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 vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:43 pm

assateague wrote: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?


I think I explained it quite consisely. "The Market". :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

I'm not trying to be a d!ck. I’m really not. My back is killing me right now and it hurts to type. I just wanted to let you know that because you're one of the few that I would spend the time to respond to in my condition.

The market determines everyone's wages, including mine. In fact, I took less money than I could've made elsewhere to work where I currently work. I considered many factors in my choice of employment. The deciding factors were not necessarily monetary. You may be surprised for whom I work. You'll know someday probably sooner than later but not now. :wink:

I know how market forces work to determine wages. I'm a victim of not doing my homework and understanding economics of wages before I chose to be a civil engineer. Pittsburgh was a Mecca of engineering servicing the massive industry in Pittsburgh as well as the world. It also serviced the energy sector with APC equipment and nuclear power (Westinghouse). Half the people that worked downtown were engineers. They made a good living. Then the collapse of industry happened in Pittsburgh and throughout the country. There were hundreds if not thousands of engineers out of work. Engineers were taking half their previous pay just to keep their jobs. This occurred all over the country but Pittsburgh was ground zero. Supply and demand can be a b!tch. The industry still hasn't recovered fully. It's hard to recover from that kind of devastation. It takes a while. Engineers have made gains in wages within the last 10 years because there is a lack of supply of engineers. But we still aren't paid what we would've made before the collapse of industry. Engineers make what they make and accept it. They complain but they still do engineering work. I cannot change now. I had circumstances in my life preventing me from new training. That's life. It's not fair that I had a few bad things happen to me. But life isn't fair really. I accept it. However, pay should increase because there are fewer and fewer engineers to do the work. Kids are smarter these days. They have more info readily available. It's easier to research jobs. Why should a smart kid go into civil engineering at the current salary when he could make 25% to 50% to 100% more doing other things it takes a smart guy to do? When salaries rise from lack of engineers, this will change. More kids will go to engineering school because they will be better compensated.

How does this apply to the military? It's the same principle. The army requires a certain number of people with various qualifications to perform specific duties. The army accomplishes its personnel goals through retention and recruitment. Since 9-11, they have had no problems with retention and recruitment except at the very beginning. When a person chooses to enlist, that person must consider many things including: death, lower pay, long hours, loss of personal freedom, etc. Devotion to country and a sense of adventure seem to be the trait that overcomes the negatives about military life. Therefore, these considerations are already built into the decision. Logic follows that if the pay was too low or the army needed some kind of added incentive, the army would not have and still would not be meeting its retention and recruitment goals.

To answer another part of your question, I don't know how much each soldier should be paid. What I do know is this: The military is either paid just right or they are overpaid. If the military were underpaid, they would not be able to meet their recruitment or retention requirements. What got me interested in army pay was the salary of a certain colonel I know. I was a little surprised to see that he was pulling down $150k a year. That's quite a bit of money. I didn't think officers made that much. I wanted to investigate the subject a little so I did. It was totally possible that this wage was the market rate. But I soon discovered it probably isn't. There is a glut of mid level officers up to colonel level in the army. Not only that, the army hasn't had the problems recruiting and retaining officers and enlisted. This leads me to believe the pay raises over inflation were not necessary. Nobody should be paid more than the market will bear. Not you, not me, not a soldier, not anyone. If you buy into market economics, you have to accept it in all circumstances without exceptions to favored groups.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA


Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:47 pm

So Vince, are you honestly claiming that had military compensation not increased since 9/11 there wouldn't have been issues with recruitment, retention, and quality of recruits?
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 4733
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:00 pm

vincentpa wrote:I'm not trying to be a d!ck.
Who thought you needed to try? :huh:

vincentpa wrote:To answer another part of your question, I don't know how much each soldier should be paid. What I do know is this: The military is either paid just right or they are overpaid. If the military were underpaid, they would not be able to meet their recruitment or retention requirements. What got me interested in army pay was the salary of a certain colonel I know. I was a little surprised to see that he was pulling down $150k a year. That's quite a bit of money. I didn't think officers made that much. I wanted to investigate the subject a little so I did. It was totally possible that this wage was the market rate. But I soon discovered it probably isn't. There is a glut of mid level officers up to colonel level in the army. Not only that, the army hasn't had the problems recruiting and retaining officers and enlisted. This leads me to believe the pay raises over inflation were not necessary. Nobody should be paid more than the market will bear. Not you, not me, not a soldier, not anyone. If you buy into market economics, you have to accept it in all circumstances without exceptions to favored groups.

First, we are in the midst of an economic disaster. So yes arguably we could have cut pay over the last few years, but even today, it's not like they have a glut and they are far exceeding goals.

The are approximately right on target, which by your argument means wages are right on target and not too high.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15209

And you can go back and look through the years and see that they did not have excess and some years were well below the target. While most are on target, not all of them.

Here's the data for 2005

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
Guard numbers are far below goals.

By your criteria, things seem to be about right on average with them being right around their goal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
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: 15245
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:05 pm

beretta24 wrote:So Vince, are you honestly claiming that had military compensation not increased since 9/11 there wouldn't have been issues with recruitment, retention, and quality of recruits?


There's no reason to believe that. I read the army can go two years without meeting its recruitment goals. That gives them ample time determine the cause and act.

Here's a question for you. Do you think higher pay is going to entice someone to join the army in a time of war? I don't. What is $1k or $2k more per year in comparison to your life?

I believe military pay should be automatically tied to inflation unless there is a recruitment and retention problem and money has been determined to be the reason.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:09 pm

BTW, I have no problem with signing bonuses to enlisted to re-enlist. It make sound financial sense. Why spend the money train someone over years whenever you can offer a fraction of the training money as a signing bonus.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:13 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:I'm not trying to be a d!ck.
Who thought you needed to try? :huh:

vincentpa wrote:To answer another part of your question, I don't know how much each soldier should be paid. What I do know is this: The military is either paid just right or they are overpaid. If the military were underpaid, they would not be able to meet their recruitment or retention requirements. What got me interested in army pay was the salary of a certain colonel I know. I was a little surprised to see that he was pulling down $150k a year. That's quite a bit of money. I didn't think officers made that much. I wanted to investigate the subject a little so I did. It was totally possible that this wage was the market rate. But I soon discovered it probably isn't. There is a glut of mid level officers up to colonel level in the army. Not only that, the army hasn't had the problems recruiting and retaining officers and enlisted. This leads me to believe the pay raises over inflation were not necessary. Nobody should be paid more than the market will bear. Not you, not me, not a soldier, not anyone. If you buy into market economics, you have to accept it in all circumstances without exceptions to favored groups.

First, we are in the midst of an economic disaster. So yes arguably we could have cut pay over the last few years, but even today, it's not like they have a glut and they are far exceeding goals.

The are approximately right on target, which by your argument means wages are right on target and not too high.

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15209

And you can go back and look through the years and see that they did not have excess and some years were well below the target. While most are on target, not all of them.

Here's the data for 2005

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
Guard numbers are far below goals.

By your criteria, things seem to be about right on average with them being right around their goal.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm


This can be decieving because the military I believe doesn't recruit once it meets its goals. There is no budget for it. They have a goal that's it. I may be wrong but I thought that was how it worked. If they were right on and that was all the military could entice, maybe current pay is market value. If the military stops recruiting after they hit their goal, they are probably overpaid.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby Slack Tide » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:20 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:$150,000 a year / 365 days in a year = $410 a day. $410 day / 24 hours in a day = $17.08 an hour The gentlemen is not a very high payscale for someone running over 1,000 people.


I'll remember this quote for the next time we talk about my district's Superintendent..... :hammer:
"I've been left for dead before but I'll still fight on, don't wait up, leave the light on, I'll be home soon"
Chris Smither
User avatar
Slack Tide
hunter
 
Posts: 4463
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:06 pm
Location: On the northeast corner of the southwest side

Re: Veterans!!

Postby beretta24 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:26 pm

vincentpa wrote:
beretta24 wrote:So Vince, are you honestly claiming that had military compensation not increased since 9/11 there wouldn't have been issues with recruitment, retention, and quality of recruits?


There's no reason to believe that. I read the army can go two years without meeting its recruitment goals. That gives them ample time determine the cause and act.

Here's a question for you. Do you think higher pay is going to entice someone to join the army in a time of war? I don't. What is $1k or $2k more per year in comparison to your life?

I believe military pay should be automatically tied to inflation unless there is a recruitment and retention problem and money has been determined to be the reason.


There was an army recruitment, retention AND quality problem from 2005-2007. They increased benefits heavily and increased recruitment as a result. Recruitment, retention, and quality all improved thereafter. Hmmm...
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 4733
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:47 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Here's the data for 2005

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
Guard numbers are far below goals.



I'm not sure pay is the reason for Guard troops falling below their goal. This is problem I have with the Government and the military. They are abusing the Guard and utilizing them far more than they should and have utilized them far more than was done in the past. The Guard is essentially a reserve force and should be used as one. Now, the military/government is using them as main line troops in order to cut costs. This is a direct result of the Clinton military drawdown in the 1990's. The Guard is comprised of men and women usually older than the average enlisted regular army that have families. They signed on to be reserve troops in the Guard's traditional role. The Guard recruits from men and women with jobs and families in the private sector. Who would want to be called for multiple tours when you are older, have a family and a good job? Will $10k more per year make a difference? I don't think so. I think they'd have to offer a crapload of money to make up for the Government's duplicities. I believe the Guard was/is being abused by the Government and the Brass. Their low numbers reflect this.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby ScaupHunter » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:18 pm

The Guard knows the deal when they sign the contract. They get the benefit of full military training and know that deployments are gonna happen. At least over the last decade they have. I got out for a few reasons. One I was getting older and fighting tears you up. They were switching rules of engagement to get shot at and then defend yourself from see a threat neutralize it. Toss in having at least two more tours and possibly 3 in a 4 year contract. That would have messed with my civilian career to no end. Those things made me decide to let my contract expire and not reenlist. A lot of people made the same decision at the end of our tour.

They were offering a $20,000 reinlistment bonus for a 4 year regular Army reenlistment, and $4,000 for a NG reinlistment for 4 years. The NG soldier would pull just as many tours in a war zone for far less money. That pushed quite a few enlisted to leave the military at the end of their contracts.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5987
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Veterans!!

Postby assateague » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:26 pm

vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Here's the data for 2005

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
Guard numbers are far below goals.



I'm not sure pay is the reason for Guard troops falling below their goal. This is problem I have with the Government and the military. They are abusing the Guard and utilizing them far more than they should and have utilized them far more than was done in the past. The Guard is essentially a reserve force and should be used as one. Now, the military/government is using them as main line troops in order to cut costs. This is a direct result of the Clinton military drawdown in the 1990's. The Guard is comprised of men and women usually older than the average enlisted regular army that have families. They signed on to be reserve troops in the Guard's traditional role. The Guard recruits from men and women with jobs and families in the private sector. Who would want to be called for multiple tours when you are older, have a family and a good job? Will $10k more per year make a difference? I don't think so. I think they'd have to offer a crapload of money to make up for the Government's duplicities. I believe the Guard was/is being abused by the Government and the Brass. Their low numbers reflect this.




Everything you just described is part of "the market".
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 ScaupHunter » Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:27 pm

Exactly! They were not paying enough to sustain troop numbers due to market demand and pay elsewhere. With the NG being a huge component of the warfighting plan, they had to raise their pay and bonuses or no longer be able to fight a two front war or two smaller wars. Hence the increase in pay and benefits. Market supply and demand have taken military pay to it's present level.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5987
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Wed Dec 11, 2013 7:47 am

assateague wrote:
vincentpa wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Here's the data for 2005

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/recruitgoals.-ujL.htm
Guard numbers are far below goals.



I'm not sure pay is the reason for Guard troops falling below their goal. This is problem I have with the Government and the military. They are abusing the Guard and utilizing them far more than they should and have utilized them far more than was done in the past. The Guard is essentially a reserve force and should be used as one. Now, the military/government is using them as main line troops in order to cut costs. This is a direct result of the Clinton military drawdown in the 1990's. The Guard is comprised of men and women usually older than the average enlisted regular army that have families. They signed on to be reserve troops in the Guard's traditional role. The Guard recruits from men and women with jobs and families in the private sector. Who would want to be called for multiple tours when you are older, have a family and a good job? Will $10k more per year make a difference? I don't think so. I think they'd have to offer a crapload of money to make up for the Government's duplicities. I believe the Guard was/is being abused by the Government and the Brass. Their low numbers reflect this.




Everything you just described is part of "the market".


I completely agree! The "business model" of the Guard changed but the pool of "employees" didn't. As it turns out, turning the Guard into de facto regular army is a good idea. Generally people that are older, have jobs and have families aren't so willing to spend multiple tours of duty risking their lives for politicians that are fickle over victory. Traditionally, the Guard acted as troops of last resort. They were not called on to spend multiple tours overseas fighting. That is until GWB and Rumsfeld used them instead of increasing the size of the regular army to hide the cost of the Iraq war. Their plan backfired, creating even more backlash against the Iraq war. Generally older people with jobs and families are more sensible and cautious with their lives, their price is high if a price exists at all. GWB and Rumsfeld abused the Guard, its traditional role and the trust of those enlisted in the Guard by utilizing it in the manner that more resembled the regular army.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:24 am

vincentpa wrote:GWB and Rumsfeld abused the Guard, its traditional role and the trust of those enlisted in the Guard by utilizing it in the manner that more resembled the regular army.
The "traditional" way of fighting wars was with draftees fulfilling a lot of these roles. Would you have preferred that we would have continued the draft?

Yes the guard will always carry a greater risk when there is no draft. How else do you ramp up for war when it is not just riflemen shooting each other but a much higher tech/skilled war even for the support personnel. All killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were volunteers as opposed to the huge number of conscripts that have traditionally been killed. I think this is a better way to fight a war if you can do it, but sure we could save a lot of money and pay them nothing and simple draft what we need to meet goals.

And you may be shocked that I disagree with your assessment. It was because an election was coming and we had a very popular war President, so John Kerry had to be for it before he was against it before he was for it or something like that. There was strong political motivation to undermine the popularity of the war. The economy was good, the war was good, what could the Democrats do? The plan was to mount pressure on Iran, that I am sure, but without the backing of the Democrats that were for the war before they were against the war, stagnation was the only option and from that point on, it was a political football and traditionally wars where the political parties are trying to make political gains are doomed.

The decision to stop the draft came long before Bush. Who else was suppose to fill that role but the National Guard? One of those unintended consequences. However, I much prefer using the Guard as they were used than using draftees. They volunteered and they should have known there was a reason they did all that weekend warrior (you know the derogatory term for the Guard) training.

There is no good way to fight a war, but one thing is clear, you are either making progress or you are failing. Once we stopped, we were doomed to fail, especially after we told them if they just keep fighting and hang tough we are going to quit at some point, so don't get too demoralized, you will win eventually if you just wait us out. And the Axis of Evil, with one badly dented leg, is alive and well and soon to be 2/3rds nuclear armed and probably within a decade or two after that all three members will be healthier than before and nuclear armed. If you were Iraq, would you sit still for a nuclear armed Iran? :no:

Politics was the root cause of our failure. It wasn't body count or who was killed. If a Democrat was President, the media would have presented a very different picture and the Republicans would not have been for it before they were against it. Look at the big increase in casualties in Afghanistan. Anybody bent out of shape? I guess they don't count that much.

BTW, are you sure about the average age? Rank is highly correlated with age and likelihood of getting killed is somewhat inversely related with rank, so with the same force structure, I would suspect the difference in age between the guard and the regular army is not that different unless you are saying the guard is top heavy. Granted there is probably a slower progression up the ranks, but I don't know that that is true. It's an interesting question that I don't really know. The few data points I have don't suggest that there would be a big difference. My cousin came up through the Guards and is now a Lt. Colonel in the army and he is not out of line with the those in the regular army for their entire career. I know a few others that made careers of the Guard and again, their ages didn't seem that different than those in the regular army for the same rank, but it's very sparse data.

I couldn't find any good data, but if you don't have a bunch of draftees, I would expect it to be a bit higher especially given that this was a special forces type war combined with a lot of casualties from random roadside bomb attacks and less traditional combat.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september152009/casualties_afghan_iraq_9-15-09.php
The average age of this group of American forces killed overseas, is 23.3 years old. The average age of the troops killed in our last report, was 24.2.
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: 15245
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:00 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:GWB and Rumsfeld abused the Guard, its traditional role and the trust of those enlisted in the Guard by utilizing it in the manner that more resembled the regular army.
The "traditional" way of fighting wars was with draftees fulfilling a lot of these roles. Would you have preferred that we would have continued the draft?

Yes the guard will always carry a greater risk when there is no draft. How else do you ramp up for war when it is not just riflemen shooting each other but a much higher tech/skilled war even for the support personnel. All killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were volunteers as opposed to the huge number of conscripts that have traditionally been killed. I think this is a better way to fight a war if you can do it, but sure we could save a lot of money and pay them nothing and simple draft what we need to meet goals.

And you may be shocked that I disagree with your assessment. It was because an election was coming and we had a very popular war President, so John Kerry had to be for it before he was against it before he was for it or something like that. There was strong political motivation to undermine the popularity of the war. The economy was good, the war was good, what could the Democrats do? The plan was to mount pressure on Iran, that I am sure, but without the backing of the Democrats that were for the war before they were against the war, stagnation was the only option and from that point on, it was a political football and traditionally wars where the political parties are trying to make political gains are doomed.

The decision to stop the draft came long before Bush. Who else was suppose to fill that role but the National Guard? One of those unintended consequences. However, I much prefer using the Guard as they were used than using draftees. They volunteered and they should have known there was a reason they did all that weekend warrior (you know the derogatory term for the Guard) training.

There is no good way to fight a war, but one thing is clear, you are either making progress or you are failing. Once we stopped, we were doomed to fail, especially after we told them if they just keep fighting and hang tough we are going to quit at some point, so don't get too demoralized, you will win eventually if you just wait us out. And the Axis of Evil, with one badly dented leg, is alive and well and soon to be 2/3rds nuclear armed and probably within a decade or two after that all three members will be healthier than before and nuclear armed. If you were Iraq, would you sit still for a nuclear armed Iran? :no:

Politics was the root cause of our failure. It wasn't body count or who was killed. If a Democrat was President, the media would have presented a very different picture and the Republicans would not have been for it before they were against it. Look at the big increase in casualties in Afghanistan. Anybody bent out of shape? I guess they don't count that much.

BTW, are you sure about the average age? Rank is highly correlated with age and likelihood of getting killed is somewhat inversely related with rank, so with the same force structure, I would suspect the difference in age between the guard and the regular army is not that different unless you are saying the guard is top heavy. Granted there is probably a slower progression up the ranks, but I don't know that that is true. It's an interesting question that I don't really know. The few data points I have don't suggest that there would be a big difference. My cousin came up through the Guards and is now a Lt. Colonel in the army and he is not out of line with the those in the regular army for their entire career. I know a few others that made careers of the Guard and again, their ages didn't seem that different than those in the regular army for the same rank, but it's very sparse data.

I couldn't find any good data, but if you don't have a bunch of draftees, I would expect it to be a bit higher especially given that this was a special forces type war combined with a lot of casualties from random roadside bomb attacks and less traditional combat.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september152009/casualties_afghan_iraq_9-15-09.php
The average age of this group of American forces killed overseas, is 23.3 years old. The average age of the troops killed in our last report, was 24.2.



The average guardsman is a bit older at the same rank as a regular Army trooper would be. Climbing through the ranks to E-4 is pretty quick and painless if you are a good soldier. Once you reach the rank of Sergeant, promotions often slow down. There are far fewer openings due to much smaller size in the Guard. Someone has to leave the Guard or get promoted to alllow you to move up the ranks. The competition for promotion can be fierce in the Guard. Toss in guys with actual combat experience, regular Army service, more promotion points, and the high incidence of soldiers with college degrees in the Guard and you have a very competitive environment.

What many people don't understand is that a large number of experienced Army veterans go into the Guard when they leave the regular Army. That makes the Guard a very efficient and effective fighting force. This makes them the logical point of support for the regular Army in any war. I would much rather have volunteers who are trained and skilled in the fight. This gives you the time if WW III happens, to run up the draft, train up the draftees and then get them in the fight as an effective force instead of just using them as cannon fodder. It only takes a Guardsman a week or two of prep to ship and they are back in the full time soldier mode and ready to get into the fight. They toughen up a bit with the daily PT, get in the mind set, and make the transition to that life pretty easily.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5987
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:09 am

ScaupHunter wrote:The average guardsman is a bit older at the same rank as a regular Army trooper would be.
Are we talking about a couple of years older to get the same rank as someone with 10 years of service in the regular Army or are we talking more than that? Maybe an extra 10%-20% is what I was thinking when I said, not that different.
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: 15245
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:51 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The average guardsman is a bit older at the same rank as a regular Army trooper would be.
Are we talking about a couple of years older to get the same rank as someone with 10 years of service in the regular Army or are we talking more than that? Maybe an extra 10%-20% is what I was thinking when I said, not that different.


That varies widely depending on the troop. We had 50 year old E-6's who couldn't promote because younger guys had more promotion points. The average age at rank was probably 4 to 5 years older due to the curve busting older guys who were in past their 20 years because they loved the military. Then toss in a few old guys who wanted to push the 30 year timeline to get a better retirement package from the military. I was ancient in the regular Army. I joined at 29 years old to get the explosives training to complement my civil engineering background. All the kids in basic called me Grandpa. So I broke the age curve as well.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5987
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Veterans!!

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:09 am

ScaupHunter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The average guardsman is a bit older at the same rank as a regular Army trooper would be.
Are we talking about a couple of years older to get the same rank as someone with 10 years of service in the regular Army or are we talking more than that? Maybe an extra 10%-20% is what I was thinking when I said, not that different.


That varies widely depending on the troop. We had 50 year old E-6's who couldn't promote because younger guys had more promotion points. The average age at rank was probably 4 to 5 years older due to the curve busting older guys who were in past their 20 years because they loved the military. Then toss in a few old guys who wanted to push the 30 year timeline to get a better retirement package from the military. I was ancient in the regular Army. I joined at 29 years old to get the explosives training to complement my civil engineering background. All the kids in basic called me Grandpa. So I broke the age curve as well.

Thanks, that's more than I was expecting.

So you got to go out to Albuquerque and blow things up? I sat next to guy on a flight that was returning from one of the classes out there. Sounded like fun :yes:
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: 15245
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:55 am

ScaupHunter wrote: I joined at 29 years old to get the explosives training to complement my civil engineering background. All the kids in basic called me Grandpa. So I broke the age curve as well.


That's exactly what I wanted to do to. I wanted to use my civil degree to blow stuff up. Unfortunately, fate ran its course. I injured my back before finishing grad school and couldn't. I could barely walk across the street, let alone run and join the army.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby vincentpa » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:01 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
vincentpa wrote:GWB and Rumsfeld abused the Guard, its traditional role and the trust of those enlisted in the Guard by utilizing it in the manner that more resembled the regular army.
The "traditional" way of fighting wars was with draftees fulfilling a lot of these roles. Would you have preferred that we would have continued the draft?

Yes the guard will always carry a greater risk when there is no draft. How else do you ramp up for war when it is not just riflemen shooting each other but a much higher tech/skilled war even for the support personnel. All killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were volunteers as opposed to the huge number of conscripts that have traditionally been killed. I think this is a better way to fight a war if you can do it, but sure we could save a lot of money and pay them nothing and simple draft what we need to meet goals.

And you may be shocked that I disagree with your assessment. It was because an election was coming and we had a very popular war President, so John Kerry had to be for it before he was against it before he was for it or something like that. There was strong political motivation to undermine the popularity of the war. The economy was good, the war was good, what could the Democrats do? The plan was to mount pressure on Iran, that I am sure, but without the backing of the Democrats that were for the war before they were against the war, stagnation was the only option and from that point on, it was a political football and traditionally wars where the political parties are trying to make political gains are doomed.

The decision to stop the draft came long before Bush. Who else was suppose to fill that role but the National Guard? One of those unintended consequences. However, I much prefer using the Guard as they were used than using draftees. They volunteered and they should have known there was a reason they did all that weekend warrior (you know the derogatory term for the Guard) training.

There is no good way to fight a war, but one thing is clear, you are either making progress or you are failing. Once we stopped, we were doomed to fail, especially after we told them if they just keep fighting and hang tough we are going to quit at some point, so don't get too demoralized, you will win eventually if you just wait us out. And the Axis of Evil, with one badly dented leg, is alive and well and soon to be 2/3rds nuclear armed and probably within a decade or two after that all three members will be healthier than before and nuclear armed. If you were Iraq, would you sit still for a nuclear armed Iran? :no:

Politics was the root cause of our failure. It wasn't body count or who was killed. If a Democrat was President, the media would have presented a very different picture and the Republicans would not have been for it before they were against it. Look at the big increase in casualties in Afghanistan. Anybody bent out of shape? I guess they don't count that much.

BTW, are you sure about the average age? Rank is highly correlated with age and likelihood of getting killed is somewhat inversely related with rank, so with the same force structure, I would suspect the difference in age between the guard and the regular army is not that different unless you are saying the guard is top heavy. Granted there is probably a slower progression up the ranks, but I don't know that that is true. It's an interesting question that I don't really know. The few data points I have don't suggest that there would be a big difference. My cousin came up through the Guards and is now a Lt. Colonel in the army and he is not out of line with the those in the regular army for their entire career. I know a few others that made careers of the Guard and again, their ages didn't seem that different than those in the regular army for the same rank, but it's very sparse data.

I couldn't find any good data, but if you don't have a bunch of draftees, I would expect it to be a bit higher especially given that this was a special forces type war combined with a lot of casualties from random roadside bomb attacks and less traditional combat.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september152009/casualties_afghan_iraq_9-15-09.php
The average age of this group of American forces killed overseas, is 23.3 years old. The average age of the troops killed in our last report, was 24.2.


I disagree. I think we should bring back the draft. I know it will affect the effectiveness of the fighting force. But, it won't affect it to the point where our army isn't heads and shoulders above everyone else. We fought well in three wars with draftees and even fought well for most of the fourth war with draftees. I believe the entire country should have skin in the game. No more letting a relative few fight our wars for us. The burden is too great on them and their families. Quite frankly, I find it immoral that we as a nation rely on volunteers to fight while we enjoy the good life. If those were draftees fighting, you can bet there would be more people interested in the wars we choose. BTW, are we still fighting in Afghanistan? Most of America couldn't answer that question. Are we still fighting in Iraq? That one too.
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: 7715
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Veterans!!

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:16 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:The average guardsman is a bit older at the same rank as a regular Army trooper would be.
Are we talking about a couple of years older to get the same rank as someone with 10 years of service in the regular Army or are we talking more than that? Maybe an extra 10%-20% is what I was thinking when I said, not that different.


That varies widely depending on the troop. We had 50 year old E-6's who couldn't promote because younger guys had more promotion points. The average age at rank was probably 4 to 5 years older due to the curve busting older guys who were in past their 20 years because they loved the military. Then toss in a few old guys who wanted to push the 30 year timeline to get a better retirement package from the military. I was ancient in the regular Army. I joined at 29 years old to get the explosives training to complement my civil engineering background. All the kids in basic called me Grandpa. So I broke the age curve as well.

Thanks, that's more than I was expecting.

So you got to go out to Albuquerque and blow things up? I sat next to guy on a flight that was returning from one of the classes out there. Sounded like fun :yes:



Basic and AIT at Ft Leonard Wood, Missouri. Sapper School at Ft Leonard Wood, Missouri. Incredibly tired and practicing / training for making all kinds of things go boom. Then off to Iraq for 12 months. An endless supply of BOOM! It was one of the funnest and most exciting 12 months of my life. We blew up over 72 tons of enemy muntitions, a huge number of armored tracks, tanks, and various other armored pieces, 3 Mig's, and about 2 dozen ground to air and ground to ground missiles. Toss in dozens upon dozens of roadside bomb destruction operations. We didn't sleep much, the environment sucked, and overall it was pure misery. I loved it. The regular feeling of shock waves from explosions you created is what makes a Combat Engineer run on nothing but two MRE's and 40 minutes of sleep a day with a smile on his face. It was an all expenses paid vacation half way around the world with explosives, machine guns, and an adrenaline rush at least a dozen times a day. We would jump around and hoot and holler like a bunch of kids every time we blew something up.

It was a very strangely addictive environment. I often find myself missing it. Which is completely mental by the way.

"There is nothing so exhilirating as being shot at to no effect." Winston Churchill.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 5987
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron