Why Military Pay Should Be Higher: Compensation and National Security

President Obama recently raised military salaries by 1.6%, effective the following year. Although the raise is welcome, service members were expected 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 remain poorly compensated for their selfless service.

One reason military personnel should be paid more is that their work is indispensable — national security depends on a well-trained, dedicated military. A second reason is that the military labor force needs financial incentives to remain motivated, attentive, and positive in outlook. Military officers do work that most civilians cannot or will not do. Third, military personnel are promised veterans' benefits that are, more often than not, paltry or withheld for spurious reasons. Higher salaries will help military personnel compensate for the lack of essential services promised to them. Military pay should be higher in order to encourage new enlistments, solidify commitment from existing personnel, and fulfill the ethical obligations that taxpayers owe to those entrusted with the common defense.

The American military is comprised of a workforce that is unique in its physical, mental, and intellectual demands, 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 toward the corporate and industrial sectors (Kapp & Torreon, 2015).

In fact, few Americans can or will perform the services of military officers. The physical training is intense; the emotional and psychological training is even more so. In any other job sector, pay becomes commensurate with the uniqueness and indispensability of the worker. If work can be done by anyone — such as retail or clerical work — pay tends to be low. On the contrary, work that can only be performed by a select few, such as brain surgery or architecture, commands higher pay because of the long period of training and the 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 offered higher pay elsewhere. That higher pay represents respect and appreciation for a job well done.

One of the only reasons the American military continues to perform well in spite of a relatively flat pay scale is what Akerlof & Kranton (2010) call "identity economics" (p. 1). Identity economics points to the fact that military personnel are inherently proud to serve their country and have made that service part of their social and psychological identity. Yet these same proud personnel could experience an identity crisis if they come to realize they are being severely undervalued. In the case of military personnel, the most capable individuals could be lured away 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 officers who have been trained and honed for their positions, the military needs to restructure its salaries and offer more generous compensation packages. Even if those packages take the form of more robust access to mental and physical health services and other benefits, military personnel deserve more than the modest 1.6% increase recently approved. The private sector offers military-trained personnel a large number of lucrative opportunities, from piloting commercial airliners to serving in the private 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 who are integral to national security.

Military personnel receive non-monetary reimbursements ranging from healthcare benefits and housing to college tuition and career advancement opportunities. 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 earn a basic pay of less than $19,000 per year — approximately $9 per hour (Garofalo, 2016). Although this exceeds the federal minimum wage, the salary for active duty privates is shockingly low.