Posted on 07/03/2012 7:22:45 AM PDT by Wuli
As private sector salaries flattened over the last decade, military pay climbed steadily, enough so that by 2009 pay and allowances for enlisted members exceeded the pay of 90 percent of private sector workers of similar age and education level.
cut
The military gained its lead with annual raises from 2000 to 2010 that exceeded private sector wage growth and some extra increases in housing allowances to eliminate average out-of-pocket rental costs. Meanwhile, civilian pay growth stalled as markets collapsed and jobs disappeared.
cut
By 2009, the report says, average RMC for enlisted exceeded the median wage for civilians in each comparison group -- high school diploma, some college and two-year degrees. Average RMC was $50,747 or "about $21,800 more than the median earnings for civilians from the combined comparison groups."
For officers, average RMC was $94,735 in 2009. That was "88 percent higher than earnings of civilians with bachelor's degrees, and 47 percent higher than earnings of those with graduate-level degrees," the report says.
cut
Marine Staff Sgt. Andrew Gallagher, 29, doesn't believe pay comparisons using only age and education level, even with associate's degree earners tossed in the mix, is fair to career enlisted.
Gallagher will pass the 12-year mark in the Corps this November. He has served three tours in Iraq, the second shortened by wounds suffered in an IED attack. His total pay, before taxes and including BAH and BAS, is about $58,000 a year at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
You can also read the full "11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation report
at: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2012/06/report-calls-for-big-changes-in-military-pay/
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
I too agree with the quoted Marine. He is spot on.
Liberals like to lump a lot of things into the equation to show how overcompensated the military is.
And this is definitely a movement to prepare the turf to cut the budget even further.
Damn them all, damn them to hell. This is the 1930’s again. Just go ahead and cut the military, and pollute it with social experiments to turn it into a jobs program. Just watch and see what happens when we get into a shooting war.
Damn this makes me madder than a hornet.
In the Marine Corps Infantry, about the top 30% of enlisted earn E-4 shortly before the end of a four year tour. E-3, over two years, pay is currently $1868/Mo.
If we consider the average of 60 hour weeks worked, this is equivalent to a civilian working the same hours at $6.15/hr, less than minimum wage. Getting sent to a combat zone runs the hours worked through the roof. Blackwater, for instance, has to pay $150k/yr with full room and board to get civilians to do the same thing.
Civilian work is not comparable to military SERVICE, and the good men and women to SERVE our country, generally, do not do it for money.
SENTINEL=Former USMC SGT
An even better illustration is what happened in Korea in 1950 when North Koreans invaded the south. Our troops that were there at that point were ill trained, supplied and prepared, and were composed largely of support personnel not suited for more than light peacetime guard duty.
Granted, today, our composition of forces in the path of an unexpected and aggressive foe might be more computer specialists than cooks due to the changes in the way the military handles support personnel and logistics, but the end result would likely the same.
well, according to the military pay table for 2012, you have to be an E-7 over 16 years to make the kind of money they describe...
Or an O-5 over 14 years to make the kind of money they describe....
what a crock of an article this is.. just an attempt to get support to reduce pay..
I was in the navy in 1962 making $250 every other week stationed on a ship as a doctor and was selected to be part of the invasion of Cuba during the Cuban Crisis and practiced climbing down a debark net into a pitching LCVP (poppa boat. “Great fun”.
For anyone who thinks that is disparaging to what our troops have been doing since 2001, I didn't mean it the way it came out.
What I meant was, watch what happens when we get into a shooting war with an enemy who has the means and resources to prevent being bowled over by our forces.
Somehow, people think that fighting against a foe who is going to contest our control of the air or sea is never going to happen.
Good post and thank you for your service, SENTINEL.
I am not in disagreement with any of your comments.
As I said in my original comment - like the Marine taff Sgt. who was quoted, the basis of comparison in the study does not make for a matching of equals.
And like all of you, I feel how can it be. One involves putting your life on the line for the nation (potentially always and in reality often enough) and the other doesn’t.
So here’s the reality:
No matter what we think of military pay, morally or economically, time, demographics and the persistence of it versus the ups and downs of other expenditures has military pay as the second highest component of the DOD budget, after “operations and maintenance”.
see chart in: http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense-Spending.html
And, due to pension and health benefits in the “military personnel” expense, it will not decline as fast as “operations and maintenance” when active combat missions, and the DOD infrastructure to support them, are scaled back.
Unless other categories of DOD expense mount greatly (as for possible new weapons acquisitions) we could find “military personnel” as the top DOD budget item, or at the least it will continue as the second highest item, as it is now, but not likely ranked lower.
What is the point?
No matter what you and I think, DOD spending is political.
When the pols are fighting over the pet projects in the DOD budget (yes including their pet weapons that will employ or keep employed workers in THEIR district) their first choices, the easiest choices when looking for budget offsets to pay for them IS the categories in the DOD budget that are already the largest.
When the pols get done, the moral value of the troops sacrifice is reduced to an economic figure that permits the pols to get whatever else THEY want to see in the DOD budget.
It’s not fair, to the troops, but it is the battle we are up against when defending military pay.
There is probably not a way around it that does not cut Congress too much out of the authority they need.
They will continue to work the DOD budget as an economic interest THEIR district has a rightful portion to, pushing up the cost of political priorities in the DOD budget, from which strategic and moral commitments must give up some “savings” in order to get a DOD budget passed.
It stinks, but it’s the reality.
For officers, average RMC was $94,735 in 2009. That was “88 percent higher than earnings of civilians with bachelor’s degrees, and 47 percent higher than earnings of those with graduate-level degrees,” the report says.
LOL! What a joke. A LT with a bachelor’s degree first has to gain admission to naval flight training (think top 3% of applicants) and then has an additional 1 1/2 to 2 years of astonishingly tough training to become an aviator or naval flight officer. After that they have another 3-4 years to become an aircraft commander or mission commander, responsible for a $200M aircraft, the lives of their crew, and the custody and use of weapons. I think a JG or LT making $90K all told versus an unemployed loser with a “BA in Social Thought” living in his mom’s basement means the officer is underpaid.
yes, as we all said
they are comparing apples and oranges
To me it sounds like happenstance. Military personnel got a much needed and long overdue series of pay hikes. It wasn’t *anybody’s* fault that civilian employment and salaries went in the crapper. Also explains high re-enlistment rates and competition to get in, despite all of the problems this regime has foisted upon them. The only way to save them is to throw these thugs out.
They stood up for us. Will we stand up for them?
You could look at that as starting pay. Interestingly, on that chart it shows that the salary for an E-1 or an E-2 can never go up no matter how many years of service. That tells me that those ranks are intended to be an up or out situation. Once E-3 is attained the salary begins to rise. The same does NOT hold true for baby officers.
For an 18-year-old, I was living rather large. Young, single and not a care in the world!
You would have to get a job that paid a whole $9.50 an hour to make more then that.
Considering that minimum wage is $7.25 an hour a job paying that would not be hard to find.
“’An new E1 makes $1,516 per month’ You would have to get a job that paid a whole $9.50 an hour to make more then that.
Considering that minimum wage is $7.25 an hour a job paying that would not be hard to find.”
But you also need to toss in medical care, room & board, loads of excellent and expensive training, and many other items that cost civilians even more money, not to mention special duty pay for various duties.
Sure, I'm getting ready for a seven month deployment but most of the time I spend at home working 12 hour days four days a week. In an hour I'll be off of work for the holiday and I don't have to report back until Monday. All of it "liberty" (not counted against the 30 days leave I get each year). Not a bad gig at all these days.
People are lined up around the block to enlist these days. All branches are easily meeting enlistment and retention quotas. In fact, the navy is kicking people out left and right.
It used to be a typical E1 was fresh out of high school, 18-years old with no dependants. E1 pay was sufficient. These days recruits are increasingly older, often well into their 20s with spouses and children to support. E1 pay doesn't go very far with more mouths to feed.
del is is considerably better than the $68.00 a month that I enlisted for, and I think that is about $28.00 a month more than the men who fought WW II received.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.