Also without putting two fine a point on it the average non-military person is probably better qualified on average than a military person because the military person is qualified for military actions, but not so much for civilian roles.
Sure maybe you can strip down a gun but can you do a mail merge? Also how’s your passive aggressive email banter?
Gentle reminder that while the military does have need for combat personnel there are many veterans who did not see combat during their enlistment and were employed in any number of important technical roles. The military needs office workers, too
Yes I do know that’s why I said “on average”. Your average military person is not going to have civilian skills obviously some will but a lot will be ex combat.
Your average military person is in a non combat position. The US military is not a bunch of guns with a few people behind the lines. It is the biggest logistics company in the world who happens to also have a few guns. Yeah you are right that pointy spear people tend to not do well in mundane jobs, but most military personnel are not pointy spear people.
The rule of thumb is for every grunt there is 3 - 10 people doing technical or administrative work. That is also true for the air component of each branch but even more so were each air group needs an entire squadron of technicians to do the technical work that is out of scope for the technicians in a flying squadron.
As a person in the military, I disagree wholeheartedly. Military rates/MOSs are extremely diverse, and most have real-world equivalence (to some degree). A person with skills at stripping down a gun might not be apt for a mail merge, but they’d be good for law enforcement or security. A store keeper, on the other hand, would be pretty good for that. And most non-combat roles would likely be good at passive aggressive email banter. Especially good, in fact, because going to far with the wrong person can have serious consequences, so the “passive” in passive aggressive carries a lot of weight.
Combat specialties in the military account for less than 14% (it’s slightly over if you exclude Coast Guard and Space Force, which would bring the percentage down a bit). So while there might not be 1:1 on military and civilian gun-related jobs, there’s no reason to expect any given company having a low percentage of vets just because they don’t deal with guns.
As a military member whose primary job has been working on the avionics and electrical components of aircraft while also having a lot of experience flying (as aircrew/flight mechanic), as well as general aircraft maintenance management, if I felt like getting out of the military right now, I could easily get a six-figure job with my experience. I know because several of my coworkers have been poached by companies offering exactly that, and they figured out how much they’d make would be worth more in the long run than getting a retirement check for the rest of their life starting when they retire at 40. Also, I can’t speak to other branches, but my branch absolutely pushes us into getting higher education/training and civilian certificates. I can (and will) get an Airframe and Powerplant license, as well as several avionics ones before I retire. In my 40s. And walk into a pretty cush quality assurance job at Honeywell or Boieng or Sikorsky or Rockwell-Collins.
All this to say, I think you need to change your preconceived notions of what the military consists of and what training they receive.
Also without putting two fine a point on it the average non-military person is probably better qualified on average than a military person because the military person is qualified for military actions, but not so much for civilian roles.
Sure maybe you can strip down a gun but can you do a mail merge? Also how’s your passive aggressive email banter?
Gentle reminder that while the military does have need for combat personnel there are many veterans who did not see combat during their enlistment and were employed in any number of important technical roles. The military needs office workers, too
Yes I do know that’s why I said “on average”. Your average military person is not going to have civilian skills obviously some will but a lot will be ex combat.
Your average military person is in a non combat position. The US military is not a bunch of guns with a few people behind the lines. It is the biggest logistics company in the world who happens to also have a few guns. Yeah you are right that pointy spear people tend to not do well in mundane jobs, but most military personnel are not pointy spear people.
There’s a reason the operational/combat are considered the “tip of the spear.” It’s because the vast majority consist of the shaft that supports it.
They have the option of going to an academy or enlisting and then using the GI bill for college. About half of enlistees use the GI bill (https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ES-10.13.20-Kofoed-2.pdf) and all officers are expected to have a bachelor’s degree.
That makes sense then, if half do it then those percentages work out.
The rule of thumb is for every grunt there is 3 - 10 people doing technical or administrative work. That is also true for the air component of each branch but even more so were each air group needs an entire squadron of technicians to do the technical work that is out of scope for the technicians in a flying squadron.
As a person in the military, I disagree wholeheartedly. Military rates/MOSs are extremely diverse, and most have real-world equivalence (to some degree). A person with skills at stripping down a gun might not be apt for a mail merge, but they’d be good for law enforcement or security. A store keeper, on the other hand, would be pretty good for that. And most non-combat roles would likely be good at passive aggressive email banter. Especially good, in fact, because going to far with the wrong person can have serious consequences, so the “passive” in passive aggressive carries a lot of weight.
Combat specialties in the military account for less than 14% (it’s slightly over if you exclude Coast Guard and Space Force, which would bring the percentage down a bit). So while there might not be 1:1 on military and civilian gun-related jobs, there’s no reason to expect any given company having a low percentage of vets just because they don’t deal with guns.
As a military member whose primary job has been working on the avionics and electrical components of aircraft while also having a lot of experience flying (as aircrew/flight mechanic), as well as general aircraft maintenance management, if I felt like getting out of the military right now, I could easily get a six-figure job with my experience. I know because several of my coworkers have been poached by companies offering exactly that, and they figured out how much they’d make would be worth more in the long run than getting a retirement check for the rest of their life starting when they retire at 40. Also, I can’t speak to other branches, but my branch absolutely pushes us into getting higher education/training and civilian certificates. I can (and will) get an Airframe and Powerplant license, as well as several avionics ones before I retire. In my 40s. And walk into a pretty cush quality assurance job at Honeywell or Boieng or Sikorsky or Rockwell-Collins.
All this to say, I think you need to change your preconceived notions of what the military consists of and what training they receive.