Jump to content


Supreme User
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jazzdude last won the day on June 8

jazzdude had the most liked content!

About jazzdude

  • Birthday September 18

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Charleston AFB

Recent Profile Visitors

8,163 profile views

jazzdude's Achievements

Gray Beard

Gray Beard (4/4)



  1. I'm guessing this was when the AF said we couldn't be trusted to score PFTs and hired contractors to score. Only test I nearly failed because the contractor wanted locked elbows between each rep. To the OP, it might be worth checking to see if you're benefits actually transferred and that the ADSC is valid to begin with. There was a policy change in 2018 that said you couldn't transfer anymore once you hit 16 years of service. Since you're retirement eligible, the timing you transferred the benefit is important. Worst case is you serve out the ADSC only to find the VA denies your transfer eligibility on the back end...
  2. The number used to be something like 65% take rate target. Haven't been anywhere near that for several years
  3. I'd imagine it was a lot more manpower/personnel intensive. And the ability to compile and synthesize information was probably more limited, which affects the quality of decisions made by commanders.
  4. Could we fight a war without PowerPoint and email? Only half joking...
  5. Data point of 1: when I went to NAMI to do my initial flight physical with the Navy as an AF student pilot at Whiting Field, I was told by the flight doc "Unfortunately, your career as a naval aviator ends here because you don't meet Navy vision standards. Fortunately for you, you're in the AF and they already approved your vision waiver. Have fun flying." At the time navy standard was ~20/40 vision with no waivers, vs AF's ~20/70 with waivers available.
  6. Agree with just about everything you said, except for car tax. Fairly certain you owe tax on the car sales as a capital gain, unless you sold it for a loss. The $600 transaction monitoring is ridiculous. But it's cheaper to go after the poor/middle class since they probably don't have access to a good lawyer to defend themselves. (But it's there a net gain for the government? Are the funds recovered by IRS enough to offset the cost of the monitoring/legal costs to pursue small violations?) Don't forget that carrying large sums of cash is also considered suspicious, and what constitutes a "large sum" is whatever the police (or TSA if flying) feels like that day. And that threshold seems to go down if you're not a white male who's dressed well, because then it's "possible drug money" and at risk for being seized
  7. Agree on teachers unions becoming too political. And yes, cancelling gifted programs in k-12 is a disservice to kids that are ahead of the curve. People learn at different speeds, and holding back students hurts their development as well as further academic or career pursuits (particularly if those careers require formal education). Also, maybe "advanced" or "accelerated" is a better word than "gifted" to describe these classes. Less talked about is advancing students for social reasons; good for social reasons, but for subjects like math and science where all the coursework builds on understanding of previous concepts, it can cause students to be overwhelmed and fail with no real ability to catch up (unless provided outside help). There probably needs to be a slow kids class to ensure those concepts are learned, so they can build on the knowledge. There's also generally time for students who are behind to catch up on math and science by the time they graduate high school. The equity argument is dumb. People excel at different things, or have different interests, and can learn at different rates; everyone is not the same. At the same time, how students get placed in advanced classes (or catch up classes) should be monitored for bias (both for and against); placements should be based on student performance, and not on race, ethnicity, sex, etc.
  8. While I used to take this line, we can't leave it up to the market-there's a lag between demand and supply. From a national security standpoint, it makes sense for the government to invest in talent, especially in STEM, to create a pool of talent for industry to draw on. This helps keep the US at the forefront of technology and innovation, which helps us both economically and in equipping our warfighters with equipment and technologies that give them an unfair advantage when they go to fight for our country. K-12 is an important investment in our country's future, especially in minority populations for the reason you state. But that takes money, especially if you want better teachers. But that alone won't fix it, it takes support from the families and embracing academic success as a good thing (rather than labeling kids who want to do well in academics as nerds...). So while money is probably needed, throwing only money at the problem won't work.
  9. I agree that easy government loans contribute to the student debt problem, particularly since it's not tied to a degree program. Easy money also probably also contributed to the rapid rise in the cost of college, an unintended effect of trying to increase access. A way to shape or workforce is to provide incentives, for example, only providing loans for certain courses of study (like engineering or hard sciences). Or changing proportions of degree programs that are eligible for government loans (more loans for technical degrees than for soft degrees). Though it's admittedly hard to determine how many of each degree to fund via loans. (Is business or poly sci a soft degree not worth finding via government loans?)
  10. It's straight supply and demand. If you want engineers, you have to attract them, whether it's based on mission, location, or compensation, or a combination of the three. And there are many large companies competing for the same talent, on the software side places like Amazon/Google/Facebook/etc. Just like any other limited resource, the scarcer it gets the more it costs. And it's not like the US is producing less engineers with bachelor's degrees than in the past, just that there's more competition for them. Or you have people with engineering degrees exiting the field to go do something else (like fly military jets...) Plus, I'd wager that many software development jobs don't actually require a comp sci degree, and that a lot of coding can be successfully be done by someone who's self taught. The trouble is it's hard to measure/gauge the abilities of someone that doesn't have a formal degree. I know when I interned at a major defense contractor that most of the work I did don't really have anything to do with my (EE) degree, outside of a few classes where we happened to use C and Java. But there's no vocational equivalent for software development, and unless you're needing to develop better methods of sorting data, a comp sci degree is probably overkill. Plus there's a lot of other drags on business. Look at USERRA protections-great for manning the reserves (and I think we can all agree good for the country as a whole), and protecting a traditional reservist's primary civilian job helps ensure participation with their unit. But it's a cost that the business has to bear. Oh, and not hiring someone because of their reservist status is also illegal. You point out going to Berkeley and getting a soft degree; it's a free country, individuals can study whatever they want (though some degrees have better returns on investment with less risk than others). And most engineering programs are competitive, with more applicants than seats available, so the pool of applicants is still strong. Yes, it would be great for our country to produce more engineers, but the incentives aren't there for colleges to rapidly expand their engineering programs, and the federal government can't really mandate colleges produce more engineers. And any federal incentives would cost money aka tax revenue, so that's got to come from somewhere. Also, reaching kids in k-12 to encourage studying math and science is important, as well as teaching those subjects in k-12. Because if that educational background isn't built then, it limits the pool of students qualified to begin technical field of study. So investment in primary/secondary education is important, and funded through tax revenue (though at the local/state level). And students generally are only as good as their teachers.
  11. And there are many more who just don't make it, or just get by, but their stories aren't ones that books get written about. Those aren't excuses, just obstacles that need to be overcome. Sometimes they can be overcome by hard work alone, sometimes it requires some fortunate timing and a little luck to overcome those obstacles. And no one likes to talk about what happens when risks are realized, it's much easier to celebrate taking a chance and winning. But you are right in that our country offers great opportunity, and probably the most economic mobility. At the same time, businesses need to work harder too. If they have staffing shortfalls, stop complaining and do the work to invest in recruiting and retaining talent. If people don't want to do the job you have open, you're probably not paying enough to deal with the job. And if you can't afford to pay what the workers are demanding, well, your business model probably has flawed assumptions and you're on the path to failure.
  12. Yes, hard work is important, and having a good work ethic can open some doors. But luck and timing are important as well and often ignored, and good luck and good timing are often attributed to just working hard and being rewarded for that hard work. But there's also a lot of other factors at play, which may limit the opportunities a person can take depending on their tolerance for risk(aka how lucky do they feel). Wages haven't kept up with increases productivity. Minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation. Another problem is a generation has been sold on college debt: having a college degree, any degree, would open doors to better pay and jobs. That might have been true when degrees were rare, but now the market is flooded with degrees and lessened their value. (This is why college for all would fail, and why I don't agree with calls to make college "free" for everyone. Plus most of the information can be learned for free online out with library resources, so it's not a access to knowledge problem) Unfortunately for the individual, they become saddled with debt they can't discharge via bankruptcy, and can drive getting stuck in a bad job because they can't afford to take a pay cut to transition to a better field of work or to restart in a new trade. That debt and need to meet basic necessities may mean they also don't have the means to save for their future goals, whether it's retirement, a house, etc. Also related is that healthcare is tired to jobs in the US, so medical needs may cause someone to remain in a job because they can't risk losing medical coverage. On the flip side, lots of jobs now want to see a 4 year degree in their applicants, even when it has no bearing on the job itself. This perpetuates the notion that you "need" a 4 year degree. For example, registered nurses. You can become an RN with a 2 year degree. Except most "good" nursing jobs want a 4 year degree in nursing (BSN). However, there's is nothing a BSN can do that an RN can't do, they hold the same professional certification as RN. You could argue they want the soft skills associated with a bachelors degree, but you'd be wrong, they ignore other degrees in hiring. There's also lots of assumptions built into our way of life, such as transportation. Housing is cheaper the further you get from desirable areas (and one of the reasons why we have suburban sprawl). This includes places of work, and generally drives people to require transportation to/from work. In a large city with a decent public transportation system, a person could get by without a car (which saves on several costs, including insurance, gas, and parking). But in smaller cities and towns, cars become more important, because they buy you time. A 15 minute commute by car could be an hour via public transportation, if it exists. Shortening the commute to something walkable/bikeable isn't usually feasible (ref. housing costs near desirable locations), so that's typically out. This could drive other hidden costs, like increased child care costs due to the extra time needed to commute to work. None of these are easy problems to solve. But "work harder" is a gross oversimplification of the problem. (I think it's about as bad as telling AF pilots they should be happy in their job and don't need a bonus, and shouldn't complain about the ops tempo because it's what they signed up to do).
  13. I'll add that it's not just hard work. Just like in an AF career, luck and timing are also important, if not more so, and can significantly change your outcome in life.
  14. Access to space and the responsibilities of satellite owners. With the advent of commercial spaceflight, how to manage and deconflict orbits, and who should manage the orbits. Big sky, little satellite theory probably won't hold much longer, as it is getting much cheaper to put satellites on orbit.
  15. You might be thinking of chicken pox/varicella vaccine. If you had chicken pox as a kid, they do a test to check for antibodies, which if you do then exempts you from that vaccine. I also got the smallpox vaccine in 2010 as an AMC guy.
  • Create New...