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.

At this point, feth it, we get we deserve. There is pretty much nothing that can be done at this point besides watch the world burn for the next four years because the idiocracy has spoken.

 cuda1179 wrote:
My little circle of friends and I have varying degrees of education, which we use to different levels.
I went to college on a scholarship, but then decided that my chosen career path wasn't for me. Right out of college I could have realistically (in 2004) been making $90,000 per year, and probably $110,000 today. The job sucked though, even though it was white collar. My chosen career path was plagued by layoffs and downsizing, I would have had to move across the country frequently (I hate moving), and working 70 hours per week is exhausting. I decided to throw it all away and become a Restaurant manager. Sure, I took almost a 60% pay cut, but I also have steady income and no worries about being laid-off. I haven't had to move in 10 years, I live in an area with a VERY low cost of living, and my schedule meshes so well with my wife that we don't need daycare.
What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.
I compare this to my friends. One has a totally worthless masters degree and ended up working a desk job for her parents' business, which she could have done with a month's worth of on the job training. One friend busted his but getting a graphic design degree and was still trying to pay off the college debt 7 years after graduating, which I'm guessing makes him poorer than had he not gotten the degree. One friend never went to college and is making an average living as a parts manager for a concrete ornament maker.

To be fair, I'd be interested in what those degrees are in. I have a bunch of college friends as well, and those with STEM or business degrees rarely seem to be as bad off as those with liberal arts degrees.

I'm seeing tweets that it's Mad Dog Mattis for SecDef.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-has-chosen-retired-marine-gen-james-mattis-for-secretary-of-defense/2016/12/01/6c6b3b74-aff9-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.a3e92174b318

As far as the welders, that's an educated/skilled profession that required training, internships, continuing education/training and probably vocational education, akin to a higher educational schedule. So, it's not a real comparison to just a HS degree, is it?

Degrees are not needed to be a welder. There are a series of welding tests you have to take to become certified. That is it. College degrees and what not are highly encourged, and you will get paid better; but it is not required. Both my friend and I are certified. He went to college and gets paid more. But he also travels. A lot. I didn't like that aspect (all the traveling) so I went into another profession. Granted he also gets paid 40+ an hour. He is also REQUIRED (if you aren't in the union, you don't get work or low paying garbage jobs) to be in a union as part of his training. He also makes 40+ an hour, when I was welding I made 30+ an hour. Not saying it is like this everywhere, but that is how it works in a lot of states (for welding). I would like to add that my friend went to college to "learn" things he already knew (as did I). The stuff required on the tests is the same you learn in college (or at least should learn to be competent). Thankfully, it is math and the likes and not spelling as mine is atrocious. Decent grammar, imo, but I can't spell to save my life. Use spell check a LOT. Turn around I's and E's.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
My little circle of friends and I have varying degrees of education, which we use to different levels.
I went to college on a scholarship, but then decided that my chosen career path wasn't for me. Right out of college I could have realistically (in 2004) been making $90,000 per year, and probably $110,000 today. The job sucked though, even though it was white collar. My chosen career path was plagued by layoffs and downsizing, I would have had to move across the country frequently (I hate moving), and working 70 hours per week is exhausting. I decided to throw it all away and become a Restaurant manager. Sure, I took almost a 60% pay cut, but I also have steady income and no worries about being laid-off. I haven't had to move in 10 years, I live in an area with a VERY low cost of living, and my schedule meshes so well with my wife that we don't need daycare.
What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.
I compare this to my friends. One has a totally worthless masters degree and ended up working a desk job for her parents' business, which she could have done with a month's worth of on the job training. One friend busted his but getting a graphic design degree and was still trying to pay off the college debt 7 years after graduating, which I'm guessing makes him poorer than had he not gotten the degree. One friend never went to college and is making an average living as a parts manager for a concrete ornament maker.

To be fair, I'd be interested in what those degrees are in. I have a bunch of college friends as well, and those with STEM or business degrees rarely seem to be as bad off as those with liberal arts degrees.

My degree was in Mechanical engineering. My elective classes were actually "hard" because I wanted to learn, rather than take needless "easy" classes. Because of this I was only a couple credits shy of degrees in electrical engineering, history, and criminal justice.

My friend that works for her parents got a "business" degree, but it was from some diploma-mill party college (the only one she was able to get into), and then got a masters degree at an equally worthless college in Mexico.

What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.

I agree with this 100%. To me, the idea that if you are making more, your life is better; or that it somehow makes you better than someone else is nonsense. I am much happier now (and making less than I was before) simply becaouse I have a life other than work. I get to see friends and family, hang out with them, and do other things and have hobbies. I couldn't before. I didn't have the time and I was always traveling.

 NorseSig wrote:

What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.

I agree with this 100%. To me, the idea that if you are making more, your life is better; or that it somehow makes you better than someone else is nonsense. I am much happier now (and making less than I was before) simply becaouse I have a life other than work. I get to see friends and family, hang out with them, and do other things and have hobbies. I couldn't before. I didn't have the time and I was always traveling.

Gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life, but there's definitely upper and lower bounds. I've yet to see someone on here talking about the joys of overdrafting their bank account or not being able to buy food.

You don't need to make a million dollars a year, but make sure you can live comfortably (i.e. lights on, rent paid, food in fridge and cupboards).

 whembly wrote:
I'm seeing tweets that it's Mad Dog Mattis for SecDef.

Eh, I'm not the biggest fan of career military men becoming Secretary of Defense. Plus he hasn't been out of the military the required seven years, so it would take a literal act of Congress for him to take the job.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:

What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.

I agree with this 100%. To me, the idea that if you are making more, your life is better; or that it somehow makes you better than someone else is nonsense. I am much happier now (and making less than I was before) simply becaouse I have a life other than work. I get to see friends and family, hang out with them, and do other things and have hobbies. I couldn't before. I didn't have the time and I was always traveling.

Gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life, but there's definitely upper and lower bounds. I've yet to see someone on here talking about the joys of overdrafting their bank account or not being able to buy food.

You don't need to make a million dollars a year, but make sure you can live comfortably (i.e. lights on, rent paid, food in fridge and cupboards).

I wasn't trying to say income isn't a factor. You definitely need to make enough to be able to pay living expenses and not be stressed about having enough. That isn't good either. I have done that too (due to some issues I have with my feet).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm seeing tweets that it's Mad Dog Mattis for SecDef.

Eh, I'm not the biggest fan of career military men becoming Secretary of Defense.

Why not?

Plus he hasn't been out of the military the required seven years, so it would take a literal act of Congress for him to take the job.

This may be a significant hurdle, especially the Senate.

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

Sure. I see massive issues if he was *still* in the ranks.

But as a civvie, he'll have in depth experience of the chain-of-command and grunt-work that should come in handy for him.

The only real issue I can see... is him clashing with Mike Flynn. They're both stubborn mules.

 NorseSig wrote:

What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.

I agree with this 100%. To me, the idea that if you are making more, your life is better; or that it somehow makes you better than someone else is nonsense. I am much happier now (and making less than I was before) simply becaouse I have a life other than work. I get to see friends and family, hang out with them, and do other things and have hobbies. I couldn't before. I didn't have the time and I was always traveling.

I have come to conclusion that I'm pretty close to wage that I would find pretty damn happy with and getting more than that will probably require sacrifices outside job that would not like.

My current home is comfortable enough for me so don't need bigger one so odds of needing substantially more expensive is unlikely. I get to go to Japan money wise once a year and have little bit of hobby money. What I would basically just need is bit more leeway for running expenses but that doesn't require huge pay raise.

Above this where I would spend money? Figures? I have more than I can paint in a few years waiting paint! I'm lacking free time more than I lack figures! More books? Again I have big pile of books unread so while my books are substantial drain for my budget(japanese books are not cheap for me to get by in here) they also last enough that combined with trips to Japan(books galore!) I'm not sure having more money would really be worth it.

Only things would be more holidays(would love to travel more world) but that's not constrained by money only(it might even be lesser of issues) and more of lack of holidays I can really take from job. I doubt getting more time off from job and getting more salary is easy combination

So yeah. Not too bothered I'm not making big bucks. Actually I'm pretty sure salary is under average for my job but not too bothered. Don't even need to get to average to get salary that has me more than comfortable.

 whembly wrote:
Sure. I see massive issues if he was *still* in the ranks.

But, by our own rules, he hasn't been out long enough for the job. As a recently retired general, he is a career military man. We haven't had someone like that serve that role since Marshall, who was a five-star general.

Look, I like Mattis and I think he'd probably make a good enough Secretary of Defense, but civilian control of the military is vitally important in this country. The President shouldn't turn a blind eye to that fact, even if means picking someone else.

But as a civvie, he'll have in depth experience of the chain-of-command and grunt-work that should come in handy for him.

Like I said, given his length of service in the Corps and the short time of being a civilian, that line is blurred too uncomfortably to me. Most Secretaries of Defense have prior military experience, by the way.

 Ahtman wrote:
So keep a few jobs and charge the taxpayers more while sending more jobs out of country. Truly we are living in blessed times.

Headlines, truthiness, and 140 character limits.

I'm glad I won't live to see the day when attention spans hit ZERO and we experience the 'heat death' of human intelligence.

Edit: Or will I?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
...but civilian control of the military is vitally important in this country.

Civilian control of the military means Congress and the President. The Secretary of Defense has no authority to act on his own and is there only to ensure that the President's orders are prosecuted promptly and expertly and to provide assistance to Congress in their oversight functions. Prior military experience is an advantage because he understands how the military (as an entity) works and can manage it more effectively than someone who does not.

Well the people in charge of our science funding (house science committee) just re-tweeted a Breitbart climate denial story based on the NOAA temperature adjustments (also known as, they don't understand science, and just looks for things that agree with their conclusions).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

I mean its not like full civilians have been working great for us. Especially how civilian Sec Defs like to think they can force the military to win on the cheap.

....anybody remember Rumsfeld?

Edit: Rummy was in the Navy.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Well the people in charge of our science funding (house science committee) just re-tweeted a Breitbart climate denial story based on the NOAA temperature adjustments (also known as, they don't understand science, and just looks for things that agree with their conclusions).

And I love Bernie Sanders' response tweet:

And where'd you get your PhD?

 Breotan wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
...but civilian control of the military is vitally important in this country.

Civilian control of the military means Congress and the President. The Secretary of Defense has no authority to act on his own and is there only to ensure that the President's orders are prosecuted promptly and expertly and to provide assistance to Congress in their oversight functions. Prior military experience is an advantage because he understands how the military (as an entity) works and can manage it more effectively than someone who does not.

Secretary of Defense is a statutory office with direct control over the Department of Defense, which is a department of the executive branch and a position that should ideally be free of military influence. So yeah, that more than falls under the "civilian control of the military" umbrella.

As I've previously mentioned, a majority of previous Secretaries of Defense have had military experience and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Mattis is a recently retired general that hasn't been out of the military long enough to meet the requirements for the job. Seriously, does no one understand that? For as much as you guys love to harp on people thinking they're above the rules, you seem to be fine ignoring it when it suits your needs.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

This might be a stupid question, but what's the issue with a military man being secretary of defence? Is there some kind of conflict of interest?

Since I like the idea of experts in their field being put in charge of relevant government agencies, I'm OK with a former general being SecDef.

Obviously there is an issue with Mattis, as ScootyPuff has pointed out, as he hasn't been retired long enough.

Even more obviously, the head a climate change denial think tank in charge of the EPA is a fething stupid idea.

 Smacks wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

This might be a stupid question, but what's the issue with a military man being secretary of defence? Is there some kind of conflict of interest?

The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) is the leader and chief executive officer of the Department of Defense, an Executive Department of the Government of the United States of America.[7][8][9] The Secretary of Defense's power over the United States military is second only to that of the President.[10] This position corresponds to what is generally known as a Defense Minister in many other countries.[11] The Secretary of Defense is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is by custom a member of the Cabinet and by law a member of the National Security Council.[12]

Secretary of Defense is a statutory office, and the general provision in 10 U.S.C. § 113 provides that the Secretary of Defense has "authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense", and is further designated by the same statute as "the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense".[13] Ensuring civilian control of the military, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force.[14]

On December 1, 2016, it was announced that Mattis would be nominated for Secretary of Defense by President-elect Donald Trump.[44] As Mattis retired from the military in 2013, his nomination will require a waiver of the National Security Act of 1947, which requires a seven-year wait period before retired military personnel can assume the role of Secretary of Defense.[45] Mattis would be the second Secretary of Defense to receive such a waiver, following George Marshall.[45]

That's why this is considered an issue.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's why this is considered an issue.

Respectfully, I don't think that answers my question. I understand that it's the law, I was asking why. What is it that potentially goes wrong when a general is secretary of defence?

 Smacks wrote:
Is there some kind of conflict of interest?

More or less, yes.

A lot of the Framers were highly skeptical of standing armies, so when the Constitution was drafted and purposefully separated control of the military between the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. The Secretary of Defense, which is an executive office, has typically reflected this separation in the past by having civilians appointed to the position (most, but not all, of them have had military experience, but outside of Marshall, none of them have been as high ranking as generals). That's a big reason why the National Security Act of 1947 prohibits an appointee from serving in the position unless they have been out of the military for at least seven years (it was originally ten, but it was changed in the early 2000s).

This is nothing to speak against Mattis, who is no doubt exceptionally qualified for the position. But just because someone is qualified doesn't mean they're always the right person for the job.

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Don't let them back into the country. Several nations have done that.

I get radicalized, I go to US. How you plan to stop me?

Like hell I would be saying at the passport entry "I'm going to come and kill US people".

US has come up with mind reading device?

I thought you were saying there were Finns that went to the ME to fight for ISIL. Don't let them back into the country.

 NorseSig wrote:

What I'm saying is, gross income isn't the best indicator on value of life. Sure I might be making less, but I'm also spending less. The difference in net worth is to me worthless compared to the extra time I have for family, friends, and hobbies.

I agree with this 100%. To me, the idea that if you are making more, your life is better; or that it somehow makes you better than someone else is nonsense. I am much happier now (and making less than I was before) simply becaouse I have a life other than work. I get to see friends and family, hang out with them, and do other things and have hobbies. I couldn't before. I didn't have the time and I was always traveling.

This is absolutely true, however the complaint from white middle America is not about trading quality of life for salary expectations, it is about having any jobs at all that aren't McJobs, and thereby being unable to sustain a viable community without a reliable source of income that lets primary wage earners spend and support secondary businesses like restaurants, doctors, car repair services, bookshops, and so on.

The blunt fact is that making rich people richer and richer does not create a trickle down effect. Trump might be rich but he isn't going to buy a million cars next year, and if you make him 50% richer the year after, he isn't going to buy 1.5 million cars. You need a million middle-class families to buy those cars, and they don't have the money any more. Thus the Keynesian multiplier effect goes into reverse.

Don't ask me the solution, because I don't know. Maybe it is a national minimum citizen's support pension of $20,000 a year.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Why not?

Because I believe in civilian control of the military. Granted, Mattis is technically a civilian now, that line is awfully blurred given his length of time being a badass in the Corps.

This might be a stupid question, but what's the issue with a military man being secretary of defence? Is there some kind of conflict of interest?

The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) is the leader and chief executive officer of the Department of Defense, an Executive Department of the Government of the United States of America.[7][8][9] The Secretary of Defense's power over the United States military is second only to that of the President.[10] This position corresponds to what is generally known as a Defense Minister in many other countries.[11] The Secretary of Defense is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is by custom a member of the Cabinet and by law a member of the National Security Council.[12]

Secretary of Defense is a statutory office, and the general provision in 10 U.S.C. § 113 provides that the Secretary of Defense has "authority, direction and control over the Department of Defense", and is further designated by the same statute as "the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense".[13] Ensuring civilian control of the military, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force.[14]

On December 1, 2016, it was announced that Mattis would be nominated for Secretary of Defense by President-elect Donald Trump.[44] As Mattis retired from the military in 2013, his nomination will require a waiver of the National Security Act of 1947, which requires a seven-year wait period before retired military personnel can assume the role of Secretary of Defense.[45] Mattis would be the second Secretary of Defense to receive such a waiver, following George Marshall.[45]

That's why this is considered an issue.

To expand, this component of the National Security Act of 1947 was created and put into the Act because of concerns about how large the US defense structure was becoming. Eisenhower wasn't some genius fearful of the Military-Industrial Complex who popped into that idea by himself (he simply popularized the terminology). As the Secretary of Defense would end up managing a lot of the administrative aspects of the newly formed Department of Defense, there was concern about allowing military officers to smoothly transition from military command to civilian control of the military. Growing relationships between businessmen and the military was a concern gripping people throughout Europe and the US from WWI on wards. The expectation was that part of the Secretary of Defenses job was to advise the president on matters of defense. Basically the "President's Man." Providing DoD leadership with true military expertise was the express purpose of forming the Joint Chiefs of Staff (also created by the SA of 1947). Prior to this law, there was no regulated command and control of the different branches of the armed forces. The Army and Navy each had their own departments under the original Department of War, and the Secretary of War's role was strictly in managing the finances of the Departments of the Army and Navy (and the Marines who were... somewhere in there...). The creation of the Department of Defense marked a major shift in how the United States viewed its military, namely in the growing understanding of US politicians that "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Prior to WWII, the Army and Navy had a lot more independence in how they went about doing things.

Also hilariousness; the National Security Act of 1947 was signed into law by President Harry Truman aboard the first craft to serve as "Air Force One" (the designation Air Force One was not invented until 1953). The modified C-54 Skymaster used by Truman and FDR before him was named The Sacred Cow

The Sacred Cow???

Why the feth did they change that to Airforce One?!?

I fething love that!

 Smacks wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That's why this is considered an issue.

Respectfully, I don't think that answers my question. I understand that it's the law, I was asking why. What is it that potentially goes wrong when a general is secretary of defence?

From an ethics side of thing, he was the former Commandant of the Marine Corps. This means that while he did not have a direct hand in developing contracts, R&D, and many of the issues that high ranking officers do in the procurement of new and exciting military gear... He did have fairly extensive knowledge (or at least the access to it) of many of those programs. This means potentially that if he, as SecDef can use that position to influence some of the programs that were beginning or ongoing during his time as Gen.

On another note, if we hypothetically entered WW3 (or, started it I suppose), we have a tendency to call back into service some of the top generals and putting a fifth star on their uniforms. If he's SecDef while this happens, now, the military no longer has the civilian oversight that the system nominally requires.