Yesterday in the Op Ed section of the New York Times they published a short opinion on why the military pension system should continue.

The middle of the article sounded a lot like my personal plea to keep the retirement system in the military stable.  It reads:

Needless to say, there are critical differences between the civilian and military work forces. Soldiers who have risked their lives for our nation should not also have to risk their retirement savings in stocks. But there are many more mundane sacrifices required of career service members that also make it hard for them to build up the kind of wealth — whether in their houses, their careers or the careers of their spouses — that cushions civilian retirees from the whims of the market.

Service members are often required to move, for example, which hinders their ability to build home equity. Many have to put off purchasing homes, and those who do buy do not have the option of choosing not to move if their mortgages become underwater. For this reason, the housing crash of recent years has hit service families especially hard.

Frequent moves also make it hard for service members’ spouses to find work and progress in their own careers. This is most likely a primary reason that median household incomes for military families are lower than those of their civilian counterparts.

Hopefully, these items will start being discussed more seriously and not be a mere footnote (or non-none as I saw in some original proposals).  Thank you, New York Times, for bringing these important factors into the mainstream news.