Posted on May 12, 2015
Army Times: Senate panel backs smaller military pay hike, retirement reform (Your thoughts?)
4.5K
6
3
1
1
0
Not the first thread about this, and likely not the last.
The Army Times is hitting on a serious nerve with anything related to pay/retirement/benefits.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/05/12/military-pay-hike-retirement-reform-ndaa-sasc-personnel/27181957/
Head on over to the Army Times' Facebook page, and read some of the comments.
Soldier sentiment doesn't seem to be in favor of these proposed changes.
https://www.facebook.com/armytimes?fref=nf
The Army Times is hitting on a serious nerve with anything related to pay/retirement/benefits.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/05/12/military-pay-hike-retirement-reform-ndaa-sasc-personnel/27181957/
Head on over to the Army Times' Facebook page, and read some of the comments.
Soldier sentiment doesn't seem to be in favor of these proposed changes.
https://www.facebook.com/armytimes?fref=nf
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Retirement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see) We (DOD) are discretionary spending in the Federal Budget, which means we/they don't have to pay it. DOD is the largest part of discretionary spending, and hence a primary target. In the times of downsizing, everything is on the table.
With regards to retirement, if history is an indicator, those already in will be grandfathered.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
With regards to retirement, if history is an indicator, those already in will be grandfathered.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go
In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up a considerable chunk - around 22 percent - of the US. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That means that federal government spending makes up a sizable share of all money spent in the United States each year. So, where does all that money go?
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
What a crock of shite. I'm glad my pension won't be affected, but this will be terrible for retention.
I'm also with PO2 William Allen Crowder. Disabled vets should receive a 15% increase in their disability compensation.
I'm also with PO2 William Allen Crowder. Disabled vets should receive a 15% increase in their disability compensation.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Simon Sinek: Why Leaders Eat Last
About this presentation In this in-depth talk, ethnographer and leadership expert Simon Sinek reveals the hidden dynamics that inspire leadership and trust. ...
Personally, I see why there could be 'some' appeal to the proposed changes to the military retirement, however, I really think it's just a bad idea all around.
I posted this in a different thread, and it kind of veered off from 'leadership' in general towards my thoughts about these changes:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/what-do-you-think-contributes-to-the-decline-lack-of-leadership-within-our-formations?page=2&urlhash=653577#653577
"At roughly the 4:30 mark of this video, ethnographer and leadership expert, Simon Sinek, said that leaders (like the 'Johnny Bravo' depicted in his opening story) aren't BORN....but, rather, are actually MADE.
This seems to imply that a key element to leadership is simply TIME--the time to learn, grow, etc.
If leadership is perceived to be on the decline in our formations now, not to sound negative, but I will venture a guess that it will continue to decline.
Why?
The big disconnect between military leaders, and politicians, I believe, is that they don't necessarily grasp the idea of "time" being required to develop and cultivate leaders and leadership.
Just look at some of the things that they are pushing for.
A radical change proposed to the retirement system?
I've seen arguments both for and against the transitioning from the 20-year military retirement, to a 401K type retirement, but, from a LEADERSHIP standpoint, I do think that 20-year military retirement was necessary to keep and incentivize Soldiers to stay in the service longer...to build and cultivate their leadership, over time.
Noone starts their career in the military as a Patton or Eisenhower, and, although a 401K type retirement would arguably be more 'fair' to those who will be getting out of the service BEFORE 20 years (so, essentially, they don't leave with nothing at all...), this seems to be at serious odds with the element of TIME required to build leaders.
What I forsee happening in the future is, not only our seasoned leaders leaving with natural attrition (retirement, etc), but, I also see Soldiers doing their initial stint, paying into their 401K, and then leaving. In my honest opinion, it would seem like the idea of the 'career Soldier' is going out the window....just as Soldiers are gaining necessary leadership experience--when they REALLY start to become valuable to the Army (i.e. when the government really begins to reap their investment), the proposed retirement system seems to incentivize them to leave early (rather than stay longer).
I, personally, think it is important to have a bit of a distant dangling carrot.
I think that 'leadership', as many of us have come to know it, will erode and dissipate with some of the policies/changes that are being pushed for nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRcHdeUG9Y
I posted this in a different thread, and it kind of veered off from 'leadership' in general towards my thoughts about these changes:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/what-do-you-think-contributes-to-the-decline-lack-of-leadership-within-our-formations?page=2&urlhash=653577#653577
"At roughly the 4:30 mark of this video, ethnographer and leadership expert, Simon Sinek, said that leaders (like the 'Johnny Bravo' depicted in his opening story) aren't BORN....but, rather, are actually MADE.
This seems to imply that a key element to leadership is simply TIME--the time to learn, grow, etc.
If leadership is perceived to be on the decline in our formations now, not to sound negative, but I will venture a guess that it will continue to decline.
Why?
The big disconnect between military leaders, and politicians, I believe, is that they don't necessarily grasp the idea of "time" being required to develop and cultivate leaders and leadership.
Just look at some of the things that they are pushing for.
A radical change proposed to the retirement system?
I've seen arguments both for and against the transitioning from the 20-year military retirement, to a 401K type retirement, but, from a LEADERSHIP standpoint, I do think that 20-year military retirement was necessary to keep and incentivize Soldiers to stay in the service longer...to build and cultivate their leadership, over time.
Noone starts their career in the military as a Patton or Eisenhower, and, although a 401K type retirement would arguably be more 'fair' to those who will be getting out of the service BEFORE 20 years (so, essentially, they don't leave with nothing at all...), this seems to be at serious odds with the element of TIME required to build leaders.
What I forsee happening in the future is, not only our seasoned leaders leaving with natural attrition (retirement, etc), but, I also see Soldiers doing their initial stint, paying into their 401K, and then leaving. In my honest opinion, it would seem like the idea of the 'career Soldier' is going out the window....just as Soldiers are gaining necessary leadership experience--when they REALLY start to become valuable to the Army (i.e. when the government really begins to reap their investment), the proposed retirement system seems to incentivize them to leave early (rather than stay longer).
I, personally, think it is important to have a bit of a distant dangling carrot.
I think that 'leadership', as many of us have come to know it, will erode and dissipate with some of the policies/changes that are being pushed for nowadays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReRcHdeUG9Y
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google