Pentagon: Troops Overpaid

[poorgradstudent]

Your typical enlisted grunt in the military is arguably underpaid. Your typical officer could be making as much or more money in the private sector. The US military is far from immune to the laws of supply and demand and labor economics. A decade of war has changed the math for enlisting in the reserves; when I was in high school and college there was a chance reservists would be deployed. Following the Iraq invasion, it’s pretty much guaranteed.

The areas they might be able to cut costs would be hazard pay and civilian contractors. I know of plenty of cases where someone leaves the military and basically gets rehired to do the same job as a contractor for way more money. But military contracts tend to be very political things with a lot of pork involved. Can you imagine a San Diego representative arguing that we need to scale back military spending?

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.

[briansd1]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.[/quote]

Of course.

Also a true conservative like Milton Friedman would outsource the military to something like an American Foreign Legion.

[briansd1]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.[/quote]

Of course.

Also a true conservative like Milton Friedman would outsource the military to something like an American Foreign Legion.

[briansd1]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.[/quote]

Of course.

Also a true conservative like Milton Friedman would outsource the military to something like an American Foreign Legion.

[briansd1]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.[/quote]

Of course.

Also a true conservative like Milton Friedman would outsource the military to something like an American Foreign Legion.

[briansd1]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

A true fiscal conservative might argue the solution is to end our occupation of Iraq, along with closing outdated bases in Germany and Japan, and potentially other countries. Scale back demand for soldiers and you’ll have the double benefit of not having to pay quite as much and being able to have a higher average overall quality.[/quote]

Of course.

Also a true conservative like Milton Friedman would outsource the military to something like an American Foreign Legion.

[briansd1]

I agree with the Pentagon.

I supported Rumsfeld’s downsizing and rightsizing of the military before 9/11 (after which reform went out the window).

Even so, I don’t mind the military being overpaid because it’s a great social experiment. The military is the most integrated institution in the land. It’s a great jobs program for enlisted personnel who would not have much opportunity for training and advancement elsewhere.

Military law being different from civil law, the generals can easily mandate rules and regulations within the military. For example, I support the ban on payday lending to the military.

[briansd1]

I agree with the Pentagon.

I supported Rumsfeld’s downsizing and rightsizing of the military before 9/11 (after which reform went out the window).

Even so, I don’t mind the military being overpaid because it’s a great social experiment. The military is the most integrated institution in the land. It’s a great jobs program for enlisted personnel who would not have much opportunity for training and advancement elsewhere.

Military law being different from civil law, the generals can easily mandate rules and regulations within the military. For example, I support the ban on payday lending to the military.

[briansd1]

I agree with the Pentagon.

I supported Rumsfeld’s downsizing and rightsizing of the military before 9/11 (after which reform went out the window).

Even so, I don’t mind the military being overpaid because it’s a great social experiment. The military is the most integrated institution in the land. It’s a great jobs program for enlisted personnel who would not have much opportunity for training and advancement elsewhere.

Military law being different from civil law, the generals can easily mandate rules and regulations within the military. For example, I support the ban on payday lending to the military.

[briansd1]

I agree with the Pentagon.

I supported Rumsfeld’s downsizing and rightsizing of the military before 9/11 (after which reform went out the window).

Even so, I don’t mind the military being overpaid because it’s a great social experiment. The military is the most integrated institution in the land. It’s a great jobs program for enlisted personnel who would not have much opportunity for training and advancement elsewhere.

Military law being different from civil law, the generals can easily mandate rules and regulations within the military. For example, I support the ban on payday lending to the military.

[briansd1]

I agree with the Pentagon.

I supported Rumsfeld’s downsizing and rightsizing of the military before 9/11 (after which reform went out the window).

Even so, I don’t mind the military being overpaid because it’s a great social experiment. The military is the most integrated institution in the land. It’s a great jobs program for enlisted personnel who would not have much opportunity for training and advancement elsewhere.

Military law being different from civil law, the generals can easily mandate rules and regulations within the military. For example, I support the ban on payday lending to the military.

[CA renter]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

The areas they might be able to cut costs would be hazard pay and civilian contractors. I know of plenty of cases where someone leaves the military and basically gets rehired to do the same job as a contractor for way more money. But military contracts tend to be very political things with a lot of pork involved. Can you imagine a San Diego representative arguing that we need to scale back military spending?

[/quote]

I was thinking trying to reconcile this with the claim in the linked WaPo article:

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, leaving most of them better compensated than their peers in the private sector.
————–

To whom are they referring when they say service members are compensated more than their private sector counterparts? In every case I know (a few) where an ex-service member went back as a private contractor, they were paid FAR, FAR more in the private sector than when they were in the public sector.

This is total BS. Those service members deserve every penny and every benefit they’ve been promised. If anybody deserves to be paid well, they are at the top of the list, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

The areas they might be able to cut costs would be hazard pay and civilian contractors. I know of plenty of cases where someone leaves the military and basically gets rehired to do the same job as a contractor for way more money. But military contracts tend to be very political things with a lot of pork involved. Can you imagine a San Diego representative arguing that we need to scale back military spending?

[/quote]

I was thinking trying to reconcile this with the claim in the linked WaPo article:

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, leaving most of them better compensated than their peers in the private sector.
————–

To whom are they referring when they say service members are compensated more than their private sector counterparts? In every case I know (a few) where an ex-service member went back as a private contractor, they were paid FAR, FAR more in the private sector than when they were in the public sector.

This is total BS. Those service members deserve every penny and every benefit they’ve been promised. If anybody deserves to be paid well, they are at the top of the list, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

The areas they might be able to cut costs would be hazard pay and civilian contractors. I know of plenty of cases where someone leaves the military and basically gets rehired to do the same job as a contractor for way more money. But military contracts tend to be very political things with a lot of pork involved. Can you imagine a San Diego representative arguing that we need to scale back military spending?

[/quote]

I was thinking trying to reconcile this with the claim in the linked WaPo article:

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, leaving most of them better compensated than their peers in the private sector.
————–

To whom are they referring when they say service members are compensated more than their private sector counterparts? In every case I know (a few) where an ex-service member went back as a private contractor, they were paid FAR, FAR more in the private sector than when they were in the public sector.

This is total BS. Those service members deserve every penny and every benefit they’ve been promised. If anybody deserves to be paid well, they are at the top of the list, IMHO.

[CA renter]

[quote=poorgradstudent]

The areas they might be able to cut costs would be hazard pay and civilian contractors. I know of plenty of cases where someone leaves the military and basically gets rehired to do the same job as a contractor for way more money. But military contracts tend to be very political things with a lot of pork involved. Can you imagine a San Diego representative arguing that we need to scale back military spending?

[/quote]

I was thinking trying to reconcile this with the claim in the linked WaPo article:

Through nine years of war, service members have seen a healthy rise in pay and benefits, leaving most of them better compensated than their peers in the private sector.
————–

To whom are they referring when they say service members are compensated more than their private sector counterparts? In every case I know (a few) where an ex-service member went back as a private contractor, they were paid FAR, FAR more in the private sector than when they were in the public sector.

This is total BS. Those service members deserve every penny and every benefit they’ve been promised. If anybody deserves to be paid well, they are at the top of the list, IMHO.

[Author]

Posts