Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Deficit, Budget, and War

  1. #21
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    I'd opt for paying a bonus to stay single but the Mothers of America and Religion Inc. would go berserk...
    I have mixed feelings on this myself. I served my time as a single soldier, and sometimes felt that I missed out on having a set support at home, but by the same token, the divorce rate is so high, that even marriage wasn't really a guarantee. And for some people it was a real distractor.

    That said, I don't think that we could successfully pay people to not get married. After all, the way that so many soldiers get engaged (e.g. to a local stripper) and married (e.g. after two weeks of knowing someone) divorce is almost a guarantee, and that is like fining yourself half of your pay for the rest of your life. That said, some of that is because of the incentives to get married in the military, and the short sighted nature of "Joe". In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.

    On that I don't agree; we could better select new entrants, have higher standards, refine the pay and training and have a waiting list to get in -- and if your suggestion of a revolving door were also adopted...True.
    I don't think that we disagree as much as the initial nature of the comment sounds. I think we can shape the system and improve the incentive structure so that better outcomes are more likely. I don't think, nor do I think you believe, that we can guarantee outcome. Bottom line, with all the tests and waiting lists and everything, there will still be people who only last for so long, and we need to account for that in planning.

    We should avoid some commitments because we'll merely become targets and we have to stop trying to fight nicely; that never works. Hard and fast will do less damage and create less casualties of all kinds. The harder and more rapid the better...
    This actually gets us back to the political discussion that we were veering onto earlier in the thread. I personally would like to see less military adventurism, as long as that did correspond to denigrating military service, or a lack of willingness to use force when absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, historically there has been a correlation between the two. At the same time, the entire world is better off if we plan our devolution of power, rather than have it forced upon us by our own short sighted prodigality. I guess I look at the Indian sub-continent when Britain departed, and how the consequences of the precipitate nature thereof are with us today.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Joe gets taken advantage of...

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    That said, I don't think that we could successfully pay people to not get married. After all, the way that so many soldiers get engaged (e.g. to a local stripper) and married (e.g. after two weeks of knowing someone) divorce is almost a guarantee, and that is like fining yourself half of your pay for the rest of your life. That said, some of that is because of the incentives to get married in the military, and the short sighted nature of "Joe". In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.
    Three factors. The local stripper knows that Joe will get X dollars (she can probably read an LES better than he can). So does SPC Veronica at Bde. Both also know how much more he will get if they marry and thus they rope Joe for the coins. Joe goes along with this to get what he wants which has nothing to do with money. To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...

    The second factor is that the educational system in the US has not kept up with the times. They went from being a part time custodian of reasonably well disciplined kids to whom they were expected to impart a sound knowledge of the basics and teach to be orderly to a an institution that has more custody time for kids than do the parents -- and yet adamantly refuses to teach those kids any life skill or to discipline them. Thus Joe grows to the ripe old age of 18 plus and joins up with mostly little clue of what life may hold.

    Then he hits a unit. If they care about him, he gets some education and mentoring. If, as occurs too often, they do not really care about him, he's left alone to do what he wants when he isn't being jerked around and treated as a not too bright stepchild. Then we wonder why he makes poor decisions. We could and should treat the kid better and demand more from him at the same time. We also need to train him to avoid that stripper and SPC Veronica and their wiles -- at least on a permanent / semi-permanent basis...

    Used to have a Squad Leader who'd go to town and drink with his troops when he got a new one in who claimed a 'girl friend.' He'd go, leave with the girl -- and thus teach the kid a brutal but very effective lesson; old guys who are ugly and have no social skills have more money than young studs and girls know this. Not too many care enough to do that nowadays. Too busy with their own wives and kids...

    We're trying to run a modern professional Army like it was a between the World Wars unit. Doesn't work too well. If we're not going to be in loco Parentis to Joe -- and the new Barracks say that is the case -- then we need to train Joe to take care of himself and treat him like an adult. That is a massive mind shift for the Army, one that'll take a generation or so to embed.

    We could, in the interim, at least stop giving Joe a pay increase to get married...
    Bottom line, with all the tests and waiting lists and everything, there will still be people who only last for so long, and we need to account for that in planning.
    True and thus the revolving door -- which should include ready access to the Guard and Reserve and vice versa as well as to other services and the civilian agencies of government. Yeah, I know...
    I personally would like to see less military adventurism, as long as that did correspond to denigrating military service, or a lack of willingness to use force when absolutely necessary.
    Agreed. We could be a bit smarter than we have been.

    Now, Take Congress...

    Pleeezz

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman View Post
    In fact, we should start a new thread for all of the stupid "Joe got married and..." stories.
    A mere thread? More like a multi-volume treatise.

  4. #24
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...
    That should be an SWC quote of the year winner

  5. #25
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    If we're not going to be in loco Parentis to Joe -- and the new Barracks say that is the case -- then we need to train Joe to take care of himself and treat him like an adult. That is a massive mind shift for the Army, one that'll take a generation or so to embed.
    Agreed, and when you are half stepping between "Being Daddy" and "You're an adult, bucko!" it will be increasingly infuriating for our soldiers.

    We could, in the interim, at least stop giving Joe a pay increase to get married...
    I just gotta share this story.

    When I was a DLI, affectionately know as the Desperate Loving Institute, a sizable number of students got married to other students. This was in no small part due to the non-monetary incentives. First, if you were married, you got to live, basically unsupervised (i.e. like other people of your age) in quite nice housing on Ft. Ord. If you were single, no matter your age or rank (up to SFC!) you lived in a postage stamp barracks on the Presidio, where you were subjected to constant "Hey you!" details, mass punishment, and bi-monthly inspections that would take up every other Saturday, no matter how clean your barracks room was kept. Secondly, if you married someone who spoke a language radically different than yours, (e.g. Farsi and Chinese) you greatly increased the odds of being assigned to Ft. Mead, which everyone knew was a great place to ETS into a high paying job, instead of Ft. Gordon, or a line unit, where you were likely to deploy.

    Funny thing happens on the way to the forum, though. Once you are out in the force, and have your orders, those incentives go away. Most people get promoted to E-5 where you can live off base, and off course, orders are orders. Therefore, the divorce rate sky rockets. Anecdotally, fewer than half of DLI marriages made it to the first duty station.

    Bottom line is, I whole heartedly agree that the screwed up incentive structure is a bad idea. Indeed, given the time and the money I could probably convince the "Mothers of America" of it as well. I am sure that a fair number of the high divorce rates amongst soldiers come from people who married purely with the intent to make money off of it.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  6. #26
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    To a 19 year old, sex is an emergency...
    That should be an SWC quote of the year winner
    I second that.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •