Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted. Officers have accepted comparably low pay for the history of the U.S. armed services. Cited reasons include prestige, networking opportunities, and as a distant third, sense of duty to nation.
Citation heavily needed. When I was a junior non-com, my civilian colleagues made way more than I did, even including the (quite nice) military benefits, even when ignoring the fact that 80 hour workweeks are commonplace on deployment.
For your individual experience, consider the years of experience and education of your contractor / DA civilian counterparts. Furthermore, consider your CZTE and danger pay. It's possible that your individual experience might have you earning less in pro-rated annual income during deployments. Does that also apply when you were in garrison? Did it account for your free occupational training (that you were paid to attend)? Tricare? Tuition assistance?
The fact you're even posting on the orange site to begin with implies you received some expensive training that would ordinarily require a university degree.
1. https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/...
That is quite a leap.
Yeah, it's an interesting footnote in my biography, but didn't have much relevance to my career arc after I got out.
Let's look at an E-9 Master Chief, the highest enlisted rank. Their basic pay is $9267 a month[0]. If they're in for 30 years, and get the High-36 retirement plan[1], then they get 75% of that — $6950/mo — afterward. That's certainly not chump change.
However, the kind of person with the drive, leadership skills, political savvy, and work ethic to become a Master Chief would rise to least a director or VP, or a senior VP, at a civilian company. So yes, their military retirement's quite good, but at a substantial opportunity cost.
To be super clear, my main argument is that the military should earn more, especially for the sheer amount of work they put in. They earn it.
I don't deny that servicemembers earn their pay. There is a premium to accepting the upheaval of a cross-country move every 3 years. But to assert that the average E-9 is equivalent to a director or VP position is incorrect. People of that rank are told in TAP to accept positions of perceived lower authority. Those who are successful in going from E-8 or E-9 to Director or VP roles are extraordinarily rare.
Private Dumbfuck will get paid more on a per-year basis than the average Walmart worker, esp. when you take in to account medical coverage and training benefits in service and out (e.g. GI Bill)
on a hourly basis... maybe not -- they can work Pvt Df 24/7 an that will water down the per-hour takehome. But said Private will have the pride of wearing a uniform and being able to say they did their service, while no one will flog their experience of being a Wal-Mart drone.
The draft is for
(a) massively unpopular wars that the public won't consent to (b) existential wars that require huge manpower.
It's for cannon fodder; not at all for "smart", "qualified" people.
The Selective service System is required by law to maintain readiness to activate either of two types of draft: a "cannon fodder" draft of males 18-25, or a "Health Care Personnel Delivery System" for men and women up to age 45 in 57 occupations: https://medicaldraft.info
Congress could decide to expand the latter to other non-medical occupations as a broader "special skills" draft.
a doctor or nurse who doesn't want to be there will half ass it and people will die.
if you want a functional, quality organization that could expand you pay for decent talent now, knowing that it may get watered down later
Traditionally the US believes arming the people (2nd Amendment) means we're a stronger nation. Having bases globally makes us a stronger nation. Having everybody registered to the draft makes us a stronger nation.
why hasn't it?
The obvious difference is that you cannot quit.
It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation. Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now. There is a much larger issue that can't be solved by throwing a few more shekels at disillusioned mercenaries.
You'll need to pay people not to defect, desert or try to get their family asylum somewhere that isn't a warzone. That, or you force them through conscription.
There's a lot worth fighting for, it's just not the particular people we've been fighting.
I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago, none of the latter US wars was about thing you mention, everyone serving in following wars were not soldiers but mercenaries.
Btw. why you need army to defend your own family? Also your family is more likely to be hurt by your fellow citizen than some foreign soldier.
A staggering number of people enlisted or re-enlisted after a break in service due to 9/11 and patriotic ideas. (... And then more than half ended up getting sent to Iraq.)
Because the proles don't deserve it, that might give them ideas and they'll force you to fight before they give you a fair deal
And then we could follow the predominant feminist opinion and make the draft illegal entirely and disband the military except in times of extreme need. Our people need universal healthcare not air to ground missiles.
The military budget would be better served by being entirely redirected to those who have been disabled in our military through our foolish actions.
Maybe if we made a true overture of peace, others would love us instead of always arriving with missiles. With some neurodivergent people at the top, we could handle this well.