The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

The "Lefty" U.S. military
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6536		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Aethien [ Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:27 pm ]
Post subject:  The "Lefty" U.S. military
Came across this today, and I just had to share. Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times says that the U.S. military operates by a "astonishingly liberal ethos":

Quote:
The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.

The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.

“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.
Author:  Corolinth [ Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I am given to understand by friends of mine currently or recently in the military that the quality of health benefits has significantly declined from my grandfather's day.

Though I can certainly buy into the notion that the military has been a positive force for racial equality. There's really not much room for racism on a battlefield, and there are several historical instances of blacks serving with distinction dating all the way back to the Revolutionary War.
Author:  Rynar [ Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The "Lefty" U.S. military
Aethien wrote:
Came across this today, and I just had to share. Nicholas Kristof in the NY Times says that the U.S. military operates by a "astonishingly liberal ethos":

Quote:
The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.

The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.

“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.


He is right. It is a pure application of socialism.
Author:  Lex Luthor [ Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
Senior generals don't do any meaningful work except waste tax dollars, so I'm glad they don't get paid a ton.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The "Lefty" U.S. military
It's certainly socialistic in some ways, but it's hardly "pure socialism". There's a strong meritocracy at work there, with those who demonstrate themselves unfit put out. Even without that, mny simply cannot handle the lifestyle and leave before retiring.

What's being missed here, and which the general isn't saying because it sounds cynical, is that this social mobility is the side effect of the necessesities of training and maintaining a modern military - it ultimately exists to promote combat effectiveness. Our basic doctrine revolves around the idea that each individual soldier and piece of equipment should be as effective as possible, and all these benefits to the solider are there to keep him able to fight, both physically and mentally. Some are better-advised than others, but that is the goal.

As to health care, the simple fact is that healthcare got too expensive to continue with in the old-fashioned way, and we had to go to the Tricare system which can occasionally be a pain in the ***. Other healthcare problems like the Walter Reed scandal are nothing new. I don't know that helthcare has really declined significantly, but it hasn't improved either except insofar as technological improvements have allowed.
Author:  Wwen [ Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
The healthcare is hit or miss. The joke is, "what do you call a doctor that got a 'D' in med school?: Captain." The meritocracy thing is kind of true, but it depends on where and what you do I think.

Generals and Commanders are very busy people. They don't do the "work," but that doesn't mean they aren't working. I know commanders I've had are on the job 24/7 and I would bet that many work 14 hour days regularly.
Author:  Micheal [ Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
General Clark didn't say it was pure socialism, he said it is the purest socialism there is, a definite qualifier. In that he might be right.
Author:  Wwen [ Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's also a socialism that exists with outside help. It's propped up by the government. There is a lot of inefficiency and waste in the enormous bureaucracy, it could never survive on it's own naturally.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The "Lefty" U.S. military
That is true, vut inefficiency and waste are not what make something socialism. That's more a product of the outside political process. If the military were absolutely insulated from public opinion, and the only avenue for addressing it were cricticism of the representatives that oversee it, efficiency would be vastly improved. Obviously, however, that would lead to other intolerable occurances. There is always going to be a tradeoff.

The meritocracy, as Wwen sys, is not always a complete meritocracy but the bottom line is that ultimately, you must be able to perform. He is also truthful about working hours. Contrary to what a lot of lower enlisted like to pretend when resenting that they are cold and wet, the commander is often working far longer hours than they are. He may not be cold and wet, but he, not they, is the one called at 1:00 a.m. when someone gets a DUI. With rank comes privilege, but also responsibility - far more than the press likes to acknowledge. Hell, even a staff sergeant works far harder than the privates or airmen beneath him.
Author:  Taamar [ Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
It's also the only job I know of that pays people more for having dependents. Can you imagine going to a corporation and saying "I need a raise, since I just got married"?
Author:  Diamondeye [ Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The "Lefty" U.S. military
That's.. not precisely true. Base pay is not affected by number of dependants. Allowances can be affected, but allowances are not the same as pay. Allowances are there because single soldiers can live in the barracks for free (and therefore don't get allowances), while married soldiers must pay the cost of living if they don't have base housing available for them. Single officers generally have to find their own housing as well. Depending where you're posted, you might be paying a hell of a lot.

It is better than the corporate world in that regard, but it's been found through hard experience that soldiers do not deal well with the stress of military life (to say nothing of actual combat) when their family is unable to pay rent. You can't just quit the military like you can a corporate job. It took a long time for the military to figure this out. In the Viet Nam era, families were often kicked out of base housing when the husband deployed on the logic that the house was for the soldier, not the family.
Author:  Wwen [ Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
The real bank is when people get married mil to mil and collect it twice. I was stationed with in Japan once before, with a mil-mil couple and i think they got COLA twice too. They didn't have kids either, so that's pretty decent money.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm not entirely sure that's legit. On the other hand, dual military couples can encounter some real issues, especially if the DO have kids. Family Care Plans are a nightmare for commanders.
Author:  Timmit [ Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Diamondeye wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that's legit. On the other hand, dual military couples can encounter some real issues, especially if the DO have kids. Family Care Plans are a nightmare for commanders.

In dual families one member gets dependant rate bah and the other gets single rate. They both cola and BAS...
Author:  Diamondeye [ Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Timmit wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
I'm not entirely sure that's legit. On the other hand, dual military couples can encounter some real issues, especially if the DO have kids. Family Care Plans are a nightmare for commanders.

In dual families one member gets dependant rate bah and the other gets single rate. They both cola and BAS...


It's been a while since I was on active duty. Do they get that even if they have base housing? IIRC they don't get COLA or BAH if they have base housing, just BAS.

Also, I'd point out that you don't get your BAS on days when you're in the field or otherwise being fed in a chow hall or something.. oh wait. You Air Force guys don't know what the field is, do you? ;)
Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
The field is where the Air Force sends their UAVs these days, right?
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/