Posted on Nov 24, 2015
Do you agree that Today's US veterans are less educated, less healthy, less wealthy, and less employed than veterans 20 years ago?
37.1K
308
128
27
27
0
Do you agree that Today's US veterans are less educated, less healthy, less wealthy, and less employed than veterans 20 years ago?
I don''t agree with the less educated and I don't think surveys cover the whole veteran population we have now - What do you say RP Members?
http://www.businessinsider.com/veterans-are-worse-off-today-2015-11
Congress has been debating changes to the types of retirement benefits that veterans receive, including a switch to a corporate 401(k)-style plan.
According to researchers, however, reforms should consider the economic and health realities of veterans approaching retirement now.
Alan Gustman and Nahid Tabatabai of Dartmouth, along with Thomas Steinmeier of Texas Tech, broke down the economic and health outcomes for veterans age 51 to 56 in 1992, 1998, 2004, and 2010, measuring how the government's services have helped over time.
"Among those 51 to 56 in 1992, veterans were better educated, healthier, wealthier, and more likely to be working than nonveterans," said a new study. "By the 2010 cohort, 51- to 56-year-old veterans had lost their educational advantage over nonveterans, were less healthy, less wealthy and less likely to be working."
Using data from the "Health and Retirement Study," the researchers tracked outcomes, adjusting for rank, years of service, and a variety of other factors. (The findings were limited to male veterans, because female veterans in the data did not have a large enough sample to be reliable.)
In terms of service, the researchers pointed out that only the 2010 cohort had been a part of the All-Volunteer Military, instead of the Korean and Vietnam War drafts of the earlier cohorts.
This meant that a much lower number of the total population served (16% of the total male population in 2010 versus 50% in 1992) and a higher percent serving more than 10 years (13% in 2010 versus 8% in 1992).
In the outcomes for veterans over the age groups, a number of trends appear.
Education and health outcomes have worsened
In terms of education, the mean number of years in school has stayed the same for veterans (13.2 in 1992 to 13.4 in 2010), while the years for nonveterans has caught up (12.2 to 13.5). The percentage of veterans going to some college has also stayed fairly consistent (51% to 57%, with a peak in 2004 at 67%), while nonvets have again caught up (39% to 58%, with a peak in 2004 at 65%).
While nonveterans have caught up in education, they have lapped veterans in many other categories.
The percent of veterans who saw combat is the same between the 1992 and 2010 cohorts (18%), and leaped up for the 1998 and 2004 cohorts (34% and 33%, respectively), but the percentage of veterans on disability or with a health problem that limits work has steadily grown.
"While in the original HRS cohort, veterans were healthier than nonveterans, between the oldest and youngest cohorts, the health status of veterans age 51 to 56 deteriorated sharply relative to nonveterans," said the study.
Veterans are now much less prepared for retirement
Additionally, in light of the recent moves by Congress to address the military's retirement benefits, the researchers looked at wealth and savings for veterans as they approached retirement age.
Not only did the researchers find that younger veterans receive about half the amount in pensions from the military than their older counterparts, but there was also a reversal in veteran household wealth as compared to nonveterans.
Total wealth of veterans and nonveterans by HRS cohort.
So while newer retirement-age veterans have all been volunteers with roughly similar service demographics, they have worse health and wealth outcomes compared to older veteran peers and even nonveterans of their age group.
In the end, the researchers said they could not fully identify the reasons for the decline in positive outcomes for veterans, especially compared to nonveterans, and that these conclusions should factor into future policy decisions.
"Our findings suggest that policies meant to increase the benefits of veterans who are already retired should be designed differently and targeted separately for members of different cohorts," they concluded. "Veterans from the two oldest HRS cohorts are better prepared for retirement than nonveterans from those cohorts, and there is no difference when covariates are included in the regression. The problem arises for the youngest HRS cohort."
I don''t agree with the less educated and I don't think surveys cover the whole veteran population we have now - What do you say RP Members?
http://www.businessinsider.com/veterans-are-worse-off-today-2015-11
Congress has been debating changes to the types of retirement benefits that veterans receive, including a switch to a corporate 401(k)-style plan.
According to researchers, however, reforms should consider the economic and health realities of veterans approaching retirement now.
Alan Gustman and Nahid Tabatabai of Dartmouth, along with Thomas Steinmeier of Texas Tech, broke down the economic and health outcomes for veterans age 51 to 56 in 1992, 1998, 2004, and 2010, measuring how the government's services have helped over time.
"Among those 51 to 56 in 1992, veterans were better educated, healthier, wealthier, and more likely to be working than nonveterans," said a new study. "By the 2010 cohort, 51- to 56-year-old veterans had lost their educational advantage over nonveterans, were less healthy, less wealthy and less likely to be working."
Using data from the "Health and Retirement Study," the researchers tracked outcomes, adjusting for rank, years of service, and a variety of other factors. (The findings were limited to male veterans, because female veterans in the data did not have a large enough sample to be reliable.)
In terms of service, the researchers pointed out that only the 2010 cohort had been a part of the All-Volunteer Military, instead of the Korean and Vietnam War drafts of the earlier cohorts.
This meant that a much lower number of the total population served (16% of the total male population in 2010 versus 50% in 1992) and a higher percent serving more than 10 years (13% in 2010 versus 8% in 1992).
In the outcomes for veterans over the age groups, a number of trends appear.
Education and health outcomes have worsened
In terms of education, the mean number of years in school has stayed the same for veterans (13.2 in 1992 to 13.4 in 2010), while the years for nonveterans has caught up (12.2 to 13.5). The percentage of veterans going to some college has also stayed fairly consistent (51% to 57%, with a peak in 2004 at 67%), while nonvets have again caught up (39% to 58%, with a peak in 2004 at 65%).
While nonveterans have caught up in education, they have lapped veterans in many other categories.
The percent of veterans who saw combat is the same between the 1992 and 2010 cohorts (18%), and leaped up for the 1998 and 2004 cohorts (34% and 33%, respectively), but the percentage of veterans on disability or with a health problem that limits work has steadily grown.
"While in the original HRS cohort, veterans were healthier than nonveterans, between the oldest and youngest cohorts, the health status of veterans age 51 to 56 deteriorated sharply relative to nonveterans," said the study.
Veterans are now much less prepared for retirement
Additionally, in light of the recent moves by Congress to address the military's retirement benefits, the researchers looked at wealth and savings for veterans as they approached retirement age.
Not only did the researchers find that younger veterans receive about half the amount in pensions from the military than their older counterparts, but there was also a reversal in veteran household wealth as compared to nonveterans.
Total wealth of veterans and nonveterans by HRS cohort.
So while newer retirement-age veterans have all been volunteers with roughly similar service demographics, they have worse health and wealth outcomes compared to older veteran peers and even nonveterans of their age group.
In the end, the researchers said they could not fully identify the reasons for the decline in positive outcomes for veterans, especially compared to nonveterans, and that these conclusions should factor into future policy decisions.
"Our findings suggest that policies meant to increase the benefits of veterans who are already retired should be designed differently and targeted separately for members of different cohorts," they concluded. "Veterans from the two oldest HRS cohorts are better prepared for retirement than nonveterans from those cohorts, and there is no difference when covariates are included in the regression. The problem arises for the youngest HRS cohort."
Education
Homeless
Wealth
Health
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 64
35
35
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs in my opinion the Veteran is better off now than 20 years ago. Example, when I came in it was 75% tuition to 100 now. The pay is astronomical also compared to past years.
The Veteran just has to seize the opportunity. I left the military with good pay and a Masters Degree. The military served me well.
The Veteran just has to seize the opportunity. I left the military with good pay and a Masters Degree. The military served me well.
(35)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
I think about how well off both my Grandfathers (both war veterans) compared with veterans of my generation & the veterans I work with (a wrap-around VSO) and I would absolutely agree that today's veterans are less educated, less healthy, and less wealthy. That being said, I think the political establishment and the general public are more educated about veterans' struggles, more companies are seeking to employ veterans, and there are more educational opportunities for veterans today than there was for previous generations.
(2)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
PO3 (Join to see) thanks for the interpersonal thread, well said and articulately expressed!
(0)
(0)
SGT Joseph Schmalzel
Everything was fine till PTSD was told to the public. Yep jobs are hard to get.
(2)
(0)
CW4 Larry Curtis
You done good, Joe. Proud of ya! Thank you for serving us, too! Sometimes all it takes is good old fashioned determination and some elbow grease. I think the challenges of serving these days though are on a different plane. I did 20 years, and during that time we were not deploying into combat zones at regular intervals. You were either assigned to CONUS for 3 years, or at some overseas location for a short tour or for 3 years, and there was a lot more long-term stability in our lives than there has been during the past decade or more. I have now been retired longer than I served so I am pretty well out of the loop of good solid intel. And during my time, nobody was talking about PTSD, either. We didn't even know what that was, but now it is a major topic of conversation and the general public seems to be quite frightened over it thanks to our wonderful news media and certain politicians who have managed to convince some people that former service members are head cases now. My heart breaks for those who serve these days because it is much different now for them than it was for me, but that doesn't mean I love or respect them any less than those of my own generation of soldiers. I just have a really hard time accepting so much of this victimization, much of it legit, and a lot of it just a lot of spin. In any event, I love our troops and am eternally thankful for their service, and I think they deserve the finest treatment we can bestow upon them, both as they serve, and after they get out...period. And by the way, I happen to be in total agreement with everything you've stated. It was certainly true during my 20 years of service anyhow!
(1)
(0)
23
23
0
No. Like many headlines today, this one broadens and oversimplifies the results of a study. The Texas Tech study only looked at 51 to 56 year old veterans (at each snapshot of 1992, 98, 04, and 10), and then broadened the headline to "Today's Veterans...". First, their most recent data is nearly 6 years old, so calling it "Today" is really stretching it. Then, by saying "veterans" with no qualifier they imply ALL veterans, not just 51-56 year olds. Finally, the study shows 51-56 yr old veterans' education increased slightly over the period (13.2 years in 1992, 13.4 in 2010, and 51% some college in 92 to 57% in 2010) but then the news article claims the OPPOSITE: veterans are less educated. So the "less educated" claim is debunked by the very study the article cites! Ugh, piss poor journalism.
(23)
(0)
SGT Robert Deem
I agree with your overall point. To be fair, though, the article was comparing each cohort to its civilian counterpart. So, while veterans in more recent cohorts are indeed more educated than in previous cohorts, the data show that they are less educated than their civilian counterpart. This is in contrast to previous cohorts, where the data show that veterans were more educated than their civilian counterpart. So, relying entirely on the study data, flawed though it may be, veterans in that 51-56 age group have lost ground over the years.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
SGT Robert Deem - Exactly right. Lost ground would be the correct thing to say, not less educated.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jason Mitchell, MBA
Sir, this sums up my sentiments exactly. Journalism is often judged by a broad swath of citizens as "gospel". In reality, most journalists are trying to earn a living by being published or picked up by multiple publications and tend to stretch truths/half-truths to be more interesting and appealing to their target audience. The outcome is a less educated readership who has been let down by the lackluster reporting of the author, editor, and publication as an entity.
(0)
(0)
21
21
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
I submit that whoever wrote this article has no military experience. Coupled with my military retirement, VA disability, and 401(k) that I will receive once I reach retirement age, I will be MORE wealthy than my non-veteran/non-military retirees counterparts.
I submit that whoever wrote this article has no military experience. Coupled with my military retirement, VA disability, and 401(k) that I will receive once I reach retirement age, I will be MORE wealthy than my non-veteran/non-military retirees counterparts.
(21)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
MSG Brad Sand
Too true. I've got quite a few friends still on active duty and not a one of them is a fan of the new retirement system. None of them have any plans of switching over to it.
Too true. I've got quite a few friends still on active duty and not a one of them is a fan of the new retirement system. None of them have any plans of switching over to it.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Would love to think about retirement. Probably won't happen until I am at least 75, if then.
(1)
(0)
GySgt William Hardy
PO1 John Miller - I make more in retirement than I did working. Thanks to a military retirement, my teaching retirement, and Social Security, along with the VA and other health benefits, I am doing just fine.
(2)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
GySgt William Hardy
Gunny, between my own military retirement, VA disability, and income from my new career I am also making more than I did while in the military.
Gunny, between my own military retirement, VA disability, and income from my new career I am also making more than I did while in the military.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google