National Security and Military

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 and psychological training even more so.

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 positions, the American military needs to restructure its salaries and offer more generous compensation packages.

Even if those compensation packages entail more robust access to mental and physical health services and other benefits, military personnel deserve more than the 1.6% increase they only recently received from the President. The private sector offers military trained personnel a large number of lucrative opportunities from piloting commercial airliners to serving in the mercenary counterterrorism circuit. Although most military personnel are motivated by non-financial incentives such as the selflessness of serving their country and protecting national security, money remains an innate human motivator.

"Compensation plays an important part in career decision-making," (Hosek & Sharp, 2001, p. 1). Therefore, military pay should be higher in order to retain top performers that are integral to national security. Military personnel receive non-monetary reimbursements, ranging from healthcare benefits and housing to college tuition and career advancements. However, in many cases, military personnel do not have access to the full range of benefits promised to them. Active duty privates in the United States Army make a basic pay of less than $19,000 per year, which is around $9 per hour (Garofalo, 2016).

Although more than federal minimum wage, the salary for active duty privates is shockingly low. Kapp & Torreon (2015) claim "the average cost to compensate an active duty service member -- to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs -- is estimated at about $90,000- $100,000 per year," but those other benefits are rarely realized. Many military personnel and particularly veterans lack the services they were promised. Veterans Affairs scandals are well-documented; veterans are "waiting, and dying, at the hands of a calcified and soulless bureaucracy," (Hegseth, 2016, p. 1).

Mental health services, for example, have been lacking for personnel, leading to gross miscarriages of justice. It also makes sense from a managerial or organizational behavior perspective to raise military pay because of the fact that the military invests a lot of money and resources into training new officers. That training will pay off more with return on investment if all personnel are retained through lucrative positions with benefits. It is unethical to keep military pay as low as it is, and to deny veterans access to essential services.

The men and women willing to sacrifice their lives in service of the country should be paid much more than they currently are, or else the benefits promised to them need to be delivered. "Real, systematic VA reform" is necessary in addition to greater pay raise than what has been currently proposed by the President (Hegseth, 2016, p. 1). In order to bring about.