Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: Changes Coming to Mil-to-Mil BAH?

  1. #51
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Progressively over time the compensation gets better, the work transitions from the equivalent of blue collar to white collar etc. the levels of responsibility etc. grow and the compensation package as a whole reflects that. As much as an E9 or 010 makes, it is nothing compared to what their equivalent in the civilian sector would make (being a principal advisory to the guy or running a business with 100,000+ employees, managing multi-billion dollar budgets etc.)
    I've heard that over and over many times and don't buy it. Sure, an E9 has a lot of responsibility but let's be honest, he's not dealing with anywhere close to the number of people high level management is in a normal company. A squadron Chief is over anywhere from 50 to 200 guys and, if he screws up, it's not going to ruin the AF because he's just one guy. In a fortune 500 company (or any large corporation) one guys mistakes can ruin the whole company. Also, with us not being a manufacturing/for profit company, all a bad Chief really does is become an annoyance for the squadron. A bad (E9) equivalent in a corporation wields a lot more power. Let's be honest, until a military guy hits 06 (at the lowest) he can't really be compared to anything other than middle management of a corporation.

  2. #52
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I've heard that over and over many times and don't buy it. Sure, an E9 has a lot of responsibility but let's be honest, he's not dealing with anywhere close to the number of people high level management is in a normal company. A squadron Chief is over anywhere from 50 to 200 guys and, if he screws up, it's not going to ruin the AF because he's just one guy. In a fortune 500 company (or any large corporation) one guys mistakes can ruin the whole company. Also, with us not being a manufacturing/for profit company, all a bad Chief really does is become an annoyance for the squadron. A bad (E9) equivalent in a corporation wields a lot more power. Let's be honest, until a military guy hits 06 (at the lowest) he can't really be compared to anything other than middle management of a corporation.
    Agreed, a Senior Enlisted won't screw the whole place up if they screw up, but a good one is worth more than their weight in gold and THAT is what they are there for. The Squadron, or Wing or (I don't know much about AF organization structure) Senior Enlisted as a principal advisor to the Commander (CEO) makes considerably less ($100,000 approx) than many senior advisors to CEO's whose boss has that same level of responsibility as the CEO. Again, it isn't an exact equivalency but that is kind of how I look at it. Having seen how lawmakers and their advisors and staffs come up with these plans, that is kind of how they look at it too.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  3. #53
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Agreed, a Senior Enlisted won't screw the whole place up if they screw up, but a good one is worth more than their weight in gold and THAT is what they are there for. The Squadron, or Wing or (I don't know much about AF organization structure) Senior Enlisted as a principal advisor to the Commander (CEO) makes considerably less ($100,000 approx) than many senior advisors to CEO's whose boss has that same level of responsibility as the CEO. Again, it isn't an exact equivalency but that is kind of how I look at it. Having seen how lawmakers and their advisors and staffs come up with these plans, that is kind of how they look at it too.
    As far as AF structure, the Squadron Commander is generally an 05, in charge of maybe a couple hundred (at most) That's a very, very small company on the outside. IMO, the only time it starts getting comparable is when they hit 07 and get up to base commander/MAJCOM (regional) commanders, etc. Not saying that a squadron commander doesn't have a very important job but it just doesn't equate to anything above middle management.

    I think we (the Air Force, can't speak for other services) get the idea that there's an equivalent because there are so many middle-middle management, lower middle management, upper middle management type jobs. A corporation doesn't have a chain of 5 different people and 15 different pay scales before getting to the guy who's in charge of the day to day operations of their factory.
    Last edited by sandsjames; 05-29-2015 at 07:21 PM.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Rusty Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    3,936
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    I've heard that over and over many times and don't buy it. Sure, an E9 has a lot of responsibility but let's be honest, he's not dealing with anywhere close to the number of people high level management is in a normal company. A squadron Chief is over anywhere from 50 to 200 guys and, if he screws up, it's not going to ruin the AF because he's just one guy. In a fortune 500 company (or any large corporation) one guys mistakes can ruin the whole company. Also, with us not being a manufacturing/for profit company, all a bad Chief really does is become an annoyance for the squadron. A bad (E9) equivalent in a corporation wields a lot more power. Let's be honest, until a military guy hits 06 (at the lowest) he can't really be compared to anything other than middle management of a corporation.
    It's really hard for me to really picture a civilian equivalent to an E9 or any other SNCO paygrade. They only reason these paygrades exist is to have enlisted personnel who report directly to officers to serve as advocates for those enlisted under their charge. With levels in civilian organizations being a bit more "linear" (i.e., a clear path of progression for EVERYONE to have the opportunity start at "E1" and make "O10"), there'd be no reason to have SNCO equivalents.

    It's more like there are 16 paygrades, with 2LT being the 7th... and you get promoted right into it from the 6th paygrade just like any other promotion.
    "Well... Uber's going to "driverless" cars soon, and their research probably shows that they're a natural fit (when it comes to getting paid for doing nothing)."
    -Rainmaker, referencing black males

  5. #55
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    It's really hard for me to really picture a civilian equivalent to an E9 or any other SNCO paygrade. They only reason these paygrades exist is to have enlisted personnel who report directly to officers to serve as advocates for those enlisted under their charge. With levels in civilian organizations being a bit more "linear" (i.e., a clear path of progression for EVERYONE to have the opportunity start at "E1" and make "O10"), there'd be no reason to have SNCO equivalents.

    It's more like there are 16 paygrades, with 2LT being the 7th... and you get promoted right into it from the 6th paygrade just like any other promotion.
    Exactly...I just added something similar to my post above. In the civilian world the Chief would be the shop foreman and all the workers would report to him. Instead, we have 3 tiers before we get to the Chief which makes him seem much more important than he really is.

    As a civilian, I report to a Chief equivalent civilian. I am a worker. There is nobody between us.

  6. #56
    Administrator UncaRastus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    MTF-HQ
    Posts
    1,196
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    3
    Mjolnir,

    The last time I was at Parris Island SC, I saw that a whole new batch of housing was put up. For officers. The old tired single wide trailer park that was there, from when I was a DI was still there. Used by Staff NCOs.

    Even the same trailers were there, at least a few years ago.

    You should transfer back to the Corps and insist on being billeted at PI. But hold the rank. There are BEAUTIFUL houses for the O's!

    That is all from your Career Enhancement Officer,

    UR

  7. #57
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,883
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rusty Jones View Post
    From what I've seen, the only difference is that you HAVE to take the REDUX; and it will be at 12 years instead of 15. And you get matching TSP up to 5%, like federal civilians. If anything, that's probably better.

    The only problem, however, is that the reserve components might have a bit of a recruiting problem if everyone who does four years active duty is going to get "something" when they turn 60. That's supposed to be the whole point of going into the reserves in the first place. Now they don't have to.
    Here's a rule to live by. Anytime Politicians start talking about changing something to make it more "fair" for everyone, cover your butthole.

    It's not better. For a couple of reasons. You get fucked on COLA (even more than now) The reason They want your money in there is because Congress can raid it as piggy bank whenever they want and they are going to take away the protection of the G fund as well. All your retirement is at risk
    .

    Stock funds will be worthless when all the 401K baby boomers are dumping shares onto the market. Eventually it will all be merged into a MyRA for you by your dear leader, so that Oligarchs assholes can live comfortably on their yachts in their retirement at age 50. While your children protest in the street. And you the "working age retiree" roof houses along side "dreamers" until you die.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,329
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    Based on the above, if a couple is legally married only the higher ranking member will receive BAH. What happens when a couple decides to get divorced? Is the lower ranking member expected to live without BAH for however long the divorce takes? That could be years. If not, what documentation will be used to restart BAH?

    Let's say a couple decides to split up. The husband is lower ranking and he moves out and gets his own apartment. Does he have to file for divorce first before finance can restart the BAH? What if after six months the couple decides not to get divorced? Does finance collect back the BAH? This sounds like a giant mess and finance is going to spend an insane amount of time trying to figure out living everyone's marital situation.
    Some great questions, and i agree those will definitely be unintended consequences.
    One you forgot to ask.. What defines a "Normal commuting distance from one another"??
    I know plenty of people who commute more than 45 min one way.

    Quote Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy View Post
    If the above wasn't bad enough, what about same sex couples? They want equal treatment right? Does this mean that if a same sex couple declares their selves married one of them will also lose their BAH? That seems like an incentive for same sex couples to pretend they aren't married which is ironically the exact opposite of how it used to be.

    What say you guys?
    That is a great point. LGBTs want equality, but this law will potentially encourage them to stay 'single' to game the system. Just like straight folk.

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    Everybody military member should get single rate...there shouldn't be a bonus for having kids...
    I agree, it also shouldn't vary anywhere near as much as it does based on rank either.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    This wrongly discriminates against individual military members. Each member is entitled to BAH, regardless of who they choose to marry. If this passes, expect the next target to be mil-to-mil household goods entitlements and perhaps even retirement. I can hear it now, "why pay both mil members retirement when most other couples only enjoy one paycheck."
    Or BAS, and other benefit pays..

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Base housing is being privatized, with full BAH expected as payment. Second, FORCING people to live on base seems fair? Most bases are in ghettos, and the reason many choose not to live on base is so their children aren't forced to attend ghetto schools. Eff them though, right?
    Bases USED to have their own schools, just to avoid that issue. So why not go back to having them on base?

    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    Officers have always been paid less in BAS(rations).

    http://militarybenefits.info/2015-ba...istence-rates/
    Cause officers are required to pay dues to a mess each and every month, unlike enlisted (well except for the E7-9).

    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    What I do notice, however, is that it's easy to see why we do have difficulty saving any noticeable amount of money in the military. It's because it's the highest paid people who are making the decisions about where the money gets cut.
    Just like when a civilian company needs to reduce overhead costs, they fire dozens of low grade to mid grade workers, when firing ONE or two of upper management would save exactly the same amount if not more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Here's a rule to live by. Anytime Politicians start talking about changing something to make it more "fair" for everyone, cover your butthole.

    It's not better. For a couple of reasons. You get fucked on COLA (even more than now) The reason They want your money in there is because Congress can raid it as piggy bank whenever they want and they are going to take away the protection of the G fund as well. All your retirement is at risk
    Which is why for the longest time i have felt that ALL those in office, whether at the state or federal level, should receive exactly the same pay cut/pay rise mil, police/fire get.

Posting Permissions

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