WE MAKE TO MUCH ACCORDING TO THE POST
SPOOK
> > This was on the op-ed page of the Washington Post
> > today. It seems we're all
> > making too much
> > money...
> >
> >
> > Our GIs Earn Enough
> > By Cindy Williams
> >
> > Wednesday, January 12, 2000; Page A19
> > This month every member of the U.S. military is
> > getting a 4.8 percent pay
> > raise, the biggest inflation boost the military has
> > seen in 18 years. The
> > ink on the paychecks is not yet dry, but already
> > some politicians and
> > lobbyists are clamoring for bigger raises in future
> > years. Just this week
> > the Center for Strategic and International Studies
> > (CSIS) reported that most
> > military people feel they are not paid fairly.
> > Proponents of additional hefty raises argue that
> > even after this month's
> > raise, the military suffers a 13 percent "pay gap"
> > relative to the private
> > sector. But in fact there is no pay gap worthy of
> > the name; our armed forces
> > are already paid very well compared with the rest of
> > America. It makes no
> > sense to pour money into outsized pay raises. The 25
> > percent pay hike that
> > some proponents are backing would cost taxpayers
> > more than $12 billion a
> > year. The "gap" of 13 percent does not measure the
> > relative levels of
> > military and civilian pay. Rather, it is supposed to
> > reflect the differences
> > between military and private sector raises since
> > 1982. The calculation is
> > set up to make the differences seem as large as
> > possible. For example, it
> > includes the growth in what the military calls
> > "basic pay" but not the
> > growth in allowances for food and housing. And it
> > compares the military and
> > civilian raises over separate time periods. Just
> > correcting for those two
> > problems cuts the result in half. Comparing raises
> > and calling it a pay gap
> > makes no sense anyway. If you get a 5 percent raise
> > this year and your
> > neighbor gets 10 percent, it hardly means your pay
> > has fallen behind your
> > neighbor's: If you earned twice as much as your
> > neighbor to start with, you
> > still earn more than he does. Wage
> > data show that our troops typically earn more money
> > than 75 percent of
> > civilians with similar levels of education and
> > experience. For example,
> > after four months in the Army, an 18-year-old
> > private earns about $21,000 a
> > year in pay and allowances. In addition, he or she
> > gets a
> > tax advantage worth about $800, because some of the
> > allowances are not
> > taxed. That's not bad for a person entering the work
> > force with a high
> > school diploma. By way of comparison, an automotive
> > mechanic starting out
> > with a diploma from a strong vocational high school
> > might earn $14,000 a
> > year. A broadcast technician or communications
> > equipment mechanic might earn
> > $20,000 to start but typically needs a year or two
> > of technical collegeAt
> > the higher end of enlisted service, a master
> > sergeant with 20 years in the
> > Marine Corps typically earns more than $50,000 a
> > year--better than a senior
> > municipal firefighter or a police officer in a
> > supervisory position, and
> > comparable to a chief engineer in a medium-sized
> > broadcast market. Among the
> > officers, a 22-year-old fresh out of college earns
> > about $34,000 a year as
> > an ensign in the Navy--about the same as the average
> > starting pay of an
> > accountant, mathematician or a geologist with a
> > bachelor's degree. A colonel
> > with 26 years makes more than $108,000. In addition
> > to these basic salaries,
> > there are cash bonuses for officers and enlisted
> > personnel with special
> > skills. There are also fringe benefits: four weeks
> > of paid vacation,
> > comprehensive health care, discount groceries,
> > tuition assistance during
> > military service and as much as $50,000 for
> > college afterward. Enlistment and reenlistment
> > bonuses can run to $20,000
> > and more. Advocates of additional big raises
> > maintain that military people
> > should be paid more because they are more highly
> > qualified--they exceed
> > national averages in verbal and math skills and
> > percentage of high school
> > graduations. But while these facts may help explain
> > why the majority of our
> > soldiers already earn more money than 75 percent of
> > Americans, they don't
> > explain why their future raises should exceed
> > civilian wage growth by a
> > large amount.
> > Some advocates contend that we need a large boost in
> > military pay because
> > the services are finding it difficult to attract and
> > keep the people they
> > need. But recruiting can be improved much less
> > expensively by pumping up
> > advertising, adding recruiters and better focusing
> > their efforts and
> > expanding enlistment bonuses and college programs.
> > Pay is not necessarily
> > the most important factor in a person's decision to
> > stay in or leave the
> > military. We might get better results by reducing
> > the frequency of
> > deployments, relaxing antiquated rules and improving
> > working conditions.
> > Proponents of higher pay also note that military
> > people put up with
> > hardships such as long hours and family separations.
> > Yet many civilian
> > occupations make similar demands, and firefighters,
> > police and emergency
> > medical personnel, like many in the military, risk
> > their lives on the job.
> > The report that CSIS released this week points to
> > problems of morale and
> > dissatisfaction across the military. But those
> > problems are not all about
> > pay. According to CSIS, they reflect concerns about
> > training and leadership,
> > the demands of frequent overseas deployments and
> > unmet expectations for a
> > challenging and satisfying military lifestyle.
> > Higher pay will not fix these
> > problems.
> >
> > The writer, a senior research fellow at the
> > Massachusetts Institute of
> > Technology, was assistant director for national
> > security in the
> > Congressional Budget Office from 1994 to 1997.
> >
> >
> > ** If anyone chooses to e-mail a response to this
> > woman about her article
> > you can at will...@washpost.com or
> > web...@washpost.com Perhaps we should
> > tell her how military life truly is and not how she
> > perceives it to be.
> >
> >
oldsalt
underpaid are overestimating how much they could
realistically make in a civilian job. A recruit just out
of boot camp has more discretionary income than most hard-
working civilians. His food and lodging are provided free,
his medical care, etc. Whatever cash he gets is basically
spending money. Most civilians wish they had that much
left after they paid their bills! Can't support a family
as lavishly as you would like to? Lower enlisted ranks
really have no business being married. Their attention at
that point in their lives should be on learning their
profession and advancing their careers. When they make E-5
is as soon as they should think of dividing their attention
with a family. Just my opinion, but I have seen both sides
of the coin.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dk
However at the mid to senior levels the pay comparable to the position is
not as comparable to the civilian sector. The comparison among high school
or college graduates is fair however, no comparison is offered against the
pay of a 26yr colonel. A colonel has the equivalent of advanced degrees,
responsibility for perhaps thousands of subordinates and multi-million
dollar accounts. An equal paralell could be drawn among the senior enlisted
ranks. I am not saying that this situation is justification, it is simply
the truth. Where a greater problem exists is among junior enlisted with
families. I agree with oldsalt that they shouldn't be married at that
age/stage in their carrers but, the fact of the matter is that many enlist
already married,and the efforts of senior leadership to attempt to
discourage marriage has met with harsh critism.
oldsalt
peacetime military served in a caretaker role. When war
broke out, the reserves and new inductees came in and got
the job done. That has all changed. Today, at least as
concerns the Navy, it takes two years to make a new man
even marginally useful. If a real war ever occurs, with a
creditable opponent, what we have onboard at the time is
going to have to do. But we will NEVER get the level of
funding necessary. In a society that would rather have
butter than guns, so to speak, and has no real
understanding of their own history (most young high school
graduates can't tell you what century WW2 was fought in)
that just isn't going to happen. So how best to spend what
we do get? Is throwing it into higher pay for first-
termers actually going to solve retention problems? Some
people just won't stand the six month deployments and the
weekend duty days, the necessarily spartan living quarters
aboard ship, all the other annoyances of the lifestyle. Is
an extra two or three hundred dollars a month going to make
that much difference to them? Or would those who don't
like the lifestyle get out anyway? I don't think the
answer to retention problems, if there even is an answer,
is going to be that simple.
Rolf T. Kappe
Richard Tree wrote in message
> Incidentally -- if the pay was so good, why is first term
>retention so poor?
Because 90% of the recruiting effort says "Earn money for
college" and people are doing this?
--Rolf
Richard Tree
that is the reason? No way - far from it.
Richard
"Rolf T. Kappe" <rol...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:389a8...@oracle.zianet.com...
Trischaa
women,
Soldiers, Sailors, Airman,
Marines..are giving their lives defending this country, so that
the rest of the country is free? I
think that they should be paid more!, as a veteran myself, I am
fully aware of what the pay is, and
I also know that a great deal of the soldiers I knew had to also
rely on Food stamps and other
Government assistance. Think about that for a while. The ones
defending the country so the rest
can be free, deserve to make more money than those that elect
not to.
Interim Books
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Incidentally -- if the pay was so good, why is first term
>retention so poor?
Among other things unrealistic expectations.
Derek
Interim Books | 322 Pacific Ave | Bremerton, WA | 98377
fair...@hurricane.net | (360) 377-4343 | http://www.interimbooks.com
L'acrobat
Interim Books <fair...@hurricane.net> wrote in message
>
> Among other things unrealistic expectations.
I've not seen any US recruiting stuff - what are they telling them they will
be doing?
Are the recruiters raising unrealistic expectations?
oldsalt
promised him an education in the Navy, and here he was
scrubbing pots. His petty officer said, "See? You are
smarter already." I don't know. Retention of good people
was a perpetual problem during my time. The military is
necessarily a demanding and comparatively austere
lifestyle, and will always suffer by comparison with
civilian life in some respects. It might be a mistake to
try to compete in those areas where we have an inherent
disadvantage, perhaps instead, emphasis should be placed on
those areas where civilian employment can't compete with
US. Service, adventure, travel, personal growth and
satisfaction...
Richard Tree
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 01:57:15 GMT, "Richard Tree"
> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Incidentally -- if the pay was so good, why is first term
> >retention so poor?
>
>
>
I would agree that a certain amount of expectations are developed by the
individual that are unrealistic. A recruiter has a pretty tough job and
blame shouldn't be affixed to them because of this. Recruiters are better
trained than previously and are more aware of the ethical issues that they
find themselves surrounded by. Most folks that leave boot camp are pumped
up, and for the most part, everyone wants to succeed at their first ship or
boat.
I am certain, therefore, that attrition is high because we don't care for
our people like we should. Quality of Life (QOL) is only part of the
solution (The big QOL four: Pay, Retirement, Housing, and Retirement). The
rest of the solution comes from the First Class Petty Officers through the
CMC. Until we can recognize that we are competing for the young Sailor's
services our attrition will be high. Pay helps but isn't the only answer;
but we certainly don't make too much.
Rich
oldsalt
consulting fees. Probably wouldn't be driving a '71
Oldsmobile...Granted, we have to accept what society offers
us as first-term enlistees. But if we got more
reenlistments, the number of new first-termers needed would
drop significantly. And that is in our power to control, I
would think. After four years, a sailor's opinion of the
Navy as a career choice is going to be what we have made
it, isn't it? It would be interesting to see a survey of
why those who choose to get out do so, and why those who
choose to stay in do so. My intuition tells me his
decision doesn't usually hinge on getting or not getting a
couple hundreds bucks more in pay. Perhaps it is more the
way he perceives himself as being valued or not valued. I
remember from my active duty days...do your job perfectly a
thousand times and you never hear a word of appreciation,
screw it up once and you are a worthless sack of
excrement. Or perhaps that has changed since I got out?
L'acrobat
oldsalt <tamolina...@juno.com.invalid> wrote in message
> It might be a mistake to
> try to compete in those areas where we have an inherent
> disadvantage, perhaps instead, emphasis should be placed on
> those areas where civilian employment can't compete with
> US. Service, adventure, travel, personal growth and
> satisfaction...
Quite possibly, but if the recruiters are talking up pay and conditions and
the service is not delivering, then that can't help retention.
The problem is what do you do if the recruiters give a fair picture of
military life and enlistment rates drop?
You have to change something, be it the amount of time away from home, pay,
benefits - but what and how much?
Arguing that it's about self sacrifice, pride, etc can't help (in the above
situation) - you need to recruit from the society you have, not the one you
wished you have.
Presley H. Cannady
Professor Sapolsky, Director of MIT SSP. She's married
to Prof. Barry Posen--a damned good teacher (IMHO after
taking US General Purpose Forces under him) and an
engaging academic with field experience in Washington
and Europe. She's a very nice lady, and I'll tell you
she'd probably read responses to this article and
maybe write a friendly answer in turn. In fact, it
was a conversation I had with Dr. Williams that turned
my interest towards defense budget planning specifically
and federal budgetting in general.
Prez
Interim Books
<richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Interim Books" <fair...@hurricane.net> wrote in message
>news:389c782c...@hurricane.ispnews.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Feb 2000 01:57:15 GMT, "Richard Tree"
>> <richar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Incidentally -- if the pay was so good, why is first term
>> >retention so poor?
>>
>> Among other things unrealistic expectations.
>>
>> Derek
>>
>
>I would agree that a certain amount of expectations are developed by the
>individual that are unrealistic. A recruiter has a pretty tough job and
>blame shouldn't be affixed to them because of this. Recruiters are better
>trained than previously and are more aware of the ethical issues that they
>find themselves surrounded by. Most folks that leave boot camp are pumped
>up, and for the most part, everyone wants to succeed at their first ship or
>boat.
>
I think one of the biggest problems is that nobody expects to 'serve
his time in the trenches' anymore. The perception is that you finish
school and jump right into a cool job.
Derek L.
Kerryn Offord
oldsalt wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> It would be interesting to see a survey of
> why those who choose to get out do so, and why those who
> choose to stay in do so.
This is a problem with exit polls. They only question the people
leaving. Also it would be a problem accurately accessing (finding the
right way to ask the right questions) why personnel stay with the
military.
> My intuition tells me his
> decision doesn't usually hinge on getting or not getting a
> couple hundreds bucks more in pay. Perhaps it is more the
> way he perceives himself as being valued or not valued.
My intuition agrees.
I
> remember from my active duty days...do your job perfectly a
> thousand times and you never hear a word of appreciation,
> screw it up once and you are a worthless sack of
> excrement. Or perhaps that has changed since I got out?
THis is one aspect that the training of (male) managers to manage
females in the workforce that may have an effect. The books suggest that
females like to have their achievements/work acknowledged, while males
have typically felt that their pay check sufficiently acknowledges their
work. Also, female managers, because they appreciate acknowledgement of
a job well done for themselves, can be expected to voice their
appreciation of good performance by subordinates. So maybe things are
changing.
Clint Steed
"oldsalt" <tamolina...@juno.com.invalid> wrote in message
> If I had an answer I would be pulling some pretty big
> consulting fees. Probably wouldn't be driving a '71
> Oldsmobile...Granted, we have to accept what society offers
> us as first-term enlistees. But if we got more
> reenlistments, the number of new first-termers needed would
> drop significantly. And that is in our power to control, I
> would think. After four years, a sailor's opinion of the
> Navy as a career choice is going to be what we have made
> it, isn't it?
I completely agree - we can make a major difference here - if we take the
time to!
> It would be interesting to see a survey of
> why those who choose to get out do so, and why those who
> choose to stay in do so. My intuition tells me his
> decision doesn't usually hinge on getting or not getting a
> couple hundreds bucks more in pay. Perhaps it is more the
> way he perceives himself as being valued or not valued. I
> remember from my active duty days...do your job perfectly a
> thousand times and you never hear a word of appreciation,
> screw it up once and you are a worthless sack of
> excrement. Or perhaps that has changed since I got out?
The more we change, the more we stay the same! We have a lot of enlisted and
JO's that get get because they know they don't have to take it. They just
don't understand that it could be the same on the other side of the fence
where they "think" the grass is greener on the other side.
Within the last year senior leadership has finally started to understand
that reduced deployments, more pay, more schools are only part of the
retention effort. As usual we've tried to build on the the extrinsic
motivators and still haven't concentrated enough on the intrinsic motivating
factors.
What we do daily to care of Sailors makes a "MAJOR" difference in the
decision to stay or get out!
Clint