President Obama recently raised military salaries by 1.6%, effective next year. Although the raise is welcome, service members were "supposed to receive" a pay raise commensurate with private sector wage increases, which would have amounted to a 2.1% increase instead (Garofalo, 2016). While the raise is still proportionally larger than that given to civilian government employees, military personnel are among the most valuable public servants in the nation and yet they remain poorly compensated for their selfless service. One reason military personnel should get paid more is that their work is indispensible; national security depends on a well-trained, dedicated military. A second reason military personnel should get paid more is actually national security itself. The military labor force needs financial incentives to remain motivated, attentive, and positive in outlook. Military officers do work most civilians cannot or will not do. Third, military personnel are supposed to receive veterans' benefits but more often than not, those benefits are paltry or withheld for spurious reasons. Higher salaries will help military personnel make up for the lack of essential services promised to them. Military pay should be higher in order to encourage new enlistments, solidify commitment from existing military personnel, and to fulfill the ethical obligations the taxpayer owes to those entrusted with the common defense. The American military is comprised of a work force that is unique in its physical, mental, and intellectual prowess, rendering service personnel deserving of higher pay. Although there are non-cash compensations for military officers, such as tax advantages, college funds, and medical care benefits, the overall reimbursement for military officers remains relatively low. Ironically, some analysts claim that military pay compensation is "too high," as if to justify paying personnel deplorably low salaries while diverting federal military funding towards the corporate and industrial sectors (Kapp & Terreon, 2015). In fact, few Americans can or will perform the services of military officers. The physical training is intense; the emotional...

In any other job sector, pay becomes commensurate with the uniqueness and indispensability of the person. If the work can be done by anyone, such as retail or clerical work, then pay would be low. On the contrary, work that can only be performed by a select few such as brain surgery or architecture renders higher pay because of the long period of training and specialized services provided. Like teachers, military officers are underappreciated and consequently, underpaid.
National security depends on a military labor force that is motivated by a sense of respect and appreciation, which requires adequate financial compensation. As Kapp & Torreon (2015) point out, "robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments," (p. 1). In the private sector, employees will leave their current employer if they are offered higher pay elsewhere. The higher pay represents respect and appreciation for a job well done. One of the only reasons the American military continues to "do so well" in spite of a "relatively flat pay scale" is what Akerlof & Kranton (2010) call "identity economics," (p. 1). Identity economics simply points to the fact that military personnel are inherently proud to serve their country and have made their service part of their social and psychological identity. Yet these same proud personnel could experience an identity crisis if they realize that they are being severely undervalued. In the case of military personnel, the most valued people could be lured by positions that offer greater pay or respect. The American military cannot afford to lose its best and brightest due to poor salaries. To retain the officers that have been trained and honed for their…