Why Military Pay Should Be Higher: Compensation and National Security
This essay argues that U.S. military personnel are significantly undercompensated relative to the unique demands and risks of their service. Drawing on congressional research, economic theory, and documented veterans' benefits failures, the paper makes three interconnected arguments: that military work is indispensable and requires rare skill sets deserving of higher pay; that national security depends on financial incentives to retain motivated, high-quality personnel; and that the gap between promised and delivered veterans' benefits creates an ethical obligation to raise base salaries. The paper concludes that restructuring military compensation is essential for recruitment, retention, and fulfilling the nation's obligations to those who serve.
- Introduction: The Case for Higher Military Pay: Thesis and three-part argument preview introduced
- The Unique and Indispensable Nature of Military Service: Military skill scarcity justifies higher compensation
- National Security and the Economics of Military Retention: Financial incentives needed to retain top military talent
- Unfulfilled Benefits and the Ethics of Military Compensation: Broken benefits promises create ethical pay obligations
- Conclusion: Restructuring Military Pay for a Stronger Force: Budget reform needed for fair military compensation
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The introduction clearly previews three distinct arguments—indispensability of service, retention and national security, and undelivered benefits—giving the essay a transparent and logical structure.
- The paper integrates a mix of quantitative evidence (specific salary figures, percentage pay increases) with qualitative economic theory (Akerlof and Kranton's identity economics), lending both empirical grounding and conceptual depth.
- The ethical framing in the final body paragraph elevates the argument beyond a policy debate, framing adequate pay as a moral obligation taxpayers owe to service members.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses the analogy technique to build its core claim: by comparing military personnel to brain surgeons and architects (high-skill, low-supply workers who command high pay), and to teachers (equally underappreciated), the author anchors an abstract compensation argument in familiar real-world logic. This rhetorical move makes the normative claim—that pay should reflect skill scarcity—intuitive and persuasive to a general academic audience.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a classical five-paragraph argumentative structure expanded into essay form. The introduction states the thesis and previews three supporting arguments. Each of the three body paragraphs advances one argument in order: skill uniqueness, retention economics, and benefits failures. The conclusion synthesizes all three threads and issues a policy call to action—restructuring the military budget to support higher compensation. Citations from congressional, RAND, and economics sources appear consistently throughout.
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).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.