With the Potential of Future Benefits Dwindling is the Military Still Worth a 20 Year (plus) Career?

CMSgt,

I understand exactly what you are saying, I did 27 years and figured I would be greatly marketable with a Law Enforcement background with emphasis on Anti-Terrorism/FP discipline, but whether it was private, state or federal, I was looked at kind of like having the plague. I truly feel much of it was a combination of the stigma of being a multi-combat veteran and the age factor, but as we all know both are hard to prove in the market as they can always use the excuse of they decided to go a different direction.

I think that while benefits and perks are being cut left and right, the aspect of convincing our younger troops to stay in for the long haul actually would be a simple task, think about it from this point of view, with the current market being as weak as it is for employment opportunities for even our younger troops who get out after 1st term of service they are in the same boat, but if they remain there is the opportunity to at least have some future benefits and the potential for some of the current employment and stability issues to be resolved by the time they come up for retirement as well. Another aspect if they get out now and don't have a degree, they won't be able to work on a degree which is going to be needed to be competitive not only today but for the future, so that is another incentive to utilize as well. There are many benefits still available, as we as senior NCOs know there are can be utilized to convince, sometimes we have to break it down to their level for them to understand and comprehend the benefits as well, even though they are currently being reduced, they can always be reinstated again just as many that were taken away after Vietnam were put back into place and increased in the late 80s/early 90s.

Chief, first I hope everyone that is concerned is an AFSA member (remember 4 lobbyist).  Second, it has become clear that we can't maintain what we are currently doing for retired pay but there seems to be no clear alternative.  Some would argue 401K much like the business world but no one in business asks you to get shot at, leave for family for months or years at a time.  If we are going to keep asking members to do this, and it looks like we are, then how else do you keep them past one enlistment?  Those that love it will stay but in an Air Force built on technical knowledge who do you have left to train the new recruits and how long will they do it?  If the 20 year retirement goes away, then I would venture to say that the all-volunteer service would also go away shortly thereafter.

As for getting people to stay, most will stay if their first enlistment is easy and they have goals, mostly school but as soon as you ask them to do some of the above they will be gone (about 75% will be anyway).

CMSgt I think you are right it is harder to talk to younger service members to stay in longer or even go for 20 (speaking as one of those younger leaders). Also as a recruiter with the amount of assaults that go on against the military it is hard for me to look at a young man or woman and tell them that the Army is such a great and wonderful opportunity. To kind of scale back, I am looking at doing 20+ years myself (I am at 10 now) and for the government to mess around with the benefits that I am looking forward to after my 20 years is down right disgusting taking into account their own "retirement" benefits. On the other side of the coin for those coming in, I don't agree what so ever with this 401k nonsense to reduce the military budget or however else they want to dress it up. I look at it this way what company does anyone know of that will invest right away into a retirement plan for you at 18 years old? I don't know any but I could be wrong. In my eyes the benefits for serving in the military is pretty straight forward if you don't retire, what other organization in the country offers 100% tuiton and fees payed for to your state run school of choice for only 3 years of work? But to a different point about the assault on military benifits, most of this is done under the guise of budget constraints and reductions correct? I for one will say that yes there is fraud, waste and abuse that goes on with military funds, but I challege anyone to say that there isn't something else that could be reformed before "employee" wages and benefits. We reduce our force, but say "oh look this new piece of technology is worth way more than X." To name a few things that millions upon millions were "wasted" on; the XM8 carbine project supposedly to replace the antiquated M16 series rifles until the scapped the project for being too much money and a hunk a junk to boot, or the project to replace the Kiowa helicopter that has been in service since the forever and every time they design something its another Apache and all we wanted was a scout helicopter, and the last one that really gets me is the Army uniform the one that we have dumped ungodly amount of money into outfitting every one and everything only to go back on the "ACU being the best thing since sliced bread" and issuing the multi-cam because its more effective.

I'll stop my novel now, I typed this out in a quick 15 minutes so I apologize if it all over the place.