vincentpa wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:vincentpa wrote:SpinnerMan wrote:I'm sure you work with a lot of retired military. I know that I have. I don't think there is a single one of them that did not make less in the military than they did in the private sector. I'm sure the retired colonels that I have worked with earned as much or more than they did in the military. My experience is that the pay scale is still at or below the average professional and that is before you factor in any of the other things that are true that SH mentioned.vincentpa wrote:The military should never be a place where the pay is above the pay scale of the average Joe or professional.
Really? And why do they make more now in the private sector? They make more in the private sector mostly doing work unrelated or completely different than what they did in the military. They got the job after their careers in the military precisely because they were in the military as officers; they were connected.
Your comparison is farcical. You cannot state that these men would've achieved the same success in the private sector that they did in the military. Nice try.
If you don't know what the currect military pay scale is, look it up. You might be surprised. I sure was.
I was just responding to your example of the colonels. The same is true of retired NCOs and nearly all other ex-military that I have I have worked with and am familiar with and it wasn't because they were connected. People that come out of the military are reliable, disciplined, and skilled. These are a significant premium to their value as an employee. I don't know how you would do an apples to apples comparison, but in my experience, they all make more in the private sector. The only ones that aren't making that much did not make much in the military and did their minimum commitment and got out.
BTW, I looked at the pay scales and I just don't see a problem.
Now like anything else, they should pay no more and no less than they have to to get the number of people with the talent they need. In my experience, they pay less than these same people could make in the private sector. They are allowed to give an intelligence test and do a better job of weeding out the morons than their counterpart in the private sector. For the same job, they are on average better. Sure an 18 that just enlisted as a private is still a dumbass kid, but on average is smarter than the 18 year old in the general population.
When I was 17, a buddy of mine was in the Navy and convinced us to go to the recruiter. Sure, why not? I went with another friend. They gave us a short version of the ASVAB. My friend was told that if he studied hard enough, they MIGHT be able to get him into the Navy.
Apples to apples, I just don't see them being over paid. Maybe there are some exceptions and maybe things have changed quite a bit with combat being the norm and not some theoretical possibility when I was that age. Back then, the Navy offered my a crapload of money to join and bothered me all the freaking time. I did just a tad better than my friend on the test The reason I did not join the military is precisely the reason you suggest. It was purely to get and education and training. Had I turned 18 shortly after 9/11/01, I'm pretty certain I would have chosen a different course. And I do know that if I was not blind as a bat without my contacts, I'd be flying jets today, but there was no way they were going to let me do that with uncorrected vision that was about 20/600
How do you know if they are getting paid what they should or more appropriately what the market will bear? You understand economics. What seems to be reasonable may not be. The military has been getting pay raises every year based on feel-good legislation, not retention. Cut the raises and we will be able to see what the real wages should be.
How do you know? You BELIEVE that raises should have been less. And maybe you are right. That is not what my experience suggests to me.
There are so many things changing simultaneously, I fully concede that I do not know. I never said that I knew. Just that my experience suggests that your initial statement is not consistent with my experience and I'd be surprised if it was true of yours as well given what you do and what you and those you work with probably make doing it.
vincentpa wrote:The military is far overpaid in comparison to our historical norm and compared to every other nation.
Our military is a highly skilled force compared to our historical norm - so it would be expected to pay more to get the higher IQ recruits that are needed to perform higher skilled positions.
Compared to other nations we are far more skilled on average. Same thing.
Did the growth rate in the level of skill stagnate during that period? I think not, and suspect it continued to grow and therefore the pay would expect to continue to grow.vincentpa wrote: They were getting pay raises when everyone elses salaries were either stagnant or falling. They should get a pay freeze.
Also over this time period, the cost of skilled labor, especially highly skilled labor grow while low and unskilled labor stagnated or declined. Given a work force that is more skilled on average than the national average, you would have to compare it to a more representative skill mix.
Maybe they are overpaid, but it would be very difficult to figure that out. Your argument seems to be based on what the politicians said.
Why was it feel good? Because of what dumbass politicians said? Because you studied the issue? Even retention is more complex in a highly-skilled work force. The difference between the best and the worst is far greater than the same for unskilled labor, so if you are retaining the bottom and losing the top, that is a problem. The politicians are stupid. The career military is not and they have dedicated and risked their life for their country. To presume they do these things for feel good reasons is also not consistent with my experience.vincentpa wrote:The military has been getting pay raises every year based on feel-good legislation, not retention.