Is the old enlisted/officer paygrade system outdated, considering the more educated service members under an All Volunteer Force?

Welcome to the military!

Pay has *always* been bitched about by both enlisted and commissioned personnel. Military pay will never - NEVER - actually cover all that you do and all that you're responsible for.

As SGT David Thomas said, " If you want to make more you have 2 options. Get a degree and commission or get out get and get a better paying civilian job. It really is that simple."

Another way to increase your pay is to learn the jobs that give bonus's or additional pay for doing them - and, then do them.

In the Navy, you've got a few choices, a few of which are:
Sea pay
Flight Deck pay
Hazardous Duty pay
Sub pay (if they still have that)

If you're on shore duty and never deploy - get a degree, learn your rate (not just what you do in your rate), get promoted, work towards a commission (which could include being sponsored to the Academy).

I had to put in a request chit in a few of my duty stations so I could moonlight (get a part-time job), because the cost of living was pretty much more than my pay, and I didn't feel that a member of the United States Armed Forces should have to request food stamps or public assistance... but, that's for another thread, isn't it?

When I was battalion operations sergeant, i sent out a memo to the first sergeants that concluded, "officers get paid to send people out to die. We get paid to bring them back alive." My major, lieutenant, warrant officer and I got called before the XO for a chewing out. It was only after the fact that I came up with an answer - that's why they get paid more than we do.

I've met tens of thousands of our AVF. They more often that not have high school diplomas and further education. The remuneration for our military needs to be reevaluated taking into consideration the higher education which is apparent when you meet them. We have less than one half of one percent enlisting. Many of the DoD are former military who would have continued in the military if the pay scale was more equitable...

I've met tens of thousands of our military forces. The old pay grade is In my opinion not enough remuneration

I'll say this. We are paid more the longer we are in. I have seen chiefs make more than LTs because of their time in. But that being said I feel officers with the same time should make more. They are in charge of much more than a chief is. If someone is a captain of a carrier or another ship or in command of a base they have a lot on their shoulders. They will make calls that may or may not affect the lives of hundreds of men. Though all jobs are important I feel upper brass should make the money they do.

There are plenty of senior NCO's who have master degrees or higher that are invaluable to the military. Perhaps such individuals as these could achieve higher pay by being promoted into warrant officer ranks? This would work for all of the branches except the Air Force who no longer uses warrant officers.

I'm not sure what the education level has to do with the pay scale? Should a Pvt with a HS Dip make more than a Pvt with a GED? Should a L/Cpl with a BA Deg mark the same as a 2nd Lt with a BA Deg? When I enlisted 36 years ago, my monthly pay as a Pvt was roughly $340 a month. Lived in the barracks, ate in the mess hall, drank in the E-Club, occassionally enjoyed the sights and sounds that So. Ca had to offer. Life was good. Today a Pvt under 2 years makes over $1,500 a month. The pay is good, the life is good.

You're probably right, Aaron. If pay were based on education, or even functional skill, competence, and contribution, the pay system would flatten considerably. This is true in the civilian world, too. And women would be paid equally to men. Then why is there this huge inequity that skirts along almost a feudal system of compensation?

It is based on the level of responsibility for judgment (strategic, tactical, and operational combined) and what the market can bear. Is that clear? If not, I can explain more.

But by way of example, let's look at the NFL. A team has or is allowed to spend a certain amount on salaries. It cannot go above that. Total compensation and other expenses should not exceed revenue and, for the investor taking risk to own a business, a profit.

Is Aaron Rodgers making more than his offensive line because he went to a tier 1 college at Cal Berkeley? Is it because he can play so much better for his position than his lineman can in theirs? Maybe, but I don't think so. I think it is because owners feel that greater success comes from having a high performer at QB and they have fewer choices for top tier QBs than they do linemen. If they don't pay Aaron right, he's off to the Bears who desperately could use a better QB.

Hope this helps someone.

Dex

It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with where the buck stops. If you want to be a commissioned officer them out the time and effort in and be willing to accept the burden that comes with it.

Another point I feel is important is the difference between compensation (salary and benefits) versus rank. It's important to remember they are two different things. "Sort of like saying I've known a lot of E-9s and few MCPO/CMSgts/SgtMajors." If the LT out ranks me I salute and follow his orders; as a SNCO we may disagree from time to time but those below would never know/see it. At the end of the day he outranks me, the fact I take home more money is irrelevant.