What Does the Military "Pay Gap" Mean? PDF Download

Author: Richard L. Fernandez
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 58

View

Book Description

Author: James R. Hosek
Publisher: RAND Corporation
ISBN:
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 52

View

Book Description
This report investigates the military/civilian pay gap and its implications for capping military pay increases. The pay gap is defined as the percent difference in military versus civilian pay growth as measured from a given starting point. The index currently used for civilian pay growth is the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reflects pay growth in the civilian labor force at large. The authors instead recommend measuring civilian pay growth for the subset of civilian workers whose composition by age, education, occupation, gender, and race/ethnicity represents that of active duty military personnel. The authors do so via construction of a Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI). They compare pay gaps based on the ECI vs. the DECI, and present DECI-based pay gaps for officer and enlisted personnel by gender and seniority and for occupational and age categories. The authors then consider the implications of these pay gaps for capping military pay.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 42

View

Book Description
This report investigates the military/civilian pay gap and its implications for capping military pay increases. The pay gap is defined as the percentage difference in military versus civilian pay growth as measured from a given starting point. The index currently used to measure civilian pay growth is the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reflects pay growth in the civilian labor force at large. We instead recommend measuring civilian pay growth for the subset of civilian workers whose composition by age, education, occupation, gender, and race/ethnicity represents that of active duty military personnel. We do so via the Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI), which we constructed previously and have updated to include fiscal 1992. We compare pay gaps based on the ECI versus the DECI and present DECI based pay gaps for officer and enlisted personnel by gender and seniority and for occupational and age categories. We then consider the implications of these pay gaps for capping military pay.

Author: James R. Hosek
Publisher: RAND Corporation
ISBN: 9780833015143
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 54

View

Book Description
This report investigates the military/civilian pay gap and its implications for capping military pay increases. The pay gap is defined as the percent difference in military versus civilian pay growth as measured from a given starting point. The index currently used for civilian pay growth is the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reflects pay growth in the civilian labor force at large. The authors instead recommend measuring civilian pay growth for the subset of civilian workers whose composition by age, education, occupation, gender, and race/ethnicity represents that of active duty military personnel. The authors do so via construction of a Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI). They compare pay gaps based on the ECI vs. the DECI, and present DECI-based pay gaps for officer and enlisted personnel by gender and seniority and for occupational and age categories. The authors then consider the implications of these pay gaps for capping military pay.

Author: Congressional Research Congressional Research Service
Publisher: CreateSpace
ISBN: 9781507737033
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 24

View

Book Description
From the earliest days of the republic, America's Armed Forces have been compensated for their services by the federal government. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. Today's military compensation includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive non-cash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. Since the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military pay and allowances to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11th attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Some have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that 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. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade-off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again. The average cost to compensate an active duty servicemember-to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs-is estimated at about $90,000-$100,000 per year, although some estimates are higher (methodologies vary). However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual's decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial "pay gap" has existed for decades-with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts-although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this "pay gap" is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. This latter perspective has become more prominent in the past few years. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel.

Author: James Hosek
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781977401663
Category : Business & Economics
Languages : en
Pages : 0

View

Book Description
RAND researchers compared military and civilian pay for 2016, following up on comparisons for 2009 and 1999, and assessed how recruit quality changed as military pay rose relative to civilian pay after 1999.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 34

View

Book Description
The Association of the United States Army has been in the forefront of the campaign to close the pay gap. AUSA has spoken out-to the American people, to our elected representatives and to the administration. A nation that sends its sons and daughters around the globe-often in harm's way, with no notice and an uncertain return date-has an obligation to ensure that they are adequately paid and that their families enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Even after the recent pay raise, the gap is still much too wide: almost 10 percent. We're one-third of the way there, but we've still got two-thirds to go. It is critical to stay the course and finish the job. The pay gap had reached 13.5 percent by 1998, and contributed to the recruitment, retention and readiness difficulties across all the services. Two years later- with the passage of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 and FY 2001 Defense bills-the pay gap has been narrowed, hut only to just under 10 percent. And current military compensation legislation does not close the gap until 2026. There will continue to be a pay gap until 2026 unless the next administration and the next Congress provide more for pay above the 1999 legislated ramp- up of .5 percent (one half of one percent) per year to attain pay equality. That means that soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen volunteering to serve today would serve a full career before achieving pay equity with their civilian counterparts. It is AUSA's position that the pay gap must be closed by 2006. There is no good reason in a time of unprecedented prosperity that this chronic pay gap should not be eliminated by 2006. Since the end of the draft and the conversion to an all-volunteer military, pay raises for the armed forces have persistently lagged behind private-sector pay growth.

Author: Congressional Research Service
Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781545218822
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 28

View

Book Description
The current military compensation system includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive noncash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. Since the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military compensation to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11 attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional and executive branch interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Recent initiatives in this regard have included presidentially directed increases in basic pay below the rate of increase for the Employment Cost Index (ECI) for 2014-2016 and statutory authority for DOD to reduce BAH payments by 1% of the national average monthly housing cost per year from 2015-2019 (for a maximum reduction of 5% under the national monthly average housing cost). Some have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that 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. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade-off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again. DOD spends about $100,000-$110,000 per year to compensate the average active duty servicemember - to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs - although some estimates of compensation costs are higher. However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual's decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial "pay gap" has existed for decades - with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts - although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this "pay gap" is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. This latter perspective has become more prominent in the past few years. The Defense Department's 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel. On January 29, 2015, the congressionally established Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission delivered its final report to Congress. It included a variety of recommendations for restructuring military compensation, most notably with regards to the military retirement and health care system, but did not recommend substantially altering the elements of cash compensation on which this report focuses.

Author: Beth J. Asch
Publisher: RAND Corporation
ISBN:
Category : Biography & Autobiography
Languages : en
Pages : 72

View

Book Description
Discusses the policy options aimed at ameliorating personnel concerns.

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0

View

Book Description
The last several years there has been a growing concern over the increasing gap between military and civilian pay. More recently, the relationship between retention and retirement benefits has been of increasing interest to Members of Congress and Military Personnel officials. Over the last 10 years, Military Pay and Retirement Benefits did not significantly influence recruiting, but they become significant factors in the retention of soldiers beyond the initial enlistment. This report argues that there is no pay gap as it is currently defined. Comparison of military and civilian compensation as it relates to pay growth is not a true measure of any gap. Analysis of the data indicates that as the pay gap has increased, there has been a slight increase in recruiting and retention. This trend, while it negates part of my thesis, does not truly explain the total relationship between pay and recruiting/retention. There are other factors, such as stop loss, which during the early 1990's prevented soldiers from leaving the service due to specialty shortages and the Gulf War; and the drawdown that have artificially inflated enlisted reenlistment rates and officer retention. Additionally, recruiting percentages are not an accurate reflection of the impact of pay on attracting today s young men and women. As Youth Attitudes Tracking Surveys (YATS) indicate, the dominant buying motives for the last eight years are training and education. Additional factors that outweigh the current pay gap debate and that need serious study are troop morale; health care; family care; housing, and other quality of life issues. These issues upon further study may indicate the true nature of the Army s retention problem and provide the answers we seek.