Wealth distribution in the US (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2013-11-24 7:02 AM in reply to: powerman |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? I admit that I have mashed up a bunch of different issues into one thread, but in COJ that happens anyway, right? |
|
2013-11-24 9:01 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US It's really not that hard to grasp if you separate emotions from economics. |
2013-11-24 10:01 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by pga_mike Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? I admit that I have mashed up a bunch of different issues into one thread, but in COJ that happens anyway, right? I'll be the first to say that it does not matter. I know that sounds callous, but it's a all volunteer service. Same with Fire Fighters and Police Officers. It's a job they chose to do. I've had way too many conversations with my best friend who is a Social Worker. She is working on her PhD, actually serves the community and makes a difference in the world. After being in charge of the ARF (Alcohol Rehab Facilty) she got a raise to $50k. When I was at the NRC, I sat at a desk, reviewed paperwork and stared out of a window making 2x what she did. Is that fair? At first I use to think no. But the reality is that she chose to take that path knowing it didn't pay well. So yes it is fair. |
2013-11-24 10:16 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by pga_mike Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. |
2013-11-24 6:24 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 2380 Beijing | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals?
That's just crazy talk. EDIT: Interesting. When I typed the above, I selected "Sarcasm" from the Format menu. It showed correctly as I typed it. But after I submitted it, it came out like the above... blue italics instead of red. So, y'all will just have to imagine it.
Edited by moondawg14 2013-11-24 6:26 PM |
2013-11-25 11:36 AM in reply to: DanielG |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". |
|
2013-11-25 11:45 AM in reply to: Kido |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US I never even considered pay when I decided what I wanted to do for a living......I'm not even sure I even made a decision, it was just always what I wanted to do. Nearly 3 decades later I make pretty decent money, but I'd do my job for alot less. There is still not been a day that I dreaded coming to work.....having a front row seat to life has been more then enough pay for me. Getting a chance to help some folks and hunt some bad people is something I'd probably do for nothing it's so much fun. |
2013-11-25 12:28 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
Master 1946 Memphis, TN | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by jmcconne If they don't pay enough, why do people keep signing up? Some people see it as the only way out of their shi**y neighborhood, some people want to serve their country and for others it's a legacy thing. But I don't know a single person who signed up for the military because the pay was AWESOME! x2 on this. My mother joined the Marines because of her chitty neighborhood and my father joined because that's what we do in our family. He never joined for CEO $10k/day pay. He got to fly planes and be a part of something bigger than himself and made a career out of it (30 years). He did/does still get some pretty good benefits from it even after retirement. Not every job is about the money. Not all jobs pay what you want. That's just life. These kids volunteer to do this, nobody has a gun to their head. |
2013-11-25 7:20 PM in reply to: Kido |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". If only the "market-driven" proposition were true. There are 10 VP's at a mid-sized company seeking to be the CEO or President. And 100 in Management who are qualified to be VP's. Shouldn't much supply reduce the salary of the higher ranking In most companies, assuming that at least 1/2 of them are at least as qualified as the person above them? What is the unique skill set of a CEO or President? Why do they earn more? Again, we are off of wealth and onto income, but there is a system that provides opportunities for the haves and obstacles for the have-nots. |
2013-11-25 9:19 PM in reply to: pga_mike |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". If only the "market-driven" proposition were true. There are 10 VP's at a mid-sized company seeking to be the CEO or President. And 100 in Management who are qualified to be VP's. Shouldn't much supply reduce the salary of the higher ranking In most companies, assuming that at least 1/2 of them are at least as qualified as the person above them? What is the unique skill set of a CEO or President? Why do they earn more? Again, we are off of wealth and onto income, but there is a system that provides opportunities for the haves and obstacles for the have-nots. So the "American Dream" is dead? I call BS. |
2013-11-26 12:14 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". If only the "market-driven" proposition were true. There are 10 VP's at a mid-sized company seeking to be the CEO or President. And 100 in Management who are qualified to be VP's. Shouldn't much supply reduce the salary of the higher ranking In most companies, assuming that at least 1/2 of them are at least as qualified as the person above them? What is the unique skill set of a CEO or President? Why do they earn more? Again, we are off of wealth and onto income, but there is a system that provides opportunities for the haves and obstacles for the have-nots. Because the fact is, regardless of how "unfair" we think life is... there are winners, and there are loosers. Period. It's just reality. And no, we don't all get a medal. Why is that guy CEO... well because there is just something about him people like. There is just some edge, some where, some how, that put him in front of the other guy. At my company.. I WORK to find those edges. I WORK to position myself in front of others... and guess what, I am. You are right...there are a couple others that are "capable" of performing the same skills, but I got the job, because I worked at getting it harder. And yes, there are guys in front of me that I am capable of performing at the same level... but guess what, I didn't get the job. They had something I didn't, even if it is just time... which made me work on getting better. And yes... there are actually people above me that work way beyond my skill set. Seriously. I know that... I'm OK with that. Better gene pool. It's the circle of life Simba. Not everyone gets to be a lion. |
|
2013-11-26 12:23 AM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". If only the "market-driven" proposition were true. There are 10 VP's at a mid-sized company seeking to be the CEO or President. And 100 in Management who are qualified to be VP's. Shouldn't much supply reduce the salary of the higher ranking In most companies, assuming that at least 1/2 of them are at least as qualified as the person above them? What is the unique skill set of a CEO or President? Why do they earn more? Again, we are off of wealth and onto income, but there is a system that provides opportunities for the haves and obstacles for the have-nots. Because the fact is, regardless of how "unfair" we think life is... there are winners, and there are loosers. Period. It's just reality. And no, we don't all get a medal. Why is that guy CEO... well because there is just something about him people like. There is just some edge, some where, some how, that put him in front of the other guy.h,bla At my company.. I WORK to find those edges. I WORK to position myself in front of others... and guess what, I am. You are right...there are a couple others that are "capable" of performing the same skills, but I got the job, because I worked at getting it harder. And yes, there are guys in front of me that I am capable of performing at the same level... but guess what, I didn't get the job. They had something I didn't, even if it is just time... which made me work on getting better. And yes... there are actually people above me that work way beyond my skill set. Seriously. I know that... I'm OK with that. Better gene pool. It's the circle of life Simba. Not everyone gets to be a lion. Excellent!! I've been able to do everything I ever wanted to do in my career.....had great assignments, got promotions, blah, blah, blah. I think it was because I enjoy my job more then a lot of my peers.....I know I whine less, and smile more, and have always been willing to do what was asked of me with the best attitude I could muster. Most of the guys I came up with are bitter, or burned out, and spend most of their days moaning about what they didn't get and what others got. And they still wonder why they are the "have nots".....and complain about the unfairness of it all. Yeah........right. If you aren't getting what you want out of life and really have a need to figure out why............find a mirror. Edited by Left Brain 2013-11-26 12:29 AM |
2013-11-26 1:21 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by Kido Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike I believe we've found your disconnect. You're looking at it from the wrong side. Not one person has said the grunt is less valued and most have said something akin to the grunt being revered to an extent. The problem is jobs are NOT looked at as less valued due to pay. One has nothing at all to do with the other. It's how much is a person willing to accept to do the job Vs how much is the employer willing to pay to have the job done. Soldiering has a low "willing to accept" rate. CPA has a high "willing to pay" rate. The proper pay for a job is when the number of positions required is just above the number of qualified applicants for each position. Everyone seems to have glossed over the fact that enlisted men have signed up to protect our country and risk life and limb to do so. How is this 1000x less valued than a "guy" who looks at income statements and negotiates big deals? This. It is basically market driven. Plus there is a certain uniqueness of skills that typically get more money for the services they provide. Lots of people have the skill set to be enlisted so the base salary is going to be lower. There are far fewer people that effectively negotiate big deals (if they can't they don't have jobs long) OR hit .300 in the MLB, or perform surgery, or design a skyscraper, or many of the "better paying" occupations which have more unique skill sets. Everybody's job is important. Military, teachers, doctors, trash collectors, police, firefighters. What would we do without any of those services? Things would go bad, fast. But the engineers/doctors/CPA's have a more unique skill sets, so get paid more. I'm not in the military, but I assume officers get paid more. I would also assume that special forces guys (again, with more unique skill sets) get paid more. Fighter pilots and nuclear engineers get paid more than general "grunt". If only the "market-driven" proposition were true. There are 10 VP's at a mid-sized company seeking to be the CEO or President. And 100 in Management who are qualified to be VP's. Shouldn't much supply reduce the salary of the higher ranking In most companies, assuming that at least 1/2 of them are at least as qualified as the person above them? What is the unique skill set of a CEO or President? Why do they earn more? Again, we are off of wealth and onto income, but there is a system that provides opportunities for the haves and obstacles for the have-nots. Because the fact is, regardless of how "unfair" we think life is... there are winners, and there are loosers. Period. It's just reality. And no, we don't all get a medal. Why is that guy CEO... well because there is just something about him people like. There is just some edge, some where, some how, that put him in front of the other guy.h,bla At my company.. I WORK to find those edges. I WORK to position myself in front of others... and guess what, I am. You are right...there are a couple others that are "capable" of performing the same skills, but I got the job, because I worked at getting it harder. And yes, there are guys in front of me that I am capable of performing at the same level... but guess what, I didn't get the job. They had something I didn't, even if it is just time... which made me work on getting better. And yes... there are actually people above me that work way beyond my skill set. Seriously. I know that... I'm OK with that. Better gene pool. It's the circle of life Simba. Not everyone gets to be a lion. Excellent!! I've been able to do everything I ever wanted to do in my career.....had great assignments, got promotions, blah, blah, blah. I think it was because I enjoy my job more then a lot of my peers.....I know I whine less, and smile more, and have always been willing to do what was asked of me with the best attitude I could muster. Most of the guys I came up with are bitter, or burned out, and spend most of their days moaning about what they didn't get and what others got. And they still wonder why they are the "have nots".....and complain about the unfairness of it all. Yeah........right. If you aren't getting what you want out of life and really have a need to figure out why............find a mirror. I was amazed at the results when I cleaned mine. Well there you go... you just got ahead because you are a suck up! Those same people at my work are the ones that spend most of the time at HR complaining. But ya... I am not a leader in my field by any stretch of the imagination. I am pretty good at what I do though... and most importantly, I really like what I do. I enjoy it. It isn't "work". It's been said plenty.... attitude is EVERYTHING. However, I do not do it for free. And as long as I have to spend 40 hours of every week away from my life, then I am going to work to make the most I can for those 40. I'm even willing to be management... heck, I might even be willing to be plant manager. Maybe. We'll see how Superintendent is. |
2013-11-30 2:40 PM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
Member 143 Oklahoma City, OK | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US I work for a school district (in Finance Administration, not education) and constantly hear the mantra...teachers are underpaid and professional athletes (and Finance Administrators!) are grossly overpaid. Though unpopular, my response has always been that teachers, professional athletes, AND Finance Administrators are paid exactly what they're worth. When you consider there are only a few people on the planet that can do what Lebron, Kobe or KD can do, and how much money they make for the owners and television networks by doing what they do, they are worth every penny of those huge salaries they make. And if Lebron decides to leave the Heat next year and go somewhere else, any other team in the NBA will bid to pay him even more to get him to come to their team. Even humble Finance Administrators are worth their grossly inflated (compared to teachers) salaries, when you consider the qualifications that are required in terms of education and experience. There are 100's of teachers looking for jobs for every one person with the skill set needed to work in my department. And when we have an opening, it takes months to fill, due to the market competition for that skillset, even though it is 2-3 times the starting salary of a teacher. The unfortunate but obvious reason is a teaching degree and certification is one of the easiest degrees to obtain (no disrespect to any teachers out there, but it is the truth). And despite the low pay, colleges crank out more teachers every year. These folks knew full well what a teacher made before declaring their major, but only wait until on the job to B&M about how underpaid they are, and demand their unions negotiate better packages for them. But the fact is, I have rarely seen a teacher quit their job voluntarily. And when they do, I rarely see them qualify for jobs that paid more (considering the hours worked per year). So the old economic principles of supply & demand are still working. Our services are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. And don't even get me started on the recent fast food workers' demands to make $15 per hour!! haha |
2013-11-30 4:35 PM in reply to: Jtiger |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by Jtiger Originally posted by mr2tony x2 on this. My mother joined the Marines because of her chitty neighborhood and my father joined because that's what we do in our family. He never joined for CEO $10k/day pay. He got to fly planes and be a part of something bigger than himself and made a career out of it (30 years). He did/does still get some pretty good benefits from it even after retirement. Not every job is about the money. Not all jobs pay what you want. That's just life. These kids volunteer to do this, nobody has a gun to their head. Originally posted by jmcconne If they don't pay enough, why do people keep signing up? Some people see it as the only way out of their shi**y neighborhood, some people want to serve their country and for others it's a legacy thing. But I don't know a single person who signed up for the military because the pay was AWESOME! Several comments on this thread have brought something to mind that I'll comment on. Yes it's an all-volunteer service, and yes, I understand some people do it for love of their country or just love of the job. But... BUT, the government is somewhat manipulative of young people - especially those who enlist. Consider: As someone else mentioned, pay is barely enough to scrape by in the civilian world, but they'll offset it with things like medical, housing allowance, the exchange, etc. This locks you into that world. It's difficult if not impossible for a family to save. Next, they'll get offered credit and loans much more readily than your average 18 year old. That can be a useful thing if managed well, but no one's teaching these kids how to do that. So there's often a debt on top of the minimal savings. And now after a finished a tour you're thinking about life after the military. But you need a job to pay off that debt and you don't have a college degree. Well don't worry, the military will offer you a fat check NOW if you re-enlist, and oh... you want education? No problem, add a couple more years of service... You get the idea. The government could easily just pay more instead of the perks, but they are going for retention. So I use the word "volunteer" carefully. |
2013-11-30 4:56 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Jtiger Originally posted by mr2tony x2 on this. My mother joined the Marines because of her chitty neighborhood and my father joined because that's what we do in our family. He never joined for CEO $10k/day pay. He got to fly planes and be a part of something bigger than himself and made a career out of it (30 years). He did/does still get some pretty good benefits from it even after retirement. Not every job is about the money. Not all jobs pay what you want. That's just life. These kids volunteer to do this, nobody has a gun to their head. Originally posted by jmcconne If they don't pay enough, why do people keep signing up? Some people see it as the only way out of their shi**y neighborhood, some people want to serve their country and for others it's a legacy thing. But I don't know a single person who signed up for the military because the pay was AWESOME! Several comments on this thread have brought something to mind that I'll comment on. Yes it's an all-volunteer service, and yes, I understand some people do it for love of their country or just love of the job. But... BUT, the government is somewhat manipulative of young people - especially those who enlist. Consider: As someone else mentioned, pay is barely enough to scrape by in the civilian world, but they'll offset it with things like medical, housing allowance, the exchange, etc. This locks you into that world. It's difficult if not impossible for a family to save. Next, they'll get offered credit and loans much more readily than your average 18 year old. That can be a useful thing if managed well, but no one's teaching these kids how to do that. So there's often a debt on top of the minimal savings. And now after a finished a tour you're thinking about life after the military. But you need a job to pay off that debt and you don't have a college degree. Well don't worry, the military will offer you a fat check NOW if you re-enlist, and oh... you want education? No problem, add a couple more years of service... You get the idea. The government could easily just pay more instead of the perks, but they are going for retention. So I use the word "volunteer" carefully. Well.....we could have a draft. I'd be good with that.....EVERY man serves when he graduates high school or turns 18. That'd be good for the country...and good for young men. |
|
2013-11-30 5:58 PM in reply to: spudone |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by spudone
Several comments on this thread have brought something to mind that I'll comment on. Yes it's an all-volunteer service, and yes, I understand some people do it for love of their country or just love of the job. But... BUT, the government is somewhat manipulative of young people - especially those who enlist. Consider: As someone else mentioned, pay is barely enough to scrape by in the civilian world, but they'll offset it with things like medical, housing allowance, the exchange, etc. This locks you into that world. It's difficult if not impossible for a family to save. Next, they'll get offered credit and loans much more readily than your average 18 year old. That can be a useful thing if managed well, but no one's teaching these kids how to do that. So there's often a debt on top of the minimal savings. And now after a finished a tour you're thinking about life after the military. But you need a job to pay off that debt and you don't have a college degree. Well don't worry, the military will offer you a fat check NOW if you re-enlist, and oh... you want education? No problem, add a couple more years of service... You get the idea. The government could easily just pay more instead of the perks, but they are going for retention. So I use the word "volunteer" carefully. Victim hood sure does solve a lot of personal responsibility problems. When I was in the service... we were counseled regularly not to get financing on stuff, even though it was offered to anyone. When I was in, I saw a lot of young guys get married and have kids, and then get "stuck". Soooo... I made up my mind not to get married to anyone until after I was out. The funny thing about that was, I was no where near any sort of "responsible" when I was in the service... yet I somehow made it out alive without re-enlisting, kids, or debt. Nobody forces anyone to enlist. Nobody forces anyone to re-enlist. Nobody forces anyone to go to college. Nobody forces anyone to choose their major. Nobody forces anyone to take out a loan. Nobody forces anyone to buy a house they can't afford.
CHOICES. We all have them. Yet somehow... everyone seems to expect a "Get out of jail free" card for every poor one they make today. |
2013-11-30 7:18 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by spudone
Several comments on this thread have brought something to mind that I'll comment on. Yes it's an all-volunteer service, and yes, I understand some people do it for love of their country or just love of the job. But... BUT, the government is somewhat manipulative of young people - especially those who enlist. Consider: As someone else mentioned, pay is barely enough to scrape by in the civilian world, but they'll offset it with things like medical, housing allowance, the exchange, etc. This locks you into that world. It's difficult if not impossible for a family to save. Next, they'll get offered credit and loans much more readily than your average 18 year old. That can be a useful thing if managed well, but no one's teaching these kids how to do that. So there's often a debt on top of the minimal savings. And now after a finished a tour you're thinking about life after the military. But you need a job to pay off that debt and you don't have a college degree. Well don't worry, the military will offer you a fat check NOW if you re-enlist, and oh... you want education? No problem, add a couple more years of service... You get the idea. The government could easily just pay more instead of the perks, but they are going for retention. So I use the word "volunteer" carefully. Victim hood sure does solve a lot of personal responsibility problems. When I was in the service... we were counseled regularly not to get financing on stuff, even though it was offered to anyone. When I was in, I saw a lot of young guys get married and have kids, and then get "stuck". Soooo... I made up my mind not to get married to anyone until after I was out. The funny thing about that was, I was no where near any sort of "responsible" when I was in the service... yet I somehow made it out alive without re-enlisting, kids, or debt. Nobody forces anyone to enlist. Nobody forces anyone to re-enlist. Nobody forces anyone to go to college. Nobody forces anyone to choose their major. Nobody forces anyone to take out a loan. Nobody forces anyone to buy a house they can't afford.
CHOICES. We all have them. Yet somehow... everyone seems to expect a "Get out of jail free" card for every poor one they make today. I wasn't calling anyone a victim, I'm just saying that the pay scale is by design. Edited by spudone 2013-11-30 7:19 PM |
2013-11-30 7:35 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by spudone
Several comments on this thread have brought something to mind that I'll comment on. Yes it's an all-volunteer service, and yes, I understand some people do it for love of their country or just love of the job. But... BUT, the government is somewhat manipulative of young people - especially those who enlist. Consider: As someone else mentioned, pay is barely enough to scrape by in the civilian world, but they'll offset it with things like medical, housing allowance, the exchange, etc. This locks you into that world. It's difficult if not impossible for a family to save. Next, they'll get offered credit and loans much more readily than your average 18 year old. That can be a useful thing if managed well, but no one's teaching these kids how to do that. So there's often a debt on top of the minimal savings. And now after a finished a tour you're thinking about life after the military. But you need a job to pay off that debt and you don't have a college degree. Well don't worry, the military will offer you a fat check NOW if you re-enlist, and oh... you want education? No problem, add a couple more years of service... You get the idea. The government could easily just pay more instead of the perks, but they are going for retention. So I use the word "volunteer" carefully. Victim hood sure does solve a lot of personal responsibility problems. When I was in the service... we were counseled regularly not to get financing on stuff, even though it was offered to anyone. When I was in, I saw a lot of young guys get married and have kids, and then get "stuck". Soooo... I made up my mind not to get married to anyone until after I was out. The funny thing about that was, I was no where near any sort of "responsible" when I was in the service... yet I somehow made it out alive without re-enlisting, kids, or debt. Nobody forces anyone to enlist. Nobody forces anyone to re-enlist. Nobody forces anyone to go to college. Nobody forces anyone to choose their major. Nobody forces anyone to take out a loan. Nobody forces anyone to buy a house they can't afford.
CHOICES. We all have them. Yet somehow... everyone seems to expect a "Get out of jail free" card for every poor one they make today. I wasn't calling anyone a victim, I'm just saying that the pay scale is by design. There is nothing different under the sun.......we all survived. |
2013-11-30 8:47 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by spudone
I wasn't calling anyone a victim, I'm just saying that the pay scale is by design. Yes it is. Designed to field a fighting force we can actually afford.
... well we can't actually afford it... but we are racking up a deficit much slower than if we were paying grunts $60K a year. Edited by powerman 2013-11-30 8:49 PM |
2013-11-30 9:33 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US We don't have the most feared fighting force on the face of the Earth because we pay more......sorry if you don't like folks who sing up to fight because they believe this country is worth fighting for......but that's how we got here. It's likely to be the way we stay on top.....of course, everyone is free to whine about that in some way as well. Come to think of it.....we're likely the whiniest country on the face of the Earth as well right now.
Edited by Left Brain 2013-11-30 9:34 PM |
|
2013-11-30 9:35 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by Left Brain We don't have the most feared fighting force on the face of the Earth because we pay more......sorry if you don't like folks who sing up to fight because they believe this country is worth fighting for......but that's how we got here. It's likely to be the way we stay on top.....of course, everyone is free to whine about that in some way as well. Come to think of it.....we're likely the whiniest country on the face of the Earth as well right now.
If you're not first, you're last. |
2013-11-30 10:14 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain We don't have the most feared fighting force on the face of the Earth because we pay more......sorry if you don't like folks who sing up to fight because they believe this country is worth fighting for......but that's how we got here. It's likely to be the way we stay on top.....of course, everyone is free to whine about that in some way as well. Come to think of it.....we're likely the whiniest country on the face of the Earth as well right now.
If you're not first, you're last. HA!! No doubt! |
2013-12-01 10:56 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Regular 1023 Madrid | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US I have a serious question: I did not serve in the military but would be curious to know from those that did or other informed sources. What do you think the percentage of those that enlist out of patriotic duty is, vs the percentage that enlist for lack of any other alternative, vs other reasons like GI bill (or others) Honest responses appreciated. Thanks. |
2013-12-01 12:48 PM in reply to: gr33n |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Wealth distribution in the US Originally posted by gr33n I have a serious question: I did not serve in the military but would be curious to know from those that did or other informed sources. What do you think the percentage of those that enlist out of patriotic duty is, vs the percentage that enlist for lack of any other alternative, vs other reasons like GI bill (or others) Honest responses appreciated. Thanks. I think a lot of it depends on war time vs. peace time. MANY people volunteered after we were attacked on 9/11 out of a sense of patriotic duty. In my own family, it is pretty much a given that all men will serve. My Grandfather, who fought in the Pacific during WW2 was a huge influence on his family. I gladly joined the Marine Corps out of respect for what he did.....and almost all of my male relatives have done the same. Even in the late 70's and early 80"s, when I was there, many of my fellow Marines were 2nd and 3rd generation who were there out of a sense of duty and obligation. So to try and answer your question, I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that many more people serve out of obligation than desperation. |
|
What is your post distribution? Pages: 1 2 |
| |||
|