Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't, it's apples and oranges and any half way educated person would be able to see that.
You're comparing a much larger percentage of the population (civilians) with a much smaller percentage of the population (military). Everyone in the military is equally compensated and in the civilian population there are a million different variables as to what a "high school grad" is earning. A large portion of the civilian "high school diploma, those with some college, and those with an associate’s degree" group are earning $0 or near zero due to lack of effort, disabilities, no experience, no job, etc. There are none in the military group at $0 so what you posted is heavily skewed and not a valid comparison for this discussion. What you're posting does not compare people with the same level of experience, responsibility, sacrifice, career field, etc. The study you quoted is simply using "education level" which has been pointed out to you numerous times as an inaccurate way to compare the two.
A qualified Navy Aircraft Electrician with all that responsibility, experience, sacrifice, can not be compared to what every "high school grad" is earning. A large portion of the civilian "high school diploma, those with some college, and those with an associate’s degree" civilians out there are not worth anywhere near the value of the Navy Aircraft Electrician of similar age so why would we compare the two? Let's compare a unionized Aircraft Electrician of similar experience working for United Airlines and then give credit to the military member for all the military BS, deployments, PCS's, etc. and I'll bet your picture isn't so rosy.
Earlier in this thread you wanted to compare junior military members to hamburger flippers. Now you've moved on to "top school" and "high academic achievers" college grads to compare to junior military members...do you see this argument is getting worse and worse for you?
LMFAO.
This is pointless.
The federal government funds the study to ensure military personnel are well compensated. My source comes straight from them. Are you really going to tell me that it's wrong?
From the source:
Quote:
Every four years, the president directs “a complete review of the principles and concepts of the compensation system for members of the uniformed services.”
Plus:
Quote:
Additionally, the 11th QRMC assessed the competitiveness of military compensation with the private sector—an understanding of which serves as a useful foundation for examining specific elements of the compensation system.
Who else do you suggest the government compares pay to if it's not the private sector?
The title of the thread addressed the belief that the average service member is underpaid. Please prove with facts and not conjecture that this is untrue. I've posted verifiable sources from a study addressing the exact issue.
You can "LMFAO" all you want, you're just covering for yourself.
Answer me this one simple question...so it is correct, in your mind, to determine if military members are paid fairly by comparing their wages to every high school grad that is a loser and sits at home and plays video games and doesn't work, everyone this a a drug addict, alcoholic, homeless, disabled, out of work, not willing to work, etc.? All those people figure into that median you quoted above. You honestly think that is the way to determine the fair compensation of military members?
If you do feel that is the correct way then there is no hope for you.
I can show you a government viewpoint/study/review on any subject you would like me to...heck, would you like me to show you a current one that shows the Affordable Care Act is working wonderfully? The government can make any point they would like, they control the numbers.
You can "LMFAO" all you want, you're just covering for yourself.
No, I'm not. I'm laughing because you didn't even bother to look at the study which addresses the exact issue.
Quote:
Answer me this one simple question...so it is correct, in your mind, to determine if military members are paid fairly by comparing their wages to every high school grad that is a loser and sits at home and plays video games and doesn't work, everyone this a a drug addict, alcoholic, homeless, disabled, out of work, not willing to work, etc.? All those people figure into that median you quoted above. You honestly think that is the way to determine the fair compensation of military members?
The study takes all of that into account. There is a reason service members are paid well and much of it has to do with the fact that there are standards not everyone can meet.
On top of that, the study bases the compensation on people with similar education levels. You haven't answered my question, who else could they compare pay to if it's not similarly educated people in the private sector?
Quote:
If you do feel that is the correct way then there is no hope for you.
I can show you a government viewpoint/study/review on any subject you would like me to...heck, would you like me to show you a current one that shows the Affordable Care Act is working wonderfully? The government can make any point they would like, they control the numbers.
I can tell you didn't even read the study and just blew it off. And no, the government does not control the numbers.
Quote:
Only about 25 percent of the youth population meets the department’s rigorous
enlistment standards, which target high school graduates with above-average
aptitude, who are also physically fit, do not have problems with drug dependency,
and have not been involved in criminal activity.26 Such high-caliber individuals often
have attractive civilian career opportunities available to them, which do not involve
the requirements and arduous conditions of military service. In order to successfully
compete for personnel, military compensation must take into account—and
compensate for—the high eligibility standards demanded of military personnel, as
well as the responsibilities and sacrifices associated with military service.
Straight from the study. The government takes into account the stringent standards placed on service members.
If they're in the top percentile of wage earners at their education level, while still ignoring all other fringe benefits that aren't cash, can you honestly say they're underpaid?
First, I was not talking about enlistment standards...I was talking about the low "wages" that would be reported for all those groups I mentioned that would drag the civilian wage median down and make the disparity that you keep hounding on even larger. You can't use people who make very little (for a million different reasons that don't apply to military members) to determine if the military is getting paid fairly. That study is using education levels and the wages of those in the different levels. It is not comparing those with similar experience and responsibility.
I did look at it but did not want to cherry pick from is as you're doing. It clearly states those people I listed were not taken into account and is a reason that military compensation must be higher than the median. Since you're demanding I do pick from the study, here you go...
But a comparison of military and civilian wages does not, by itself, determine
whether military pay is at the optimal level. As previously noted, other factors are
also at play, including recruiting and retention experiences and outlook; rigorous
eligibility standards; unemployment in the civilian economy; political factors such
as wartime environment or risk of war; and the expected frequency and duration of
overseas deployments.
Higher military earnings are necessary to compensate service
personnel for the additional risks, hardships, and long work hours associated with
military service. Setting military compensation above average civilian earnings also
acknowledges the higher aptitude and achievements of military personnel.
And while military earnings have grown in relation to civilian wages over the past
decade, so too have the demands placed on service members. Since the September 11,
2001 attacks, U.S. forces have been involved in lengthy combat operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. For military personnel, these missions have resulted in multiple
and extended deployments into dangerous environments. Such increased risks and
hardships have made military service less attractive to many young men and women
considering enlistment. In fact, several studies of the impact of the wars suggest that
they have had a substantial and negative impact on enlistments, particularly in the
Army and Marine Corps, which have suffered most of the casualties.34
The study isn't as supporting of your argument when you don't get to cherry pick from it.
First, I was not talking about enlistment standards...I was talking about the low "wages" that would be reported for all those groups I mentioned that would drag the civilian wage median down and make the disparity that you keep hounding on even larger. You can't use people who make very little (for a million different reasons that don't apply to military members) to determine if the military is getting paid fairly.
Why not? Once again, how exactly do you compare pay if it's not to people in the same education level in the private sector?
Quote:
I did look at it but did not want to cherry pick from is as you're doing. It clearly states those people I listed were not taken into account and is a reason that military compensation must be higher than the median. Since you're demanding I do pick from the study, here you go...
The study clearly states that it pays more than the civilian sector based on the demands placed on the members. In fact, it pays much more.
How am I cherry picking? I'm posting the facts. The study clearly determined that service members are paid much better than their civilian counter parts with similar levels of education. If they were not in the military, then they would be civilians earning wages based on their education.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing. The entire point of the thread was to address the belief that the military is not underpaid. I've posted many facts showing that members make well above the median wage in their education level. That doesn't include the other indirect benefits. That's take home pay only.
Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that they're underpaid when every study conducted by the DOD determines they make in the upper percentile of their similarly educated peers?
Why not? Once again, how exactly do you compare pay if it's not to people in the same education level in the private sector?
Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that they're underpaid when every study conducted by the DOD determines they make in the upper percentile of their similarly educated peers?
Reading must not be your strong point as I've answered both these questions before...
They are not in the same education level, they went to school and got an education to do their job. They are no longer just "high school graduates". They also have experience, they also have responsibility and they have all the other things listed in the study that civilians do not have to worry about. The comparison needs to be between civilians with the same same credentials and same requirements placed upon them that the study listed of military members. Oh, that's the problem isn't it...there are no civilians with the same credentials or requirements placed upon them to compare to? That is why they have to use something generic like education level only and that is why it is an apples to oranges comparison.
They are in the upper percentile of their "similarly educated peers" if that is the only thing you use, but they would not be in the upper percentile of any civilians that had the same experience, sacrifice, responsibility or demands of the military placed upon them.
As I said, a civilian working in Iraq or Afghanistan can make $150k or more per year (plus benefits) doing the exact same job but a lot less "work" as junior military members getting paid 1/7th of that. Now that's how it should be compared. Not to some flunky sitting back here at home not doing a damn thing but is included in the same "education level" median wage.
What do you think they would have to pay a civilian to go to sea for 6 to 10 months and only hit port for 12 days in that entire time? A whole lot more than what they are paying military members to do it. And don't spout off something about merchant mariners as they are not out to sea that long and are in and out all the time, they live much better, they don't have all the military BS to deal with, can quit at any time and yet they still get paid very well.
Reading must not be your strong point as I've answered both these questions before...
The thing is you haven't. You've posted conjecture and your own beliefs. You haven't posted any facts supporting your argument.
Quote:
They are not in the same education level, they went to school and got an education to do their job. They are no longer just "high school graduates". They also have experience, they also have responsibility and they have all the other things listed in the study that civilians do not have to worry about. The comparison needs to be between civilians with the same same credentials and same requirements placed upon them that the study listed of military members. Oh, that's the problem isn't it...there are no civilians with the same credentials or requirements placed upon them to compare to? That is why they have to use something generic like education level only and that is why it is an apples to oranges comparison.
Come on. Let's stop beating around the bush.
The civilian world is credentialed orientated and based on education levels. There's no arguing that point. The levels on high school graduate, bachelor's and post graduate.
Are you saying civilians don't have to gain experience, responsibility, or training? Most blue collar jobs require training just like enlisted jobs.
It's not an apples to orange comparison. It's comparing the military member to their counterpart in the private sector. That's about the only reasonable comparison that can be made to discuss fair pay.
And since a lot of pressure is placed on the member, they're paid much more than their peers.
Quote:
They are in the upper percentile of their "similarly educated peers" if that is the only thing you use, but they would not be in the upper percentile of any civilians that had the same experience, sacrifice, responsibility or demands of the military placed upon them.
And you know this how?
Care to show some stats since we're on the topic?
Quote:
As I said, a civilian working in Iraq or Afghanistan can make $150k or more per year doing the exact same job but a lot less "work" as junior military members getting paid 1/7th of that. Now that's how it should be compared. Not to some flunky sitting back here at home not doing a damn thing but is included in the same "education level" median wage.
Not this again.
Look, we're comparing the pay of the average service member to their private sector peers. The study is using median wages. The study proves that military take home pay alone is in the 90th percentile compared to peers in the private sector.
Answer me this, if the service member was not in the military, what would they be?
The civilian world is credentialed orientated and based on education levels. There's no arguing that point. The levels on high school graduate, bachelor's and post graduate.
Are you saying civilians don't have to gain experience, responsibility, or training? Most blue collar jobs require training just like enlisted jobs.
Answer me this, if the service member was not in the military, what would they be?
No, that is not the levels...there are high school grads, there are vo-tech grads, there are those with associates degrees, there are those with professional degrees, there are those with professional certifications, there are those with bachelors degrees, there are those with dual major degrees, there are those with multiple degrees, there are those with MA's in women's studies, there are those with MBA's, there are PhD's, there are MD's, there are JD's, there are PharmD's, there are those with significant experience that qualifies for education credit, there are those with military training (Nukes, Air Traffic Controllers, etc.) and the list goes on and on...That is my point, you can't make a comparison about fair wages unless everything is taken into account. You simplified the "levels" into three and that is what that study did but it simplified it into only two categories.
You're right, blue collar jobs require training and experience as I said that is how we need to base the comparison. Remember the example of the unionized airline worker that works for United Airlines I mentioned earlier? Lets compare them to those people, not just "high school graduates" which could be the burger flipper at McDonald's or the idiot who only walks dogs a couple times a week for his job and makes next to nothing.
They would be civilian with a whole lot less stress and BS to deal with and can be home with their family each night and don't have to worry about having to pack up and move every three years.
I've been a military member and I've been a civilian...civilian is a much easier gig with a whole lot more opportunity earn a lot of money.
No, that is not the levels...there are high school grads, there are vo-tech grads, there are those with associates degrees, there are those with professional degrees, there are those with professional certifications, there are those with bachelors degrees, there are those with dual major degrees, there are those with multiple degrees, there are those with MA's in women's studies, there are those with MBA's, there are PhD's, there are MD's, there are JD's, there are PharmD's, there are those with significant experience that qualifies for education credit, there are those with military training (Nukes, Air Traffic Controllers, etc.) and the list goes on and on...That is my point, you can't make a comparison about fair wages unless everything is taken into account. You simplified the "levels" into three and that is what that study did but it simplified it into only two categories.
You're right, blue collar jobs require training and experience as I said that is how we need to base the comparison. Remember the example of the unionized airline worker that works for United Airlines I mentioned earlier? Lets compare them to those people, not just "high school graduates" which could be the burger flipper at McDonald's or the idiot who only walks dogs a couple times a week for his job and makes next to nothing.
They would be civilian with a whole lot less stress and BS to deal with and can be home with their family each night and don't have to worry about having to pack up and move every three years.
I've been a military member and I've been a civilian...civilian is a much easier gig with a whole lot more opportunity earn a lot of money.
This is going in circles.
Until you post some actual facts, you're just posting your own bias beliefs.
It doesn't matter that there are low wage earners to compare to. There are high wage earners too. That's why the study compares service member pay to median pay. Half are below, half are above.
The fact that service members are in the 90th percentile of all wage earners in their education level speaks volumes.
Until you post some actual facts, you're just posting your own bias beliefs.
It doesn't matter that there are low wage earners to compare to. There are high wage earners too. That's why the study compares service member pay to median pay. Half are below, half are above.
The fact that service members are in the 90th percentile of all wage earners in their education level speaks volumes.
Please show me something in the post that you quoted that was a "biased belief" and not factual?
I posted the same study you did that said exactly what I'm saying, that it's an apples to oranges comparison. The study did not say the military was over compensated, it said there were a lot of variables for military members that made the comparison hard to do and gave reasons why the military needs to be compensated higher than civilians with similar "education levels". How come the study is "facts" for you but the study is not "facts" for me?
It only speaks volumes to someone who wants to prove a point that the military is over compensated. If the comparison was between two things that were the same then it would speak volumes to the rest of us, now it's just a bunch of conjecture since there are so many variables that can't be monetized for military members.
Last edited by LBTRS; 12-06-2013 at 09:13 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
