Gates Strikes Again

Sec (Dr) Robert Gates has struck again.  He is eliminating 50 flag positions and 150 SESs [Senior Executive Service], as well as chopping JFCOM down to size.  This is great.  We certainly should not fall into the Royal Navy's problem of having more Admirals than ships.  That he's allowing the services to keep any future savings is certainly a good incentive for more cost cutting.

As Dr Gates has acknowledged, military healthcare is the elephant in the room that we need to control.  As I've discussed before, right now the services get to pawn off retiree healthcare to the VA, which just lets them off of any consequences of abusing their people.  We need to hold the generals accountable for excessive disability among the veterans, especially the preventable ones such as hearing loss and sit-up-induced lower spinal injuries.

The Institution of "Capitalism & Luxury Goods"

Daniel Indiviglio had a great article on the gender pay gap earlier this week, "Why Working Mothers Fall Behind".  This is based on the New York Times story and a recent study on the gender pay gap.  Indiviglio's observation is, if we focus purely on men and women who stay in the labor force during their professional career [by discounting the women who take breaks or drop out], there is no gender pay gap.  The gender pay gap, at this time, is basically a proxy for the real pay gap, between people who stay in, and people who drop out, of the labor force.

His article touched off some interesting discussions around the web.  I finally had some time to look at the comments today, and it struck me, that this is another place where we can ponder Carroll Quigley's Institutionalization Theory! :D

A brief recap on Institutionalization: Over time, instruments of power calcify into institutions, thus stopping contribution into our civilization's growth, eventually leading to its collapse.

In our current Western Civilization, Quigley identified our "instrument" as free market Capitalism.  As Quigley remarked, luxury goods is the engine behind the growth of commerce in general, and in today's economy, luxury goods and services [anything not essential to subsistence-level food and shelter] have grown to dominate the economy.  Our current labor market system is a reflection of that, where most people labor to produce luxury goods and services.   In this system, people advance by working harder AND making more personal connections than other people.  Therefore, dropping out of the labor force [or part-timing during the toddler years] negatively impact one's professional growth, by limiting effort of work and opportunities to connect.

At the same time, this labor system does not look good demographically.  The higher-paid professionals are having less and less children, while the lesser-paid people continue to meet replacement-level need.  Therefore, demographically, we will have proportionally more descendants of the lower class and less of the upper class.  If you subscribe to the theory that you learn productivity and work habits from your parents, then you can see that we're on the path to Idiocracy.  Good thing that the US has a fairly mobile [and upwardly mobile] labor market/culture, where the schools have taken on the social function to inculcate "hard work" into the students.  Looking across the pond toward Europe, they're at a much more advanced stage of the demographic Idiocracy than we are, a warning to us all.

Then again, we should re-examine this system, a confluence of free market capitalism and monogamy.  Polygamy again has emerged as a discussion topic this week.  As it happens, polygamy presents a possible answer to this demographic conundrum we're examining here:  A business unit with organic [in the "internal to oneself" sense] childcare capability and multiple working parents who can stay in the labor force.  The internal dynamics of a polygamous household does present significant challenges to the adoption of this practice.  However, if we cannot figure out the educational institutionalization problem [where the education hierarchy, aka teacher union, is perpetuating an underperforming status quo, and where higher education is not adequately preparing students for the future], this is where we might have to end up at.

Speaking of polygamy, we have a kind of a polygamous system at present, with the prevalence of infidelity.  The hypocritism that infidelity engenders today, as well as the sub-optimal economic arrangement [where the high wage earner has to support multiple, duplicated, childcare efforts as opposed to a single, consolidated childcare focal], makes the current polygamous system self-defeating.

And yes, I do realize that I need to find another book and author to harp on.  Now that Megan McArdle is looking at Tainter, and I having just finished The Collapse of Complex Societies, I guess I should do my Tainter book report here.

Ideas on Military Personnel Costs

These days, everybody is talking about military personnel costs, from Sec Bob Gates to the blogosphere. Recently, Bryan McGrath put forward two ideas on controlling retirement costs.

Commenter milprof passed along a paraphrase from the defense leadership: "Plan to take it out of force structure because it sure won't be coming out of pay and benefits". Indeed, we need to think critically about force structure, which directly relates to the personnel cost issue. As a primer for the discussion, I've found Dr. Cindy Williams's defense series to be illuminating. Holding the Line is a great book on alternative force structure and a discussion on the ideas.  Filling the Ranks is another great book on incentives and personnel policy.

I've touched on this topic before.

Here are a few more proposals. The way to control medical cost is to make the military responsible. If the brass has to make the budget choice between retiree medical care and weapon acquisition, perhaps they will be more sensible.

A couple of quick examples: Sit-ups are known to cause lower spinal injury and later disabilities, yet it is still the standard in the Army. With budgetary incentives the brass would be in a greater hurry to change that. Hearing loss: passing through Al Asad Air Base (Marine) in '07, I saw the junior Marines frequently worked without hearing protection on the flightlines. In the army infantry only used earplugs on the rifle range. Electronic ear muffs have been a proven technology for 20+ years, yet only the start of OIF did the military purchase Peltor and other muffs in significant quantities.

Soldier care is an empty slogan until we hold the brass budgetarily accountable.

Retirement benefits: With so many military retirees working in the federal government, we need to start "means-testing" military retiree benefits. For example, if you're drawing retirement and GS salary at the same time, you will lose retirement dollar for dollar until (a) you're getting total GS-13 lvl 1 pay or (b) only 50% of retirement pay [not counting GS], whichever is higher. And maybe we do the same to federal contractor employees, too.

Moreover, if we do away with the 20-year vesting, and start giving retirement at 10-yr mark [but who would have to wait until 62 or 65 to start drawing retirement], then many more people will opt to retire earlier, thus ending up saving Gov't money. [The present value of that 15-20 years of retirement pay (48 to 65) may worth more than the retirement pay of that 2nd replacement soldier.]

So there are plenty of ways to lower the personnel cost. The only worry is that the various Associations will not be courageous and farsighted enough to take this problem head on, and that Congress will wait until the last minute [when we're broke already] to start slashing programs willy-nilly.

Force Symmetry Across Political Spectrum

NightWatch had an interesting comment for its July 16th 2010 report. Regarding the government of Pakistan vis-a-vis India, it said that, basically, both the military regime and the progressive governments are hostile toward India, but in different ways. For example, Musharraf dialed back the tension in Kashmir, but increased support for LeT. The civilian governments reduced state funding of LeT, but increased tension in Kashmir.
http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_10000203.aspx

This symmetry of force across the political spectrum, where both ends employ force, but in different ways, is echoed today in Danger Room. Spencer Ackerman reported on the appointment of John Bennett to chief of NCS, and mentioned that the Obama administration has greatly increased the scale of the drone campaign in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater. At the same time, the United States is drawing down the human presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is similar to Bill Clinton's fondness for Tomahawk missiles and air strikes, juxtaposed against the Bush dynasty's multiple ground deployments (Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan).
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/cia-drone-guy-becomes-new-top-spy/

Governments have all found lethal force to be useful, regardless of their political stripes. The preference for conventional vs unconventional is shaped by domestic constituencies, but they all want to kill people. The Peace movement would do well to keep that in mind.

Apatheism, Agnostics, & Atheists

Prof. Somin over at Volokh is responding to Ron Rosenbaum of Slate on the topic of Agnostics vs Atheists. Rosenbaum portrays Atheism as being a faith, same as its Theist opponents, thus philosophically as vulnerable as theism. Somin, on the other hand, shows that Rosenbaum's argument is incomplete, that a rejection of god(s) does not require an alternate explanation/faith.
http://volokh.com/2010/07/15/atheism-agnosticism-and-certainty/

Here is a good opportunity to talk about Apatheism vs Agnosticism. Apatheism is another way of confronting the Theism vs Atheism divide, and a morally stronger one than Agnosticism. One criticism of Agnosticism is that it is morally wishy-washy, akin to post-modernism in not making up its mind. Apatheism, on the other hand, reject the whole debate as irrelevant in daily life, and therefore not worth spending time to think over. Essentially Apatheism is the Existentialist answer to the God debate.

The Apatheist ask himself, does the existence of the divine change his choices and actions? At all times, [or 99% of times], the existence of god does not change the outcome of our decision processes. Therefore, by not thinking about god, the Apatheist focuses his mind on more productive concerns.

So if you have a crisis of faith, here is an opportunity to ask yourself, "Do I care if God exists?" If God is there, He would be glad that you're thinking this through.

Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle: A Two-Stage Alternative

The US Marine Corps Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is again in the news, following a Government Accountability Office report on the growing expense of the system. Basically, the EFV is getting as expensive, and complex, as a helicopter.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae4bcd3bf-7f5e-49b2-a765-a35cafed41f1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

In this new fiscal environment, everything overpriced is facing the budget axe. The Marines have not had their turn yet, and of their programs the EFV is the most vulnerable. [The super-jeep and EFSS are smaller and thus less endangered.] The requirement is valid, but the vehicles are too expensive. So it is time to look at possible replacements.

One way to maximize return on our technology investment, yet reduce technical complexity, is to split the EFV into two components: A landing craft, and A fighting vehicle. The landing craft can carry the vehicle to the beach at the 25kn required speed. The fighting vehicle can disembark and carry on the fighting. The landing craft can then ferry the next wave of follow-on forces. The fighting vehicle can be minimally amphibious to ford inland rivers and streams.

Most of the complexity of the EFV design comes from the 25 knot waterborne speed requirement. This requirement led to the retractable tracks to minimize the hull drag. The speed requirement also restricts weight, which led to a reduction in operational range. By splitting the design, we can re-use the waterborne-hull and waterjet design in building the fast landing craft, while keeping the vehicle chassis and tracks for a simpler assault vehicle. Without the waterborne speed requirement, the assault vehicle will be cheaper and more compact. We will also have more flexibility in extending the waterborne range of the overall system, depending on other design constraints.

The waterborne speed requirement is driving unnecessary complexity, because it is a distinct and separable phase of the EFV operational spectrum. Once it beaches, the EFV does not require that 25kn speed anymore. In traversing rivers and other brown-water obstacles, it does not have the room to accelrate fast enough to materially affect the crossing time. The seconds of crossing time reduction is an expensive investment, which may be better spent in smoke and other visual obscurants [that also are tactically useful on the ground]. If the EFV is working as a riverine gunboat, it can bring along the landing craft component for that part of the operation.

By splitting the EFV in two, we will require two power packs, one for the landing craft, and one for the tank. To achieve the 25kn assault speed, we can use a clutch to couple the tank powerpack to the landing craft, combining the power output of two engines to drive the landing craft. The landing craft can also use an autopilot after dropping off the tank, [to get home], to minimize the manpower requirement.

By de-coupling the blue water phase from the ground phase of the amphibious assault, we can dramatically reduce the technical complexity of the follow-on EFV-lite program, while preserving much of the technical investments we have made on the EFV program. It is a win-win for the taxpayers.

High School Math Important!

New York Times reports that factories are looking to hire CNC machinists and other craftsmen, but cannot find enough qualified or capable candidates. A pharmaceutical factory in Ohio is looking for 100 candidates who understand ninth-grade level math [Algebra 1], among other basic skills, but found only 47 people qualified out of 3,600 appliants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/business/economy/02manufacturing.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

That article is a sad indictment on the American primary and secondary education system. It is absolutely criminal that so many of our high school graduates cannot pass an Algebra I test. I can understand how some people might have problems with high school Geometry, since it involves some visualization ability, but Algebra 1 is just not that difficult conceptually. All Alg 1 requires is hard work: checking your answers, doing out every step instead of skipping around, etc. Some people might not like math; that's ok, I'm not a poetry afficionado myself, so we're even on that score. But everyone [who can graduate high school] should pass high school math. [Even though passing is such a low standard.]

Speaking of those CNC machinists, I read about CNC machining in my high school econ class, back in the mid-90s. [A laid-off automobile assembly line worker found a rewarding job as a CNC machinist.] So it's been at least 15 years that we know computer-numerical-control machining is a hot field. Yet we're still having problems filling CNC vacancies? That should be enough grounds for firing every community college presidents within 100 miles of a factory!