I really should wait until the report comes out tomorrow because this article in the Military Times is written by Rick Maze with whom I’ve tussled before over his propensity to make shit up out of whole cloth. But anyway, he claims that the report says 4 out of 5 troops would delay their retirement checks until they turn 50 in exchange for a one percent pay increase now.
Service members up to age 29 said they could accept waiting until age 50 for retired pay if they received as little as $250 more a year in pay. Those aged 30 to 39 would want about $520 more a year, while those 40 and older put the figure at $650 or more a year.
The average age to begin drawing retirement pay is 47 for officers and 43 for enlisted members, Harrison said, so waiting until age 50 to draw the pay would put a bigger hit on enlisted members.
But for both officers and enlisted troops, the hit would be huge. An O-6 who retired today at age 47 with 25 years of service would give up almost $190,000 over three lost years of retirement pay. An E-8 who retired today at age 43 with 25 years of service would give up almost $277,000 over seven lost years of retirement pay.
Those figures factor in an average annual cost-of-living adjustment of 2.5 percent.
Yeah, well, what’s a “cost of living adjustment”? We haven’t seen one of those since the Bush Administration. And as Kevin, who sent us the article, says 100% of the troops in the comments of the article are against the proposal. SO I’m not sure who the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments asked, but I’m guessing that they cherry picked the answers or the respondents. Unless they were taking the poll in bars near closing time the day before payday.
How can such a lying scumbag be allowed anywhere near a keyboard?
Really, news to me. I asked my son who has @ 4 yrs left to 20, he said what was that guy smoking?
How about we take 2 billion back out of the sixteen billion we’re giving Afghanistan every year now for the rest of our natural lives, and leave the military retirement alone?
DaveA, I’m only 3 years till retirement and wondering what he’s smoking. There is no way his numbers are right, no one I know would willing wait for retirement pay for such a small yearly increase.
-Ish
I mean, I’d make that trade….but I’m not staying in for 20 anyway.
You know, the problem may be that the sample they used was TOO representative of the military as a whole. What percentage of service members plan to stay in until retirement? I’m sure the number’s somewhere on the web and I’m just too lazy to look for a reliable source, but I’d have to guess that at least among enlisted ranks it’s probably pretty low. I’m positive it was when I was in back in the 80s.
If you only asked service members who had some reasonable plan to stay in til retirement if they’d take this deal, the response would be a near unanimous no. If you only asked service members who joined with some short-term goal in mind (college money, career training, a chance to get the hell out of the cow town their family’s been stuck in for generations, patriotic desire to close with and destroy the enemies of their country before getting on with their own lives, etc.), the response would be a near unanimous yes because they have nothing to lose from taking the cash up front. If, as I suspect, the latter group is much larger than the former, their response will dilute the responses of those who are balancing long-term vs. short-term gain. If the latter group makes up 80% of military, it would perfectly explain that 4 out of 5 result. In effect, the survey probably just amounted to asking 4 jackals and a gazelle to vote on what to have for dinner.
I would say this guy Maze got a heavy whomping by the stupid stick
@ 6 Nice analogy….
The reporter should look at the test sample and include that information in the report as well….I suspect you are not far off…
Just hit 19 years……..and he must be smoking crack
The combined “Military Times” periodicals have been sliding in recent years.
Andy makes an excelent point. Sampling is the key. Imagine if the survey was conducted at some gray-beard retreat full of Colonels, Generals and SGMs (all of who are already 50 or pushing by a couple of years)?
Wallah! Used this technique myself in certain marketing survey requirements. According to the Owen School of Business at Vanderbilt University, this one is called the famous “No skin off my ass” sample.
Conversely, the sampling could have been taken at a Regional Correction Facility where cons outnumber guards by probably 4:1. Once again, you have a valid survey with actual results that don’t mean jackshit!
@11 Agreed, how do you think the Dems come up with polls that suggest Americans don’t mind paying more taxes?
If you ask people who’ve never paid an income tax (and never will) if the rate going up bothers them…well 10% more of nothing is still nothing…
No. 3:
WHAT ?? — And use Taxpayer $$
— for OUR OWN TROOPS for the rest of THEIR natural lives —
instead of for FOREIGNERS ?? !!
Whoever heard of such Reason and Logic ??
(*sarcasm*)
Oh nooooo….knees gone FU pay me…years of my life wasted…FU pay me….can’t sleep without pills..FU pay me….inhaled tons of human waste,dust and carcinogens..FU pay me. I might not make it to 50. These assholes have an agenda. The Times pubs have been pushing gay issues and every other BS leftwing cause for years. I’m not sure where they get their info but it never adds up with how the masses feel.
I’m at 13 years, and the business end of this dudes crack pipe must be hot to the touch!
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2012/07/rebalancing-military-compensation-an-evidence-based-approach/
The report, released to the public on Thursday morning
So Rick you’re saying that, that UNBIASED(righttt) report says that military members that retire want to forgo thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits for exactly what? Since obviously mathematically what they are forgoing in benefits they will see a serious loss on when only wanting a 1% increase in what is paid out.
Sounds like the recent article saying that the military is way overpaid… because exactly who are they comparing them to?
Maybe you could of used a little bit of journalistic ability and pointed out such bullshit.
The report does make the claim: “RETIREMENT COLLECTION AGE: More than 80 percent of service members in each age group would prefer a 1 percent increase in basic pay in exchange for raising the retirement collection age to 50.”
However, nothing in the raw data indicates that the question was even asked, and in the survey example, the questions weren’t posed in a “trade-off” manner.
There was also no data to indicate how much the govt could save by not doing studies to justify stripping the military of the benefits they have earned.
Okay Rick, maybe I was being unfair, and should have stated the folks putting out this report must have been smoking crack. I’m with kp, and would like to see the exact verbage of the question. In a completely unscientific poll of folks likely to retire before age 40 in my duty section, 100% said you could take the 1% pay raise and shove it, if it meant waiting until 50 for a pension.
The raw data is available: http://static.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Rebalancing-Mil-Compensation-Raw-Survey-Data.xlsx
But if you read the report, the preamble makes it pretty clear that it’s attempting to justify DNC policies, beginning with the associations of the author, including his current employer (a “non-partisan” DNC supporting agency) and membership at “Council on Foreign Relations” which has that same “non-partisan” bent.
:Yeah, well, what’s a “cost of living adjustment”? We haven’t seen one of those since the Bush Administration.”
But, but, but on MSNBC’s eccentric version of the “news” yesterday, a coomentator claimed to parrot Obama’s assertion that (supposedly) his administration has done more to help vets than any other administration has done for vets in recent history, adding that Obama says that he is getting much more support from younger vets under the age of 30 than Romney is, and that vets who traditionally supported Republican candidates will be supporting Democrat canidates in the 2012 election. Watching MSNBC is like watching the Jon Stewart Show, but without the comic relief, well, except from bumpkin Al Sharpton.