Military Compensation Values Tends to be Higher Than Those of Civilians

Everyone knows that if you want to get rich, you join the military....

(LOL!)http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvaxsi_what-can-the-us-army-do-for-you_fun

Military compensation always touches a chord with many people and is subject to passionate debate from both sides of the aisle. In my opinion, civilian and military compensation should never be compared side by side. There are too many variables to consider that are not tangible. When compared on paper, there seems to be a valid argument that military compensation (at least at the mid to senior officer level) is somewhat comparable to similar civilian compensation. However, as has been stated numerous other times, civilians work a very typical and predictable work schedule with an extremely low risk of death. Most civilian jobs do not impact a family the same as a military job does. But those of us who serve, do not do so with the intent of becoming wealthy. We do it because of the drive within us to serve a greater glory, to serve our country and to preserve a better way of life for our future generations. We are trying to make the world a better place than what we found it. I'm not advocating that military should be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (even though we are worth it!), but I am stating that we need to stop comparing what the military receives to what the civilian sector receives and use that as justification to reign in our benefits. We are not superior to the rest of our countrymen but since it is such a small percentage that serves to defend, I do believe we should be compensated in ways that are greater than the average citizen. If not in actual monetary benefits, then our facilities should be of the highest caliber, our equipment should be the very best, and families should be afforded the best healthcare. Just my two cents...

So, what are the losses for serving due to being forced to move, and unable to build equity in the same house, the impact to the spouse's career, the inability to quit and take another, higher paying job, or the costs of keeping a household/storage unit, car, and caretaking of any children or pets if a single service member deploys?

There are some advantages, but there are definite down sides as well.

I seriously doubt this to be accurate. With the exception of perhaps Flag/General officers whose pay has been frozen because of large raises during the last decade, military pay pales in comparison to what people make on the outside.

Yes, we have our pension (always under attack) and our health care (also always under attack) along with Housing allowance (just cut), hazard pay, sea pay, etc., but still - name another job where you go to work on Monday (January 1 at 0700) and come home on Friday (June 30 the following year at 1700)? You can't because there isn't any such job.

When you factor in the fact that we have much higher rates of physical injuries, medical problems and mental illness than the general public, the high rates of divorce, suicide, etc, no - we don't get paid nearly enough to make it worth while.

I seriously doubt anyone joins the military because of the pay - yes it's better than unemployment, but so is any job. We do it for a variety of reasons, and many of those things are intangible.

When you look at, say an IT professional on the outside, vs what an IT pro makes in the military, it's not even close - you get a lot more money for much more reasonable hours in the civilian world; likewise every convertible skill.

The only place where you are better off financially in the military is if you have a skill which doesn't transfer well to a civilian job. But even there, if you're motivated, you can find a way to make a new career for yourself.

It is such a bad argument -- work hours, job place safety and inherent dangers and as mentioned by Col Michael Grubbs , in the civilian world you can always say no if it is not in your contract -- that it is best to continue to salute and serve.

As 1SG (Join to see) points it, why do we serve? It is for the compensation? If so, then maybe it was a bad decision. We are best not to defend the "undefendable" (i.e. the argument about the value of our pay compared to civilian compensation), because those that haven't served will never acknowledge this is the proverbial apple to oranges comparison.

Yes, they are much different than civilian compensation packages...and of course civilian compensation packages do not have to account for contractual obligations or risk of life and limb at the will of Congress and the White House. The more I am thinking about this the more I am changing my mind and thinking it really is worse than I thought.

When the trash man or carpenter has to worry about IED’s while doing their regular job then I’ll sgree that retirement rates should be equalized!

Some vets and I set up a veterans transition course that our company, Cardinal Health, now sponsors. Over the past couple years, we have given the course to a couple hundred vets. I'm not an expert and this is anecdotal: military comp has come a long way and is actually an impediment for a lot of transitioning veterans. When I retired in 1999, my total "comp," including pay, housing, etc., was in the $45k a year range after 20 years. So when I was looking for a job, I was able to get one that exceeded my pay at the time.

Fast-forward to the present day, an E-7 over 20 is making, I've heard, in the range of $70-$80K all in. I've seen officers with much higher and I've seen E-5 Sergeants in the $50K+ range. Many have built their lifestyles up around that comp and are looking for similar comp in the civilian world, but can't find jobs paying like that since many vets are having a hard time transferring their skills to the civilian world.

Given the risks, it's appropriate that our military is compensated so well. However, folks really need to think before getting out of the military because in many cases, you will be starting over career-wise.

I'd like to see the sources for this, I doubt it factors in any overtime or holiday pays.

They also work 2-3 times more per week. I averaged 90 hours/week for 6 years straight, which means I was working for about $3.50/hr when minimum wage was $4.25. Compensation is more? Bullshit. Then figure in federal and state laws for overtime, that means my pay was closer to $2.50/hr.