[Aboutplants]

I still don’t understand why, if they are having trouble with recruitment, they simply won’t raise the pay to entice more recruits? We have a seemingly unlimited budget for bombs but god forbid you pay for smart, qualified people willing to actually do the work. It is as simple as that and not anymore complicated

[linkregister]

This selective service policy change is unrelated to any prospective or ongoing military operations.

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.

[kstrauser]

> Enlisted personnel typically out-earn civilian counterparts when tax-free allowances are accounted.

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.

[bryanlarsen]

Did you calculate pension benefits? That military pension should be worth millions since you can start earning it young in life and it's based on your highest pay during the career.

[kstrauser]

It ought to be worth millions, given that you work your tail off, for significant less pay, and get that pay instead of the civilian 401(k) you could have.

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.

[0] https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts

[1] https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/

[linkregister]

This is an absurd comparison. You neglect to include BAH or other tax-free allowances; your figure significantly deflates total compensation. Command Sergeants Major comparing themselves to VP of Human Resources is a meme in veteran circles; as in, those who do it fail miserably to get hired when applying to these positions. They are not comparable.

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.

[linkregister]

The DoD publishes an annual schedule comparing civilian wages in most MOS's and rates. I couldn't find it within 10 seconds of searching, but I found this old study [1] posted on a mil website, stating that average compensation was significantly higher for enlisted personnel.

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/...

[esseph]

> 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.

That is quite a leap.

[kstrauser]

In the Navy, I stood next to a surgeon and passed them instruments, then cleaned up afterward.

Yeah, it's an interesting footnote in my biography, but didn't have much relevance to my career arc after I got out.

[esseph]

Did you mean this comment for a different post or comment?

[red-iron-pine]

military pay is inflation adjusted. minimum wage is not.

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.

[gowld]

What you wrote has nothing to do with the article.

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.

[ehasbrouck]

1 point by ehasbrouck 1 minute ago | root | parent | next | edit | delete [–]

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.

[jagged-chisel]

Not to mention, in the event of required increase in personnel, why "pay to entice" when you can "legally compel" without needing to pay more to the plebs?

[red-iron-pine]

legally compel for medical positions is a highly dicey effort.

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

[jayemar]

I'd imagine there would be different morale implications between these two situations

[fiddeert]

It's not a problem that money can solve. If you think it is, it's over.

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.

[crooked-v]

None of the wars the US has started or gotten involved in since WW2 involved defense of "their families, their people, their nation". The 'War on Terror' was advertised as that, except oops, actually it wasn't and nothing was gained from it! Of course young men don't want to sign up.

[heavyset_go]

Washington wouldn't have had an army if he didn't pay them, you can't have wars between nations that rely on the morale of the public to sacrifice themselves and their children to the front lines in order to protect the wealthy's interests, you'll run out of true believers very quickly.

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.

[estearum]

> Recognise that young men have nothing worth fighting for now.

There's a lot worth fighting for, it's just not the particular people we've been fighting.

[linkregister]

For most of history, soldiers were drawn primarily from the farmers (99% of people). They were employed for fixed time periods; if they didn't go to war then they would be subject to corvee and be put to work on national infrastructure. Military service was involuntary, but also closely tied to status. Additionally, enslaving defeated combatants was lucrative for winning armies. Belief in the campaign was rarely an important factor.

[Markoff]

> It wasn't that long ago that men would sign up for almost-certain death in defence of their families, their people, their nation.

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.

[esseph]

> I would say WW2 was pretty long time ago

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.)

[ks2048]

The more history I learn, the more I see how big of a role mercenaries played in wars of the past.

[whattheheckheck]

In Game of Thrones (A Clash of Kings), Lord Varys poses a riddle to Tyrion Lannister involving three men—a king, a priest, and a rich man—each commanding a sellsword to kill the other two based on their respective sources of authority: law, gods, or gold. The riddle asks, "Who lives and who dies?" with the answer being that the sellsword decides, as he holds the physical power of life and death.

Varys reveals that power resides where men believe it resides, explaining that authority is a "mummer's trick" or a shadow that exists only because people accept the illusions of kings, priests, and the wealthy. While the sellsword physically survives to execute the killing, the riddle illustrates that true power is not inherent in any single figure but is created by collective belief and obedience.

The Characters: The king represents law, the priest represents religion, and the rich man represents wealth, while the sellsword represents the people or the military force. The Core Message: No matter how much gold, divine favor, or legal claim one possesses, their power is null without the belief and support of the common people. The Twist: Varys notes that the sellsword is "no one," emphasizing that power is fluid and can be seized by anyone who commands the loyalty of those with the means to enforce it.

[zelias]

Double meaning: "no one" can also refer to the Faceless Men, the magical face-changing assassins of Braavos, who kill on behalf of the common people with some frequency

[jerlam]

Joining the military is not just a job. The baggage is considerably different than every other job.

The obvious difference is that you cannot quit.

[chneu]

Because that isn't how a conservative free market works.

[ks2048]

No one gets rich by giving more money to soldiers.

[heavyset_go]

> I still don’t understand why, if they are having trouble with recruitment, they simply won’t raise the pay to entice more recruits?

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

[frugalmail]

- The US has had record breaking recruitment in the last 1.5 years. - This policy is a readiness, not an activation. It's not related to current recruitment.

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.

[mindslight]

The big problem is that having a demented and kompromised "president" whose handlers launch ill-advised unwinnable wars that give away needless victories to our adversaries makes us a weaker nation.

[red-iron-pine]

presumably that 2nd amendment should save you, non?

why hasn't it?