Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergreen6
Interesting to note, and how I found out about this was someone trying to compare a minimum wage hike to $15 compared to what a basic army soldier would make going into the service.
The numbers come from the Congressional Budget office. On average, for 2013, active duty service members receive an annual base pay and noncash compensation including some or all things like healthcare, childcare, housing, food, education, and retirement benefits valued at a total of approximately $99,000 annually. So, when someone says a soldier fighting on the ground in Afghanistan only makes $18k/year, that's not entirely true. $18k is the cash compensation, not taking into account any benefits.
That $99,000 average total comp- some make more, some make less.
With regards to monetizing risk/sacrifice, I don't think cash compensation or even noncash benefits describe the kind of risk and sacrifice that active duty and their families have to deal with. That's the nature of assuming the responsibility of "hero" status. It doesn't always pay well.
The more we talk about "what people should make" in terms of too little or too much, I think the conversation becomes really muddy. Fact is, there's a lot of people out there willing to do those jobs at their current rate of pay. Most of those positions are voluntary, or at least, signing up for them was.
|
You phrased that much better than I did.
Also, pretty much all the police officers I know (quite a few) all served in the military prior. So those same people who you may say should get a high salary because they served our country over seas, are now serving our country here, and are the same self sacrificing individuals.
One may say a cop shouldn't make XXX amount of money...but what if that was phrased as a "military veteran and police officer"? Well all want veterans to be well compensated...right?