Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
28. See, in today's military, you would never have been hired without a real job and a
Tue Nov 19, 2013, 04:46 AM
Nov 2013

specialty (or the potential to slot into one fairly quickly). And as an E-3, you'd be making a shitload more than eighty eight bucks a month. If you were one of those kids who made E-3 in boot camp owing to college credit, and you had less than a year in service, you would be making $1787 BASE pay--not including any allowances, not even your uniform allowance. If you had over two years in service, your base pay (again, not including any housing allowance, assuming you are living in the barracks with a meal card) would be $1900. Over three years in service, your base pay is $2015.

Now, because you're a military asset, you're entitled to housing, which costs money, to be fed, which costs money, medical and dental care, which costs money, and if you get married, your dependents (now called "military family members&quot need the shelter and medical care as well--you'd be given an allowance for that of course, and you'd move out of the barracks either into civilian quarters or base housing. You get a commissary/exchange/MWR benefit, and all that costs money, too.

If you stay for 20 years, you get promoted regularly (which costs money), and assuming you get promoted regularly, you get a retirement--and that costs money. And they pay you that retirement every month on the first of the month, until you die. And if you were a smart person and signed up for an annuity for your spouse in the event of your death, that spouse would continue to get money after you die.

See how it starts to get pricey? Even if you have to pay some company a couple of thousand bucks a month to come in and cut the lawns, it's still cheaper than having to fund the salaries, medical care, and eventual retirement of "make work" personnel. The base doesn't have to maintain mowers, pay for gas for those mowers, put a mid-grade or senior enlisted supervisor in charge of all the E-3 and below personnel to make sure they aren't screwing off. You just throw money at a contractor, check their work after they've done the job, and that's that. If they do a good job, you cut 'em a check every month and it is up to them to pay their people.

The saying is "If you're not putting ordnance on target, your job can be civilianized." An administrative assistant/secretary/file or pay clerk doesn't "need" to be fit--you can hire some one to do that job who is not deployable, but they really don't need to be. A lot of administrative work can be done remotely. And you can make it an entry level job, or even contract it--so you only worry about pay, and not current or downstream benefits.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I doubt any of them are volunteering cuts to their own pay Scootaloo Nov 2013 #1
Generals and Admirals live like Arab Sheiks. JaneQPublic Nov 2013 #45
You said it well dballance Nov 2013 #2
Many enlisted personnel are already on food stamps as it is KamaAina Nov 2013 #3
Nearly all enlisted qualify Scairp Nov 2013 #21
Would make a nice little vignette KamaAina Nov 2013 #22
Well, they were on food stamps. That will probably get "fixed", too. n/t winter is coming Nov 2013 #24
Yeah, that'll win wars. RC Nov 2013 #56
Or they could buy ten fewer F-35s and give all active personnel an extra $1500... (nt) Posteritatis Nov 2013 #4
The generals don't care about what happens Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #5
Start with the generals and admirals!! lastlib Nov 2013 #6
I'm frankly surprised they just don't pull prisoners & force them to enlist for free tomm2thumbs Nov 2013 #7
During the 60's, Viet Nam era, they did give some men that choice. RC Nov 2013 #57
The Pentagon's Biggest Overrun: Way Too Many Generals Lasher Nov 2013 #8
Paygrade creep has been a problem for awhile. It got really bad under Bush. MADem Nov 2013 #26
It's not about strategic need. It is about maintaining a posh high society. Ash_F Nov 2013 #53
Figures. Solly Mack Nov 2013 #9
replace private contractors with active duty troops and give them a raise...will still cost less nt msongs Nov 2013 #10
It would cost far more which is why the military uses private contractors. former9thward Nov 2013 #13
Military pay vs. contract workers salimbag Nov 2013 #23
See, in today's military, you would never have been hired without a real job and a MADem Nov 2013 #28
Food for thought: Are Private Contractors Really Cheaper? Lasher Nov 2013 #32
The article is correct. It's all down to what DoD does NOT have to pay out. MADem Nov 2013 #37
It's more complicated than that, as I'm sure you are aware. Lasher Nov 2013 #41
They're subject to civilian law--which can be problematic if you're working in a place with MADem Nov 2013 #48
All true. As the former wife of a former Army officer, I am totally familiar with this. ancianita Nov 2013 #34
Of course the pay is higher salimbag Nov 2013 #49
They don't WANT to recruit people for support. It's cheaper to hire them as needed. MADem Nov 2013 #52
+1--seems more expensive in the short term, but over time it saves a bundle. MADem Nov 2013 #27
The employer's cost of benefits is in the price billed to the military. SharonAnn Nov 2013 #46
The reason any employer uses contractors is because it is cheaper. former9thward Nov 2013 #47
yeah, cut pay and benefits to people serving.... olddad56 Nov 2013 #11
Oh.... the South (and their rep.s - mostly Repubs) are not going to like that underpants Nov 2013 #12
The end result will probably be that they'll slow cost of living increases--they've already been MADem Nov 2013 #29
I was in the Army during the first downsizing underpants Nov 2013 #31
I survived that mess, too--I was in a job where I was difficult to replace. MADem Nov 2013 #38
Yeah underpants Nov 2013 #39
If you ever do find it, bring it back! MADem Nov 2013 #43
Thanks for informing everyone of middle and lower level shafting. Military brass seem to follow the ancianita Nov 2013 #35
It is a sad fact that the places they make the cuts affect the lower/mid pay grades more than the MADem Nov 2013 #40
But we need more multi-million dollar war machines Ash_F Nov 2013 #14
Fucking scumbag Generals hardtravelin Nov 2013 #15
Congrats tazkcmo Nov 2013 #54
oddly, they are only doing what Congress is telling them to do pasto76 Nov 2013 #16
guest workers hollowdweller Nov 2013 #17
The brass should prove its leadership quality and undergo its own austerity program. ancianita Nov 2013 #18
The main problem is NobodyHere Nov 2013 #19
The "brass" has PLEADED with Congress to not spend money on bullshit in the past--and CONGRESS does MADem Nov 2013 #30
Thank you for the links. I stand corrected, though the brass have the power to use/not use ancianita Nov 2013 #33
Here's the problem with not utilizing contracts, and let's use the "grass cutting on the base" one MADem Nov 2013 #42
The military doesn't say anything, or point fingers, because "civilian control of the military" is a MADem Nov 2013 #44
Well at least they aren't weaning themselves off contractors, because that would be terrible. nt killbotfactory Nov 2013 #20
Shrinking Pentagon budgets? Mnpaul Nov 2013 #25
Outsource to China Blandocyte Nov 2013 #36
My bet is pay and benefits will largely remain at their current level in the end cstanleytech Nov 2013 #50
My guess is that base pay and benefits will remain static. Kaleva Nov 2013 #51
What a surprising response. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #55
Soldiers must suffer to protect the profiteers! tabasco Nov 2013 #58
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Top military chiefs: Cut ...»Reply #28