posted
Seriously, the news leaves out a lot of stuff that many of us would go crazy over. Things that directly affect us all.
For me, it's that despite the fact that the government has been repeatedly saying that unemployment is going down and they're creating jobs, they are actually cutting approximately 25 thousand jobs in the Air Force this year. That is insane. Oh, sure, it doesn't seem like a lot, but when you consider the fact that the Air Force only consists of 325,952 people, it sure does seem like a lot.
I know a LOT of people are on the list of potentials in this program. Lucky for me, I'm getting out in seven months so I'm safe, but my girlfriend isn't. What is she going to do if she's forced out? There's a possibility of a severance package, but there's absolutely no guarantee.
This is just one of those issues that baffles me. Why isn't the news covering this? Have any of you guys heard about it? I didn't know who else to ask, but then I remembered how awesome this place was for these types of questions.
Oh, and to put this in a proper frame of reference, nothing like this has happened since the 80's (or so I was told). So like 30 years ago.
Also, does anyone else know of something that should be newsworthy but isn't? Please share here if you do.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know much about Air Force layoffs but here's an interesting article about the scumbag that just won his class at the 24 hours of Daytona:
Basically, you can do any kind of illegal online business you want as long as you hire an imposter and a couple Native American tribal chiefs to go to court for you.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blah. All of the services have been lean and have been cutting staffing for at least ten years. Where have you been? The Navy instituted Perform To Serve in what, 2005?
Yes, the military used to be a stable career choice. But it's not anymore, hasn't been since 9-11. Too many people want in, and leadership has zigzagged too much.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm of two minds about military staff reductions.
One one hand, I think post Cold War, we spend far too much on our military. This graphic shows what I mean. You'd think we were surrounded by enemies looking to invade us, judging by what we spend. Even Israel doesn't spend what we do per capita.
On the other hand, I like that there exists (or existed) a place that you could go to get a steady job/career if you were willing to serve. I myself came very close to signing up as an Air Force officer when I graduated college and had trouble finding work post the dot-com crash.
As more and more jobs get replaced by automation in the coming decades, not having a societal institution that provides careers for those willing to serve is going to suck. I very much hope we come up with something to fill the gap.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Also, does anyone else know of something that should be newsworthy but isn't? Please share here if you do.
The water REALLY isn't okay to drink in West Virginia, despite what officials say. It still smells funny. My friend is friends with the family with premie triplets in the recent HuffPo article. She told me that the study that sad the amount of coal cleaning fluid that they said is permissible is only permissible because it won't kill rats within 48 hours. Who knows what the long-term effects are? It's hundreds of thousands of people.
It also sucks because when people calculate the cost of coal versus other types of energy, things like this are not included. Also, the people of West Virginia depend on the same industry that is killing them for their livelihood.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: easier for the news to run clickbait articles about Justin Bieber
CNN is so trashy, it's ridiculous. It's one positive about Al Jazeera-- they really really don't care about US celebrity culture.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: One one hand, I think post Cold War, we spend far too much on our military. This graphic shows what I mean. You'd think we were surrounded by enemies looking to invade us, judging by what we spend. Even Israel doesn't spend what we do per capita.
I work in the government space-exploration biz, and our funding situation has been dire for quite some time. One of our popular go-tos for whining about the situation is pointing out that the entirety of NASA spending, from its inception to the present day, (including landing on the moon!!!), could be paid for with just a handful of *weeks* of the military's annual budget.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Blah. All of the services have been lean and have been cutting staffing for at least ten years. Where have you been?
In the military. The Air Force hasn't had a cut like this in over twenty years, so this is kind of a big deal for us.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I very much hope we come up with something to fill the gap.
This is why I don't understand why people are all up in arms about declining birth-rates.
Because declining birth-rates inevitably lead to a smaller worker population supporting a larger retired population. It's not sustainable.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I very much hope we come up with something to fill the gap.
This is why I don't understand why people are all up in arms about declining birth-rates.
Because declining birth-rates inevitably lead to a smaller worker population supporting a larger retired population. It's not sustainable.
Most of the current workforce can be replaced with machines in the future. And it *will* be replaced, there isn't really any way of getting around that. People will just have to come up with new kind of jobs.
Nowadays one worker can often provide more products/services than 30 workers could 100 years ago. So isn't it feasible that the amount of production would remain the same, and even grow bigger, while having a much smaller work force? A much smaller work force brings in more money, and thus there is no problem for paying for the retired population.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too bad the retired population still needs people to pay their bills namely family members and public services. It doesn't matter if there is a machine that can care for 50 elderly people per unit. It needs to be paid for.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Too bad the retired population still needs people to pay their bills namely family members and public services. It doesn't matter if there is a machine that can care for 50 elderly people per unit. It needs to be paid for.
I wasn't talking about machines that take care of the elderly people.
If the society overall has a much greater productivity, with much less workforce, the standard of living is unlikely to decrease. It's likely to increase, even for the retired.
It simply means that the people who do work, get a lot more purchasing power, and can provide much greater benefits to those who don't work.
This is something that has already happened in many countries. The standard of living increases all the time, almost everywhere. On average, with our salaries, we can buy much more materials than what our parents, or grandparents could. Not to even mention people 100 years ago. This is possible largely due to machines replacing human workers.
The trend is most likely to continue.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with cutting Air Force staff.
The Army is taking a pretty substantial downsizing as well. I think we should dramatically staff down just about all sectors of the military and move a little of that money to keeping the National Guard in tip top shape so skills stay sharp.
Otherwise move it all to domestic spending. There's not much point in having sharp spears on the walls if the city inside the walls is crumbling. The military isn't a jobs program, and if it is, it's an incredibly inefficient one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The military isn't a jobs program, and if it is, it's an incredibly inefficient one.
So true. Yes the military is a great career or career training for thousands of people but imagine how many more people could get that kind of work and training on a fraction of the military budget if you had a jobs program that didn't need to buy and maintain B2s and carriers.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was in the Navy for 11 years, it was always up and down.. From "We'll pay you $45,000 to stay in for 6 more years." To: "We'll pay you $XXXXX if you leave tomorrow." as well as: "You're getting out, we don't want you. BYE!"
I never really had to worry, was never disliked that much, always made rank.. and left of my own accord, and I'm glad I did.
I could have done 20 and retired. But I would be further behind in the civilian world. I was working on IT / Electronics / Etc. But a lot of the stuff I did didn't transfer that well. And currently I'm a programmer.
I make more, I am home every night.
Getting 'booted' from the Military or Leaving the military on "Honorable" Conditions isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Also - They don't cover it because it happens ALL The time. Build-ups / Draw Downs.. etc.
Navy does it with entire fleets of ships as well.
300+ Ships, down to 200+ back up to nearly 400.. back down... WEEEEE
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
I knew we had a cut back then, but I didn't think it was that big. The article doesn't get very specific about where the cuts came from, so it's hard to say if it's similar or not. Regardless, thanks for showing it to me. I'll pass this around at work.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: For me, it's that despite the fact that the government has been repeatedly saying that unemployment is going down and they're creating jobs, they are actually cutting approximately 25 thousand jobs in the Air Force this year. That is insane. Oh, sure, it doesn't seem like a lot, but when you consider the fact that the Air Force only consists of 325,952 people, it sure does seem like a lot.
It's just not that big of a story. I understand that it is to you, but the military drawdown is a covered topic, and the Air force is a relatively minor part of the whole thing. There have been massive cuts to defense spending in recent years, and I don't think it comes as a shock that the Air Force is cutting so many people.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that it's been a perennial topic. Like military pay / benefits / commissary coverage.
What will get news? An actual (not just a planned) reduction in pay / benefits, a base closure, or a drawdown of 100,000+ people.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Seriously, the news leaves out a lot of stuff that many of us would go crazy over. Things that directly affect us all.
For me, it's that despite the fact that the government has been repeatedly saying that unemployment is going down and they're creating jobs, they are actually cutting approximately 25 thousand jobs in the Air Force this year. That is insane. Oh, sure, it doesn't seem like a lot, but when you consider the fact that the Air Force only consists of 325,952 people, it sure does seem like a lot.
I know a LOT of people are on the list of potentials in this program. Lucky for me, I'm getting out in seven months so I'm safe, but my girlfriend isn't. What is she going to do if she's forced out? There's a possibility of a severance package, but there's absolutely no guarantee.
This is just one of those issues that baffles me. Why isn't the news covering this? Have any of you guys heard about it? I didn't know who else to ask, but then I remembered how awesome this place was for these types of questions.
Oh, and to put this in a proper frame of reference, nothing like this has happened since the 80's (or so I was told). So like 30 years ago.
Also, does anyone else know of something that should be newsworthy but isn't? Please share here if you do.
Because no one actually cares about "Our Troops" only that the military gets money for new toys and it doesn't care who it has to fire to pay for it. The military has been a pretty big organizational clusterfruit for years from the stories I've read and mainstream 24/hours news is just generally awful. Have you seen the backlog for Veteran Affairs? Or how that there's nearly half a million vets with PTSD who were dishonorably discharged because it wasn't an officially diagnosable condition back then and they can't get treatment for it now? The military hates its soldiers.
Its getting the point that the toxic political environment that believes the government cannot create jobs also sees the military as an ideological enemy.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to cut our military drastically, and put that money into other projects that strengthen us at home. We could move the money into better areas that aren't already filled with corrupt multi-national "Defense Contractors"... and instead of billions going to a few, hundreds of thousands can go to many.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I very much hope we come up with something to fill the gap.
This is why I don't understand why people are all up in arms about declining birth-rates.
Because declining birth-rates inevitably lead to a smaller worker population supporting a larger retired population. It's not sustainable.
Most of the current workforce can be replaced with machines in the future. And it *will* be replaced, there isn't really any way of getting around that. People will just have to come up with new kind of jobs.
Nowadays one worker can often provide more products/services than 30 workers could 100 years ago. So isn't it feasible that the amount of production would remain the same, and even grow bigger, while having a much smaller work force? A much smaller work force brings in more money, and thus there is no problem for paying for the retired population.
This further expands on both points:
quote: In short, under any plausible scenario the potential gains to living standards from increased productivity swamp any potential negative impact from a declining ratio of workers to retirees. And these calculations do not even take account of unmeasured benefits of slower population growth, like less pollution and reduced strains on the infrastructure. It is also important to remember that these numbers show the absolute largest impact of demographics. If we were look out another 10 years to 2045, the demographics would not change, while productivity would continue to raise living standards.
In short, the idea that demographics will impoverish our children and grandchildren is absurd on its face. Readers may rightly note than most workers have not see the gains of productivity growth over the last three decades, but this just highlights the importance of intra-generational distribution. The impact of battles over distribution of income within generations will dwarf the impact of battles over distribution between generation.
When people being portrayed as policy experts tell you that the United States or other countries face a demographic disaster because of declining ratios of workers to retirees they are mostly trying to tell you that they are not very good arithmetic.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I very much hope we come up with something to fill the gap.
This is why I don't understand why people are all up in arms about declining birth-rates.
Because declining birth-rates inevitably lead to a smaller worker population supporting a larger retired population. It's not sustainable.
Most of the current workforce can be replaced with machines in the future. And it *will* be replaced, there isn't really any way of getting around that. People will just have to come up with new kind of jobs.
Nowadays one worker can often provide more products/services than 30 workers could 100 years ago. So isn't it feasible that the amount of production would remain the same, and even grow bigger, while having a much smaller work force? A much smaller work force brings in more money, and thus there is no problem for paying for the retired population.
This further expands on both points:
quote: In short, under any plausible scenario the potential gains to living standards from increased productivity swamp any potential negative impact from a declining ratio of workers to retirees. And these calculations do not even take account of unmeasured benefits of slower population growth, like less pollution and reduced strains on the infrastructure. It is also important to remember that these numbers show the absolute largest impact of demographics. If we were look out another 10 years to 2045, the demographics would not change, while productivity would continue to raise living standards.
In short, the idea that demographics will impoverish our children and grandchildren is absurd on its face. Readers may rightly note than most workers have not see the gains of productivity growth over the last three decades, but this just highlights the importance of intra-generational distribution. The impact of battles over distribution of income within generations will dwarf the impact of battles over distribution between generation.
When people being portrayed as policy experts tell you that the United States or other countries face a demographic disaster because of declining ratios of workers to retirees they are mostly trying to tell you that they are not very good arithmetic.
What's the point of increasing productivity if no one can afford to buy the products? I'm not seeing it, especially when countries like America have caps on how much the rich can contribute to programs that help the elderly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
