Reply to White House 'Strongly Opposes' Proposed 19.5% Pay Hike for Junior Enlisted Troops

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "White House 'Strongly Opposes' Proposed 19.5% Pay Hike for Junior Enlisted Troops"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Like any issue, IMO people need to do more research.

Using the calculator on military.com, an E3 with 3 years of service in the DC area with dependents is getting $71,328 annually, including their housing allowance.

If they live on base then the housing allowance goes away but they are essentially living for free in base housing. They (and their dependents) get practically free health/dental/vision care, spouse gets hiring priority for U.S. government jobs, and childcare is ridiculously low.

That's a pretty good deal for someone who (traditionally) is in their early 20s, married and may have a kid or two. [/quote]

You are clueless.  There isn’t enough on base housing for military members serving in DC area bases.  And there isn’t enough childcare either.  Only a very small portion are able to get into the on base childcare center.  Most military members in DC have to live off base and find their own childcare. [/quote]

I'm not clueless. I also don't have DC-focused glasses on and have a much broader view.

I've got 28 years of service under my belt. Lived CONUS, OCONUS, on base and off base. It may be an issue in DC but not everywhere else.  Fixing housing allowances is a better option than a 19+% across the board pay hike.

IMO, part of the problem is young enlisted troops get married and start popping out kids one after another, or they get married to someone who already has a couple of kids and wants to be a SAHP. The troops primarily do it because they don't want to live in barracks.

I've seen far too many cases of a 19-22 year olds in parenting situations where they simply are not ready. Throw in a deployment and a young spouse who can't handle multiple kids, can't handle the money, lives off base, and has no family support system, and it's a disaster.

As for childcare, there are waitlists based on rank and number of dependents.  And guess what?  That's pretty much the SOP for childcare for everyone! There are waitlists.

I just don't find it justifiable to provide blank checks for military service. Sure, it's tough. But guess what? There are firefighters, teachers, EMTs, law enforcement, electric linemen, elder caregivers, and garbage collectors who often do dangerous, thankless and dirty work, too.  Imagine if we didn't have any of those professions. Many, many teachers in the US are making about $30K. Firefighters make a smidge above that.  They have to pay their own housing, child care, health insurance, dental/vision,  education, prescriptions, and groceries, and if they want to purchase a home they need a down payment and will have to pay the going mortgage rates.

Should they pay more in taxes so an E-4 with a spouse and kids doesn't have to pick up the tab for ANY of their living expenses? Let's hear how you would sell that one...
[/quote]

If Military service is so lush with benefits and compensation, why is there a recruiting crisis?

PAPER: RECRUITING CRISIS IS NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT
https://www.ausa.org/news/paper-recruiting-crisis-national-security-threat

Tue, 01/23/2024 - 07:33
The Army’s recruiting crisis, the most substantial since the creation of the all-volunteer force 50 years ago, is a threat to U.S. national security and will require a “whole-of-nation effort” to be reversed, according to the authors of a new paper published by the Association of the U.S. Army.

The Army has seen significant recruiting shortfalls for at least the past two years. In fiscal 2022, the service missed by 15,000 its goal of recruiting 60,000 new soldiers. In fiscal 2023, with an ambitious goal of recruiting 65,000 new soldiers, the Army fell short by 10,000. The current Regular Army end strength of 452,000 is “the smallest since before World War II,” the authors write.

Army senior leaders are considering significant reductions to force structure to avoid a “hollow” Army with undermanned and ineffective formations, the authors write.

The Military should be flush with recruits if it’s such a great opportunity to have medical/dental, housing allowance, job assistance for spouses, etc.

But it’s not, because it’s a very hard life and the benefits aren’t enough.

Anyway, Biden should listen to his senior enlisted personnel and the Armed Service Committee. They are the experts. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics