Your 2009 pay raise

[CommunityEditor]

The Bush administration is seeking a 3.4 percent raise for all service members next year — the minimum that could be requested under federal law and an amount that advocacy groups are already saying is too small.

The proposed raise, part of the White House’s 2009 defense budget request to be unveiled today, would equal the average growth in private-sector wages in 2007, as measured by the Department of Labor’s Employment Cost Index, or ECI. As such, it would be the minimum raise allowable under current law.

Military pay is tied by law to the ECI, which tracks quarterly changes in compensation for most private-sector and all state and local government employees.

Here are some examples of what a 3.4 percent pay increase would mean:

* An E-4 with more than three years of service now earns $1,949.10 per month; that would rise to $2,015.40 per month on Jan. 1 under the Pentagon plan.

* An E-7 with more than 10 years of service now earns $3,263.10 per month; a 3.4 percent raise would turn that into $3,374.10 per month.

* An O-3 with more than six years of service now earns $4,763.10 per month; that officer would earn $4,925.10 per month with a 3.4 percent pay increase.

The proposed 2009 raise is almost equal to the 3.5 percent increase for this year that was finalized Jan. 28, when Bush signed the revised 2008 Defense Authorization Act.

However, by merely matching private-sector wage growth, the proposed 2009 military raise would not continue to close a so-called “pay gap” that some say exists between military and civilian compensation.

The gap has supposedly existed since 1982, the second year of two massive pay increases under President Reagan that marked the last time rough parity is thought to have existed between military and civilian wages. The gap peaked at 13.5 percent in 1999, but in this decade, a series of raises slightly above the annual increase in the ECI has narrowed the gap considerably.

For 2008, the administration originally proposed a pay raise of 3 percent, which would have matched the ECI increase for 2006. The Pentagon argued that five consecutive years of robust increases had effectively eliminated any remaining gap.

But Congress eventually decided on a 3.5 percent raise for this year, in a nod to the idea that a gap still exists. According to military advocacy groups, the 2008 raise that took effect a few weeks ago has reduced the pay gap to about 3.4 percent.

Some advocates are already preparing to urge Congress to boost the administration’s proposed raise for 2009.

For example, the Military Coalition, an umbrella group of more than 30 military and veterans associations, said it hopes Congress will rally around a 3.9 percent pay raise, a half-percentage point above the Bush request, which would continue to slowly close the pay gap.

According to the 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation, completed in 2002, overall regular military compensation — basic pay, housing and food allowances, and the tax benefits of those tax-free allowances — should be at the 70th percentile of comparable earnings of civilians with some college education. In other words, troops generally should be paid better than 70 percent of their civilian peers.

That figure was chosen as the target because the QRMC found that based on historical data, the military did not have recruiting or retention problems when pay was at that level.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a study in 2007 that found that in 2006, total cash compensation and the tax benefits of tax-free allowances for the average enlisted member exceeded the 75th percentile.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...raise_080204w/
2009 Basic Pay (0-20 years): http://www.militarytimes.com/project...ed/basic/0_20/
2009 Basic Pay (0-20 years): http://www.militarytimes.com/project...d/basic/22_40/
2009 Drill Pay (0-20 years): http://www.militarytimes.com/project...ed/drill/0_20/
2009 Drill Pay (22-40 years): http://www.militarytimes.com/project...d/basic/22_40/

I feel that the pay raise would be a great thing that all services members deserve, however I have two areas of concern; one why is a Captain with 4 yrs in getting paid more than a GySgt (E-7) with ten years in? The other concern I have is why a civilian who deploys with a military unit to give them "technical advice" gets paid upwards of six figures and the biggest perk a service member gets is not have to pay taxes for that time frame of being deployed (not even the whole year)? It seems to me that we are forgetting the backbone of all services are the enlisted personnel. By no means am I saying that officers and civilians don't work hard and don't deserve what they are getting, I just feel that we (enlisted) are still thought of as "expendable" and others are thought of as "invaluable".

SSgt
USMC

[GARDNERET]

what about the warrant officer . why are we alway left out . I have over 36 years in service . 20 years as enlisted and over 16 years as a warrant officer. We do the work of a officer but dont get the pay

CW4 Edward T. Gardner

[joker528]

This is a heck of a lot better than the basic pay for an E-1 in basic training in March 1955 when the monthly pay was $44.00 - no this isn't a mistake, When I made E-3, the pay was $56.00 per month.

Fred Miller, PH1, USN Retired (55-73)

I am going to play devil's advocate here for a second. I am a military wife - I see my husband's LES every month and I pay the bills off of what hits the bank account every month. Technically speaking ... the military makes about the SAME as a civilian, if not more. When you take into account the basic pay + BAH + BAS, and any other special pay a soldier gets (Jump Pay for Airborne, for example), that is a lot of money. My husband is an E-4 in the Army with just a little over 2 years time in service ... between his basic pay, BAH, and BAS - he GROSSES just a few dollars over $3000 a month ... average that out ... he is grossing about $750 a week. That comes out to $18.75 per hour for 40 hours. (And yes, while he is in garrison - he does only work 40 hours a week.) How many civilians out in the "real world" can say that they gross around $750 a week? I have a lot of friends and family, and I can say that maybe only 3 of them make more than that. Everyone else I know only WISHES they could make that much! So, I really do not see what everyone is crying in their beer about. Do I think the military gets paid enough to compensate everything they do? No way! They deserve more! But when you compare their earnings to the "real world" - they make about the same and I don't see where anyone is getting an unfair shake.

Originally Posted by joker528

This is a heck of a lot better than the basic pay for an E-1 in basic training in March 1955 when the monthly pay was $44.00 - no this isn't a mistake, When I made E-3, the pay was $56.00 per month.

Fred Miller, PH1, USN Retired (55-73)

I hear ya, Joker! My dad was in the Army in the mid to late 60s. He and my mom got married in March of 67, my sister was born Nov 67 and my brother was born Nov 68. By the time my brother was born, he was an E3 and only making $150 a month. They were trying to support a family of 4, two of which were diaper babies, on $150 a month. I never complain about my husband's military pay when I think about what my mom and dad did on what they had - or didn't have, I should say.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am going to play devil's advocate here for a second. I am a military wife - I see my husband's LES every month and I pay the bills off of what hits the bank account every month. Technically speaking ... the military makes about the SAME as a civilian, if not more. When you take into account the basic pay + BAH + BAS, and any other special pay a soldier gets (Jump Pay for Airborne, for example), that is a lot of money. My husband is an E-4 in the Army with just a little over 2 years time in service ... between his basic pay, BAH, and BAS - he GROSSES just a few dollars over $3000 a month ... average that out ... he is grossing about $750 a week. That comes out to $18.75 per hour for 40 hours. (And yes, while he is in garrison - he does only work 40 hours a week.) How many civilians out in the "real world" can say that they gross around $750 a week? I have a lot of friends and family, and I can say that maybe only 3 of them make more than that. Everyone else I know only WISHES they could make that much! So, I really do not see what everyone is crying in their beer about. Do I think the military gets paid enough to compensate everything they do? No way! They deserve more! But when you compare their earnings to the "real world" - they make about the same and I don't see where anyone is getting an unfair shake.

I've been working 11-13 hours a day, without a day off (including the weekends), for the past three weeks. I will continue on this schedule for at least another 2 weeks. My paycheck will be the exact same as if I were working 9-5, five days a week.

Comparing civilian pay to military pay is not as simple as you make it.

[mfjdspence]

I would just love for someone to tell me who my peer is in the private sector. Is it that Haliburton employee pulling in over $100K tax free or it is the guy at FedEx moving boxes? The way I see it is that I keep on getting benefits that I can never 100% use all the time and a whole lot of talk goes into it by our Congressional leaders, but nothing goes to my paycheck other than an extra $100 roughly annually. My ideal situation would be to keep the Medical and the Education benefits and the rest of the "supposed" bennefits that I get come back to me in direct compensation which ought to increase my paycheck over 25%.

I guess I should be more greatful for that extra 3.4%, but it is hard to see the silver lining when we are definetly much more educated than our civilian counter parts, definetly in more danger, away from our families way more, and seriously can't deposit in the bank the annual "Well if you took all your indirect compensation and added it up..." statements. With those indirects comeing back to me, I would be better able to choose my future and the future of my family after 20 years of their sacraficing vs. having the usual choices of 1) Moving out of the country to a place like the Philippines, 2) Getting work with one of the numerous contractors who love highly skilled labor the military discharges so they can charge even more to the government's funds for relatively low cost contracts that can be change ordered to death by someone who really knows how to work the system ie. military retiree, or 3) Being so sick of having been taken advantage of I end up working for Home Depot just to be able to have nothing extra expected of me.(Please note that this is not everyone, just stereotypes!)

[Measure Man]

Originally Posted by Shrike

I've been working 11-13 hours a day, without a day off (including the weekends), for the past three weeks. I will continue on this schedule for at least another 2 weeks. My paycheck will be the exact same as if I were working 9-5, five days a week.

Comparing civilian pay to military pay is not as simple as you make it.

A lot of civilians work salary also...try being a manager at almost any retail business...9-5 it is not. Upwards of 60-70 hrs per week is not uncommon.

nevertheless, not many civilian jobs could compare to the sacrifices of the military...there is no doubt about that...the ones that do, must pay very high (six-figure contractors in Iraq).

I think the only way to compare is to find out what YOU can make as a civilian...not someone who does what you do in the military because quite frankly...to do a first sergeant's job as a civilian generally requires a Master's Degree, which most first sergeants don't have...to be a flight chief, or squadron superintendent civilian equivalent generally requires more education than the average flight chief or squadron superintendent...

In other words...would a civilian company pay you to do what you are doing in the AF...and how much would they pay you?

There are some skills undoubtedly that can make more money as civilians...and many that can not. A staff sergeant running the dining hall can probably not beat his compensation package running a small restaurant as a civilian (running it, not owning it).

A staff sergeant EOD guy can easily beat his pay as a civilian cop bomb specialist.

I don't know what you do...but if you are working 12s for 5 weeks straight without a day off...at home station...something is broken. Someone in your leadership chain needs to learn how to say "no." I would never work someone that much...and have never had to...not at home station. 12s...yes...for 5 weeks without a day off...never saw where that was necessary. Sometimes you just gotta take a weekend off and say "sir, this is the best we can do."

Now, back on your head!

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Measure Man

A lot of civilians work salary also...try being a manager at almost any retail business...9-5 it is not. Upwards of 60-70 hrs per week is not uncommon.

nevertheless, not many civilian jobs could compare to the sacrifices of the military...there is no doubt about that...the ones that do, must pay very high (six-figure contractors in Iraq).

I think the only way to compare is to find out what YOU can make as a civilian...not someone who does what you do in the military because quite frankly...to do a first sergeant's job as a civilian generally requires a Master's Degree, which most first sergeants don't have...to be a flight chief, or squadron superintendent civilian equivalent generally requires more education than the average flight chief or squadron superintendent...

In other words...would a civilian company pay you to do what you are doing in the AF...and how much would they pay you?

There are some skills undoubtedly that can make more money as civilians...and many that can not. A staff sergeant running the dining hall can probably not beat his compensation package running a small restaurant as a civilian (running it, not owning it).

A staff sergeant EOD guy can easily beat his pay as a civilian cop bomb specialist.

I don't know what you do...but if you are working 12s for 5 weeks straight without a day off...at home station...something is broken. Someone in your leadership chain needs to learn how to say "no." I would never work someone that much...and have never had to...not at home station. 12s...yes...for 5 weeks without a day off...never saw where that was necessary. Sometimes you just gotta take a weekend off and say "sir, this is the best we can do."

Now, back on your head!

Just to clarify - I'm not complaining about my pay; once you add in the COLA, I'm pretty well compensated. I could easily make $15-$40,000 a year more as a civilian, depending on what part of the country I wanted to live in. But I enjoy my job and the USAF, and I'm not in it for the money, so it doesn't bother me.

My response was to show the poster that you can't just say Sgt X makes Y dollars in the military; Mr. W makes Z dollars as a civilian. If Y>=Z, then no servicemember should complain about their pay.