Leaderboard

I don't think he's made the point well until his recent long post, but Negatory is on to something that (R) have been blind to. The generational wealth disparity, home price increases, education cost increases, purchasing power stagnation, consumer debt increases, all coupled with the near-requirement for dual income households is a gigantic Master Warning light that we're ignoring. The government is shoveling as much fake money into the stock market as it can to stabilize the 401k accounts and underfunded state and local pensions that are heavily invested in equities to make up for their poor balances. And because the interest rates are still at zero in an effort to prop up the markets, there's nowhere else to put your money where it will grow. The boomers did a shit job of, well, everything, and now that they are finally retiring, they are collectively shitting their pants at the prospect of their houses and investment accounts losing value right when they are planning on needing them. And the government is pouring gas on the already immolated future of the millennials and Gen Z in order to save boomers from a lifetime of abdicating responsibility. Buckle up.

I hope masks partially stay. Got a cold/flu and need/want to go out? Wear a mask and keep your crud to yourself. But hopefully we'll get to not having/needing everyone wear a mask out in the next several months.

On one hand, I tend to agree with your sentiment here, at least on face value. On the other hand, I see Negatory's points as well, many of which I think are valid shots that need to be addressed. TL;DR: What responsibility do companies have to their employees, and to the society they operate in? Here's a few questions that come to mind for me, and it's all shades of gray to me. Are employees people to be invested in to help the company grow, or an expense to be minimized? What is a fair wage to pay an employee: the value they bring to the company, or the minimum you can pay them while minimizing turnover and associated costs (or can you just ignore turnover costs)? How much profit is ethical for a company to make? (A contracting officer could give you what the government's answer here as it relates to federal contracts) How much profit is ethical for a company to make when it pays low wages that causes a good portion of their workers to require government assistance, transferring the burden of wages to society (aka funded by taxpayer money)? Does the size of the company change this answer, and where do we draw that line (mom & pop restaurant with a 2-3 extra employees vs Walmart or Amazon)? Are corporate taxes an unfair expense on job creators (that money could instead be left at the company, where it would trickle down to the lower earning front line workers), or are they the cost of maintaining the greater economic system the companies operate in? Things along the lines of ensuring a fair market (like preventing/persecuting insider trading or preventing monopolies, water rights, land usage, etc), ensuring consumer protection (FDA, OSHA, enforcing public safety standards), or common infrastructure that enables many businesses (roads, ATC, etc). Companies benefit from the environment our government creates (to include foreign trade policies, taxes/tariffs, infrastructure, education, etc), but maintaining that environment costs money. What if the AF tomorrow said "we're no longer paying flight pay during your initial UPT commitment?" Would that impact recruiting pilots? I'd bet probably not-there's still plenty of kids willing to sign at 11+ years of their life to fly a jet. Would it change retention? Again, I'd bet probably not, especially if some of the AF's flight pay savings were added to beef up the pilot bonus. Those that are career minded would still likely stay, as a government pension and healthcare access for life are still attractive items to get people to stay in until 20 (same incentive as our non-rated peers for staying in to retirement). We'd still have a competitive compensation package for pretty much anything besides working at a major airline (TA, GI Bill, GI Bill transfer, tax benefits associated with allowances). But cutting flight pay would send a pretty clear signal that pilots aren't valued in the AF. Fortunately, the AF doesn't have a profit motivation to drive down flight pay. Though DoD is looking to reduce personnel costs elsewhere (restructuring retirement with BRS, transitioning the military healthcare system to focus on military and push dependents out onto the market). And we've lived though decades of doing more with less (maintaining high ops tempo while shrinking the end strength), which gave us a small taste of some of the economic forces our general public deals with. While people out in the civilian world may not have a legal commitment like an ADSC to their employer, they may be stuck due to financial commitments, such as repaying student loans or rent/mortgage. Sure, sometimes they can take some personal blame (state school vs private, choice of degree, bigger house than needed, family planning, etc), but circumstances can lock them into keeping a job where they can barely make payments, since quitting or trying to job hop may not be practical (restarting at a lower wage that doesn't cover the bills). And this ignores any medical issues or emergencies that may happen that can wipe out any savings/retirement unless you're employee has a good/great health plan. (And if you've never shopped the open market for personally procured health insurance, it's stupid expensive, easily $450/mo for an individual on a "silver plan", and you'd still likely be bankrupted if you have a major illness or significant emergency). It's easy to point fingers at people who are struggling, but the truisms in an AF career apply to life in general: better lucky than good, life's not fair, and there is no justice. Then again, government is a reflection of what our society values, and can move to make things more "fair", it's just that what is "fair" is open to debate and should be debated vs solely black and white arguments.

Doesn't matter because it doesn't affect how much the people below them make. They're selling goods and services, not stealing from people.

I am not disagreeing with many of your points. And I, along with many of you, are plenty well off. I get that. No shit we all have Roth IRAs and TSP and retirement and stable socialized jobs that allow us, very fortuitously, to be some of the lucky people in society. But most people can't, and that's the problem. To just say there is no limit to wealth in society and entirely detach from reality by saying that how much the top 1% makes isn't connected to how much the working class makes is asinine. Because if they had incentives to give that money to workers as opposed to stock buybacks or letting it sit in stock options, maybe society would be better? Also, it's not like the system we have today has been around for very long, yet you guys talk like it's holy and could never be altered. Since 1913 to now, the top end capital gains tax has ranged from 13%-77%. The personal income tax for the highest bracket has ranged from less than 10% to greater than 90%. My argument is that Reaganomics and the policies that were implemented in the last 40 years have disproportionately helped the rich while making it harder to live and generate wealth for the vast majority of future and younger generations. That is the argument I want you to address. For example, Millenials only hold 3% of total US wealth, whereas baby boomers held 21% if you go back in time to when they were the same age. https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-less-wealth-net-worth-compared-to-boomers-2019-12 Purchasing power hasn't change at all in decades. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ Inflation adjusted home costs have risen nearly 40% in the last few decades. https://dqydj.com/historical-home-prices/ Education costs have tripled since 1980, after adjusting for inflation. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college These all began their upward trajectory after we decided that horse and sparrow (which literally comes from the sparrow getting to eat out of the horse's shit) economics (reaganomics) were what we were going to do as a nation. My argument is that these are real, society defining, problematic issues that we need to address. We can fix some of these problems with the right market and governmental incentives/tax structure. Or you guys can keep hanging on to republican/neo-liberal fiscal conservatism which just saw over 20% of all circulating US dollars created just this year along with $4T in debt and the Fed swelling to over $7T. This is a crisis that you guys aren't addressing because your TSP appeared to go up in value, and I want to know why or when you think the current system will improve. Finally, here's an additional hypothetical to one of your points: Why not just give the trillions directly to billionaires and the top 0.1% only because they're the "job creators" (actually pretty close to what already happens with large company bailouts of people like Boeing that just did stock buybacks over the last 10 years; socialize losses, privatize gains, right)? Don't give literally anyone else money, especially working class. Those billionaires, by the logic in this thread, will create all the jobs and totally donate to charity and fix the roads and trickle all over society if they just have a little more money.

RE: education One thing we need to do if we really are concerned about the rise in education costs is ask ourselves why the cost of education has gone up. It's all well and good to lament the cost of higher ed and just throw more money at the problem - which is exactly what student debt "forgiveness" (transfer) is, in actuality. The solution is likely counter-intuitive, though, and IMO this means eliminating all (yes, ALL) student loans from the federal government. I get that this is a problem affecting a generation, but if we are going to solve this problem, let's solve it permanently, and avoid going around the merry-go-round for another lap. There is good evidence that the student loan program which has swelled from $3B in 1970 to over $160B in 2017 (https://www.mercatus.org/publications/education-policy/reevaluating-effects-federal-financing-higher-education) is driving up the cost of college - it just makes sense, right? I mean, if you're an institution of higher learning, what incentive do you have to not raise the price when there is effectively and unlimited stream of money to tap into? Other studies have determined that for every $1.00 subsidy (in student loans) the price of college rises between $0.58 and $0.78 - not much bang for our tax buck (https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2017/02/22/how-unlimited-student-loans-drive-up-tuition/). My compromise? Fine, let's all "forgive" student debt, but any discussion along those lines needs to come with an admission that the student loan program has unequivocally failed, having had the opposite effect from its stated goal, and hence will be permanently scuttled.

I think on this often, since it has shadowed my whole adult life. Do you think if we hadn't done Iraq so soon after, we'd still be in the same quicksand? I don't think we would. I don't know if that parallel universe is better...but I'd sure like to see it.

Interesting argument, I'll take the bait. Forget airframes-should a flight commander be compensated more than a line pilot or line instructor since they are in a supervisory position? Should flight commanders be the most experienced person available in the organization (say a major or an extra Lt Col in a sq) since they are already being compensated more for their leadership potential, or should it be filled by someone younger to check a career advancement box? (For an organization that likes to say it's a meritocracy, we do a lot of things that don't really fit in a true meritocracy, but I digress) Should instructors make more than copilots? What if the copilot was a cross flow instructor/evaluator from a different airframe? Is getting passed over for major because you just flew the line and didn't do SOS or a master's the same as a civilian not getting a promotion to a supervisory job because they didn't take on extra responsibilities in their current job to improve their company or take night classes to get a degree the company wants at that level? Lastly and most importantly, a C-17 pilot clearly should make at least twice what a C-130 pilot makes: twice the cargo at twice the speed! (I'd say 4 times the pay, but sometimes the gear is not down before landing or the cargo/pax arrives at the wrong destination...so deductions were made)

For anyone else still wondering, was notified a few days ago that DC has not yet made a decision from their recent board. If i had to guess I'd say it won't be long now that the holiday season is through

It was 3-4 years ago. I was a mid level captain. i tried it twice over 3 years. The numbers came direct from the functional. I forget where I found them. I believe our functional put them on our road show slides. I gave up at it. If they offered now I would say no. I'm on my 3rd MWS now and tired of new quals, being a copilot every time for a year, etc... I'm set on getting out after this tour is over. AF lost me because they couldn't provide me a pathway to a rewarding career. Didn't even have to be AFSOC. Just something other than what they had me doing.

Asian countries have been doing it since SARS.

The real reason why politicians/Trump want the economy fully opened.

Yeah...I’m usually sick with some sort of crud 2-3 times a year. Haven’t been sick since all this started. I hope this exercise also changes how people across the board treat calling in sick.

I would say all of those are good options, and I would suggest getting one from all 5 of the people you listed for three reasons. 1) You may encounter a board that requires more than three, 2) to give you added versatility depending on who you’re applying, and 3) one or more of the letters may not be l as good as you’d hoped. I know I’ve had high hopes for some that turned out to just not be very good. I also agree with Checksix, the best thing to do is honestly to just edit the PDFs to change who they’re addressed to if a unit asks for them to be addressed specifically, cuz if not you’re gonna be bugging the hell out of all those letter writers and often.

Cool, so only single person corporations are allowed so employers can’t “exploit” workers? Let me know how that works. They’re holding down the proletariat everyone!

Is it really too much to ask people to think things through to a logical conclusion? Of course we will have to continue to social distance and wear masks for as long as C19 continues to spread unabated. However, the sooner we reach heard immunity (vaccination will allow for this FAR faster than letting it happen naturally, and at FAR less cost), the sooner the virus stops spreading, and the sooner we can take the fucking masks off and get back to life. Simple.

The F-102 pilots from the ‘50s called. They want their flight suit back.

this x1000. the government is ridiculous. close small businesses....keep PACKED costcos and walmarts open. close poker rooms...keep the craps tables open WTF?! close down beaches?! wear a mask while jogging on isolated running trails?! government doesn't know all, doesn't have your best interests, doesn't know how to keep you safe, and doesn't care about taking away your liberty. and the lockdowns haven't worked, but people preach at you like locking down HARDER will work BETTER. crazy man. it really is incredible how easily it is to influence a large swath of the population to blindly follow bullshit.

Your assignment functional is more accessible now than any other time in my career.

<sigh> Pawnman, why is the surgeon wearing the mask (Let’s say I’m getting a knee replacement)? Because he’s afraid of getting sick from my knee? No. The surgeon is wearing the mask to protect me, the patient. This aligns with the messaging throughout this thing that wearing a mask is about protecting others. My comment above was about how useful a surgical mask is in protecting the wearer. What the Google machine tells me (via fda.gov) is that an average surgical mask “may help block large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter.“ And that’s my point. In public, especially with social distancing in effect, do you guys frequently encounter “large-particle droplets, splashes, sprays, or splatter?” Seriously ask yourself. Is that a thing? Are people coughing or sneezing on or near you? I don’t know. I’m just saying that’s not my experience. Yelling, singing, or whistling are also probably good examples, but again, I personally don’t see that in a typical grocery store run. I see a handful of healthy people with no cough or sneeze, adhering to distancing, and yet wearing masks. Do some woodworking with a surgical mask on. Cutting, or especially sanding. You’ll be coughing on saw dust inside of 10 minutes. It does not block fine particles at all. And that’s literal pieces of wood. I found (I think) the article that Slackline references above. It suggest that cloth masks block “some viral particles” and “can reduce the inoculum of the virus which enters the mask,” resulting in a milder or even asymptomatic infection. So you get sick, but not as sick. Fair enough. It’s a short article and there’s no data cited. To me, it is conditions and behavior based. If we are now asserting that a mask can protect the wearer because it blocks “some viral particles,” it seems to me that the emphasis should be on wearing them in the places where there is a real chance of someone else’s spit hitting your face. i.e. while watching a movie on the couch with someone, not while walking down an aisle at Costco.

This is the way

apples v. oranges comparison

Saw a congressman on Twitter joke that there would be noodles in the House cafeteria. Ramen...and rawomen.

Would you tell your surgeon not to bother with a mask "because it doesn't do anything"? Why do you think they would be even less effective when you don't have a giant, open wound in your body?

Gen X here. Happy to pay my own debts. Or are generations now based on political views instead of when you were born? Lord knows I've been called "boomer" plenty of times.

True statement. I don’t hear any Gen Xers out there saying, “hey, we’re happy to pay our debts! Leave us out of this conversation...”. We’re all too happy to let someone fight the fight and look like the mooches because we know it will benefit us to get loan forgiveness. I paid mine off long ago by the way. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They aren't the only ones. Which generation is demanding other people pay for the student loans they signed for again?

It would be great if sick folks would wear a mask. However, it is my opinion too many people believe masks infringe on their freedoms/too inconvenient combined with a lack of concern for others that many sick will NOT wear masks. Therefore, you need to CYA and wear your masks to avoid picking up their crud.

You and I both brother! Are what ifs open? What if we had experience with getting involved in a decade+ long quagmire, that could provide us some lessons learned... What if there was this other super power who had gone into Afghanistan and had some lessons that could have been learned... What if war wasn't such a racket...

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2459225/newly-acquired-afrl-test-aircraft-to-aid-personnel-recovery-research/ The Air Force is thinking of using a XCub bush plane for CSAR? Wow. Would be sporty to fly that into hostile airspace.

"Oh, and we're not going to give you any extra money for it, figure it out..."

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... Past performance is no guarantee of future results; read your prospectus carefully.

I tried to switch to AFSOC when 11R manning was 120% and 11S was 70%. I was told no, because 11R manning might tank in the future. That's about all you need to know about AFPC logic.

There are many great truths to be extracted from the original "Star Wars". One of those truths is that the orange flight suit will return in its full glory.

It's not black or white, except all these places below where you're saying that because CEO X or Investor Y made money, that the working class loses. Keep bashing capitalism there, Charlie; you're so confused you're tripping over yourself.

I would posit that the issue is less generals understanding the details of cyber (that's why they have their staffs), and more that a lot of cyber fixes really amount to maintaining and improving comms infrastructure. Upgrading our comms backend, maintaining servers, securing accounts and access, and maintaining and securing our networks all costs money. And it's much less sexy than a shiny F-35/KC-46/new weapons/etc. After all, we are the Air Force, and we should focus on airpower, not keeping email and SharePoint or share drives up and running...even though a lot of how we fight and execute C2 relies on those capabilities. Every dollar spent improving our IT to be more cyber resilient (much less on any true cyber capabilities) is a dollar not spent on another program. And it has to be sold at multiple levels: within the AF, DoD, and Congress. And if someone at any of those levels above AF doesn't see the value in the investment, then the AF loses that money. Maintaining infrastructure isn't sexy, and that creates a challenge in actually funding the changes that need to be made.

So start one. Let me know how the economics work out for you. be the change you want to see... or some such shit

100% agree on this. This will sound stupid, but take a moment and ask the person your interacting with “how are you doing?” That simple question made things night and day for me. You would hear them be an asshole to the person ahead of you and then their attitude would change when I dealt with them.

Thank you! That’s definitely a good idea, I will do that.

If you think that you didn’t say that the workers were exploited (doing their paid job) then you’re feeble minded.

Great questions! Regarding the list of references I think your initial three are perfect. It should come down to who knows you better, and who can speak to your strengths more. For example, your CFI may be able to speak to your strengths as a student in a training program more than your friend who instructed with you. It doesn’t hurt to have more than three letters in your back pocket either, as you may find that the tone of a certain letter is better for a unit over others. In regards to the address on the letters, my best advice would be to ask for permission from who wrote it to edit the date, unit, aircraft, address, etc. If they give it to you in a PDF, Adobe pro allows you to edit PDFs. The alternative is reaching out to that person everytime you apply to a new board for updated information which can become annoying for them after a while. Hopefully that helps! I’m in your same shoes, applying to boards myself.

I am starting the process of attaining LORs and I have a couple questions. First of all, I am wondering if these will be good people to get letters from. I have already asked each of them and they are all willing to write me an LOR 1. LOR from my sister's boyfriend (probably will have that part left out) who is an active duty HH-60 pilot (0-4) 2. LOR from a former professor who flew KC-135s 3. LOR from my former CFI who is an aircraft maintenance officer (O-5) I could also get a letter from my former boss (I worked for a CPA). Or, I could get a letter from another CFI who knows me much better than my CFI in #3. My other question is how I should have these letters addressed. Since I plan on applying to multiple units, should I have them write the letters in a way that is general enough for all units? Also, I have seen a lot of units require that the letter is addressed to the CC. How should I go about this?

I 100% agree with you. The inconsistencies you stated drive me insane. I still can’t wrap my head around people I saw this summer wearing masks while hiking and looking at me like I had three heads for not wearing a mask. Outside, in a 15-20 kt breeze, in the sunlight, further than 6 feet. YGBFSM. As a longtime youth and high school coach, I HATE what we are doing to the kids up here in the northeast. Let them play. I’m thankful both my kids were able to go to school in person part time and skate/play fall ball. A lot of kids lost that opportunity. But, the only way I can see to get out from under this utter stupidity is to make the numbers of people in the ICU and the numbers of people dying go down. If we vaccinate the high risk, then (hopefully) if they get Covid they just get sick and get better since their body now knows how to fight it. If we get the healthcare providers, they will hopefully only get mild cases and be less contagious over time. We get the vaccine to the rest of the folks and maybe people have to confidence fo fly, go to school, teach, etc. The media has stoked this panic for months and has worked people up into a lather and incompetence in the government at a lot of levels have gotten us to where we are. Now people just watch the metrics. Where I live we are at like a 10% positivity. Over the summer it was like 0.8 and it took forever to open up. It’s going the wrong direction, and like you said, I do not want to see another lockdown.

If one dude masters the internet and makes $5trillion, while the rest of us get a 5% increase...we still gained 5%. Good for him and good for us. The "folks on the right" aren't asking the government to "give" tech billionaires more billions. We all just do that because we use social media and like stuff delivered to our door two days after we buy the random thing in the internet.

Ehhhh, so party "A" makes a LOT of money, and that means party "B" needs to transfer some of their money to party "C"??? mmmmmmkay. Copy timeout. Pk miss. Leave previous point red. Play.

That another person is rich does not make me poor.

Anyone have a read on how new slot activity will look in 2021? In terms of volume...?

How about the profound silence of increasing the concealed carry on base? The Navy awarded those that responded and talked about how they ran unarmed toward an armed shooter. Should that not have caused them to think "why did our sailors have to run unarmed towards an armed shooter?" I fly with a 20mm gun that shoots 100 rounds a minute and live bombs going to the range. I'm trusted not to go crazy and go bomb or strafe the base and/or the nearby city, but can't be trusted with a concealed pistol before or after the flight.

Why isn’t the world pushing this stuff so no one has to take the vaccine?