Lower Pay for Higher Discipline

From Rick-

I have it! I finally have it! Ever since I separated from the Air Force last fall I’ve been threatening to write a book. At first I thought I would write a pseudo memoir about my time at the Academy of Military Science. I even have a blog with some of the stories I thought I would share. Then I realized no one really cares what a washed up Airmen thinks. After that, I was sure I figured out the million dollar idea. I could write about my transition from the military and let corporate America know what they are missing by not lining up to hire veterans. I even went so far as to jot down some ideas about that one. But, nah. I couldn’t figure out how not to sound like I was just whining. But now, holy smokes, do I have the right concept. It is going to revolutionize American industries everywhere. What is it, you ask? Here goes- increase discipline through lower pay.

I mean, is that brilliant or what? Can’t you just see me going around on the public speaking circuit preaching the virtues of cutting pay as a way to increase discipline? Hey, CEO, you can cut your bottom line and reduce discipline issues. Every year, you could cut pay by the current inflation rate. What? You don’t think it will work? You think I’m an idiot? Maybe, but not for this idea. You know why? Because it’s not mine. It’s the brain child of Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Michael Barrett.

The senior enlisted Marine member told Congress that lower pay might actually be beneficial to the service. He said, “I truly believe it will raise discipline. You’ll have better spending habits. You won’t be so wasteful.” Every time I read it, it sounds more ridiculous. Wasteful? You know what I wasted my time on when I was an E-4? Worrying about how I was going to feed, clothe, and care for my two young children on a salary that qualified me for food stamps. My spending habit was being short of money to spend. Most of my friends were in the same boat. It did nothing to make us more disciplined. It made us desperate. And that led to people abusing government credit cards, fudging travel vouchers, etc. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

You know who will benefit from cutting pay? The pariahs that set up shop outside the gates of every military base. They prey on young military members and suck them into payday loans or outrageous interest rates on auto loans. Eighteen to 22-year olds who have no financial or budget training are easy targets. I’ve been there and done that. It’s so easy to get in over your head. Then you miss a payment and the predators start calling your supervisor. When that happens, the only discipline you are going to increase is the kind done by the First Sergeant. And nobody wants that.

From Mike- 

So, Sgt Maj of the Marine Corps Barrett annoyed some people when he gave his professional opinion on pay increases when testifying to Congress? It seems unlikely that he is an idiot, as some headlines suggest – could he have a plan?

Congressional Competence

Each branch of the service is in the unenviable position of facing expectations from politicians with little military or business acumen. The civilian masters of the military are as clueless about budgets as they are about strategy. Those few legislators who do have private sector experience are often lawyers, where a starting pay of $150/hr destroys fiscal perspective. And how do I know they are strategically stunted? They telegraph exit timelines to the enemy – a bit like the local police department publishing where speed traps are planned, complete with dates and times.  Congress is clueless about how to spend, how to plan, and how to execute ... but they still have the checkbook.

Public Perceptions

During the Clinton years, the economy roared, but no one stopped to ask about the paltry pay raises for the military. We fell far behind in those years … but once the economy tanked, suddenly the military looked rich. As it turns out, where you stand really does depend on where you sit – when the investment portfolios of our civilian brothers took a hit, those of us in uniform (most of whom have never had a portfolio) appeared to be rich. Thus, the defense budget will shrink by $75B in the next two years. Barrett likely knows the legislators are gunning for personnel costs, and there's little he can say to dissuade them. No matter what happens to military pay, there will always be men and women in uniform willing to stand in the gap. Why not tell Congress what they want to hear, while making the other services look like pansies?

Barrett's Gambit

What Barrett did was agree with the foregone conclusion of legislators, while defending the equipment, training, and materials the Marines need. The other services tried to defend pay raises, equipment, materials, benefits, etc. … but to highlight everything is to highlight nothing.    Sun Tzu told us to concede what we are sure to lose, rather than wasting resources that could be better spent toward our military objective. The other services are playing checkers, Barrett is playing chess.

Speaking of impending losses, any idea what Hagel has prescribed in terms of troop strength? The Marines will drop from 190k to 182k by FY15, and must dedicate nearly 1000 more to embassy security. Guess who is most likely to leave the Corps voluntarily? Those dedicated Marines who are good at their jobs, and serve for a sense of duty & honor? Those who feel under-appreciated because their wallet isn't as fat as the private sector's? Yeah – the latter – and Barrett's annual review will say he single-handedly restored the discipline of the entire corps by encouraging the grumblers to leave.

All that said, military pay sucks for the first 4-5 years – some view it as motivation to climb the ranks. Our military pensions are also under attack, and I have a real problem with a breach of contract after I gave my 20s, 30s, and part of my 40s to my country. We gave our youth, and walked away with nothing but a promise for monthly compensation. To change that contract is unconscionable; that the change will come from lawmakers who are guaranteed a pension after 5 years of service with a starting pay of 6 figures is beyond belief. Still, I am proud of my service, and respect Barrett's decision to forego popularity as a leader and build a defensible position for the resources his troops need when they face an adversary abroad.

Hey, Congress … Check.

Mike

 

Google Reads Your Email--I Googled It

Rick,

This morning, I was reading the news on google, and I came across a story about their latest lawsuit about e-mail privacy.  I'm sure the military read our e-mails, as your new employer may ... but if you get a chance to read the article linked below, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10767626/Google-outlines-email-scanning-practices.html

I'll jot down a few things myself ...

Cheers!

Mike

 

Mike-

I read the article and the first thing I did was check my gmail account. As I looked over my inbox, five things became apparent to me:

 

1-      I like to shop. My wife may be right in stating that I’m a clothes junkie. In my defense, most of the items were on sale and good quality. I suppose that will be irrelevant if I go broke saving money. That’s another blog for another day, though.

2-      I hear from Redbox more often than I do from my older children. It was kind of sad to realize that Redbox is one of the few interactions I can count on every day. However, both Redbox and my kids usually only contact me because they want my money. So there’s that.

3-      I’m consistently behind in my Bible reading. I know this because my Bible app keeps sending me email reminders. I don’t want to read them because I feel guilty. I also don’t want to delete them because that seems wrong. I mean, you can’t just delete something telling you to read God’s word. That’s got to be a sin, like skipping a Christian song on your Ipod. I feel guilty just thinking about it. So all those gentle reminders sit in my inbox unread.

4-      I send myself a lot of emails. I send them thinking I will work on them at home. Never happens so they just clog up my inbox. Although I’m sure the guy reading them gets a chuckle out of the fact that I sometimes write myself encouraging notes.

5-      Man, have I been turned down for a lot of jobs! I started keeping the rejection notices because I thought they would fuel my fire. I would make everyone pay who passed on me. Boy, were they going to be sorry. Instead, I’m usually sorry I kept them. I go back and sniffle through them while thinking “why didn’t you want me?” Then I eat ice cream to feel better. Then I feel bad about myself. Then I eat more food. Then I complain that I go to the gym but can’t lose weight. It’s all very healthy.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the feedback you were looking for. When I was in the military, every time I logged on to my computer I had to consent to being monitored. It was just part of the routine. I would always think, “Yes, Big Brother, I understand that you have the right to monitor my email and see that I’m consistently poor at reading them and even worse at answering them in a timely manner.” I mean, if they were going to monitor them, why didn’t they ever help a brother out? I can think of several occasions when I hit the send button and it should have stopped me and asked “Really? Are you sure you want to send that? In that tone? To that person? Do you really want to never get promoted again?” But, seriously, I always understood why they monitored email. It played a role in maintaining good order and discipline, as well as protecting sensitive information.

Now I have transitioned to a civilian job and my email is still monitored. I’m not as sure why they need to monitor it. Maybe at some point I’ll know a trade secret or something. At the rate I accumulate knowledge, I think they have a good decade or so before they need to worry about it. Whatever. At least they told me that they held the right to check it. I can deal with that.

My problem with the Google policy is twofold. First, no one told me. Maybe I want to keep my private email conversations with myself private. I think it’s fair to seek privacy without having something to hide. Secondly, the Google policy is only there as a way to increase revenue. I’m a diehard capitalist. I have no problem with making money however you legally can. This just doesn’t seem legal to me. It looks like they will start putting it in the terms of use. I imagine it going something like this: “Gmail is not actually free. You must agree to allow us to read your boring, poorly written emails so we can figure what you like and then force unwanted advertisements on you every time you try to see if Redbox has written you today.”

The most salient point of the entire article is this quote that I admittedly took out of context: “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy.” To me, that sums up life in today’s society. I wasn’t even a little shocked to learn my emails were being read. I would have been more surprised to learn that they weren’t. Bottom line- You should live your life like it’s being recorded, because it most likely is.

Rick 

Rick, 

I finally sat down to write out a few thoughts after getting the kids from school.  

The notion that tech firms take advantage of the information we provide is not surprising, but Google's admission that they parse e-mails sent from or to my gmail account to learn more about me is disturbing.

Sure, I reply when my folks e-mail questions about “bursitis” or “pine beetles”, but that shouldn't shape my next web search. Likewise, unsolicited advice I receive from friends, family, co-workers, or business acquaintances is hardly a welcome basis for future advertisements. It's like if my iPhone picked up snippets of “We Are The Champions” while I was at the last hockey game, and took the liberty of updating my Pandora account to include more Freddy Mercury alongside the traditional bluegrass I had planned to enjoy … or if my wife saw me laughing at Dwight Schrute and decided to make beets for dinner. Who makes decisions like that?

Google's assertion that their users have “no legitimate expectation of privacy” is beyond erroneous. The central issue is an ethical one – while my search terms are passed as free text, my e-mails should be considered for the eyes of those I include in the address list. The executives are accustomed to selling information to advertisers, and so are inclined to think all information is freely accessible, but the common user is right to assume the text of their messages are only accessed by those specifically addressed (or those surreptitiously snooping around). Sure, I might know what my teenaged daughter wrote in her journal, but that isn't because I'm a good person – it just means I'm not to be trusted.

I suppose I have several concerns about Google:

- How long before a rogue employee decides to stalk users for sport, and how could that impact me and my family?

- How much data is stored, and who else gets to see it? What are the odds all of their employees are to be trusted?

- Are their conclusions obtainable by warrant, or just the raw data?

Most perplexing to me: What is happening in the world that I will never come across on my own computer? I value innovation, and I believe the only way to be innovative is to know multiple fields of study. I like to look at the world from different perspectives, and find the overlap. When Google attempts to “clarify” my experience, what they mean is “isolate” me. Suddenly, I am defined by my past – encumbered by their perspective of my interests. In fact, I see their business model as cultivating a deliberate prejudice. Google is profiling each of us, and restricting the information we see by prioritizing what they show us.

On the other hand, when YouTube does it, I get a lot of Muppet videos in my feed. I may blame it on my kids, but I really do like when Rowlf sings.

At the very least, Google should offer a “clear vision” mode, where a different search algorithm ignores your cookies and offers a new way to view the internet. Maybe new search functions like “persona:eco”, “persona:fringe”, “persona:vegetarian”, :hipster, :retiree, or :random. These modes of viewing the web could broaden horizons, and potentially increase the way Google helps advertisers define their demographic. There is a way to do it without digging through e-mails.

Regardless, Google has to make money, and we are not exactly limiting the information we give them. There are other search engines, and we should try them from time to time. In fact, I just Googled “best search engine”, and Google isn't even on the first page – though there is a featured ad for Rogaine – that's odd.

Mike