Civilian pay vs. Your pay: Report says there is no gap -- what's your view?

[CommunityEditor]

A new congressional report appears to undercut efforts in Congress to approve bigger military pay raises by concluding that the “gap” between military and civilian pay, which lawmakers are trying to close, no longer exists.

Read the full story here:
'Pay gap' report may affect raises

The report says there is no gap -- what's your view?

[Measure Man]

This is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

I agree that there isn't much of a pay gap, if any. By that I mean, most people that separate or get out of the military with their same skill set, make the same or less compensation (including benefits) when they become civilians.

However, very few civilian jobs ask it's employees to deploy, put their lives on the line, move frequently, or work under field conditions. So, more is asked of military people than most civilians. If looked at in that respect, then there is a pay gap. May pay gap isn't the word...but a "what is asked of you" gap.

Congress should take a hard look at itself before voting down pay raises for our troops. Just recently Congress approved a $4,400 per year raise for themselves and their approval rating is below the Mendoza line. Ask the American public if we deserve a similar raise to what Congress just appropriated for themselves and see what the response is.

[Measure Man]

Well...except Congress, or at least a push in Congress, is trying to get us a bigger raise that the President is opposing.

Again, I think the report is accurate...there is no pay gap from what a military person is compensated compared to someone of equal skill/education is compensated in the civilian sector. The difference is in what we are asked to do...and that deserves extra compensation.

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

A new congressional report appears to undercut efforts in Congress to approve bigger military pay raises by concluding that the “gap” between military and civilian pay, which lawmakers are trying to close, no longer exists.

I think if one reads the entire (CBO) report, and has spent anytime in and out of the Military, my opinion is that soldiers are more then compensated for their work in the Voluntary Military. For years I have been following the Enlistments and Reenlistment stats, and the upsizing of the Military, and I feel that if the compensation wasn't enough, then the Military wouldn't be making the quota.

"After reenlistment rates declined in the late 1990s, lawmakers and DoD began increasing cash and noncash elements of military compensation. In 2000, for example, they authorized that basic pay for service members would rise 0.5 percentage points faster than wages in the civilian sector through 2006. Housing allowances and other compensation were also increased. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, regular military compensation adjusted for inflation—basic pay, allowances for food and housing, and the tax advantage that arises because those allowances are not subject to federal income tax—grew by 21 percent for the active-duty enlisted force as a whole between 2000 and 2006."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8...mpensation.pdf

"Under the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill, military pay increases for January 2008 through January 2011 would be 0.5 percentage points larger than increases in average private-sector raises, as measured by the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index.

This would result in a Jan. 1, 2008, pay increase of 3.5 percent for all ranks, 0.5 percentage points more than the Bush administration had requested. The Senate version of the defense policy bill also proposes a 3.5 percent raise in 2008, but does not mandate continuing bigger pay raises through 2011."

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0...rypay_070629w/

I agree that every troop deserves every cent they can get. I know when I was enlisted I always felt I was not getting paid enough. Unfortunately when I retired I found out the ugly truth. Many enlisted people are over paid for the skills sets they have...an E7 with 20 years will need about 65k a year to make up for the 75% of his salary he will lose when he retires. Belive me when I tell you there are not a lot of those jobs around. I got lucky and found a very nice GS-12 position, but most of us are not so lucky and end up taking jobs at 10-15 bucks per hour after we retire, because many do not have the education and updated business skill sets that employers are looking for--at least employers that are offering 65K. My advice, get an education, volunteer for all major projects and learn to live on half of you "full" active duty salary.

CJF
USAF, E7 Retired

[CABRYANT41234]

Originally Posted by CajnCapt

Congress should take a hard look at itself before voting down pay raises for our troops. Just recently Congress approved a $4,400 per year raise for themselves and their approval rating is below the Mendoza line. Ask the American public if we deserve a similar raise to what Congress just appropriated for themselves and see what the response is.

I think this has little to do with what a Congressmen makes and what a soldier makes. Heck, we could compare CEO's while we are at it to soldiers also. In my opinion, the only comparisons that could be made between our soldiers, are other soldiers payscale in other countries.

I truly think there is a pay gap. As an AEGIS "FC1", I've spoken with many defense contractors that would love my services. All have a base starting salary $25,000 more than what I make now. If you add in the 401k matching that the navy has it is a HUGE GAP. So to me the 3.5% increase is far below what I'm worth in the outside world. If it wasn't for my love of this country I would have jumped ship a while ago.

I think that the key to this whole issue is in the last line of this aritcle:

"Service members generally are younger and less educated than the average workers measured by the index, the report says, which makes such comparison inaccurate."

I retired two years ago from the Navy as an ETC(SS) - the nuclear kind, and can tell you that the "average workers" in my plant couldn't pass the "easy" physical and mental requirements that I had to meet to be in the Submarine Navy. I agree that I did not feel adequately compensated when on active duty, but since retirement have found that I did just make it. These men and women are American Heros and deserve more money than we can give them and their jobs are in no way comparable to ANY civilian job.

They should get their raises and if the DOD budget needs raised, raise it. I'll chip in a few hundred more dollars a year.

I think pay is pretty close to the civilian world, given the education many have. That being said, with all the sacrifices~deployments, danger, constant moving and the spouses career disrupted, compensation could be improved. Civilians can be at a job for 20 years and move to another company for even more pay, military retire and can't get half what they are used to getting. And for the record, I looked at the articles chart of cash inflow for the different ranks. I do our taxes and our inflow is 2 paygrades below what the chart claims we get. The second part of the equation is civilians' spouses can hold steady jobs and climb the career ladder over 20 years. Military spouses do not have that luxury. RN's, teachers, receptionists~I know all ranges who took big paycuts when moving with the servicemember, only to move yet again and repeat the cycle. Where does that factor in on their comparative chart?