This is interesting...
Slide 6: Military compensation for retirement is 10 times greater than the civilian sector. – It is a folly to compare military service to a job in the private sector that doesn’t have to worry about PT every morning, losing basic rights, forced to move continuously, combat deployments, etc. It would be more useful to compare US military retirement to that of other country’s that conduct the equivalent amount of work the US military does. If these foreign militaries have a 401K plan than what does their retention numbers look like? This would be real analysis instead of what is presented in this slideshow.
Slide 7: Military retirement has little recruitment or retention benefits for the first 10 years of service. I would like to see their data to support this. I agree that he 20 year retirement doesn’t have much recruiting value as the GI Bill and bonuses for enlisting. However, between the 6-10 year mark is when personnel make the decision to stay in for a full 20 years. To claim that personnel with that amount of time in service do not take into heavy consideration the 20 year retirement is completely dishonest. When retaining people with that much time in service that was one of my biggest selling points to get people to stay in, especially for their wives that saw a light at the end of the tunnel that made all the time away from home and constant moving seem worth it.
Slide 7: Current system does not compensate those in high risk situations or jobs. – Many of the MOS’s that deploy a lot and see combat are often given retention bonuses to stay in the Army compared to MOS’s that don’t deploy and see as much combat. Additionally people who deploy more receive hostile fire and family separation pay. So those areas are already getting more pay than a personnel clerk that never deploys.
Slide 9: The cost of retirement is going to undermine future warfighting capabilities. – This statement is code for we need the retirement money savings to keep the acquisition programs that would otherwise be cancelled going. Also notice how causing a retention problem by getting rid of the 20 year retirement is not considered as part of undermining future warfighting capabilities.
Slide 13: Making military retirement equivalent to the highest end private sector retirement plan. – Well if they want to make military retirement equivalent to the civilian sector how about we make the work equivalent as well? Should servicemembers be allowed to work 9-5 and paid overtime for any time over that? I could go on and on, but I’m sure everyone gets the point.
Slide 14: On this slide you can see that they are leaving the option of going after the retirement benefits of current servicemembers. I wonder if a lawsuit could be initiated if this happens?
Helllllooooooooooooooooo, Draft!
