an E1 with less than 2 years of service is a tad over $1500 per month.

A 4-star with over 28 years service has a base pay of $19,763.

ok - there is other pay beyond base pay, for example flight pay, hazardous duty, etc. The Chiefs of Staff will get a tad more. But, considering base pay, the ratio is a tad less than 13:1.

Now . . .

Compare that to corporate CEO vs worker pay ratios. In 2013, the AFL-CIO reports that ratio as 331:1. For CEO vs minimum wage workers, it is even more disparate - 774:1.

So . . . military pay is really not out-of-line as compared to corporate pay structures.

These are government employees subject to getting their balls blown off.

Not the same as banksters, so no. Try again.

it appears their base pay now is around $18,400 plus per year.

Did you see the part about homeless vets?

We give generals a world of bennies and treat homeless vets like enemy.

That's the disparity you are having a hard time distinguishing, eh?

in your OP you talk about "working man soldiers" and "fighting men". These would not be "homeless vets".

Homeless vets are no longer in the military.

So who are you comparing the wealthy Generals to???????

The homeless vets who had bombs bursting in air over their heads and blowing away their friends, while the generals lived in mansions of glory.

I guess you are not familiar with being a working soldier?

Should they be homeless? Should we care about them or just look the other way?

How can we do both? We can't. One or the other is all we can afford.

So many homeless vets and a bombed out, back to the stone age Iraq, is proof of that assertion.

The divide before us is an abyss. Into which 'Defense' is driving us.

that would go along way to feeding and housing the homeless

... But I don't otherwise know what you're getting to. Every flag officer I've ever worked with, worked their asses off. Some were better than others to be sure, but they worked long hours.

that salary computes to less than $9 an hour for their time, regular 40 hours and any overtime per week.

And, yes, we realize that many of them get free room and board while they train, while they work 500-15000 miles from their home, and they also get medical/dental care, (sort of, some of the time), while they are serving, and discounted transportation back to their home once or twice a year. Still, their hourly rate of actualy taxable pay for each hour of their work is less than $10 per hour. These E1's, E2's and E3's also face the greatest risks of death or injury in their workplace.

The senior generals, by contrast, earning up to hundreds of thousands a year, with free or low-cost housing, discounted luxury golf courses around the world wherever they are stationed, and discounts, free military jet travel, etc. Many of them retiring after 30+/- years of service, young enough to start a second career in high-paid senior management with the contractor/supplier of industrial - military supply or services complex, and they get a lifelong pension from the military as well.

Well,NOT quite on the same region of pay and benefits, is it?

are you suggesting that E1's with less than 2 years service should be making equivalent pay to 4-stars?

If so, point out where.

How about a minimum salary of $15 an hour, and lifelong medical/dental/eye care as the 4 stars get? Too expensive? Perhaps a smaller military with less 4-stars, more rational decision-makers in Washington, less lobbying from industries that make their $ in military contracts. Let's start there. $15 an hour for someone risking their life every day of service, a little more "work" involved than greeting people at Walmart or servimg burgers at McDonalds, or more "work" than even first year firemen and teachers in the midwest. Let's pay them a decent wage, offer them a reasonable career path with free college education, lifelong medical care, a tiny pension when they reach 65, even if they only serve 3 years. We do that all for the 4-stars, let's do it for anyone willing to put themselves on the line for our defense.

By the way, when was the last time a 4-star died or was injured during his time of service in that capacity? We have well over 5000 military who died in the last 15 years, name a few 4-stars who died during or after 9/11.

smaller military? I am all for it. Lets base it on National defense, . . . not nation building and other offensive tactics.

more rational decision-makers in Wash DC? ok . . . I am for that, but have no idea how that fits into the context of your argument.

less lobbying from industries? . . . again, what does this have to do with enlisted folk and their pay/benefits?

For lifelong medical care and a pension . . . sure, if they serve time enough to retire. 4-stars have served minimum retirement years - they did not enter as a General officer, you know. They worked their way up from a 2Lt . . if not enlisted.

You mention $15/hour . . . you do realize that the $1500 per month for a brand-spanking-new E1 also includes housing, food, healthcare . . . right?

and yes - your prior post seemed to indicate you wanted more equal pay for enlisted fighting troops and the General staff.

4 stars do not get lifelong medical/dental/eyecare. They are eligible for Tricare Prime, just as any enlisted retiree is. There are also no 3 year serving 4 stars. By the time they achieve that rank, they've probably been in in excess of 20 years. When they retire, they are entitled to a pension based on their years of service and base pay.

Any enlisted person that completes 20 years of active service is also entitled to a pension, approximately 50% of their base pay effective the first month after they retire.

Enlisted personnel are also already entitled to free college in the form of Tuition Assistance on Active Duty, and Post-9/11 GI Bill if they've served out a minimum of 2 years. Most enlistments are 4 years.

Other than the above, I do agree with your comment.

Edit to add: Those that are eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill are also entitled to BAH at the single rate for an E-5 (unless that changed last year) while they attend college full time. That is approximately 1500.00 monthly tax free in San Diego (where I live).

for all the contracts they gave while they were at the Pentagon. It is open bribery. And it sucks.

perhaps for all who retire. After all, contracts roles (as an example) in the military have a HUGE opportunity for sinister acts. We finally began to do that for congressmen. It's at least a beginning.

They should not be penalized for their military service. They have a right to work for whoever they want.

do you think congressmen should be allowed to go from their elected positions to positions with corporations or lobbies without a time constraint?

you really think Generals and others in positions of selecting vendors etc should not have constraints in employment?. . .

wow

And that should be determined by audit. But the idea that military knowledge should be withheld from the private sector is wrong. I do agree with you, I think it is your position, that the DoD should be greatly reduced to an actual Defense position.

ok - got it

and it's not that "military knowledge" is being withheld, it's that one is not to be rewarded with a juicy job because of favorable decisions in a past job.

they have created a strawman. He has never been wrong about that.

(yes, the "so" was intentional)

And those who feel the need to create them to 'win' an argument.

would be able to fruitfully use as a lobbyist - just EXACTLY in the same manner as those in the military.

Yet . . . they are barred from that employment for a year (for the House) and 2 years (Senate). Should also apply to the military, don't you think?

I am retired civil service, and I then went to work for a contractor. I can tell you that there are limits that apply to every ex-federal employee, including the military. Those limits do sunset, however, and I think that's reasonable. After all, if you work for DoD, you have some highly specialized knowledge that can be hard to leverage into civilian employment outside of defense work.

...and possibly lost your f'in' mind.

Your term "working man soldiers" puts me in mind of a platoon whistling "Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, it's off to work we go..." as they duck shrapnel and bayonet bad guys. I doubt it works that way, in fact I KNOW it doesn't. In Vietnam the "tooth to tail" ratio was estimated at 1 in 10-that's 9 logistics guys-that's "clerks and jerks" in infantry parlance-to each troop who's primary job was actual combat. So at the peak of the war, with 500K troops in-country, only around 50K were shucking and ducking the "bombs bursting in air". While I grant that the army has cut many logistics slots since Vietnam, I'm bettin' the ratio still hasn't hit 1 in 5.(See:Fobbits)

Now none of these guys were E-1s unless they had been stripped of rank. E-1 is entry level, E2 was usually given on the completion of basic training, and E3 on completion of AIT. So most of these guys have received several raises before things even start bursting. And they are not treated as the enemy-they are treated as assets-which they are. If a General misuses and damages and loses to many assets he is recalled.

Someone along the thread suggested it was "lowly" soldiers who suffered the highest casualties-for the record the highest casualties are suffered by 2nd Lt.s and senior NCOs. These are the guys who have to stand up and direct troops during an attack.I won't even sit here and defend Generals other than to say that your "working soldiers" are (relatively) new hires while generals normally have at least 15-20 years of flawless performance-any less and you don't attain rank.

As for homeless vets, while their service is admirable, almost none have 20 years service as the officers discussed do and few are badly wounded since both those conditions earn pensions.

Now I am as socialistic as the next poster and more socialistic than most, and I must say your OP seems more like the mad ranting of a cartoon bearded Marxist than any attempt at reason or discussion.

Sometimes listening to civilians with no prior service try to lecture us vets, and tell us we have no clue, takes more patience than I have at the ready.

I am a vet, but always make it clear that I am not a combat vet. And not in Vietnam-I was stationed in Colorado...

Let alone to O-7.

You need a BA or BS to be a 2LT. You need a Masters to make Major. General Officers all have PhDs.

Those General Officers are quite exceptional people, probably more so than most CEOs making millions.

Being a military officer for a few decades is not quite the pampered life of luxury you might imagine it to be.

I did a little checking. 12 Generals or Admirals died in Vietnam, 4 in combat. General Keith L. Ware, who was awarded a Medal of Honor in WW2 died along with several other high ranking officers in 1968 when his C&C bird was shot down near the Laotian Border. As far as a "mansion of glory" it is possible that his quarters in the rear MAY have been air conditioned..


Edited for wrong name.

General Officer is a political position. They don't have the time to earn a Ph.D.

However I agree with your last statement - as an officer for a couple of decades.

And maybe I'm wrong. Haven't known many Generals, but the ones I did had doctorates.

no Ph.D.'s that I can recollect.

I was an U.S.A.F. officer for a couple of decades . . . and hold a Ph.D. I know how much time it takes to earn one. The military might grant a year of study . . . but not the 3 years + to earn a Ph.D (I went 4 years beyond 2 Masters).

I agree that they hold graduate degrees - most earned while in full-time residence. . . but few Ph.D.'s.

Quite a few do earn PhDs while in service. Ever known a General Officer (since the 1990s) without at least a Masters? I'd be curious to know if there has been one in recent years.

My husband retired as an O-6 last year. Strange to see him with longer hair.

PS the Air Force does have AFIT....DH taught there, helped several officers earn PhDs.

hold a Masters Degree.

Thinking more about it, I did know a couple of Navy Captains that earned Ph.D.'s at non-military universities while on active duty - NAMRU types.

But this is interesting - just found a site that stated 15% of Army generals hold Ph.D's. Wish I could provide a link . . . but in typing this I lost the site and cannot find it.

I was probably just around people in the same career field as my DH, so that's why I saw so many with PhDs.

What floored me at W-P was how different the Air Force seemed from the Army. Everyone was so shocked at the idea that the Army moved us every three years (or more often.). Everything was just....different somehow, and I felt relieved to move back to an Army Post. I hadn't expected any differences at all.

I spent most of my time in Europe . . . stationed at an AF base . . . but working a lot with the Army in negotiating support for mobile radar and comm support.

I was always relieved to get back to my U.S.A.F. environment.

isn't that fascinating.

Last edited Sun Jun 29, 2014, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Get by our own branches. It's little tiny things, but enough to make us uncomfortable when we are outside of our own branches.

I have to say though that I have always admired the USAF and the professionalism you guys display.
I worked with the USAF on deployments of the Brigade I was in, doing the load plans for C-5's and I wanted to kiss the feet of the USAF officers and NCO's that got our troops where they needed to go.

On the other hand it kind of got to me when they would watch our troops having a formation and almost fall down from laughing. "What are they doing?" "They're having a FORMATION!" "No way!"

I asked them, "Don't you guys have formations?" "Not once we leave Basic Training!" "How do you put out information to the troops, then?"

"We hold meetings."

"Oh."

"With coffee and donuts."

"Don't rub it in."


P.S. Seriously, I think the world of you USAF guys. Thank you for your service. This comes from the heart:

I was an Army brat, my father was stationed at what was then called AFCENT in Brunssum, NL. Was a teenager there. Great memories!

did spend a considerable amount of time at Wiesbaden, Munich, Stuttgart, and Frankfurt as well as other Army posts.

My job required considerable travel, mostly in Germany, but also Spain, England, Greece, and Turkey. I worked mostly the U.S. Army and a bit with the Luftwaffe. It was a great job - I look back on it with great memories.

plaques/certificates. There would inevitably be rows of framed certificates etc. filling the walls of the office.

Funny how little things like that stick in one's memory.

That is some mean stuff you dish out.

I'm just trying to help some homeless vets, dude.

What you might consider is why they are homeless. Did their service mess them up? Why are so many committing suicide?

I've known a few VN vets and they don't like to talk about what they went thru. And you sit there and say "Oh, just a few had problems'.

Talk like yours... no wonder the VA has so many problems.... even some vets couldn't care less for fellow service members.

Stick to the homeless vet issue and maybe you will cool down and get real?

an issue I intended to explore yesterday when there was a forum or some sort of gathering around the issue.
ironically I ended up spending most of the day trying to help an all but homeless and truly helpless veteran.
My interest was seeing what the local official outlook was.
My hunch is you really have to hunt hard to find a vet on the streets, these days,
although a year or two back it wouldnt take much to find them.
Last year a major demolition of the homeless encampments outside of the rescue facilities was punctuated
by a squad of people actively looking for ANY vets.
Clearly, they were not finding a soul.
One individual was mentioned by the dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people being dislocated, but he (or she)
was nowhere to be found.
Seeing as how ANY of the folks being bulldozed out of a community built by the local law enforcement that forced them
into that area over the previous decade would have gladly accepted any shred of assistance, its fairly likely that any
and all vets with no other options would have already have seized their opportunities.

Meanwhile, these hundreds of people were not given the opportunities that the veteran hunters were desperate to bestow.
That distinction implied by concern and imbued by federal resources
is really a sad artifice, and an indictment on our country from every angle.
We wish to honor and serve those who have been ground through the gears of our war machine,
while flat out turning our backs on those who have never harmed a soul.
Primarily because of that thick current of racism that our country is content to ignore.

Too, the number of VN vets decreases daily. But the vets of Iraq and Afghanistan? They are having real problems. They are now mainly young and able. As they age, their injuries, mental and physical, will hinder them more and more.

This thread was not really about vets so much as it is about the way our government and society has handled some people, especially those less fortunate. What i have seen here, again, is that many don't care, or wish to ignore the problem of the homeless.

Did use the disparity between how we treat generals and how we treat grunts as an example of our failure to do the right thing.

many want to salute up and piss down.
not the best strategy.

and not some overserved and fully funded subset.
some of those elderly folks never had the advantage of being enlisted or drafted.
the hypersensitivity surrounding homeless vets is just another way of turning backs on the rest.

When I lived there. Taxes were high but everyone was taken care of. I think I'm for socialism, really. Bernie Sanders is my favorite Senator.

Ive seen enough garbage treatment of the homeless here in Fresno to push me right over the edge.
No Republican mayor gets away with this shit without some help from the "opposition".

inevitable and understandable. Two parties with illegal invasions as foreign policy planks,
and no place for conscientious voters to stand united against these
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

Because they cannot reconcile their culpability and inculcated patriotic obeisance.

When I was a deputy I ran into a lot of homeless. In my case being a rural area usually drifters passing through.

We had a whole series if programs we tried to get them help with. Some run by local churches, some by other groups. We knew that the local VFW and American Legion would also help vets, as well as help get them into special VA programs.

Problem was, only about 10% that started out claiming to be homeless vets were, in fact, vets at all. The VFW and Legipn both would make the first call to the County Veterans Affairs advisor who could access the database. While not perfect, it was 99.9% accurate.

That is, of course, if they got that far. That was before I ever deployed but at that point I had been in the Army Reserve long enough to spot most people making up stories. A few simple questions- what branch, what MOS? Where were you stationed? "Ohh, my dad was at Ft Baxter, were you ever there? (FT Baxter doesn't exist except in the old Phil Solvers Show) I could usually weed out most of the BS artists in a couple minutes so I didn't waste the VFW or VA's time and took them to another resource if they wanted to go.

the homeless around here get called names like Transient.
But they are lifelong residents of the area.
I wish I had the resources to go places people attribute to the homeless.
Must be some magic boxcars that take them anywhere they want to go.

Were actively hitchhiking and trying to get somewhere.

My county was mostly rural and being a deputy I didn't work in the cities at all. Very little in the way of resources for homeless in an area that is all farms and woods.

just triggered a reaction I have to the false terminology deployed against the poor.

I was special agent orange.

at a minimum...(i thought vets, regardless of how long in, could get VA medical for life? is that wrong?)

If it were up to me, any veteran (distinguish between veteran and RETIREE, most dont stay in long enough to be retiree's), who was in combat or combat support, would never be allowed to be homeless.

Even if they had such severe mental issues they had to be hospitalized.

We dont support the troops the way we think we do.

The backs of vets and others in the 99%.

a few years before he died, very handsome one actually

One day i was telling a relative about this, a far right wing, Glenn Beck reading repub, and she became furious that he was gonna get that money and not have to work for it.

another friend got PTSD settlement because Obama fast tracked them, and he hates Obama

I want to tell him to thank Obama or I almost want to scream at him to give the money back, it is so fucking frustrating

at least acknowledge, you stupid fuck,which group of Americans supports you and which doesnt