Posted on Oct 22, 2015
Bridging the pay gap and DOD cost reduction. Thoughts?
9.59K
27
14
5
4
1
As we continue to evolve our army maybe it's time to consider some real changes. To often we (Soldiers) tell ourselves that something is right because that's the way it has always been. There are a few changes I would like to get some senior enlisted and field grade thoughts on.
1. An E-9 with 20 years makes less than an O-4 with twelve years. Do you think targeted pay raises are due again to bridge the gaps between enlisted and commissioned ranks? (Not since 2007 have Defense Department officials or lawmakers worked to amend the pay charts to halt the growing pay gap. The gap grows every year the military receives a pay raise across the ranks.)
2. With growing budgetary constraints we have to consider ways of cutting cost across the DOD. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already proposed a change to dual military couples BAH, but let's take this one step further. What are your thoughts on eliminating BAH for single O-1 through O-3 until they take a company command or it's equivalent? There would obviously be some associated cost with having to build Officers quarters, but without any means at my level to run the exact numbers I would be willing to bet that the DOD would save a substantial amount of money.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses!
1. An E-9 with 20 years makes less than an O-4 with twelve years. Do you think targeted pay raises are due again to bridge the gaps between enlisted and commissioned ranks? (Not since 2007 have Defense Department officials or lawmakers worked to amend the pay charts to halt the growing pay gap. The gap grows every year the military receives a pay raise across the ranks.)
2. With growing budgetary constraints we have to consider ways of cutting cost across the DOD. The Senate Armed Services Committee has already proposed a change to dual military couples BAH, but let's take this one step further. What are your thoughts on eliminating BAH for single O-1 through O-3 until they take a company command or it's equivalent? There would obviously be some associated cost with having to build Officers quarters, but without any means at my level to run the exact numbers I would be willing to bet that the DOD would save a substantial amount of money.
Thanks for your time and I look forward to your responses!
Enlisted
BAH
Military Pay
CSM
COL
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
1) Until we create a rank structure that eliminates officer and enlisted ranks, there should be a pay differential between officers and enlisted. Officers are generally put in charge of enlisted and NCO ranks; generally have higher levels of education attainment; and generally are given higher levels of responsibility; and thus should be paid more. Do I agree with the current rank structure---yes and no. Could we establish a rank structure where everyone is free to compete for jobs vs. the current NCO v. officer structure? Sure. (One could argue this system already exists, and that if NCOs want to make more money, they could compete for OCS).
2) Run the numbers. Pre-command lts and captains account for something like six or seven percent of the Army; unmarried ones account for something like three percent. Probably not as large of a cost savings as you imagine. If we went with your suggestion, we'd have to apply this to all ranks, just to be fair, so let's say no BAH for single enlisted until they complete their PSG time. Ridiculous, you say? I'd agree, just like the idea of not paying BAH to single officers is ridiculous. Oh, and likely illegal, as even the Services aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. So, to implement your idea, we'd need to apply it to all ranks and all marital statuses. So, no BAH for anyone until they reached a certain time in service or rank or accomplishment. There's some cost savings there!
2) Run the numbers. Pre-command lts and captains account for something like six or seven percent of the Army; unmarried ones account for something like three percent. Probably not as large of a cost savings as you imagine. If we went with your suggestion, we'd have to apply this to all ranks, just to be fair, so let's say no BAH for single enlisted until they complete their PSG time. Ridiculous, you say? I'd agree, just like the idea of not paying BAH to single officers is ridiculous. Oh, and likely illegal, as even the Services aren't allowed to discriminate on the basis of marital status. So, to implement your idea, we'd need to apply it to all ranks and all marital statuses. So, no BAH for anyone until they reached a certain time in service or rank or accomplishment. There's some cost savings there!
(5)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, I appreciate your response. I would have to argue a couple of your points though.
1. I agree that someone in a position of higher responsibility should be paid more. The problem arises from what you may consider responsibility. A 1LT may be in charge of a platoon of 20 personnel or so and an Enlisted Career Counselor in an Infantry Battalion is responsible for force allignment, transfer of education benefits, personal and professional growth, and assignment diversity for up to 700 Soldiers. It's all a matter of perspective. If you have a gold bar and i have a steak, you are the rich one. If you put us both on a stranded island now i am rich....again perspective. The point I was trying to make is not that Officers should be payed less, but possibly having different annual pay increase percentages assigned to different ranks over the course of several years to bridge the gap. When we assign a blanket percentage annual the gap will continue to grow exponentially.
2. I would be curious to see where your percentages came from or if there is a definitive way to accurately show them. ".....no BAH for Enlisted until they complete their PSG time", although this is not exactly the current state, single E1-E5 with no dependants are required to stay in the barracks and do not receive BAH. This is the same type of concept I was suggesting for single O1-O3's.
1. I agree that someone in a position of higher responsibility should be paid more. The problem arises from what you may consider responsibility. A 1LT may be in charge of a platoon of 20 personnel or so and an Enlisted Career Counselor in an Infantry Battalion is responsible for force allignment, transfer of education benefits, personal and professional growth, and assignment diversity for up to 700 Soldiers. It's all a matter of perspective. If you have a gold bar and i have a steak, you are the rich one. If you put us both on a stranded island now i am rich....again perspective. The point I was trying to make is not that Officers should be payed less, but possibly having different annual pay increase percentages assigned to different ranks over the course of several years to bridge the gap. When we assign a blanket percentage annual the gap will continue to grow exponentially.
2. I would be curious to see where your percentages came from or if there is a definitive way to accurately show them. ".....no BAH for Enlisted until they complete their PSG time", although this is not exactly the current state, single E1-E5 with no dependants are required to stay in the barracks and do not receive BAH. This is the same type of concept I was suggesting for single O1-O3's.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I would add that most E9's that I have worked for have had at least a masters degree which is about the same as most O4's, and under the 2016 pay chart with the 1.3 percent pay raise a Brigade CSM with 20 years of service will make 19.82% less than a Battalion S3 O4 with eight years less service/experience to offer and the same level of education. In 2009 that separation was only 19.80%. The separation is not increasing at an extremely fast rate but if we continue with blanket raises the separation will grow larger faster with each passing year.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG (Join to see) - I need to point out that your anecdotal experience of "most E9" can easily be countered. I was "anecdotally" attending college with the MCPON this year in April. He was on his final class for his BS after 32~ years in the Navy. Now the USAF has different standards, and I believe the Army is working towards it, but the Naval Services don't (as current). We're very PME centric, but not formal education.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'd challenge you to go find the numbers and data to support your argument. DMDC is a great place to start. For example, the percentages I mention. DMDC gives great breakdowns of rank structure by all sorts of demographics. It probably also provides data on the percentage of E-9s with masters degrees (I'd guess that the percentage of E-9's with masters degrees is exceptionally low). Your point on perspective is well said. The difference in the CSM v. O-4 example you give is that the CSM is (in all actuality and legally) responsible for nothing, while the O-4 S-3 is third in command of the battalion, and legally and in actuality responsible. I'm not trying to downplay the importance of NCOs; but after the squad leader level, NCOs are no longer part of the chain of command. That legal responsibility falls on officers, which is why they should be paid more. I do agree that we should maybe give pay raises that at least keep up with inflation. But I reject outright any notion that we aren't paid enough, across the board. We are paid exceptionally well, considering the total compensation package, and generally more than our peers in e civilian world based on experience and education.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I think there always will (and should) be a gap between Officer and Enlisted sides of the house. However, I think the gap is a bit too wide at the moment. I'm not in favor of equalizing, but I do think that the lower enlisted could use a few more $$ in their pockets. I'd support no raises for O-4 and up for three years with increased raises for E-1 - E-5 for the same time period and see where we stand.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,
Thanks for your response! I think your on the right track. The specifics on how something like this would be accomplished at the very top but I am glad to see your adaptability and willingness to accept change! Especially when it would directly affect you.
Thanks for your response! I think your on the right track. The specifics on how something like this would be accomplished at the very top but I am glad to see your adaptability and willingness to accept change! Especially when it would directly affect you.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I know that there are plenty of other ways to cut spending bit unfortunately I don't think that this "hurry up and spend 200k by Friday or we won't get the same funding next year" mentality will ever go away.
(3)
(0)
SGT David T.
This isn't about mentality it's about complying with Federal law. Funds have expiration dates and do not roll over. They must spend the funds or risk having their budgets slashed by the unspent portion for the next year. This will only change if Congress changes the appropriations laws to allow funds to carry over.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; Possibly someone should look at the Officer/Enlisted ratios.
Air Force 1/4.1
Army 1/4.5
Navy 1/4.9
Marines 1/8.1
It would be possible to "restructure" the military if you worked from the bottom up so that a Squad consisted of 16 people (ranks E-1 - E-5), a Platoon consisted of three Squads plus a Command squad (highest ranks E-5 and O-1) a company consisted of three Platoons plus two Command squads (highest ranks E-7 and O-3), a battalion consisted of five Companies plus four Command squads (highest ranks E-9 and O-5), etc..
Unfortunately, to do that would require that the military recruit and retain VERY competent and dedicated people - those simply looking for three hots and a cot or for Uncle Sugar to pay for their vocational training simply would not fit in.
If you extend that schema all the way up, you could end up with around 450,000 people organized into six "regular" and six "reserve" Brigades [Brigades consisting of three Infantry Regiments, one Armor Regiment, one Artillery Regiment, one Engineer Regiment, and one Support/Logistics/Maintenance Regiment] - each of which would have roughly the combat power of a WWII army group.
With slight modifications the same can be done for the Air Force and Navy.
Once you have cut the "administration overhead" there would be lots of money for increased pay and benefits - just using the pay and benefits pool currently available.
Air Force 1/4.1
Army 1/4.5
Navy 1/4.9
Marines 1/8.1
It would be possible to "restructure" the military if you worked from the bottom up so that a Squad consisted of 16 people (ranks E-1 - E-5), a Platoon consisted of three Squads plus a Command squad (highest ranks E-5 and O-1) a company consisted of three Platoons plus two Command squads (highest ranks E-7 and O-3), a battalion consisted of five Companies plus four Command squads (highest ranks E-9 and O-5), etc..
Unfortunately, to do that would require that the military recruit and retain VERY competent and dedicated people - those simply looking for three hots and a cot or for Uncle Sugar to pay for their vocational training simply would not fit in.
If you extend that schema all the way up, you could end up with around 450,000 people organized into six "regular" and six "reserve" Brigades [Brigades consisting of three Infantry Regiments, one Armor Regiment, one Artillery Regiment, one Engineer Regiment, and one Support/Logistics/Maintenance Regiment] - each of which would have roughly the combat power of a WWII army group.
With slight modifications the same can be done for the Air Force and Navy.
Once you have cut the "administration overhead" there would be lots of money for increased pay and benefits - just using the pay and benefits pool currently available.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
I would quote Warren Buffet from the youth video he does helping children understand money and business. "The more you learn, the more you earn. "
Even in civilian careers, employee with degrees earn on average a higher salary than those without. So, what I like about the service is that, anyone can do a great job and change the career path, be it warrant or officer candidate school.
On the BAH, I do not see an elimination for amyone as something which should be considered. We already have enough homeless veterans. I would cringe at the thought of dealing with the possibility of having homeless active duty service members. How much confidence would our Nation have in our military if these folkes were struggling with basic needs. Members of the military have shelter, food and uniforms (equipment to carry out missions).
Then to boot, you can continue to advance personally (education) and professionally (promotions).
Even in civilian careers, employee with degrees earn on average a higher salary than those without. So, what I like about the service is that, anyone can do a great job and change the career path, be it warrant or officer candidate school.
On the BAH, I do not see an elimination for amyone as something which should be considered. We already have enough homeless veterans. I would cringe at the thought of dealing with the possibility of having homeless active duty service members. How much confidence would our Nation have in our military if these folkes were struggling with basic needs. Members of the military have shelter, food and uniforms (equipment to carry out missions).
Then to boot, you can continue to advance personally (education) and professionally (promotions).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
We work in a system that rewards effort, education, and experience. Anyone may compete and the rewards, both monetary and property oriented, are substantial. Comparing rank structure against potential gain provides motivation to improve one's self in order to move forward.
I read a paper once while grading such at the Army's Senior Service School (War College) titled, "The Professional Private." Gist of the paper was a man happy in his function as a garbage grinder. Not many wanted that position, but he did...proud of his efforts and ability to process waste better than any other and comfortable with his station in life. However, the military's stance on "up or out" doomed him to be promoted beyond his desire and/or ability.
Consider, if we had a system ideology of 'professional privates' throughout the ranks, our military structure would be deadlocked across the board...no one being able to move up until and unless the present office holder retired or some dreadful event took him away, thereby providing an opening for others. The present system recognizes this conundrum and offers a career ladder for all ranks to progress forward while tasking each participant to demonstrate he/she has earned the right to do so.
I was paid the princely sum of $71 a month as a Pvt. E1 in 1966 and believed I had a fortune (prior to the Army, I earned less than $30 a month as a paperboy and hauling hay for local farmers). The Army provided three hots and a cot and I couldn't fathom how in the world I would spend so much money! A Private E-1 with less than four months in today's Army is paid $1,430.00 a month...an incredible increase over my day! My opinion is the system in place today properly identifies positional responsibility and rewards it appropriately. Opportunity to move forward is provided equally to all ranks. No changes are necessary.
I read a paper once while grading such at the Army's Senior Service School (War College) titled, "The Professional Private." Gist of the paper was a man happy in his function as a garbage grinder. Not many wanted that position, but he did...proud of his efforts and ability to process waste better than any other and comfortable with his station in life. However, the military's stance on "up or out" doomed him to be promoted beyond his desire and/or ability.
Consider, if we had a system ideology of 'professional privates' throughout the ranks, our military structure would be deadlocked across the board...no one being able to move up until and unless the present office holder retired or some dreadful event took him away, thereby providing an opening for others. The present system recognizes this conundrum and offers a career ladder for all ranks to progress forward while tasking each participant to demonstrate he/she has earned the right to do so.
I was paid the princely sum of $71 a month as a Pvt. E1 in 1966 and believed I had a fortune (prior to the Army, I earned less than $30 a month as a paperboy and hauling hay for local farmers). The Army provided three hots and a cot and I couldn't fathom how in the world I would spend so much money! A Private E-1 with less than four months in today's Army is paid $1,430.00 a month...an incredible increase over my day! My opinion is the system in place today properly identifies positional responsibility and rewards it appropriately. Opportunity to move forward is provided equally to all ranks. No changes are necessary.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Col John Hudson, thank you for your response. I am not saying Enlisted should make the same as Officers, but I am saying that I think senior Enlisted (mainly E-9's in select positions) are under compensated.
I do agree we make a pretty good living but what I'm talking about is not a new idea. The problem mathematically, when you apply a base percentage raise across the ranks, is that the gap will continue to grow larger. In 1965 under the Johnson administration there was an 11% raise for Enlisted and 6% for officers. Coincidentally a year later you were happy with your Enlisted pay. Other examples of this can be seen in 2000, 2001, and 2007
I do agree we make a pretty good living but what I'm talking about is not a new idea. The problem mathematically, when you apply a base percentage raise across the ranks, is that the gap will continue to grow larger. In 1965 under the Johnson administration there was an 11% raise for Enlisted and 6% for officers. Coincidentally a year later you were happy with your Enlisted pay. Other examples of this can be seen in 2000, 2001, and 2007
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
I applaud your reasoned response and supportive statistics. Yes, there will always be a perception of inequity no matter how one looks at it. From where I sit, that would simply motivate me to move to that area which offers the better reward rather than stay where I am demanding more recognition.
And that is the cornerstone of our present U.S. military system; a system that presents no mystery...it's wide open for anyone to see the complete career progression throughout its environment and all can make their own personal choice as to where they want to begin and end, with adequate room to change mid-course if wanted.
I was Enlisted, Warrant, and Commissioned...each piece of the progression coming when opportunity opened a door and I stepped through. Anyone in today's military can do just as well and for some even better, now that every glass ceiling that ever existed has been abolished.
And that is the cornerstone of our present U.S. military system; a system that presents no mystery...it's wide open for anyone to see the complete career progression throughout its environment and all can make their own personal choice as to where they want to begin and end, with adequate room to change mid-course if wanted.
I was Enlisted, Warrant, and Commissioned...each piece of the progression coming when opportunity opened a door and I stepped through. Anyone in today's military can do just as well and for some even better, now that every glass ceiling that ever existed has been abolished.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google