm familiar) was being paid. It appeared to be more than I had anticipated.


So your argument is based on your expectations, realistic or not (hence the "than I had anticipated").



vincentpa wrote:I did not know for sure because I, you, AT, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the president cannot possibly know.


But yet your argument is based on the premise that you DO know, and have determined that it is currently too much. Interesting.



vincentpa wrote: Because I didn't know, I had a gut feeling it was inflated. I used a little reason and basic economics to deduce the pay was inflated.


Says you. Again, no "proof" or logic whatsoever. Just your "deduction" based on a "gut feeling".

Oh, but wait. Maybe it wasn't just a "gut feeling":

vincentpa wrote: My conclusion was based on the pay increases over the past many years were not given for retention of personnel or a lack of recruitment.


Perhaps it was due to an increased workload, and a proactive attempt to PREVENT retention from dropping, with the drastically increased deployments. Because it makes sense to retain people who hhave learned the skills which will help the military, rather than simply turning them over and starting from scratch.

vincentpa wrote: In fact, the military was surprised it was able to recruit and retain so well even though we were fighting two wars. The pay increases were given for purely political reasons, thereby distorting market based pay, i.e. military pay. All of the other issues you want to discuss and make the main thrust of the argument are only factors each person in the military must consider before he enlists. And yes, the driving force behind most enlistments is service to country. Other reasons exist for sure. Each person considers his reason for enlisting along with all of the factors and consequences, including pay and death.


So because one must "consider" those factors, the military shouldn't compensate for them. Again, stupid. How about better qualified people who would "consider" it, and then decide not to join because of the compensation? It seems as if you're ok with simply keeping/enlisting numbers, and ignoring quality.

vincentpa wrote: The simple fact is that pay increases were given over the inflation rate to the military when retention and recruitment were not problems. In economic terms, this means that pay was increased unnecessarily. As you well know, you only make as much as it costs to pay your replacement.


Again, you apparently don't understand force readiness, and the factors which go into it.

vincentpa wrote:The end result of the politicization of the military its disastrous consequences I would like to avoid is based on historical examples. At what point this occurs, I do not know as I've clearly stated. I also have clearly stated that I would like to avoid this result for future generation. It's kind of like the Second Amendment. You hope you never need it but you want it in the tool box just in case.


How is pay "politicization"?


I just can't help but believe your entire argument is based on a false premise. But yet you cling to it, with no real rationale behind it, other than "I decided it was too inflated". In your mind, should one's paycheck only reflect inflation? After you have been at a job for 2 years, do you expect to make the exact same pay as you did on day one? There is no such thing as a "monetary performance review" in the military.

We'll use an E5 as an example. An E5 is basically equivalent to middle management in the civilian world. An E5 will be in charge of 5-12 employees. They will have a budget of around $1 million, and will be responsible for approximately $4 million in equipment. They will generally have been an "employee" in the organization for about 4 years.They will be responsible not only for ensuring that their employees are doing their job, but also ensuring that their employees are participating in continuing education classes, that their pay is not effed up, that they have food to eat, that they are current on all their medical issues, and that they are maintaining their personal lives in a manner that won't impact their job performance. We won't even go into combat operations at this point.

In exchange for this, in 2001 they received $19,476. In 2012 they received $28,500. Adjusted for inflation, the 2001 pay would equate to $25,697. So with the advent of repeated combat deployments, and two wars, as you say, their compensation increased $3,100 in 11 years. Hardly seems drastic to me.

And now let's contrast a civilian job. Tom has been an employee for 4 years. Tom supervises all the daily activities of 10 employees. He is directly responsible for their job performance, and must ensure that they function as a highly productive team. Tom works approximately 55 hours a week, and is at the office at least an hour before his employees, and leaves at least an hour after they have gone home. Tom must also work several overnight shifts per month, to help out in another department. If any of his employees screw up, Tom's performance review may prevent him from being promoted in the future, and may lead to him being fired. In exchange for this management position, Tom is compensated $28,500 a year.


But Vincent thinks this is too much.


http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
http://www.navycs.com/2012-military-pay-chart.html
http://www.navycs.com/charts/2001-military-pay-chart.html



When you learn a little of economics, post an intelligent response that isn't so full of emotion. You can try to justify around the edges all you want. You can try to make it personal all you want. But you cannot argue the merits of how compensation is determined. You fail.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7770
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby assateague » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:56 am

I know, I know- "the market" is a far more concise definition of what you believe should dictate compensation. If you keep saying it enough,m maybe it'll be true to anyone besides you. "The market" "The market" "The market". Nope. still just a phrase with no real meaning.

So I'll ask again- what do YOU believe should dictate compensation?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: charlie beard, JuniorPre 360 and 6 guests