Posted on Mar 25, 2015
What “percentage” are you, based on income? Do you think you are adequately compensated?
20.3K
111
39
11
11
0
Do you think you are adequately compensated in comparison to your civilian “peers” or do you think the military personnel are under-paid? If you think military personnel are underpaid, why? If you think you, in particular, are underpaid, why?
Even if one ONLY CONSIDERS BASE PAY, military compensation compares really well to nationwide averages.
Personally, I’d be quite happy with more pay; why not? But I’d assess that the total compensation package is both adequate and logical, as it provides relatively good pay and additional compensation for education (via special pays and increased rank/promotion for higher education levels), skills (again, via special pays), experience (time in service), and leadership (higher compensation levels for increased responsibility).
Search “pay” on Rallypoint, and you’ll see literally hundreds of questions and threads on the topic of military pay. In these questions and threads, and elsewhere (just search the internet and you’ll be inundated with articles about changes to military pay and compensation, for example), you’ll come across two general themes: 1) military personnel are under-compensated; and, the alternative, 2) military personnel are over-compensated.
There are, of course, plenty of studies about military pay and compensation.
The ones by the Government, as expected, tend to assert that military personnel are more than adequately compensated. These types of studies generally focus on total military compensation, which is quite a bit different than pay. One study by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the average Servicemember earns a total compensation package worth $99,000 (http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total-compensation.html). I suspect many of you share my doubts about the methodology used to make such calculations. I’m especially averse to data on “average” Servicemembers; it is unclear to me what an “average” Servicemember is, given the disparity in compensation between the newest E-1 and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially as I can’t find a description of what the Government characterizes as the “average” Servicemember (age, rank/grade, marital status, location, dependents, education level, etc, etc). If you want, though, you can use this calculator (http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx) to see how much the Government believes your total compensation package to be. For another example, see the Center for Naval Analysis’ report comparing military and civilian compensation (https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/2010/Comparing%20Military%20and%20Civilian%20Compensation%20Packages%20D0016569.A4.pdf).
On the other hand, entities interested in securing additional pay and benefits for military personnel, such as the various service and veteran’s associations, advocate for increasing compensation of military personnel. MOAA provides a good example at: http://www.moaa.org/Main_Menu/Take_Action/Top_Issues/Serving_in_Uniform/Compensation/SecDef_Warns_of_Pay_Cuts.html.
As James Fallows wrote in the January/February 2015 issue of The Atlantic, in his highly regarded article “The Tragedy of the American Military,” the military and military personnel have become something akin to a sacred cow. He asserts that the “American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously.” The perceived gap between civilians and the military is a topic covered at length, both in the news media, scholarly journals, and the blogosphere and other less formal fora (for examples, see http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG379.html, http://nation.time.com/2011/11/10/an-army-apart-the-widening-military-civilian-gap/, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=civil+military+gap&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=jcgSVaH3HYGBU9eWgfgG&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA ).
Some military personnel may have the tendency to perceive that part of the civil-military gap is a disparity in pay between civilians and military personnel. Frankly, this view has always confused me, as pay in both the Government (including in the military) and the civil sector is largely impacted by many of the same factors: education, skills, experience, and leadership.
I recently came across a New York Times piece (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0) that is useful in understanding how pay for military personnel stacks up against civilian income levels. The tool allows you to enter a given household income (pre-tax) and then provides comparison for how that income stacks up against the national average, as well as 344 different zones throughout the country. Give it a try; perhaps you’ll be as shocked as I was at where your income actually puts you in comparison to the rest of the U.S. population.
The chart I’ve attached shows what “percentage” various military grades “are,” in comparison to the rest of the country. For example, at the low-end of the scale, the chart shows that E-1s are in the bottom 17 percent, based on income; at the other end, four-star general/flag officers are in the top 6 percent.
Methodology.
For each grade, I used two pay levels, both from the 2015 pay table. The first level, shown in the red bars on the chart, is for base pay at a “normal” time in service for each grade. I determined a “normal” time in service myself (an E-2 at 1 year; an E-3 at 2 years; and E-4 at 4 years; and O-1 at 1 year, an O-3 at 6 years, etc, etc, etc). The second pay level, shown in blue bars on the chart, is for base pay at the Retention Control Point (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2014_03.pdf) for enlisted and non-commissioned officers and the Mandatory Retirement Date for officers (http://dopma-ropma.rand.org/retirement-for-years-of-service.html). (I’d note that I still really don’t understand the rules for the limits established by Level II of the Executive Schedule for O-7 through O-10.) I did include the ranking non-commissioned officers from each Service in the data, and this is shown in the chart as E9#. I’d note that I could not find and am not familiar with how warrant officers are managed as far as retention control points or mandatory retirement dates go. Thus, data for warrant officers is derived from only the “normal” time in service for each grade.
I then put the pay levels into the New York Times tool (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0) and recorded the given percentage based on the national average. A weakness in this methodology is that the New York Times tool uses data from 2011 or 2012, but for pay levels I used data from the 2015 pay table. I’d make an educated guess that this weakness probably skews the data a bit, perhaps by a couple percentage points either way. I’m comfortable with this, mostly as I haven’t found a better tool than the New York Times tool that quickly allows for comparison of income levels.
Finally, I ran two examples that include base pay and other entitlements. I used myself as the first example (O-4, 14 years), and used the data from the entitlements column of my most recent LES. On the chart, this example is annotated as O4*. Using base pay only, O4s are in the top 28 to top 25 percent, as compared to national income levels. Using an actual O4 as an example, including base pay and other entitlements on the LES, bumps O4s into the top 13 percent, representing a jump of 12 to 15 percent. For the second example, I used an E-6 with 12 years of service and no special pays, but BAH for Ft. Hood and BAS (for BAS and BAH: http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123873). This example is annotated as E6* on the chart. A normal E6, using base pay only, is in the bottom 39 to bottom 44 percent of income earners nationwide. Adding BAH for Ft. Hood and BAS bumps an E6 up by 15 to 20 percent, to 59 percent (or, rather, the top 41 percent).
Except for the O4* and E6* examples, I used only base pay in the data. Clearly, total military compensation includes much more than base pay, regardless of how hard the non-pay benefits are to quantify. As shown in the O4* and E6* examples, including only the entitlements shown on an LES (BAH, BAS, and the like) makes a substantial impact on income. Housing represents the largest part of this impact. As the O4* and E6* examples suggest, including LES entitlements bumps one up by something like 12 to 20 percent. I think it would be fair to include BAH/OHA/housing benefits in an assessment of military pay, and if anyone would like to extend this study to account for the thousands of BAH/OHA/housing benefit levels, feel free.
The take-away from the paragraph above is that the chart shows the absolute low-end of an assessment of military compensation, as it only (except for the O4* and E6* cases) considers base pay. Considering other entitlements would substantially impact the data, and would raise the percentage level of all grades by a substantial amount (probably in the range of 12 to 20 percent, with more of a bump for those at the lower end of the scale and a much smaller bump for those at the upper end of the scale).
I did briefly consider health care benefits, but decided adequate data was not readily available and it would just be too hard and time consuming to develop data for all grades in all locations (again, if someone would like to add to this, feel free). Some studies put the average health care benefit for military families at around $3,000 a year (https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/2010/Comparing%20Military%20and%20Civilian%20Compensation%20Packages%20D0016569.A4.pdf, page 44). While unrealistic (as military health care is part of the sacred cow mentioned above and will never change), if military health care was every disbanded and we were all required to sign up for coverage made possible by the Affordable Care Act, it would cost a married O-4 with no children $6,750 annually to enroll and a married E-6 with one child stationed at Ft. Hood $5,961 annually to enroll (you can run the calculations at http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/30/226456791/how-much-will-obamacare-cost-me-try-our-calculator). Based on this, it is clear that the military health care benefit is substantial. Running the numbers, even assessing the benefit at only $3,000 a year, adds five percentage points or so for those at the low end of the scale and one or two percentage points for those in the middle of the scale; $3,000 doesn’t make much of a difference for those at the upper end of the scale, though.
Poverty comparison.
The Government defines poverty as annual incomes below $11,770 (bottom 9%) for households with one person; $15,930 (bottom 14%) for two-person households; $20,090 (bottom 18%) for three-person households; and $24,250 (bottom 23%) for four-person households (and so on; for full data, see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm).
Considering only base pay, only married E1s and E2s with one or more children and married E3s and E4s with two or more children fall below Government defined poverty rates. And these E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s just barely fall below the poverty line, even when only considering base pay. Add in housing, health care, BAS, special pays, and these E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s no longer fall below the poverty line.
Population assessment.
At the end of January 2016, there were 1,307,786 U.S. active duty military Servicemembers (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp).
Per the data I’ve presented, all E1s through E7s, W1s, and O1s (and probably about half of O2s) have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom half of incomes nationwide. This group (E1-E7s, W1s, O1s and half of O2s) represents 82.6 percent of active duty Servicemembers.
All E1s and E2s have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom 20 percent of incomes nationwide.
All E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom 30 percent of incomes nationwide.
Conclusion.
Using only base pay to compare the income levels of active duty military personnel with nationwide income levels is a terrible way to compare compensation levels. Considering only base pay when considering income levels provides comparisons based on bad data.
If one considered only base pay, one can see why some argue that military personnel, especially junior enlisted, should be paid more. Acknowledging that the base pay incomes of 82.5 percent of military personnel puts them in the bottom 50 percent nationwide is tough.
If one considered base pay plus the entitlements that appear on one’s LES (housing, BAS, special pays, etc), it would be difficult to understand arguments calling for increased across-the-board military pay.
If one considered base pay plus entitlements that appear on one’s LES plus entitlements that do not appear on one’s LES (education, health care, family support systems, etc, etc), understanding arguments that call for increased across the board military pay becomes even more difficult to understand.
However, even if one ONLY CONSIDERS BASE PAY, military compensation compares really well to nationwide averages.
Personally, I’d be quite happy with more pay; why not? However, I’d assess that the current total compensation package is adequate across the board. I’d assess that the total compensation package is as good or better than what most military members could find in the civilian market. I’d assess that the total compensation package is logical, as it provides additional compensation for education (via special pays and increased rank/promotion for higher education levels), skills (again, via special pays), experience (time in service), and leadership (higher compensation levels for increased responsibility).
If you read all of this, thanks!
Even if one ONLY CONSIDERS BASE PAY, military compensation compares really well to nationwide averages.
Personally, I’d be quite happy with more pay; why not? But I’d assess that the total compensation package is both adequate and logical, as it provides relatively good pay and additional compensation for education (via special pays and increased rank/promotion for higher education levels), skills (again, via special pays), experience (time in service), and leadership (higher compensation levels for increased responsibility).
Search “pay” on Rallypoint, and you’ll see literally hundreds of questions and threads on the topic of military pay. In these questions and threads, and elsewhere (just search the internet and you’ll be inundated with articles about changes to military pay and compensation, for example), you’ll come across two general themes: 1) military personnel are under-compensated; and, the alternative, 2) military personnel are over-compensated.
There are, of course, plenty of studies about military pay and compensation.
The ones by the Government, as expected, tend to assert that military personnel are more than adequately compensated. These types of studies generally focus on total military compensation, which is quite a bit different than pay. One study by the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the average Servicemember earns a total compensation package worth $99,000 (http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/total-compensation.html). I suspect many of you share my doubts about the methodology used to make such calculations. I’m especially averse to data on “average” Servicemembers; it is unclear to me what an “average” Servicemember is, given the disparity in compensation between the newest E-1 and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially as I can’t find a description of what the Government characterizes as the “average” Servicemember (age, rank/grade, marital status, location, dependents, education level, etc, etc). If you want, though, you can use this calculator (http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx) to see how much the Government believes your total compensation package to be. For another example, see the Center for Naval Analysis’ report comparing military and civilian compensation (https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/2010/Comparing%20Military%20and%20Civilian%20Compensation%20Packages%20D0016569.A4.pdf).
On the other hand, entities interested in securing additional pay and benefits for military personnel, such as the various service and veteran’s associations, advocate for increasing compensation of military personnel. MOAA provides a good example at: http://www.moaa.org/Main_Menu/Take_Action/Top_Issues/Serving_in_Uniform/Compensation/SecDef_Warns_of_Pay_Cuts.html.
As James Fallows wrote in the January/February 2015 issue of The Atlantic, in his highly regarded article “The Tragedy of the American Military,” the military and military personnel have become something akin to a sacred cow. He asserts that the “American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously.” The perceived gap between civilians and the military is a topic covered at length, both in the news media, scholarly journals, and the blogosphere and other less formal fora (for examples, see http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG379.html, http://nation.time.com/2011/11/10/an-army-apart-the-widening-military-civilian-gap/, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=civil+military+gap&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=jcgSVaH3HYGBU9eWgfgG&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA ).
Some military personnel may have the tendency to perceive that part of the civil-military gap is a disparity in pay between civilians and military personnel. Frankly, this view has always confused me, as pay in both the Government (including in the military) and the civil sector is largely impacted by many of the same factors: education, skills, experience, and leadership.
I recently came across a New York Times piece (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0) that is useful in understanding how pay for military personnel stacks up against civilian income levels. The tool allows you to enter a given household income (pre-tax) and then provides comparison for how that income stacks up against the national average, as well as 344 different zones throughout the country. Give it a try; perhaps you’ll be as shocked as I was at where your income actually puts you in comparison to the rest of the U.S. population.
The chart I’ve attached shows what “percentage” various military grades “are,” in comparison to the rest of the country. For example, at the low-end of the scale, the chart shows that E-1s are in the bottom 17 percent, based on income; at the other end, four-star general/flag officers are in the top 6 percent.
Methodology.
For each grade, I used two pay levels, both from the 2015 pay table. The first level, shown in the red bars on the chart, is for base pay at a “normal” time in service for each grade. I determined a “normal” time in service myself (an E-2 at 1 year; an E-3 at 2 years; and E-4 at 4 years; and O-1 at 1 year, an O-3 at 6 years, etc, etc, etc). The second pay level, shown in blue bars on the chart, is for base pay at the Retention Control Point (http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/ad2014_03.pdf) for enlisted and non-commissioned officers and the Mandatory Retirement Date for officers (http://dopma-ropma.rand.org/retirement-for-years-of-service.html). (I’d note that I still really don’t understand the rules for the limits established by Level II of the Executive Schedule for O-7 through O-10.) I did include the ranking non-commissioned officers from each Service in the data, and this is shown in the chart as E9#. I’d note that I could not find and am not familiar with how warrant officers are managed as far as retention control points or mandatory retirement dates go. Thus, data for warrant officers is derived from only the “normal” time in service for each grade.
I then put the pay levels into the New York Times tool (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?_r=0) and recorded the given percentage based on the national average. A weakness in this methodology is that the New York Times tool uses data from 2011 or 2012, but for pay levels I used data from the 2015 pay table. I’d make an educated guess that this weakness probably skews the data a bit, perhaps by a couple percentage points either way. I’m comfortable with this, mostly as I haven’t found a better tool than the New York Times tool that quickly allows for comparison of income levels.
Finally, I ran two examples that include base pay and other entitlements. I used myself as the first example (O-4, 14 years), and used the data from the entitlements column of my most recent LES. On the chart, this example is annotated as O4*. Using base pay only, O4s are in the top 28 to top 25 percent, as compared to national income levels. Using an actual O4 as an example, including base pay and other entitlements on the LES, bumps O4s into the top 13 percent, representing a jump of 12 to 15 percent. For the second example, I used an E-6 with 12 years of service and no special pays, but BAH for Ft. Hood and BAS (for BAS and BAH: http://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/bahCalc.cfm, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123873). This example is annotated as E6* on the chart. A normal E6, using base pay only, is in the bottom 39 to bottom 44 percent of income earners nationwide. Adding BAH for Ft. Hood and BAS bumps an E6 up by 15 to 20 percent, to 59 percent (or, rather, the top 41 percent).
Except for the O4* and E6* examples, I used only base pay in the data. Clearly, total military compensation includes much more than base pay, regardless of how hard the non-pay benefits are to quantify. As shown in the O4* and E6* examples, including only the entitlements shown on an LES (BAH, BAS, and the like) makes a substantial impact on income. Housing represents the largest part of this impact. As the O4* and E6* examples suggest, including LES entitlements bumps one up by something like 12 to 20 percent. I think it would be fair to include BAH/OHA/housing benefits in an assessment of military pay, and if anyone would like to extend this study to account for the thousands of BAH/OHA/housing benefit levels, feel free.
The take-away from the paragraph above is that the chart shows the absolute low-end of an assessment of military compensation, as it only (except for the O4* and E6* cases) considers base pay. Considering other entitlements would substantially impact the data, and would raise the percentage level of all grades by a substantial amount (probably in the range of 12 to 20 percent, with more of a bump for those at the lower end of the scale and a much smaller bump for those at the upper end of the scale).
I did briefly consider health care benefits, but decided adequate data was not readily available and it would just be too hard and time consuming to develop data for all grades in all locations (again, if someone would like to add to this, feel free). Some studies put the average health care benefit for military families at around $3,000 a year (https://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/news/2010/Comparing%20Military%20and%20Civilian%20Compensation%20Packages%20D0016569.A4.pdf, page 44). While unrealistic (as military health care is part of the sacred cow mentioned above and will never change), if military health care was every disbanded and we were all required to sign up for coverage made possible by the Affordable Care Act, it would cost a married O-4 with no children $6,750 annually to enroll and a married E-6 with one child stationed at Ft. Hood $5,961 annually to enroll (you can run the calculations at http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/30/226456791/how-much-will-obamacare-cost-me-try-our-calculator). Based on this, it is clear that the military health care benefit is substantial. Running the numbers, even assessing the benefit at only $3,000 a year, adds five percentage points or so for those at the low end of the scale and one or two percentage points for those in the middle of the scale; $3,000 doesn’t make much of a difference for those at the upper end of the scale, though.
Poverty comparison.
The Government defines poverty as annual incomes below $11,770 (bottom 9%) for households with one person; $15,930 (bottom 14%) for two-person households; $20,090 (bottom 18%) for three-person households; and $24,250 (bottom 23%) for four-person households (and so on; for full data, see http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm).
Considering only base pay, only married E1s and E2s with one or more children and married E3s and E4s with two or more children fall below Government defined poverty rates. And these E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s just barely fall below the poverty line, even when only considering base pay. Add in housing, health care, BAS, special pays, and these E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s no longer fall below the poverty line.
Population assessment.
At the end of January 2016, there were 1,307,786 U.S. active duty military Servicemembers (https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp).
Per the data I’ve presented, all E1s through E7s, W1s, and O1s (and probably about half of O2s) have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom half of incomes nationwide. This group (E1-E7s, W1s, O1s and half of O2s) represents 82.6 percent of active duty Servicemembers.
All E1s and E2s have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom 20 percent of incomes nationwide.
All E1s, E2s, E3s, and E4s have incomes (base pay only) that place them in the bottom 30 percent of incomes nationwide.
Conclusion.
Using only base pay to compare the income levels of active duty military personnel with nationwide income levels is a terrible way to compare compensation levels. Considering only base pay when considering income levels provides comparisons based on bad data.
If one considered only base pay, one can see why some argue that military personnel, especially junior enlisted, should be paid more. Acknowledging that the base pay incomes of 82.5 percent of military personnel puts them in the bottom 50 percent nationwide is tough.
If one considered base pay plus the entitlements that appear on one’s LES (housing, BAS, special pays, etc), it would be difficult to understand arguments calling for increased across-the-board military pay.
If one considered base pay plus entitlements that appear on one’s LES plus entitlements that do not appear on one’s LES (education, health care, family support systems, etc, etc), understanding arguments that call for increased across the board military pay becomes even more difficult to understand.
However, even if one ONLY CONSIDERS BASE PAY, military compensation compares really well to nationwide averages.
Personally, I’d be quite happy with more pay; why not? However, I’d assess that the current total compensation package is adequate across the board. I’d assess that the total compensation package is as good or better than what most military members could find in the civilian market. I’d assess that the total compensation package is logical, as it provides additional compensation for education (via special pays and increased rank/promotion for higher education levels), skills (again, via special pays), experience (time in service), and leadership (higher compensation levels for increased responsibility).
If you read all of this, thanks!
Pay Cuts
Fair Pay
Compensation
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
10
10
0
Wow! That hurt my head...
I believe that we are paid fairly in the military. I believe we do a poor job of educating our Soldiers on financial responsibility. Failing to educate our Soldiers, in my opinion, causes the myth that we are underpaid. Soldiers tend to do a pretty good job of living beyond their means, especially the majority of young single Soldiers. It always amazes me to find those couple of Soldiers in the barracks that have been in the Army for a couple years and don't even have a car, more than a couple sets of civilian clothes, etc. They blow their entire check at the club in one weekend and then complain they don't have any money.
Some married Soldiers do the same thing or spend too much money on cars, clothes, etc. instead of saving. It is a pretty big shock when a Soldier gets out of the Army and realizes they have to pay much more for insurance, rent, education, emergency medical care, etc.
I believe that we are paid fairly in the military. I believe we do a poor job of educating our Soldiers on financial responsibility. Failing to educate our Soldiers, in my opinion, causes the myth that we are underpaid. Soldiers tend to do a pretty good job of living beyond their means, especially the majority of young single Soldiers. It always amazes me to find those couple of Soldiers in the barracks that have been in the Army for a couple years and don't even have a car, more than a couple sets of civilian clothes, etc. They blow their entire check at the club in one weekend and then complain they don't have any money.
Some married Soldiers do the same thing or spend too much money on cars, clothes, etc. instead of saving. It is a pretty big shock when a Soldier gets out of the Army and realizes they have to pay much more for insurance, rent, education, emergency medical care, etc.
(10)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CSM (Join to see) I agree--we could do better educating the force on financial responsibility and financial management. Your point that poor financial education may drive the myth that the force is under-compensated is solid: how can we expect the force to assess proper compensation if we don't provide financial education? Part of financial responsibility is recognizing that choices have consequences, and your observations about folks blowing their paychecks in one weekend at the club, buying expensive cars/clothes/etc represent trends we've all seen. Thanks for the perspectives....
(1)
(0)
LTC Robert McKenna
There are a lot of factors that need to be considered beyond looking at a nationwide chart.
1st notice that the chart only looks at base pay and doesn't include the housing allowance (which is equal to around 20% more compensation).
2nd, the military is a pretty selective employer. If I just look at the various Academy graduates, they come from the top 10-20% of their population group (this is likely true of the vast majority of officers also, so you would expect their compensation to fall at the 80-90 percentile of individuals with similar age experience and education.
3rd. You need to look at the opportunity cost once a service member is serving beyond his/her ADSO. His/her relationship to the general population is but one data point, the other point is what are their peers who exited the force earning? For example, I attended a top 25 business school where I received and MBA, I compare my earnings to what that peer group makes (I was in the bottom 30% BTW while on active duty) as opposed to the general population of late 40 year olds with graduate degrees.
1st notice that the chart only looks at base pay and doesn't include the housing allowance (which is equal to around 20% more compensation).
2nd, the military is a pretty selective employer. If I just look at the various Academy graduates, they come from the top 10-20% of their population group (this is likely true of the vast majority of officers also, so you would expect their compensation to fall at the 80-90 percentile of individuals with similar age experience and education.
3rd. You need to look at the opportunity cost once a service member is serving beyond his/her ADSO. His/her relationship to the general population is but one data point, the other point is what are their peers who exited the force earning? For example, I attended a top 25 business school where I received and MBA, I compare my earnings to what that peer group makes (I was in the bottom 30% BTW while on active duty) as opposed to the general population of late 40 year olds with graduate degrees.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Should we really be in the business of educating our troops in financial management and fiscal responsibility? What will happen with this? Another check the block annual requirement? I do not think you can un-teach whatever values system people are brought up in by just a class every quarter. If that was true, we wouldn't have EO and SHARP problems in the force. Sometimes the cause and effect method has to come into play.
We also have to face the fact that we have 18-19 year-olds given access to regular money and are provided with a place to stay and food to eat without any associated bills (unless they live off-post). They may not see the light until they get booted out of the barracks and by that time they have a loan for an SUV they can't afford and rims they don't need.
We also have to face the fact that we have 18-19 year-olds given access to regular money and are provided with a place to stay and food to eat without any associated bills (unless they live off-post). They may not see the light until they get booted out of the barracks and by that time they have a loan for an SUV they can't afford and rims they don't need.
(0)
(0)
1SG Jason Smith
I agree I was adequately compensated while on active duty. I was always told you can't get rich in the military. This I feel is a myth. If you plan on making the Military a career and have a good financial plan and be disciplined in your budget you can make a very comfortable retirement for yourself and family.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
We are adequately compensated. Yes deployments are tough, but don't kid yourself - when not deployed, life is good (and you get compensated more while deployed). In Garrison, I find Soldiers in the barracks during the day, NCOs taking off at 1000 to run errands and returning to work at 1330, Officers and CSMs taking off at 1500 because they came in early...you don't necessarily have these liberties in a civilian job. I am not saying Garrison life is easy, but many military folks who complain have never worked in a real civilian job so they have nothing to compare their experiences too. We have it good (not great or perfect, but who does!) - we get 3 and 4 day weekends every month, early release Thursdays (lower enlisted usually), vacation days, plus free passes. Others complain about retirement - at least we get a pension. Sure we don't get fund matching in a 401K, but look at all of the articles on 401K fees and mismanagement, a pension is a rarity this day in age and ours is a good one (if you stay for 20 or more). If we're honest, the military can be tough, but there are a lot of good things folks forget or don't realize are actually pretty great when compared to the alternative. Sure, investment bankers and McKinsey consultants make a crap ton of money, but they also work VERY long hours. We are a volunteer force, so if you think the grass I greener, you can always try your hand at another profession, but be careful what you ask for!
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) The first part of your response reminds me of a conversation I had as a first lieutenant with the company fire support officer, a fellow LT, who pointed out that it would be unlikely that one would ever find a civilian job that compensated one as well as the military for the amount and level of work actually performed. We hadn't yet deployed, so I'm sure the perspective changes with deployment, but as we'd only been in garrison at that point (early release, free passes, long weekends a couple times a month as we were overseas, etc, etc). Still sort of valid, although the deployment aspect changes things substantially---although, as you note, we're compensated extra while deployed.
(0)
(0)
PFC Kyle Klofstad
MAJ Jordan Swain, I'm not sure which companies, battalions, or so forth you refer to with that degree of leniency, and I have only been in two units myself so my view may be a little scewed, but I have rarely witnessed that degree of laxity in anything other than a rear detachment company. Even in garrison, my units ensured that there was plenty of training to be done, and when there wasn't then there was training to be preparing for. With the exception of the occasional slowing of our OP tempo, it sometimes felt as if we did just as much in garrison as we did deployed, but with out the life threatening elements. With that in mind, I don't believe the compensation pay for being deployed adequately covers the drastic increase in the hazards involved. I don't know if it's any different for officers, but I got $250 a month hazardous duty pay during my deployment to Afghanistan, and in the rare chance that as an individual I was involved in handling any of the demolition components for a route clearance patrol there would be another $200 explosive hazards pay. I never once got the explosive hazards pay, and after some of the missions my fellow engineers conducted, I can't say that $250/month is enough to consider it adequate compensation. Yes, joining one of our country's armed forces is a voluntary profession, but all professions are voluntary. No one makes you become an engineer, or a burger flipper, or a union worker. The difference is we know we may be called upon to put our lives down, and I've not found a civilian profession yet that can say the same. I apologize for my long winded speech, I didn't realize how long it was till I went back to edit it.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
First off - I was a Fire Support Officer... That's a whole separate issue... "Fist'ers" aren't the best comparison when it comes down to time at work... Garrison life is good - especially if you're turning wrenches with your Soldiers in the motor pool - days fly by... Deployments are brutal, but it's when we really got to do the jobs we were training to do. I left AD 18 months ago and was lucky enough to walk into a CONUS ctr job making 30% more than I was making on AD (base+BAH+BAS)... The insurance isn't as good - but I do get to choose what Dr I go to. So, to answer the question, yes, I was paid fairly while on AD. The Army gave me the skills I needed to land a great job when I got out (ORSA, Leadership, T&E experience... Etc.) The experience and training I received in the Army alone are worth the more than than anything! If you have a plan and look forward 3-5 years, you can set yourself up to leave the service with unmatched skills that are easily worth 6 figures in the civilian world! Trust me, if this old, broke artilleryman can do it - anyone can! Look into functional areas - Aquisitions Corps, ORSA, Strat Intel, Cyber, EW, Telecommunications Systems Eng... If you don't know what I'm talking about... Google it and start calling the branches/functional area branch managers... YOU are your best career manager!
Just my 2 cents!
Just my 2 cents!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
While I am a veteran now, I do believe I made a fair living while serving on Active Duty. I spent half of my enlistment as a single Marine, and half married. We also had our first Son in NY while serving- absolutely free. (Two years later, our second son was quite expensive). I have had a couple different career moves since AD, and now, while it looks good on paper, I feel more constricted financially than I did when I was in. Those benefits and resources really do add up!
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sgt Ryan Bowman Good points. As I mentioned, I didn't include health care benefits in the chart---but these are substantial. Appreciate your contribution!
(1)
(0)
Sgt Ryan Bowman
Hello Sir, Thank you for the response, and for posting the question! I have also seen quite a few posts with folks giving the advice to go in to business for themselves. While I agree, and think that small business is probably one of the most exciting and rewarding things a veteran can do, I would also like to make a few points on the pros and cons of self employment.
1. For me, the steady pay of the military made budgeting very easy. Self employment (in just about any business) will be great during some months, and... Well, won't in others. It has taken my family a few years to wrap our heads around this, as the industry we are in can be quite volatile..
2. The healthcare piece. This has probably been the biggest shocker. Small business healthcare plans are nothing short of outrageous. One thing most people won't understand about providing healthcare is that, as the employer, you will be paying a substantial amount of their benefits. We have a relatively high deductible and still pay 65% of our employee's plans. Last year, two simple appointments (EKG and a Stress Test) ran us up a $4,000 bill (personally, not the business). The next month, I had an upper GI scope and to have a very quick and simple procedure done and we had another couple thousand.. So- unless you can maintain a very high amount of discipline and not spend what you feel like you've earned.. The medical benefits of the military really are a huge factor.
3. Support. It may not seem like it while on active duty, but there are a plethora of support tools available within the military environment. If you are stuck financially, there are people to talk to about that.. Legal concerns, we have help for that too.. Chances are, if you name a concern, the military has something set aside to help. Good luck finding that sort of advice or support on the outside... At least without paying for it.
4. Don't forget about those taxes!! For AD military- especially those who are married and collecting any sort of BAH- it's hard to imagine the amount of taxes a small business is responsible for. Don't forget about payroll taxes- yes.. You will pay taxes just to pay your employees.
I'm sure I could go on for quite a lengthy post, but in a nutshell, the military pay is definitely more convenient. Now, on the other hand, it can also be restricting.. Especially if you are extremely self driven and feel limited within. The freedom that self employment can offer (if done successfully) is something that really is exclusive to self employment. But no matter how comfortable you become, there is always an inherent risk involved.
1. For me, the steady pay of the military made budgeting very easy. Self employment (in just about any business) will be great during some months, and... Well, won't in others. It has taken my family a few years to wrap our heads around this, as the industry we are in can be quite volatile..
2. The healthcare piece. This has probably been the biggest shocker. Small business healthcare plans are nothing short of outrageous. One thing most people won't understand about providing healthcare is that, as the employer, you will be paying a substantial amount of their benefits. We have a relatively high deductible and still pay 65% of our employee's plans. Last year, two simple appointments (EKG and a Stress Test) ran us up a $4,000 bill (personally, not the business). The next month, I had an upper GI scope and to have a very quick and simple procedure done and we had another couple thousand.. So- unless you can maintain a very high amount of discipline and not spend what you feel like you've earned.. The medical benefits of the military really are a huge factor.
3. Support. It may not seem like it while on active duty, but there are a plethora of support tools available within the military environment. If you are stuck financially, there are people to talk to about that.. Legal concerns, we have help for that too.. Chances are, if you name a concern, the military has something set aside to help. Good luck finding that sort of advice or support on the outside... At least without paying for it.
4. Don't forget about those taxes!! For AD military- especially those who are married and collecting any sort of BAH- it's hard to imagine the amount of taxes a small business is responsible for. Don't forget about payroll taxes- yes.. You will pay taxes just to pay your employees.
I'm sure I could go on for quite a lengthy post, but in a nutshell, the military pay is definitely more convenient. Now, on the other hand, it can also be restricting.. Especially if you are extremely self driven and feel limited within. The freedom that self employment can offer (if done successfully) is something that really is exclusive to self employment. But no matter how comfortable you become, there is always an inherent risk involved.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sgt Ryan Bowman Great perspective, especially points 2 and 3. Thanks for sharing. I know from my time in the Army that the non-pay benefits clearly have been more valuable than pay.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google