Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Well, let me give you some advice here, so you don't lose that sweet gig. (It does sound sweet)

- Don't try to flush a t-shirt down the toilet
- Fire bad. Fire no no.
- Don't steal sensitive documents.

From what I understand from the thread, these are common rookie mistakes. Good luck!

My job has a outsized number of millennials, and if I had a nickel for every time one of those things happened, I wouldn't have anything because they're all really smart.

I have two groups in the local branch of the company ( roughly 350 people if you include the ones who WFH 100%) that I would trust to get something done and done right without babysitting or needing to constantly hound them for a response. One group is two people who have been with the company forever and survived countless layoffs and downsizing because they're that reliable. The other group is a couple teams totaling 30+ people, with only 15% of them being older than 30. They're trustworthy because the 34 year old director of their BU grew them from five people large back when he was the manager and he runs a tight ship with good people. I never worked for him, but I gave his people training semi-regularly. If they had any feth ups, I let him know and they were gone.

Maybe the military coddles the kids too much?

daedalus wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
TIL serving in the military pays well,

When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.

That in total benefits, or salary alone?

That was just base pay, not total benefits. Someone else broke it down much further to include benefits before I responded.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:


Subjective, but seeing the lives of Iraqis firsthand that were improved solely by Saddam's regime not continuing to slaughter them, I'd say it WAS worthwhile..

And if you ask the people being slaughtered by ISIS because of the power vacuum?

ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency. When ISIS' first offensive hit, you also saw Iraqi soldiers and police abandoning their posts and even their equipment the first moment the attack happened. ISIS gave rise because the people of the region are generally so unambitious that they would rather be subjugated than try to take charge of their own destiny. Most, not all. Yet again, another topic...

Peregrine wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.

So, the same money as someone making $20/hour at a job with a 40 hour work week, but with the government controlling your life outside of your "on the clock" hours and a much higher chance of death than the average office job. Yeah, that's better than working minimum wage at walmart, but that's pretty underwhelming compared to even entry-level jobs for college graduates. So who do you think you're going to get at that rate: the best of the best, who are taking a major pay cut out of sheer desire to join the military, or the people who have limited career options and are desperate for something that pays enough to live off of?

Working a foundry is more dangerous than your average military duty, and pays considerably less. Then you look at how few degree holding people can even GET a nice cush office job because their degree is junk, and it skews things even further. Long and short, though, bullets don't zip past your face every second of your military service.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Being a fry cook has personal risk to your physical and mental health. I'd argue that EVERY job does to either one or the other. Not to the degree of combat, but then again we don't spend every second of our military careers in combat.

Fry cooks generally don't spend even one second of their culinary endeveaours in combat.

Got that. You DO realize that in a career that spans from '92 to current, I've spent a total of 1 year in a combat zone? That's the reality that most people don't get, especially people from other countries that have no clue how the military in the US actually functions.

 Just Tony wrote:

daedalus wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
TIL serving in the military pays well,

When I got active duty E-4 pay, I was bringing home $1,500-$1,700 every two weeks. That's in a laborer rank, not E-5 or higher, which tends to be where you end up in less than 8 years if you do it right.

That in total benefits, or salary alone?

That was just base pay, not total benefits. Someone else broke it down much further to include benefits before I responded.

I guess when you consider that you're largely tax free (if not entirely) that $1500 every two weeks isn't so bad. By about 6-7 years in I was about 80k gross pay, which (after insurance, 401k pre-tax of 10% and so on) came out to about 1600 a paycheck IIRC. Course, I've got the fringe benefits of being able to skip into work tomorrow and inviting everyone to go feth themselves, and going to work across the street. I mean, I'd have to get hired across the street first, but you get what I'm trying to say. I've also not been subject to drug tests in...ever, and can drink through the week if I choose, work from home at least two days a week, and stroll into and leave work whenever the hell feels good. Not to mention I go to the gym because I want to, not because I'm ordered. Feels better that way to me.

I dunno man. If it works for you, own it. I've only been citing the reasons why as a (when I lean the wrong direction across the line I was born right next to) am a Millennial who wouldn't go military save for an absolute last ditch choice and assume the rest of my brethren must have somewhat similar reasons. Well, except for the ones who do go military, which I think is something like half of the military right now if that figure that was floated earlier was accurate.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”


― Socrates

I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that. A lot of the things purported to be said by him are already suspect enough by virtue of it being believed that Plato attributed a lot of his own material to Socrates to give it more credibility.

Having that been said, I giggle at how true the point is that the quote is attempting to make.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Fry cooks generally don't spend even one second of their culinary endeveaours in combat.

My Grandfather and Brother In Law could both tell you some stories about that sort of thing, but they were and are Navy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that.

You'd be right, it was originally written by Kenneth John Freeman for his dissertation at Cambridge, in 1907. To be fair, his subject was "Schools of Hellas: an Essay on the Practice and Theory of Ancient Greek Education from 600 to 300 BC"

 daedalus wrote:
I seriously doubt Socrates ever did actually say that. A lot of the things purported to be said by him are already suspect enough by virtue of it being believed that Plato attributed a lot of his own material to Socrates to give it more credibility.

Having that been said, I giggle at how true the point is that the quote is attempting to make.

I know he didn't say that, but shhhhh! Don't ruin it!

 Just Tony wrote:
ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.

George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.

A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?

 Ouze wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.

George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.

A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?

Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.

Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...

Obviously, ISIS is millenials' fault.

Ouze wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
ISIS sprang up because we got pulled out prematurely. We won't go into the politics of it in here because, well, US politics. But it takes 10 years to get an active duty base set up, and BHO pulled us out before Victory Base Complex was completed. Not a coincidence, nor is it a coincidence that our lack of presence during his tenure saw ISIS rise from the insurgency.

George W. Bush signed a SOFA in November 2008 that stipulated all troops were out in 2011 - and he was lucky to get that, under threat of all of them being pulled by the end of 2008. BHO wasn't able to get another one signed because the Iraqi parliament wouldn't have gone for immunity for prosecution for US troops.

A lie of omission is still a lie, but why let historical accuracy get in the way of a lazy, dishonest narrative, right?

Then I was misinformed.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Obviously, ISIS is millenials' fault.

Wow, you REALLY are taking the whole millenials thing personally...

 whembly wrote:
Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.

Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...

So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.

Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...

So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.

Pfft. Don't think of it like US politics. That's a defensive game, and we all know that's for losers. Think of it like middle eastern politics.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.

Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...

So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.

Indeed it is, and popular school of thought is he didn't try hard enough.

Despite that, a bigger reason for ISIS' climb is Al-Maliki. His giving the axe to almost every competent (and Sunni) military commander that he had, crippled his Army. He took what was a competent force, and turned it into a loyalist lap-dog militia, a-la the Red Army 1930's.

That is the reason a handful of poorely armed irregular fighters managed to do things like overrun entire divisions.

Our efforts in standing up a competent, stable, Iraqi military was much more effective then they have been in Afghanistan. It's not our fault those efforts were sabotaged by their own government.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Now we're trending into US politics Ouze... but suffice to say, many believed a new SOFA could've been negotiated.

Whether that would've made a difference to the rise of ISIS in Iraq... that's a whole 'nother "what-if'ing"...

So far as if another could have been negotiated, that's a different argument - and a fair one. Bush was under the gun when he signed it, but BHO had a very long window to try and renegotiate with - 3 years is a really long time.

Indeed it is, and popular school of thought is he didn't try hard enough.

Despite that, a bigger reason for ISIS' climb is Al-Maliki. His giving the axe to almost every competent (and Sunni) military commander that he had, crippled his Army. He took what was a competent force, and turned it into a loyalist lap-dog militia, a-la the Red Army 1930's.

That is the reason a handful of poorely armed irregular fighters managed to do things like overrun entire divisions.

Our efforts in standing up a competent, stable, Iraqi military was much more effective then they have been in Afghanistan. It's not our fault those efforts were sabotaged by their own government.

I think that he didn't try hard enough is a pretty fair rap - the allure of finishing up the "bad war" on someone else's terms and concentrating on "the good war" was pretty strong, especially as it seemed (at the time) to be winding down.

But who knows - after the Nisour Square shooting, the Iraqi government might never have agreed to ever give US personnel immunity, and the US would never have agreed to anything less.

Failure here had several authors.

 Just Tony wrote:
ISIS gave rise because the people of the region are generally so unambitious that they would rather be subjugated than try to take charge of their own destiny. Most, not all.

Oh, what insight! Tell me, how much time have you spent with these people as a civilian? Hell, how much time have you spent with them without a uniform and a weapon?



I meet quite a lot of very, very motivated and ambitious folks out there (and the majority of the folks I meet are shepherds and farmers!). Funnily enough, it's largely their milennials who've largely grown up through the chaos of the second Gulf War onwards.

Ahhh its our puppet dictator....it's all HIS fault....

You Americans....

 Ouze wrote:
I think that he didn't try hard enough is a pretty fair rap - the allure of finishing up the "bad war" on someone else's terms and concentrating on "the good war" was pretty strong, especially as it seemed (at the time) to be winding down.

But who knows - after the Nisour Square shooting, the Iraqi government might never have agreed to ever give US personnel immunity, and the US would never have agreed to anything less.

I think it is more than fair to say that no deal was possible, but at the same time whatever deal might have been possible was never given a chance by Obama.

Failure here had several authors.

The various efforts to lay blame squarely on Obama for the terms and nature of withdrawal, and no blame on Bush for entering the war in the first place are really quite incredible.

While we're at it we can go back and blame Bush Sr. for allowing Saddam to stay in power. Or we could go back and blame the British and French for splitting up the region along arbitrary geographic lines that left little care to the populations within them.

We seem to be done with this topic