« In the mail: We Were One | Main | The Death Squads »
November 22, 2006
Why not raise military pay?
Tigerhawk has an interesting post which excerpts a report from Strategic Forecasting. StratFor makes this argument with regard to the draft:
We do not expect to be taken seriously on this proposal, but we will make it anyway: There is no inherent reason why enlistment -- or conscription -- should be targeted toward those in late adolescence. And there is no reason why the rich themselves, rather than the children of the rich, should not go to war. Or, for that matter, why older people with established skills should not be drawn into the military. That happened in World War II, and it could happen now. The military's stove-pipe approach to military careers, and the fact that it allows almost no lateral movement into service for 40- to 60-year-olds, is irrational. Even if we exclude combat arms, other specialties could be well-served by such a method -- which also would reduce the need for viciously expensive contractors.Traditionally, the draft has fallen on those who were barely adults, who had not yet had a chance to live, who were the least equipped to fight a complex war. Other age groups were safe. Rangel is talking about drafting the children of the rich. It would be much more interesting, if the United States were to introduce the draft, to impose it in a different way, on entirely different age groups. Let the young get on with starting their lives. Let those who have really benefited from society, who have already lived, ante up.
Commentary
Here's an idea: why not dramatically raise the pay of military personnel? Now there's some social engineering I could go for, and would be worth it even if it failed. Military payscales as they stand are structured such that pay rises dramatically during the first 10 years or so of service and then plateaus, rising much more slowly after that. This is for two reasons: The upper limits of pay are capped. No military officer can make more than a Congressman. The other reason is that at the ten year point, they figure you've drank the koolaid and are probably going to stick around for another 10, so you can get your nice military pension.
So why not say that there is no upper limit for all military officers, with the exception of those of flag rank? The rationale would be that those in the lower ranks can receive ever higher pay that matches their abilities. Seriously, what's the market value of a battalion commander? Certainly more than the $90k or so per year he makes. This is someone who can plan and execute complicated maneuvers involving hundreds of people. I'd put him at something like $200k.
But, treat promotion to flag rank as something similar to getting a federal judgeship or such. You take a pay cut out of service. That way, those of flag rank, who are most likely to be advising Congress, won't be making more than them.
Just my $.02.
Some would argue this would be far too expensive. But I bet it would be far less expensive than a draft, which would not be cheap. If the goal is to get all parts of society more interested in the military, why not sweeten the pot a little?
Posted by Chester at November 22, 2006 12:03 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1025
Comments
I'm pretty sure money is not what motivates people to serve.
You can live pretty damn well on $90k- and get a pension after 20 years, nobody in the private sector gets that any more.
Now, pay for the grunts is something else entirely- but I figure officers are already doing pretty well.
Posted by: rosignol at November 22, 2006 2:14 AM
The other thing you'll see with increased pay is a higher retention rate. I'd be willing to bet you a shiny nickel that a fairly high percentage of people that don't reenlist is because they're in debt.
Reinstating the draft won't fix that. You'll end up with too much turnover.
Increasing their pay so it's at least in the same ballpark as the open market, well that'd do quite a bit for retention, IMHO.
Posted by: phin at November 22, 2006 9:07 AM
You're on, Phin. Show me something from a reputable source (i.e., not Indymedia, al-Jazeera, or the New York Times) that provides evidence supporting that claim, and I'll send you a nickel.
A shiny one, even.
Posted by: rosignol at November 22, 2006 11:10 AM
Rosignol,
I'm also pretty sure (in fact, positive) that money is not what motivates people to serve. But I'm also sure that it doesn't hurt.
Posted by: Chester at November 22, 2006 12:25 PM
Haven't had a chance too do much research, other than a quick google look-see.
This article doesn't say much about retention, but it does say we have a problem with troops being in debt and to a point their security clearance is revoked so they can't ship out.
Granted a few isolated incidents and it could be chalked up to poor money management. But this appears to be a growing epidemic.
If we can't keep our enlisted soldier paid well enough so they don't have to head to a "pay-day advance" loan shark how can we expect them to stay, unless it's as Chester said, out of loyalty?
Posted by: phin at November 22, 2006 4:35 PM
For the pay, it never crossed my mind.
I was in the Air Force during the Korean War, but went to Europe with a Wing during the last days of the occupation in Germany. I wanted to re-inlist in Germany but my parents were gravely ill and I came home. When they passed away I tried to re-inlist but was turned down. When Desert Storm started and an old guy was accepted I tried again, and turned down, too old. When 9/11 happened I thought about it again.
Whether in peace or in war, the military is the best place for young people to learn how to work together as a team. There is no *ME*, only *WE* -- as it should be. With a modern, technical military they get job training and other skills not found in corporate jobs where there is only *I* and *THEM*, dog-eat-dog.
My greatest regret is that I could not serve my country longer.
Posted by: JimM at November 22, 2006 11:08 PM
If we can't keep our enlisted soldier paid well enough so they don't have to head to a "pay-day advance" loan shark how can we expect them to stay, unless it's as Chester said, out of loyalty?
Depends. What are they spending the money they get from the loanshark on? Necessities or luxuries?
Posted by: rosignol at November 23, 2006 2:41 AM
I'm also pretty sure (in fact, positive) that money is not what motivates people to serve. But I'm also sure that it doesn't hurt.
You can say the same of any other job.
What I am more curious about is how the private security outfits are able to pay their employees so much more while providing a level of security sufficient for governments to subcontract to them and still make a decent profit. How much of the US military budget is overhead, how much is supporting that global logistics system, how much is R&D, how much is procurement of Shiny! new kit, how much is payroll, how much is pensions, and how much is 'other'?
The US spends more on it's military than anyone else, by a huge margin. It also has a military that's more capable than anyone else's, also by a huge margin. But I have to wonder WTF is up when deploying 10% of our total manpower to Iraq is straining the system. Wasn't the doctrine post-WW2 to maintain a force capable of fighting two regional conflicts simultaneously?
Something isn't adding up. My gut feeling is that Clinton drew the military down too far, but I am having a lot of trouble understanding why Bush didn't immediately start building back up. What's going on?
Posted by: rosignol at November 23, 2006 2:58 AM