AP reads reenlistment figures wrong
In an Associated Press article, some journalists try their hand at adding narrative to statistics and, of course, they get it wrong;
They run the scattered quotes from folks who, correctly, choose to stay in the military because of the economy and they quote TSO’s favorite Pentagon employee;
“We do benefit when things look less positive in civil society,” said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. “What difficult economic times give us, I think, is an opening to make our case to people who we might not otherwise have.”
From what I’m told, Chu is a dick who doesn’t like to spend money on the troops and loves to slash healthcare costs. Although a very few are staying in the military because they’re scared to of the economy, others make the decision based on practical realities.
If you scroll way down the article, you come to a quote by a very smart lady in uniform;
Marine Staff Sgt. Angela Mink, who was injured in a helicopter accident in Iraq in 2004 and now works in public affairs at the Corps’ New River air station in North Carolina, said the thought of taking a civilian job “without my fellow Marines just didn’t appeal to me.” Moreover, she had little hope of finding a private-sector job that pays as well as the Marines.
“Equivalent pay is nonexistent, once you factor in insurance premiums, housing costs,” said Mink, 37. “And we would definitely have had to relocate. I have a child with a disability and what civilian employer is going to take that into consideration when they think of moving you somewhere?”
And so the married mother of five signed up recently for four more years.
In other words, the military offered her a better deal than she could find outside – isn’t that more of a reason than a tight job market. Most of her prerequisites for the ideal employer would be difficult to find in any job market. In short, the Sergeant was telling us that she reenlisted because she has a great boss. That remains a constant factor no matter what the economy is like.
Category: Media
Nice blog Jonn, picked it up from your comment at Flopping Aces.
My nephew joined the Army a few years ago to do his part, he re-inlisted because he likes military life and is now making it his career. Next semester he will be coming home for two years to finish college at our local University and then back to the military for OCS.
I never heard of it being done like this, our military is offering lots of new, well deserved perks.
BTW, the information about Marine Staff Sgt. Angela Mink was not included in the article published in our local paper. Hmmm.
Still at it, aren’t you Jonn; citing actual facts, and using reality based reasoning. Get a grip guy, “they” don’t want to hear how it really is. Ya just gotta tweak the stats, and twist them so that even the stinkin’ hippies of IVAW are pleased to read what you write. Great post, though.
nuf sed
I separated from the USAF in 1979 (during the worst of the Carter Presidency!) and it took me several years to surpass what I made in my last year in the service in a civilian job.
I don’t know, would I actually get PAID CORRECTLY in the civilian workforce? I’ll admit that if you don’t have an education, the military pays better than the civilian workforce. For high-school grads or GED posessors (of which I am one, so I’m not trying to look down from some holier-than-thou position), the military pays better than the civilian workforce. For college graduates, the civilian workforce pays better than the military. As for housing, on-post housing is often some of the most atrocious you can find, and doesn’t have to meet state regulations. Lead paint, crumbling walls, black mold, rusty metal…I could rant for an hour on some of the terrible housing I’ve been forced to live in. And that’s not even talking the barracks-I’ve been in two barracks that didn’t have any heat and everyone had to purchase illegal space heaters and camouflage them for room inspections. I’ve been in one where the roof leaked, and every fifty feet or so you could see a pot on the floor to catch the drips, with mold on the ceiling. One with a major rat problem, and one with, of all things, a bat problem. One that had been condemned but they still kept soldiers in it for another ten years. Lots of barracks where the hot water routinely went out and people either took ice cold showers or microwaved water for sponge baths. Sorry, I got distracted. Anyway, what I mean to say, other than that the Army is the biggest slumlord in the business, is that the big difference between Army pay and civilian pay is seen most in certain MOSes. For example, intel has a lot of resentment, because we sit next to people making over 100K a year to do the same job as we do. The Army pays the same amount whether you’re a cook or a nuclear submarine specialist. Which is great for the cook, but shitty for the nuclear submarine specialist. The closest you get to being paid for technical expertise is FLP pay, which isn’t very much. The Army’s experiment into voluntary socialism… Read more »
Yeah. And honestly, what’s going to force a change in the Army is going to be what I feel has to happen all over for accountability-the death of socialism. I don’t think we need to hire contractors all over to privatize everything, but I understand the temptation to do so-because contractors are promoted based on skills and expertise, and can be fired when they screw up. Socialism stagnates, and socialism in the military ensures we are always going to have a few people who just stay in because they couldn’t make it in the outside non-socialist world. Don’t get me wrong-there are a lot of dedicated, competent, committed people in the military. But there’s also a lot of dead weight that’s protected because we’ve socialized our military.
Army Sergeant –
You’re absolutely correct in your assessment of the military as a socialist entity. It’s be difficult to find a more accurate description of today’s military than this:
“The American military of today is only partially a conservative institution. While the military has physical courage, organization, discipline and effectiveness in spades, it’s also a land of affirmative action lectures, group-think, censorship, semi-socialism, lack of ties to geographic space, socially engineered and successful ethnic mixing (born largely of front-end ASVAB testing), and extraordinary comfort at every level with big government and big spending. It is, at best, Bismarkian authoritarianism coupled with late 20th Century white guilt. Not exactly a formula for holding the line against the problems of our age.”
The amount of fraud, waste, and abuse that goes on in the military is ASTOUNDING. I’ll be honest and admit that I’m not sure what Bismarkian authoritarianism is, and I don’t think I agree on socially engineered ethnic mixing. but most of the rest of it seems to be spot on.
Eddie,
Don’t forget “Consideration of Others” prounnced “Coup” as in Coup d’etat. Brought to you by the Number 3, the Letter Y and Claudia Kelly.
OK, group hug everybody!
Eddie,
That quote that you included in your post was from Christopher Roach and appeared on the the Tali’s Magazine website article, “McCain is even worse than you thought”.
Sidebar of sorts:
AS: Socialism is a broad brush, but best applied with caution.
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Oddly, the US Military doesn’t fit any of the various definitions I can find. It is in The Constitution as ‘common defense’.
It is a bureaucracy, however. What you are describing ain’t socialism… just what you get from bureaucrats.
I’ve heard the same ignorant definition applied to fire fighters and LEOs. Accepting that ‘the group’ can do more good in some areas than the individual just isn’t socialism.
ArmySergeant:
All I ever seem to read on your comments is how terrible the military, especially Army is. Yet, you continue to feed at the trough. Geez, I would have hated to be one of your troops and if you would have been a fellow leader in the Corps, we would have been telling you pound sand.
RV, yes! I’m a big fan of Takimag. I cut out the McCain parts, though, because I didn’t think the comments author’s opinion of McCain was relevant to his diagnosis of the military in general.
ponsdorf, admittedly socialism is an extremely difficult thing to define. However, consider the definition you provided:
Government ownership of all ownership and administration? Check. Any competing markets and/or agencies in the arena of national defense? You don’t see how that applies to the military? How do you separate “groups” from the “collective”? I don’t follow the logic here.
Socialism goes hand in hand with wealth redistribution. All government programs are funded with taxpayer dollars, and all private enterprise is taxed to support these agencies regardless of whether or not they support the programs themselves.
Socialism is a broad brush, yes – meaning it applies to many aspects of organizations and institutions. Because the military (and every government program) is a net tax sink the shoe definitely fits.
Admittedly I’m not a poly sci student, but:
You get given a test. “The State” / ‘The Military’ decides what jobs it believes you can have. You choose among a narrow limit of choices. You will be paid equally, according not to effort but primarily by time. Healthcare will be universally available for you, but universally crappy. Housing will be generally chosen for you, and equal. However, the more children you have, the more the state/military provides you with space for your children. There is no incentive to either cut costs or do things more effectively. Punishment and rewards are both collective.
Also, i could probably go somewhere with how only the military is permitted to possess military technology, and the government controls your access to them, etc. For example, despite the fact that the M16 is not supersecret technology, I can’t buy one for my home protection even if I want to.
AS: I’m no expert either, that’s why I avoid nuance whenever possible. In this case my sole point is that I see no connection to socialism. Not that your complaints are invalid. I don’t think it is nitpicking?
That said, I repeat my contention that you are describing a bureaucracy, not a political system.
A bureaucracy is defined variously as:
1 a: a body of nonelective government officials b: an administrative policy-making group
2: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation
Sadly, any political system seems to generate bureaucracies by the butt load, however all that is tooooo far off topic to explore here.
Hahahah, true, ponsdorf. Jonn, why don’t you make any posts about how much top-heavy bureaucracies suck! It would be in the spirit of true conservatism! Small federal government! Come on! 🙂
Jonn wrote: That’s what I thought I’ve doing.
Bureaucracies aren’t always bad. It’s when they are misapplied that they are wrong.
Raoul Said:
Bureaucracies aren’t always bad. It’s when they are misapplied that they are wrong.
When they start asking you about the farmer’s 14 daughters who happen to be trombone players, that’s when you know you’re mired in a bureaucracy of the ridiculous. 🙂 But those of us who’ve been through it know how to go with the flow. (just click on the previous link and ROFL!)
That was awesome, rochester veteran.