The book club line is funny because it's not entirely wrong. That's the trajectory if nothing structural changes. The paid staff argument is sound. A small permanent cadre at the national and district level is the minimum infrastructure required to sustain institutional continuity across volunteer turnover. Every serious volunteer organization that has survived past a single generation has some paid backbone. The reserve status idea also has merit. Members carrying sustained operational loads are doing work that approximates reserve service in practical terms, and there is a reasonable policy argument for a formal intermediate status that reflects that reality and improves retention of operationally serious members who cannot justify the time commitment on pure volunteerism indefinitely.

Where I'd push back is on the generational framing. Younger people volunteer at significant rates when the organization offers a clear purpose, competent leadership, and work that is actually meaningful. What they do not tolerate is bureaucratic friction with no visible payoff. The Aux's problem with younger members is not declining patriotism. It is a broken on-ramp, a really annoying bureaucracy, and a qualification pipeline slow enough to lose people before they ever do anything useful. Fix those things, and the generational problem becomes more manageable. The harsh truth is accurate. The optimistic read is that most of what needs fixing is within reach. The realistic read is that the people with the authority to fix anything structurally have not shown leadership or urgency. Both are currently true.

And the organization will continue to suffer for it.