The Myth of Low Military Pay
Saturday 27 February 2010
by: Carlton Meyer, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: louisa_catlover, m1ndy9876)
One great myth in American society is that military personnel are poorly paid. That was true until the 1980s, when a push to improve recruit quality boosted military pay each year at twice the inflation rate. The military was once known for low pay yet great retirement, but now has great pay as well. This fact is hidden from the public with absurd propaganda from military associations about the need to boost pay, and fear in the Pentagon that if Congress catches on, the days of big pay raises may end.
For example, inflation was flat last year and Social Security recipients received no increase for 2010. However, military personnel just got a 3.2 percent pay increase, while civilian wages fell 1.6 percent last year. Some Congress members worry the USA will go bankrupt unless it cuts spending, so why the pay boost? First, it's a form of vote buying. Second, federal civilian pay increases follow military pay increases. Congressional staffers and everyone inside the beltway benefit, so they profit from this deception.
Look at what the average 20-year-old American earns. The latest data is from the third quarter of 2009, which shows Americans ages 16-24 on average earn $429 a week, or times 52 = $22,308 a year. The DoD has a simple online pay calculator. The average age for a recruit is 19, so the typical pay for a 20-year-old sailor is E-2 = $37,637 a year. If he has a wife and two kids, it's $41,021, nearly twice as much as he could make in the private sector! This does not include special pays and bonuses.
If someone joins the military rather than going to college, after four years he will be at least an E-4, and, with a wife and two kids, make $48,180 a year! This more than college graduates and at least $14,000 more than the average salary of any other occupation in the USA where most workers have decades of experience and seniority.
Finally, it is very rare to find subsidized childcare, free gyms and tax-free shopping in the civilian world.
It is true that many military people work more than 40 hours a week, yet so do many civilians. There are many service members who work less than 40 hours a week, and some work less than 20 if you discount the hours at "work" they spend surfing the web, exercising in the gym, getting a haircut or playing softball. Military personnel receive 30 days paid vacation, enjoy 12 paid federal holidays, several extra days off as part of "long weekends," unlimited sick leave, plus the common practice of going home soon after lunch on Fridays. In contrast, American workers average just 13 paid days off, and around 40 percent of Americans never get a paid day off and have no benefits such as health care.
Yes, many servicemen endure stressful occupation duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is why combat pay should be boosted. However, most career service members rarely spend time in combat zones, and they usually enjoy the adventure and the extra pay involved. Keep in mind that Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard personnel are paid the same as soldiers and marines, and if deployed into a combat zone, it is normally very safe and comfortable duty aboard a ship or a large base.
Career enlisted men earn ultra-high pay. An E-7 with 20 years of service with a wife and four kids earns a whopping $78,221 a year! That's much more than Americans with advanced college degrees, like an MBA. E-9s can make over $100,000 a year! Enlisted can retire after just 20 years of service without contributing a cent toward their generous retirement plan. If the US military advertised these facts, recruiters would have lines outside their office.
Double Pay for Officers
Officer pay is ultra high as well. The DoD's online pay calculator<> shows that a new officer starts at $54,800 a year. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on pay for new college graduates, broken down by occupation. Several types of engineers start off at around $70,000, so pay for new officers seems reasonable. The BLS provides the average pay data for all college graduates, and its latest data is from the third quarter of 2009. This shows the median pay for American workers with a bachelor degree is $1,020 a week, times 52 = $53,040 a year. This shows that an officer fresh out of college earns more than the average college graduate with years of seniority and experience.
Let's say the average college graduate works between ages 23 and 63, so a direct comparison for an average officer would be a 43-year-old at 20 years of service who is an O-5 (lieutenant colonel or Navy commander). With a wife and four kids, he earns a massive $136,000 a year! That is more than twice as much as the comparable American wage. The excuse is that officers have much more responsibly, but that is questionable. Officers in charge of units have limited authority, and since there is an officer for every five enlisted, many do not command anyone. Many officers are students, co-pilots, aides or desk clerks who rubber stamp paperwork. The US Army has trouble keeping captains because of the endless deployments and a perception of low pay, but it has no problem keeping mid-grade officers.
Some officers have advanced degrees, but most were paid to obtain one. No company in the private sector pays employees to attend college for two years to obtain a masters degree. Nevertheless, the BLS data shows the median pay for American workers with advanced degrees is $1,309 a week, times 52 = $68,068 a year. So, your average mid-career military officer earns twice as much! How is this justified?
This explains why career officers love the military and fight to remain in the force. Keep in mind that these DoD pay figures do not included special pays and bonuses, which often adds thousands of dollars a year. It was once common for military pilots to leave after six years and join an airline. This is rare today since military officers now earn far more than airline pilots.
Congress seems unaware because, a few years ago, officers in the Pentagon produced a bogus study showing they were underpaid, so Congress authorized a special pay boost for mid-ranking officers. It seems they decided they are comparable to top lawyers at top law firms, rather than the average pay for Americans with advanced degrees. Also note that while most Americans have a retirement plan, nearly all are matching plans where employees must contribute half and the benefits are limited. People in the military never contribute one cent and have defined benefits that are never depleted. Since most retire at around 45 years of age, they earn retirement pay and heavily subsidized medical care for decades more.
Don't Waste Time With College
High military pay explains support for the recent law that allows servicemen to pass their VA college benefits along to their children. Why should enlisted leave the service and struggle through college on a small stipend only to graduate and earn less money? It is far better to re-enlist, so that after another four years they are an E-6 with eight years and pocket $63,000 a year, some $10,000 more than the average college graduate with decades of experience! Keep in mind that going to college also results in the loss of over $200,000 in pay during those four years.
High pay causes depression among disabled veterans. The VA pays an adequate disability rate for them to live comfortably, but it is far less than their generous active duty pay. Many are outraged when, partially disabled from combat injuries, they are punished as doctors say they cannot remain on active duty, so their income falls in half. This has led to confusion as injured vets awarded a disability rating attempt to re-enlist after discovering that private sector pay is less than half as much. The Army recently drew the line at 50 percent disability, meaning anyone with a disability rating of 50 percent or more is not allowed to re-enlist.
Let's look at the pay disparity with an example of two brothers. One graduates from a four-year college, followed by two years of graduate school at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses and lost wages. He worked for 12 years and now earns the national average for his educational level of $68,068 annually. His brother joined the military, never took a college class and didn't work hard, so he is just an E-6 after 18 years in the military, yet he earns more than his hard-working and highly educated brother who spent six unpaid years and over $100,000 to toil through six years of college.
Drawbacks of High Military Pay
Over the past three decades, private sector pay remained flat, while Congress routinely provided annual military pay raises higher than the inflation rate. As a result, military personnel now earn twice as much as comparable Americans. What wrong with that?
1) Every dollar spent on unneeded pay is a dollar that could have been spent to develop or procure new items of equipment;
2) Less pay allows for more manpower. If troops were paid the same as back in the Reagan years, our military could afford twice as many troops. One solution to reduce deployment time is less pay and more manpower;
3) Meeting re-enlistment goals are no problem today, but that increases stress as everyone must compete (and brown nose) to remain in the career force. One mistake or upset officer may end their career;
4) As the nation faces bankruptcy, it is unpatriotic to demand larger budgets to fund unnecessary pay raises.
The Pentagon reform is simple: freeze pay for a few years. Use some of the savings for more combat pay and for deployment pay. Also, Congress should scrutinize re-enlistment bonuses, which have become a tradition even though most are unjustified. It is true that some service members are overdeployed, but that is the result of poor leadership by generals and admirals who use GIs as pawns in their political games for larger budgets. There was never an urgent need for more soldiers in Afghanistan. Navy admirals now brag that half their ships are underway. Congress should ask why. Has the Soviet fleet reappeared? Does al-Qaeda have a threatening Navy? Keeping the OPTEMPO (operating/operations tempo) high burns up fuel, wears out ships and sailors.
Meanwhile, private military organizations, which act like unions, blatantly deceive Congress and the American people with greedy demands for ever-higher pay. The Association of the US Army's current legislative agenda includes its traditional demand to "eliminate the pay gap." How can military officers, who claim to have high standards of honor, patriotism and honesty, support that deception? Freezing military pay will upset some military personnel, but only the selfish ones. Yet, they should realize that national bankruptcy is a major threat to their career and retirement plans. If the dollar collapses and inflation hits 30 percent a year for several years, a newly elected Congress of "teabaggers" may slash pay and retirement benefits in half.
Other service members consider themselves patriots, and agree that a nation facing bankruptcy should not continue to grant them unnecessary pay raises. While some may express outrage, they will never leave their prosperous military career, even if their pay is cut. Meanwhile, military recruiters and retention specialists can distribute this article and await an avalanche of applications.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
As a labor issue it seems to
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 12:58 — Scott.ffolliott (not verified)As a labor issue it seems to me that the wages thus stated are not too high, but as measured against the meager wages of average Americans it makes it seem so.
It would behoove Americans to transfer these military workers to jobs that are non-military thus paying their same wages and benefits to build our infrastructure for the benefit of the public.
Construction rather than destruction is the objective that is the common good we can achieve.
“The goal was to maximise public benefit rather than to maximise profits." Hilary Wainwright
I do not expect signs at the
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 13:09 — Anonymous (not verified)I do not expect signs at the next Teabagger rally to say "Freeze Military Pay."
Since they make twice as much as other Americans, they can afford their own family health insurance. Perhaps the Republicans will propose eliminating their heavily subsided government run "socialist" TRICARE family medical system to allow them to obtain superior care in the free market, while saving the nation billions of dollars a year. Well, Republican Senators, will you step up?
With the 'destruction' of
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 13:50 — Curt (not verified)With the 'destruction' of the manufacturing sector in the US, we've reached the point where the only products we can export are weapons, and we're very near the point where the only 'decent' employment left for the average graduate is in the military. Is this an accident, or the result of some sinister plan? The parallels with the Roman Empire are many and growing, and the final result will most likely parallel their final result also, as it is showing the same signs. The hubris of those leading this country into the abyss is no greater than that of the Roman leaders, and is just as worthless as we see the decay setting in all about us. We are already over the edge, and accelerating.
The author of this is so
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 13:54 — Ryan (not verified)The author of this is so full of it that its not funny. Also, dont even try to compare civilian and military work. Civilians dont even come close to working the hours, time away from family, the responsibility and they can walk away anytime.
I can tell this author never served. It kills me when idiotic people discuss things they have not idea about. I have been deployed and served well what have you done for this country NOTHING.
A coward with a pencil!
Ryan, perhaps you should
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 14:46 — Jerry (not verified)Ryan, perhaps you should google his name before you throw out insults. If you did, you'd learn that he is a former Marine Corps officer. It seems you are one of those selfish GIs serving only for the big bucks. Given your character, I doubt you will even apologize.
I'm sorry Ryan. What good
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 16:18 — georip (not verified)I'm sorry Ryan. What good is our military doing? What are you doing for this country and the betterment of the world? Protecting empire because Dick Cheney believes "the American way of life is non- negotiable" ? Making enemies around the world. Horse apples. I hope you are not a young bully with a gun. We spend more money on our military than the rest of the world combined. How could that possibly make sense?
When I got out of the Navy
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 16:26 — Greg Scott (not verified)When I got out of the Navy as an E-4 in 1967, I was making $142 a month. That's the equivalent of about $900 today. This was at the end of a 4 year enlistment.
But, there was universal service...the draft was on. Of course, if you stayed in past the initial 4 years there you would get an increase...to the equivalent of about $1500 a month... or about$18,000 a year today. Still not a whole lot of money.
Point is, service was a duty...not a commodity. You griped...it was your right...but you didn't really resent it because almost everyone had to do it... at some point.
Then you got out and if you were lucky, and uninjured, you just went on with your life. Being in the service was not something OTHER people did.
Some time after the Vietnam War, we decided it would be easier just to have an all volunteer Service. But I think there is a problem with the idea.
We pay the service people better, but we aren't so careful about what wars we get into. Because...well, because we pay them better. They become in a real sense, mercenaries. (In some senses, this article is just haggling over the price.)
Implicit in the calculation of BOTH Bushes' Iraq wars was that the American people would not protest too much because they did not HAVE to do the fighting.
The problem seems to me to be that, like healthcare, we have privatized war.
( I'm not sure that ALL things are better left to the profit motive.)
I work in real estate and
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 19:11 — Fulford (not verified)I work in real estate and noticed that in nationwide data the only regions unaffected by the slump in house prices were small communities near large military bases.
This article brings up another point. Why do we still have a huge "socialist" military commissary/exchange system in the USA that costs billions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies to provide GIs with slightly lower prices than Walmart? Since they make twice as much as other Americans, why don't the Republicans demand an end to this expensive socialist monopoly?
what this comparison between
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 19:58 — Anonymous (not verified)what this comparison between military pay and civilian pay shows is that there are a lot of workers in the us are that are not paid a living wage, or are paid just barely what they need to raise a family these days. from that point of view, this writer is complaining about the fact that we pay our for hire military decent wages, when he might instead complain about the fact that the pay of American workers has fallen in real dollars in recent decades.
the reason that military pay has risen is that the government decided to have a "volunteer" that is "professional" army rather than a draft. that does make it easier to use the military, since most voters won't have to go to war.
i don't begrudge decent pay for military who do work hard and fight wars, but it is a sign of national decay that we no longer have a citizen military, one sign of so very many.
I normally support many of
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 21:36 — KClowlife (not verified)I normally support many of your posts here, but the author is misleading with his numbers. For one thing, pay in the military is based upon your marriage status and number of children. Most E-4s are not married and are making much less than 48k, probably more around 21k.
Unless the author is using the numbers that the military generates to tell soldiers what they're really being paid, which is more likely. And those numbers are grossly inflated. They will compare square footage in a barracks and compare that with what it would cost to rent an apartment of similar character. But considering you spend about half of your time living in tents or combat zones, that is no number to go on.
Look, I want peace and an end to all of our combat in the middle east and pull out our troops. But that does not justify telling lies about the kind of money soldiers are making. If soldiers WERE making the great money this idiot is claiming, then they wouldn't all be defecting to Blackwater as soon as they get any experience.
It was just a few years ago that congress was berating the military for having soldiers earning so little that they qualified for food stamps. Have you guys forgotten about that already? Get a grip.
As a matter of fact, just
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:06 — KClowlife (not verified)As a matter of fact, just found the pay chart. E-4, 4 years of service earns $2199.90 monthly for an annual pay rate of $26398.80. Sorry, I've been out for a decade and didn't take inflation into my guesstimate.
Like I said, his numbers are way off and more based on the children and wife increasing his pay. Keeping in mind that there's a HUGE divorce rate in the military, but the military will force you to pay for child care you should realize that even if they make more when they get married the marriage will soon fail and the soldier will be back to $26k.
Source(something that the ex-Reserve Marine Captain should have linked to hisself): http://www.militaryfactory.com/military_pay_scale.asp
I don't begrudge the average
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:41 — Rodrian Roadeye (not verified)I don't begrudge the average GI the money, but I do the upper echelon and those private contractors earning five to ten times as much. That said, reinstating the draft and ending private military contracting, plus closing a quarter of our bases would go a long way to reigning in our exploding defense budget. It might also eliminate our two quagmires through the sheer shock of bringing it home to all of us when the Fortunate Sons have to serve over there too.
The E-4 just showed why he
Sat, 02/27/2010 - 22:48 — E-5 Dayrl (not verified)The E-4 just showed why he doesn't deserve such high pay. Did read he read the article?
"The DoD has a simple online pay calculator" with its link
http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx
The DoD means "Department of Defense". That calculator is from the Pentagon, the U.S. military. You can check his figures if you want, then apologize. I found the link very interesting.
Or do you prefer a union type spinmaster lobby group called militaryfactory? I know your type, always whining.
Yes, the GIs on food stamp
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 00:57 — Anonymous (not verified)Yes, the GIs on food stamp issue. I was in the Pentagon and had to work on that issue, which was being pushed by the military's union officials (oh I mean associations) who always push for more pay.
It turns out that a quirk in the law allows employer housing to be excluded from food stamp eligibility calculations. So when someone joined up with six or more kids (normally his wife had kids from another family) AND he lived in a government provided home he could get food stamps.
This was rare, and fewer than 1000 new big family GIs fit this case. Nevertheless, the "union" officials and their big government allies in Congress demanded that we give them even more money. Turns out, if you have 12 kids you can earn $60,000 a year and get food stamps.
During my years, I learned that giving soldiers more money just causes more financial problems, as they just bought bigger new cars and took bigger vacations.
This whole discussion not
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 10:21 — Rodrian Roadeye (not verified)This whole discussion not only needs to be brought to the public through the AP but also needs a full Congressional investigation to bring out the truth.Print this article and all the comments and present it to your state legislators. Ask any returning serviceman to verify or disavow the facts. This is a serious issue. The fleecing of taxpayers by a rampant military that is full of plushy higher-up paying jobs, the awarding of contracts to private profiteering overcharging and under-performing con men or friends needs to be stopped as well as our "Corporate Wars For Profit And Oil". If you know anyone in the government or the military who is honest (or not) and would be willing to testify in a Congressional inquiry,and help end this terrible waste of funds volunteer them to Congress. This whole scene reminds me of Sadam Hussein and his Baath Party, or Khomeni and his Revolutionary Guard. Only instead of massacring their own they are suppressing our freedoms and eliminating social programs. DO SOMETHING FOLKS!
Maybe a good factor to
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 12:19 — Anonymous (not verified)Maybe a good factor to include in this is the failure of military health care, the programs and needs not covered by military health care, the fact that you have to move every 3 years (Navy), and the constant deployments every two years (also Navy) oh, and I would like to add that my base was very cushy when it wasn't being attacked, fired upon, mortar'd or destroyed while I was in Iraq. I left the military because of where they wanted to send me; plain and simple. Sometimes their are more reasons then a pay check.
Although I consider myself
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 15:06 — mcph (not verified)Although I consider myself to be politically to the left of Che Guevara, I am disturbed and angered by this article. The level of commitment required by the military goes far beyond that of civilians in any sphere except (maybe) law enforcement and rescue services. The military are available for duty 24-7, they risk their lives routinely, and they suffer emotional and psychological consequences of their duties that we don't know how to treat. Comparing the average salaries of 20 year olds to those of E7s is asinine and exactly the sort of false comparison Scott Brown was rightly attached for making. If Carlton Meyer is indeed a former officer (as am I), one wonders why he gave up the gravy train. My guess is he did for the same reason I did- my family doesn't like risking my ass in repeated and prolonged deployments. When facing the prospect of year long trips to hell-holes like Iraq, the money looks pathetic.
Whatever the pay scale may
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 16:16 — Anonymous (not verified)Whatever the pay scale may be, officers have a much better deal than the troops. The figures given in the article do not mention housing, which is also part of the deal. The amount varies according to rank, put is not taxed overseas. Those who live in (or visit) military housing areas notice quickly that officer- housing is vastly bigger and better maintained.
Officers are also given the opportunity to receive (medical. legal, etc) university training, which serves them on retirement in civilian practice. They receive a federal pension with military privileges while they also enjoy income from private practice in the civilian economy. Troops don't have it quite so good.
mcph You wrote: "Comparing
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 16:24 — Harry (not verified)mcph You wrote:
"Comparing the average salaries of 20 year olds to those of E7s is asinine"
Agreed, and he did not do that. He compared E-7s to MBAs with a decade of experience. Also note that he wants combat pay boosted. If you read carefully, which you did not, he noted that most GIs (like airmen and sailors) do not see any combat, yet get the same pay.
Yet his thesis is that GIs are not lowly paid, as the title states. And supposedly we are leaving Iraq as major combat is over. So do we need more raises, even for the majority that will never see any real combat?
Or should we continue with raises and cut back on health care? Pay costs lots of money. As some scream about national bankruptcy, are pay raises justified?
Mainstream media portrays
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 17:45 — Anonymous (not verified)Mainstream media portrays our soldiers as happy volunteers ready to do their duty and serve the empire. This article indicates that most are attracted to double pay with great benefits.
High pay explains a lot of the stress and anger in the career force. They are volunteers, but hate the stupid wars, yet after their first tour, and especially their second, they have a wife, kids and bills and simply can't afford to get out.
Others leave and become distressed vets, because most jobs in our "new" economy are near minimum wage with no benefits. This is my case.
The pay gap is with the
Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:57 — Tom Goering (not verified)The pay gap is with the private sector as defined by the Department of Labor.
Oh, the increase for 2010 was 3.4% and not 3.2.
Since 1999, congress has added an additional .5% to the president's proposal (which is based on the Employment Cost Index) in order to close the gap in pay. The latest ECI numbers have increased another 1.4% prompting the President to proposed that increase for 2011. Congress has already taken steps to increase the president's proposal - just as done over the past 10 years - another .5%.
http://www.navycs.com/2011-military-pay-chart.html
The hostile tone of this
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 02:41 — Donny D. (not verified)The hostile tone of this article reads EXACTLY like that of anti-public school teacher articles and the more recent anti-auto worker articles from the Right that invariably claim pay figures for the targeted workers that seem too high to be credible. And in those Rightist screeds against the kinds of workers that THEY don't like, those workers are always shown as greedy, ungrateful, lazy and arrogant, just as in this article. Oh, and invariably with the anti-teacher articles, and the recent anti-autoworker ones, the writer-inflated pay figures were quickly debunked, usually by showing all kinds of calculation ploys were used to come up with incomes that no real workers in those sectors ever made. Now I can't speak to the veracity of the facts in this article, but because the obvious-to-the-reader part of the methodology of this article IS IDENTICAL TO that of Rightist anti-worker articles, I can't help but suspect that the unobvious parts of this article, the sourcing of facts and calculation of figures, could be suspect too. Which is too bad, because if there IS a problem with high military pay, especially in the upper ranks, that is something we need to be paying attention to. With something like 90% of military officers registered as Republicans, it could behoove left of center people to start thinking in terms of a possible Praetorian Guard mentality developing within the middle and upper echelons of our armed forces.
I won't lie and say military
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 05:04 — Anonymous (not verified)I won't lie and say military personnel don't make ok money. I think you may be adding in their housing allowance. If you get to their base pay, most of them that don't care O-something in their title don't make as much as their civilian counterparts. And before anyone jumps my case I Google the guy who wrote this article and all it said was he served in the USMC as an officer for on tour. So I would expect him to feel like they get paid great! He was getting officer's pay. Now if you take your family overseas yes you get more money.. but that is to compete with the going rate of the money in that area. The armed forces don't make as much a people think.. but they do get some previliages that help them out.
" The Republicans need to
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 09:16 — Anonymous (not verified)" The Republicans need to stop denigrating the troops. They keep saying that the government can't get anything right. How about the biggest government project of all -- the United States Armed Forces? Are the Republicans talking smack about the military -- and hence, the troops? Support the troops! Support government!
Does anyone disagree that the military is almost entirely government run? And if you agree to that obvious fact, when you attack all government run programs, aren't you by definition attacking the United States military?
And if there was any question about how socialist the army is, they removed all doubt when they adopted their last slogan: Army of One. That sounds positively communist. Why don't they just call it the collective? And in the US military everyone pledges to support one another no matter what. No one gets left behind. Everyone gets government provided housing, health care, and even government clothing. The military is the most socialist institution we have. " - CENK UYGUR
This is mis-leading on
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 11:27 — Chief (not verified)This is mis-leading on several levels. First there is no explanation of what the various benefits may be for. BAS stands for Basic Allowance for Subsistence. A person gets this money for not eating in a military mess/food service facility. Why would a person not eat in one, you might ask? Well, in my case I was a Navy recruiter in western Ohio. The nearest mess hall was hundreds of miles away. When I joined the Navy, they promised me three hots and a bunk. No mess hall available, well they end up paying the service member some money for not eating in the chow hall.
And the bunk I mentioned. Well the Navy did not have a barracks in western Ohio either, so the BAH, Basic Allowance for Housing, is the sum of money the government thinks I should get for suitable housing.
At the bottom of the story it says the author was in the USMC. The story is so slanted, I have to wonder about that.
And the calculator of military pay - bogus. If one is attached to a Navy ship there is no BAS. The ship provides the meals, whether underway or in port.
An E-2, with a wife and two children will qualify for food stamps, and reduced school lunches.
We have far too few people in our country who have experienced military life. What the author does not mention is that there is no such thing as an 8-hour day and 40-hour work week. When you are on a Navy ship that deploys, it is 24 / 7. You have a job to do and no matter how long it takes, you are there to do it. When you are in an Army or Marine Corps unit that goes to Afghanistan, it is 24 hours a day. If one has a wife and family, you can’t go home and take a shower after work is done. You are gone for a whole year.
TruthOut has done itself a dis-service by printing this one-sided diatribe .
After nearly 24 years total
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 13:53 — Ed (not verified)After nearly 24 years total service active and reserve with recalls, two gulf wars and 15 years of running my own business while serving as a reservists I have long felt that the military pay scale was getting out of sync with the private sector.
If you live in military housing you have no house payment and no utility bills. Find me any civilian job where an 18 year old is given a place to live all the food he wants and paid $1,400 a month.
As to retirement I have never seen a better retirement program for active duty that is. For reservists pay doesn't start until age 60 but it will still be more in retirement pay than as a drilling reservist.
As to hours worked every time I serve with the active component I am relieved with the reduced work load and hours from running my business.
When you consider everything - base pay, housing, subsistence, medical, reenlistment bonuses, other allowances and retirement it is very hard to find any private sector jobs that an 18 year old can get and make a career that comes close to the military compensation package.
In the original version of
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 15:01 — Anonymous (not verified)In the original version of the movie "The In-Laws," covert US government agent Vince (played by Peter Falk) states, "Survival is the key to the benefit program."
Weigh what soldiers are now paid against what it costs for mercenaries and it's still a bargain. Also, the stress of occupying two countries must make even the most generous pay seem worthless at some point. Stop-loss, multiple deployments, head trauma, depression, suicide, etc. all lead to dysfunctional marriages/personal lives.
I'm sure that the generous pay packages and enlistment bonuses guarantee that recruiters can still find bodies for the slots they have to fill. A down economy always boosts enlistment, but THIS economy seems tailor-made to drive young people into the arms of the recruiters.
The PX and BX systems, which are non-appropriated fund activities, entice the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines to buy elaborate sound systems, furniture and other consumer goods.
When they return from war for the last time, they probably have little in savings. Then they are at the mercy of the underfunded V.A. to care for their physical and psychological problems, leaving shattered lives.
Perhaps we should be discussing the issue of providing for our broken service men and women rather than begrudging them their pay. Reallocating funds to the V.A. and the military health system would be more appropriate. This economy has left so many with the dilemma of joblessness or military service. Both are frightening in their own way.
Comparing Apples to Oranges
Mon, 03/01/2010 - 20:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Comparing Apples to Oranges does not help your argument. Anyone who reads this article and does not notice the poor comparisons should wake up. Although there are numerous examples, try this one... For the comparison of the two brothers. After 18 years only the civilian brother was "hard working?" How many deployments did he do? How many months away from home? How many midwatches when his family was a few miles away and yet he could not see them?
You compare money using a calculator that adds in allowances for housing and food that not all military personnel receive AND include a "tax advantage". I would really like to see you go up to an E-2 on the USS NEVERPORT and tell him he is making $37000 a year. You would be laughed off of the ship.
Additionally, you make it sound like no one in the civilian sector ever plays solitaire at work or surfs the web, in that aspect there is no difference between military or civilians. FB is an epidemic shared by all.
Also you said that there are NO private sector businesses that pay for a Masters degree? Really? Did you ask them all, because I can think of at least three right now that do so. One of which I work for and have utilized.
You make blanket untruthful statements and only provide facts (out of context I might add) when convenient.
Hopefully the average reader of this article is intelligent enough to see this article for what it is... rambling gibberish by someone who was probably booted from the military for some reason...
Sailors earn thousands of
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 16:40 — Anonymous (not verified)Sailors earn thousands of dollars in sea pay when they deploy, but he did include that in his comparison.
MIT estimates the average GI costs the nation over $130,000 a year, when benefits are included.
There are some companies that pay college costs for people taking courses, but no one pays them a full-time salary. In the U.S. military, we pay these Commanders $136,000 a year for two years of graduate school, then they retire just a few years later. What's with that?
whaaa, I have a college
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 00:15 — Anonymous (not verified)whaaa, I have a college education and I don't make as much as a person who could be killed or permanently wounded.
Misleading figures
A PFC in a war zone should make 100k a year. Protecting some fat ass banker getting a zillion a year bonus.
I want out of these wars too. but as long as we don't have the balls to elect libertarians, Don't take it out on the troops. And don't get me started on what we should be doing for those injured in these wars.
I am very glad that hazard
Fri, 03/12/2010 - 16:34 — Anonymous (not verified)I am very glad that hazard pay was finally brought into the equation!
For the amount of HARD WORK and time away from family that solders have to put in, I don't think they are paid enough!
While the rest of us should be thanking them for risking their lives for our safety!
Thank you,
too all the solders that are keeping me safe so I don't have to go to war!
louis vuitton outlet
Mon, 11/05/2012 - 16:03 — Orespevy (not verified)view louis vuitton outlet for gift XFSVcQYG http://www.louis--vuitton-outlet.com/
yhgzgibz
Wed, 03/13/2013 - 14:29 — yhgzgibz (not verified)cbnhspkq