U.S. Warriors — Overpaid?

[Lemur]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

[Ice]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

This is one thing I wouldn't mind increased spending on. Our soldiers deserve better pay.

[Tribesman]

Our soldiers deserve better pay.

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

[Papewaio]

Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

Wouldn't those on extended rotation have better rank/specialisation/experience and hence meriting more pay through normal means?

Or should there be a loading based on combat tours served factored in while on a combat tour. Say a 1% increase in pay per combat tour served, so 4 combat tours, serving the 5th get a 4% pay increase while on a combat tour.

[Ice]

Your soldiers deserve a better commander in chief

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

[spmetla]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

I agree, better CinC and better pay.

[Lorenzo_H]

I think I'm finding this offensive.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

If it were economically feasible, I'd love to see our fighting men and women paid as well as the best in the private sector. Even so, given the extended rotations, and given G.I.s going back for third and fourth tours of Iraq, I wouldn't find a little extra pay so unnecessary.

But the war widows, man, what a greedy bunch of chiselers. Stick it to 'em!

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund.

The US army pay, when compared to that of our soldiers here in Britain, is very little. Right now the UK Army are paid, when you convert the currency to dollars, almost double.

On the counter balance, the US army invest a lot of money in technology and giving their troops the best availible. They invest trillions in research and so on. Here in Britain they spend jack nothing on technology. They either beg it from the US, or do what they normally do and go without. Look at our Navy. The once mighty Royal Navy which was able to secure trade routes over sea to a quarter of the planet is now looking more like a rusting WWII coast guard. Another example is the Tornado Fighter Jet. They were all supposed to be replaced by the much better (and pretty sweet looking) Eurofighter Typhoon, but the government doesn't have enough money. Same with the Challenger 2 tank - we only have about 200 of them.

By contrast, the US army does nothing in half measures; they give their troops the best there is availible, no expense spared. The US army also offers a few more side benefits to joining, like pensions and stuff after you leave.

[Tribesman]

...well yeah, but that they also deserve better pay.

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

[Redleg]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

What in the world are you talking about? You should just stick with your orginial comment that a better commander in chief is required.

Better pay for the military has been an ongoing issue since before I joined the service in the late 1980's, and will be an continuing issue for many years.

You know the same military that has had success and failures under different Commander in Chief's over the past several decades.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees. My guess is you're trying for a dash of humor here, but the pitch was "just a little bit outside..."


1. I have no problem paying our soldiers (see Ice comment above).

2. Soldiers already receive a combat "bonus" -- no income tax if serving in a combat zone. That's up to 28% depending on bracket.

3. Yes, other things being equal, those deployed earn more "points" toward promotion than those who do not.

4. The federal budget is so boondoggled with "entitlements" and earmarked pork that cutting the military budget -- or slowing its growth -- is one of the few ways an administration can keep budget numbers in line without goring too many political oxen.

[Tribesman]

What in the world are you talking about?

simple , if the soldiers cannot do the job they are alloted then why should they get a pay rise . sack 'em .

I'm guessing the "contract" reference is to the political terms of the leadership and not the contracts of our military enlistees.

Nope , the numbers are what the military was supposed to be able to deliver , it hasn't delivered....typical government workers eh .

[KukriKhan]

What in the world are you talking about?

Not to put words in his mouth, I think our 'resident riddler' is trying to make 2 points:

1) comparing the job requirements of an infantryman (for example) and any civilian occupation is silly; therefore the "comparability" cited in the article as a goal is fruitless.

2) if, however, for argument's sake you try to compare civilian compensation schemes to military pay, you should go all the way, and make that pay contingent on mission (job) completion, with monetary penalties for failing to achieve 'x' job, on-time, on-budget, etc., as in the civilian contracting world.

So, if the US military were a stand-alone company/corporation, working for a contractor (US gov't) the managers would likely be 'sacked' (and pay witheld) for failing to deliver their promised product on-time and on- or under-budget.

[Odin]

Not to put words in his mouth, I think our 'resident riddler' is trying to make 2 points:

1) comparing the job requirements of an infantryman (for example) and any civilian occupation is silly; therefore the "comparability" cited in the article as a goal is fruitless.

2) if, however, for argument's sake you try to compare civilian compensation schemes to military pay, you should go all the way, and make that pay contingent on mission (job) completion, with monetary penalties for failing to achieve 'x' job, on-time, on-budget, etc., as in the civilian contracting world.

So, if the US military were a stand-alone company/corporation, working for a contractor (US gov't) the managers would likely be 'sacked' (and pay witheld) for failing to deliver their promised product on-time and on- or under-budget.

thats how I read tribesmen as well and its a fair point (in context to the article). That said all things arent equal in this equation due to valuation of the service.

The compensation scheme does not take into consideration the considerable taxation put on the family due to deployment. The link discussion as I read it was an attempt to link compensation to the valuation of raises given in the private sector. While a fun excersise its hard to compare the two, without delving into bodily risk factors the private sector employee has the option to quit at any moment.

the enlisted personnel does not, and the spouse at home carries the load 24-7 until the deployment ends, the civilian at least comes home to support the family unit and relieve the pressure. I think its a fun excersise but it hardly is a fruitful excersise because it leads to the question of valuation's of non participants roles and thats the grey area the article only briefly touched on.

[doc_bean]

Did the wages of congressmen and/or administration members increase in the last few years ?

[Don Corleone]

Did the wages of congressmen and/or administration members increase in the last few years ?

Does a bear in the woods?

[HoreTore]

I'll go grumble about my army pay of 126 NOK(less than 10 pounds) per day....

[Grey_Fox]

Israeli conscripts get the equivalent of $3.30 US a day

You're rich by comparison

[Watchman]

It is a civic duty there, after all (here too incidentally). Far as I can figure the service-folks get their coffee money primarily because it's an easy way to keep them reasonably happy.

[HoreTore]

I earned two boxes of snus and a coke per day.... Considering the enormous amount of snus consumed in the army, I feel I have every right to complain.

[Pannonian]

I earned two boxes of snus and a coke per day.... Considering the enormous amount of snus consumed in the army, I feel I have every right to complain.

Be careful where you spend that snu-money though - Finnish service stations are out of bounds.

[Grey_Fox]

Israeli parents send money to their children in order to keep them alive in their army.

[HoreTore]

Haha! We were actually close to causing an invasion of Finland... We were driving from our garrison in Troms to an exercise in Finmark, and somehow got waaaay into Finland...

[KukriKhan]

Since were getting comparative, here are some numbers for nations performing similar combat duties:

Canadian NCO of 5 years service: $Cdn50K (=$US46K)

UK NCO ditto: 32KBP (=$US62K)

Aus NCO same: $Aus51K (=$US42K)

US NCO w/5: $US24K

Those are just base-pay amounts.

Money is a whole different issue with a conscript army.

note: I got the info from the countries' military pay scales available online, so they're not 100% firm - and I used an online currency converter to switch to US dollars; they warn their estimates are +/- 2%.

[Ice]

Well yeah , but better pay must be linked to better productivity and a complete management shake up .
They took the contract on a 4:2:1:1 basis , they have competely failed to deliver , so dock their pay and sack a few of them to send them a message to get their act together .

I understand your point of view, and normally I'd agree, if we are talking about a civilian job/firm. I really don't think our soldiers, overall, are shirking their efforts and furthermore, I doubt this would send a message to anyone. It would most likely just piss off a lot of people.

[Tribesman]

Hold on nowq, ossible moderatorintervention .....apost I put between #13 and #14 isn't there .
Anyway sAck em all , even if you add Haiti to the equation theyhae stil failed to deliv4er ...damngovernment employees that expect a free ride wihout deliering the goods ...delivewr the hgoods or buger off with thew complaints about pay and conditions

[Tribesman]

It would most likely just piss off a lot of people.
__________________

An interesting tke on ot I hadn;t tought of that

[KukriKhan]

Never touched the thread, mate. So dunno about a lost post.

Maybe click "preview post" before hitting "submit"?

On-topic: I admit getting sacked as a consequence of non-performance is attractive, but I'm not sure that paradigm could be easily translated to military service.

Now, the elected leadership is a different story, and I guess we get that opportunity every 4 years or so.

[Tribesman]

[QUOTEMaybe click "preview post" before hitting "submit"?
][/QUOTE]
Maybe it wasdue to downlading 1.2 at thge time ,In neveruse preview post ,wha tI write is what comes out .

On-topic: I admit getting sacked as a consequence of non-performance is attractive, but I'm not sure that paradigm could be easily translated to military service.

They are just civil sevants aren't they

Now, the elected leadership is a different story, and I guess we get that opportunity every 4 years or so.

4 years is a long time when body bags and lots of money are involved

[Grey_Fox]

You drunk already?

[Tribesman]

wind and rain Fox , plus an early house next to the job(Athenry mart , I think it was weanlings this morning , but who cares as long as the bar is full of farmers tht you can rip the ***** out of) I was slightly drunk when I made my ealy posts oday. now I is well and truly bolloxed