3 ms·

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 unlimite

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

chneu 6mo ago
Because that isn't how a conservative free market works.
linkregister 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  > 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 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
      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 https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts [1] https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/
      - linkregister 6mo ago
        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 6mo ago
    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/SR04_Chapter_1.pdf https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/...
    - esseph 6mo ago
      > 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 6mo ago
        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 6mo ago
        Did you mean this comment for a different post or comment?
        kstrauser 6mo ago
        No, I’m replying to you, and agreeing with you. I’m not posting here because of my l33t OR tech skills, but because of everything that happened after I got out of the Navy.
  - red-iron-pine 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
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.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- jagged-chisel 6mo ago
  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?
  - jayemar 6mo ago
    I'd imagine there would be different morale implications between these two situations
  - red-iron-pine 6mo ago
    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
- ehasbrouck 6mo ago
  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 https://medicaldraft.info Congress could decide to expand the latter to other non-medical occupations as a broader "special skills" draft.
frugalmail 6mo ago
- 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 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    presumably that 2nd amendment should save you, non? why hasn't it?
jerlam 6mo ago
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.
fiddeert 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  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.
- ks2048 6mo ago
  The more history I learn, the more I see how big of a role mercenaries played in wars of the past.
  - whattheheckheck 6mo ago
    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.
heavyset_go 6mo ago
> 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
ks2048 6mo ago
No one gets rich by giving more money to soldiers.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
renewiltord 6mo ago
[flagged]

chneu 6mo ago

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

linkregister 6mo ago

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 6mo ago
> 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 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    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 https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/charts [1] https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/ https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Retirement/
    - linkregister 6mo ago
      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 6mo ago
  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/SR04_Chapter_1.pdf https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/Reports/...
  - esseph 6mo ago
    > 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 6mo ago
      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 6mo ago
        Did you mean this comment for a different post or comment?
        kstrauser 6mo ago
        No, I’m replying to you, and agreeing with you. I’m not posting here because of my l33t OR tech skills, but because of everything that happened after I got out of the Navy.
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago

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.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
jagged-chisel 6mo ago
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?
- jayemar 6mo ago
  I'd imagine there would be different morale implications between these two situations
- red-iron-pine 6mo ago
  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
ehasbrouck 6mo ago
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 https://medicaldraft.info Congress could decide to expand the latter to other non-medical occupations as a broader "special skills" draft.

frugalmail 6mo ago

- 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 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  presumably that 2nd amendment should save you, non? why hasn't it?

jerlam 6mo ago

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.

fiddeert 6mo ago

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 6mo ago
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.
ks2048 6mo ago
The more history I learn, the more I see how big of a role mercenaries played in wars of the past.
- whattheheckheck 6mo ago
  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.

heavyset_go 6mo ago

> 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

ks2048 6mo ago

No one gets rich by giving more money to soldiers.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

renewiltord 6mo ago

[flagged]