New plan to retain troops

[Last hard class]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pen...8Du?li=BBnb7Kz


The pentagon is going to need to create a new MOS. Wonder what it will be called?





LHC

[Penn]

Trust me, with the "new Army" there'll be tons of Volunteers

[JJ_BPK]

Let me guess??



Ashton collects sperm & eggs,,
and uses these assets to fertilize the next generation(S) of WARRIORS,,

Some "culling" will be acceptable,,
base on the asset donor's documented in-effectiveness in battle??

DARPA will help the selection process??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUZn1Rh0HO8

It is expected that although some incremental results will have an unacceptable failure rate, these will ultimately lead to a superior warrior..

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-legged-...ur-legged.html




LMAO

[BrokenSwitch]

And here, I thought this meant they were planning to raise a force of clones (or at least test tube babies) to make up for the lack of volunteers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kw_d3d0XAo

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by BrokenSwitch

And here, I thought this meant they were planning to raise a force of clones (or at least test tube babies) to make up for the lack of volunteers.

No need - they just effectively doubled the pool of people available for the draft.

[Sohei]

I wish we could go back to being Warriors and training like Warriors instead of being the nations new societal testing grounds for every social experiment known to mankind.

[pyreaux]

Completely civilian perspective, but it seems like just paying someone the extra $10,000 may go a bit further than offering to freeze some baby making cells.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by pyreaux

Completely civilian perspective, but it seems like just paying someone the extra $10,000 may go a bit further than offering to freeze some baby making cells.

Nope. You are missing the point.

Reading between many of the lines of this article as written tells me that retention rates for women in child bearing years are really the concern.

See:

Women who reach 10 years of service — what Mr. Carter called “their peak years for starting a family” — have a retention rate that is 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.

“Particularly for women who are midgrade officers and enlisted personnel, this benefit will demonstrate that we understand the demands upon them and want to help them balance commitments to force and commitments to family,” Mr. Carter said. “We want to retain them in our military.”

If it were purely about aggregate numbers... a cash bonus would take care of that. But IMO, this is an attempt to target women and avoid the obvious backlash that would ensue if they said "$10K bonus to women only"

YMMV.

[Sohei]

Originally Posted by abc_123

Nope. You are missing the point.

Reading between many of the lines of this article as written tells me that retention rates for women in child bearing years are really the concern.

See:

Women who reach 10 years of service — what Mr. Carter called “their peak years for starting a family” — have a retention rate that is 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.

“Particularly for women who are midgrade officers and enlisted personnel, this benefit will demonstrate that we understand the demands upon them and want to help them balance commitments to force and commitments to family,” Mr. Carter said. “We want to retain them in our military.”

If it were purely about aggregate numbers... a cash bonus would take care of that. But IMO, this is an attempt to target women and avoid the obvious backlash that would ensue if they said "$10K bonus to women only"

YMMV.

X10. Very well said, indeed!

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by abc_123

Nope. You are missing the point.

Reading between many of the lines of this article as written tells me that retention rates for women in child bearing years are really the concern.

See:

Women who reach 10 years of service — what Mr. Carter called “their peak years for starting a family” — have a retention rate that is 30 percent lower than their male counterparts.

“Particularly for women who are midgrade officers and enlisted personnel, this benefit will demonstrate that we understand the demands upon them and want to help them balance commitments to force and commitments to family,” Mr. Carter said. “We want to retain them in our military.”

If it were purely about aggregate numbers... a cash bonus would take care of that. But IMO, this is an attempt to target women and avoid the obvious backlash that would ensue if they said "$10K bonus to women only"

YMMV.

I fully agree that this targets women - who have a limited window for safe reproduction while men can reproduce without increased risk indefinitely.

If that's the case this is a failed strategy IMHO. The biologic clock ticks hard in the late 20's-early 30's and many of these women want to have children then, not the opportunity to have kids later.

If they offered 1 year of leave on full pay with each pregnancy they are likely to find more success, at the expense of having a large proportion of the female military personnel on perpetual paid leave for starting families.

It's a no-win situation if you ask me.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

I fully agree that this targets women - who have a limited window for safe reproduction while men can reproduce without increased risk indefinitely.

If that's the case this is a failed strategy IMHO. The biologic clock ticks hard in the late 20's-early 30's and many of these women want to have children then, not the opportunity to have kids later.

If they offered 1 year of leave on full pay with each pregnancy they are likely to find more success, at the expense of having a large proportion of the female military personnel on perpetual paid leave for starting families.

It's a no-win situation if you ask me.

Doc,

There WILL be a win. We have plenty of $$ to spend if it fits the agenda items of "equality" "fairness" "diversity". So if it helps a little even at extreme cost it will be a SUCCESSFUL strategy. Prime criteria is to do it with as little public outcry or blowback as possible.

Having a large number of females on paid maternity leave at any one time would be too obvious and even the lethargic and apathetic American public could follow the equation and get to how much a political agenda item is costing in both real dollars and in effectiveness.

More women in more units is sacred agenda item. Money is NOT going to be a constraint. Money will be a constraint for things like soldier pay, retiree health car, weapons system modernization etc. etc. but not if it's a "woman" thing.

[CAARNG 68W]

Looks like the military is wanting to do all it can to retain women. Our society want to do all it can to encourage women, at the cost of discouraging or hindering men. The War on Boys has become the War on Men

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by abc_123

Doc,

There WILL be a win. We have plenty of $$ to spend if it fits the agenda items of "equality" "fairness" "diversity". So if it helps a little even at extreme cost it will be a SUCCESSFUL strategy. Prime criteria is to do it with as little public outcry or blowback as possible.

Having a large number of females on paid maternity leave at any one time would be too obvious and even the lethargic and apathetic American public could follow the equation and get to how much a political agenda item is costing in both real dollars and in effectiveness.

More women in more units is sacred agenda item. Money is NOT going to be a constraint. Money will be a constraint for things like soldier pay, retiree health car, weapons system modernization etc. etc. but not if it's a "woman" thing.

Yes - but what I'm saying is that this program will not result in improved retention of mid-career females because it doesn't curb biologic drives.

[mark46th]

Wow- The government is going to pay $10,000.00 to give a hand job? That's gonna put Pat Pong Rd out of business...

[Joker]

You have got to be kidding me. That crap is the last thing on a troops mind.