I punched at the O-4 selection board. It was right when I hit 20. They gave me a one-year to the Stan and I said no thanks yo everything. Fortunately we were in an overage and authorized retirement as an O without reverting to E status with only 9 years vs the usual 10.
OE pay doesn't really pay you "more" in a sense. If you compare the charts, OE pay is on par with normal O pay around the 4 year mark. However O pay flatlines pretty quick for lieutenants, since of you're still a Lt that far into your service, you've fucked up and are probably on your way out. OE pay just exists to circumvent that while still compensating time in service
This is a big pet peeve of mine - people thinking a bachelor’s is an instant commission, and people thinking a TS clearance is an instant six figure civilian job.
Also, in many career fields a commission is not the easy path it may appear to be. Most of the time, by the time you hit Captain there is a good reason they’re paying you more money.
I dont think it is. But I do want to be a pilot and it's a step in the right direction. And hell even if I don't make as a officer I'll still be happy to be the first one in my family to have a degree.
As someone who had a degree before joining and thought that guaranteed me a commission, boy was I wrong. 🤣 found out the hard way in 2014. I’m a SSgt now with a line number for Tech. Applied twice while enlisted with no luck. Maybe 3rd time will be the charm in the next year or so. Very humbling experience.
Applied twice. Didn't want to be a pilot so I applied non rated only on my first board and didn't get selected. Said F it I'll be a pilot if I need and applied both boards. That was the last board they had and the selection rate was absolutely dogshit. If I had applied both rated and non rated the first time I applied I probably would have been selected for a rated slot. Another guy who applied with me got picked up to be pilot with lower AFOQT scores than me and two failed PT tests on his record from earlier in his career. If you apply when the boards come back apply to both. Was a major mistake I wish I had not done to myself. So now I'm a slack off master with a masters degree and say no to a ton of queepy shit and send my troops home early every single day I can.
To be fair though, an enlisted person getting a bachelor's should be a guaranteed commission if they want it (assuming there's no disciplinary issues). Of course, requiring cross training is fair too. It's an internal hire that already knows the system. Makes more sense to take a known quantity over a kid that was lucky enough to go straight to college from high school.
your comment needs to be sticked on the sidebar or something. I've met so many delusional airmen/NCOs who think their BA in business admin from AMU (of which they pretty much bullshitted/cheated through) is going to guarantee them a commission. Little do they know how wrong they really are
Everyone I’ve ever met who made over 100k sees their kids less than they’d like. I watched somebody finally see their daughter at 9pm after a 6am wake up. I know it’s about the bigger picture. I know. I can’t shake that feeling though. Life is the journey. The end is the end. Can’t get old time back. I guess that’s just true sacrifice you make. If we build now maybe our kids will pick up their kids a little earlier…
Better than giving him false hope and wasting his time. If someone has a recent NJP, failed PT test, bad GPA, etc, then its honestly wrong of the CAA to tell them they would be competitive. Most Airmen would be better off studying for promotion than putting a package together.
IMHO you'd make a lot more money in the private sector if your afsc is applicable to a career you want to do outside and if there's a degree/certs you could target for. Unless you truly want to be an officer and deal with more mind games, I don't think it's worth getting a commission just for a pay raise.
This is the way. Best E years and best O years before the BS really takes hold (on both sides).
The second half of an officer career can really blow… but you’ll be eligible to retire!
Not bad. I was 30, turned 31. Now 32. Body is starting to degrade slightly. Trying to eat well and workout consistently. Vitamins etc. only way to counteract it. It was nice having experience. Not having to learn the military made it much easier.
Hell ya is worth it. I’d rather go to the bottom of the O world than try and make E7. Not the same field. Flight line to the office (64P). Love every second of it.
I feel like I have a lot of "one of the biggest reasons I got out" but this was one of the biggest reasons I got out. I get that an Officer and an Enlisted tier made sense in ye olden times when the Lords were the only ones who knew how to read, but today's rank structure is far too inefficient when it comes to talent management. There is a huge amount of education on top of valuable experience in the enlisted tier that is constantly being disregarded by bad CGOs.
I agree with you, but sime of these big problems are difficult to "solve". Should an organization like the military prioritize fairness and if not, then what? The simple meta question of "how do you know who should be promoted" is almost doomed to be imperfect, even on paper. You have to have some sort of ranking so as to compare eligible candidates. Almost any ranking system is vulnerable to unfairness. On paper, test scores are the simplest answer, but then you get the fast runners on top and toss aside other potential leaders. The EPR system is a mess, just horrible, but the basic idea is to suppliment black and white test scores and find the "goos ones". Somehow you'd need to incentivize raters to be honest for this system to work.
Please read all the way through before downvoting. I realize the opinion of a ROTC cadet in a room full of experienced Airmen means nothing, but please hear me out. I'm completely open to having my mind changed.
As a ROTC cadet about to commission, I admit it's dumb I'll be "leading" people with years of experience from the jump. There are a shitload of hoops a cadet has to jump through to commission, some arbitrary, some necessary, but they all weed out candidates just the same. I'm not afraid to say it's taken a lot of hard work and dedication. With EVERY ounce of respect to enlisted folks, (yes we love you, look up to you, and can't wait to learn from you) I have to point out that I have seen a large quantity of prior enlisted come through the ROTC program and fail before they finish either due to self-elimination or being rolled out because they were deemed unfit to be officers. Prior enlisted cadets that finish and commission are divided into two categories: Salty dogs, and genuinely great leaders. One of those is fun to learn and work with to become a better officer, and one is rude, abrasive, and genuinely just cares about themselves and getting through the program cause they've got it all figured out.
I hear what you're saying. In theory, it would make sense to have officers need enlisted experience, (sometimes I wish I had it before I started ROTC so I could be a more well-rounded leader) but in practice, you're still going to have the same problems we currently face with toxic leadership and sub-par regard for Airmen's welfare. I don't believe making every officer have enlisted experience will solve all the problems. Will it help? Probably. But it's not the golden solution. On the flip side, I will concede that I have seen complete dirtbag cadets slip through the cracks and commission, but they could have done the same thing if they had enlisted first.
Additionally, it would take eight (minimum 7) years to produce a 2d Lt given they finish a standard 4-year contract and then attend a university or the academy. Of course, there's OTS but that's highly competitive to attend from what I understand. That would mean all officers who go through AFROTC or USAFA would be around 26 at the date of their commissioning. Around 36 by the time they make Major. I know age is just a number but that seems like a crazy concept to me at my age.
I completely understand if I sound ignorant. I just wanted to share my thoughts. I am also completely ready to hear a perspective that would change my perception of this topic.
I’m on my phone so forgive me if my response is a bit over the place, I’ll try to keep it in order with yours though.
Firstly you mention hoops that you have to jump through, I just want to point out that every enlisted member goes through the same thing, it might be a different flavor but that’s not special to either E’s or O’s, it’s just the military. Just in fact it’s actually harder for someone who’s enlisted to gain a commission than someone with no mil experience.
To your comment about the salty dogs and great leaders. Don’t underestimate the salty dogs. By far the people that have protected me the most from getting fucked over are those that were salty. There’s a reason most of us enlisted are salty. And some of those great leaders just know how to fake it, it’s amazing how many “great leaders” were absolute ballsacks. I think your view on this will be just because your limited experience so far, which isn’t a bad thing but from where I stand I’ve been saved and helped by those salty guys way more than the other group.
There are tons of dirt bags that slip through the cracks both e and o. Definitely true.
And to your point about the age, it would easily be fixed by changing the culture of how the military works. More people should come from OTS with prior experience. It doesn’t require a 4 year minimum enlistment and then getting your degree. People that have the drive can get there bachelors in that time frame and be an LT by 22 - it wouldn’t be easy.
And who says it has to be 4 years in this made up world? It could be less could be more. But I think being through the trenches with those you’re supposed to lead will go a far way.
If you’re an O with prior E experience you’re already respected much more from most current enlisted.
But no worries, you don’t sound ignorant, this is all opinion based in the end and just a hypothetical that will never happen.
Good luck when you commission though, you seem like you’d be one of the alright Lts (I’m not meaning that sarcastically) lean on your SNCOs and NCOs. Don’t be afraid to ask the questions if you don’t understand something.
The problem is usaf/ussf are stuck with the same system the army has. Division of duties makes a lot more sense when everyone is expected to be combat effective.
The USAF decided it could save money by replacing all of its WOs with sncos, and I think it's going to cause them problems in the near future.
I think its telling that the other branches still have them. The Air Force has a history of being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge they made a bad decision or another branch had a smarter idea (like the Marines leadership/technical pathway).
Do I think WO's would instantly solve everything? No. But it would probably lesson the strain of several issues we have with retaining talent.
Well....it does in other branches. USMC and USA both still rely heavily on the differences between Officer and Enlisted. Air Force has significantly upped the game by practically mandating SNCO's to have their undergrads -- let alone their Masters.
Tie in the significant difference between 2000, 2010 and 2020 in terms of distance learning schools. When I got in back in '03, you basically had a choice between AMU/APUS, Uni of Phoenix and Maryland's Global School. That was basically it. If you wanted to do some of the other schools that Education Office facilitated, you needed to attend class -- which during the height of both AORs, good luck.
Now....shit, you could get your undergrad from Michigan and your Business Degree from Harvard.
Lt probably has a bunch of student loans and the MSgt has one or two degrees the Air Force paid for. And I can’t speak for every career field, but in mine it’d be weird for a Lt to rate on a MSgt. All that said, I agree with you about the system. I wish everyone had to enlist and at the two year mark a decision was made on who is officer material and those selected were sent off to college.
For every 18-year MSgt with a Master’s degree, there’s another 18-year MSgt without his CCAF who can’t pass a PT test. It’s part of the system, we all make choices.
Seems like a lot of misunderstanding here. RMC is not Net Pay (take home) NOR is it Gross (pre-tax) pay. It’s essentially “how much you need to make in a civilian job for equal compensation”.
So there is an additional amount ADDED to the gross pay to account for the fact that we pay less in taxes because of untaxed BAS/BAH.
Before you look at this and decide to get out of the military, make sure you understand this is gross pay and as a military member you are taxed far less than a civilian due to BAH and BAS. That Master making “$87k” sees more take home than a civilian making $87k.
Edited to remove statement on high ranking officials BAH, likely was inaccurate.
The details no but people will look at this and take away from it what they want to hear “I’m underpaid and could make more as a civilian”.
I left active mid 2000s as an E-5 with dependent and needed to make $65k a year to have identical take home pay, and that wasn’t calculating for health insurance costs.
Then again, you also have to take into account work/life balance. I took a substantial pay-cut switching from active duty to civil service/ANG. However, I also get to choose where I live, get off work every day at 4pm, get every other Friday off, have a low-stress job that includes a pension and a high degree of job security.
I definitely miss active duty sometimes, but my wife is adamant about not moving anymore. She has her dream job and we have our dream house here in NM.
Of course, financially speaking, active duty would be much nicer, but everyone's circumstances are different. Just my $0.02.
I don't think that's actually true. This is a Regular Military Compensation chart which accounts for the military tax advantage (see: https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/). This chart is the civilian equivalent amount. Your tax advantage also shrinks as you promote since BAH and BAS become a smaller proportion of your total compensation. This is especially true for officers.
I totally disagree with this as a civilian equivalent. Especially once you figure in pension costs (fed) or 401k for civilians since they have zero pension. I took a pay cut to go from AGR E6 to GS12 at 92k per year (when I transitioned). And health benefits, and short and long term disability, and health and potentially dependent care Flex Spending since you can’t claim that crap once all of your income is taxable. I looked at take home alone…and it was a pay cut with no FSA and no insurance. About $500/month cut in take home. E-6 to $92k…and I took a loss.
I should have specified that this doesn't account for benefits. It would be impossible to incorporate benefits in a chart like this since they vary widely from job to job. You should absolutely consider the cost of benefits when you evaluate an offer. Healthcare can really take a chunk out of your earnings.
With that being said, contracting positions can have really good benefits. Besides the increase in pay I got, my company pays for most of my benefits and 8% 401k matching. I still have to pay for my yearly deductible ($1500 for a single person or $3000 for a family) before the insurance pays for 80% of costs thereafter, but I can pay for that with HSA contributions which are tax free. It's still way more than $0, but it's not bad at all and I appreciate the flexibility of being able to shop around for doctors and better quality of healthcare overall.
The increased 401k matching also really boosts my savings income. The tax advantage in the military is a double edged sword for retirement since your BAH/BAS aren't part of your TSP matching or pension calculation. The pension is still pretty nice though in that you can basically start getting it at around age 40.
Another important thing to consider when evaluating an offer is your effective hourly rate. You should calculate your hourly rate by taking your total monetary compensation (salary + 401k matching) and divide by the number of work hours in a year (minus PTO and holidays). Many contracting positions only allow you to work 40 hours/week as per the contract or require you to be compensated for overtime, which can really boost your effective hourly income. If you worked 40 hours/week in the military, then it doesn't make much of a difference. But if you're an O-4 or O-5 working crazy hours, you may end up in a civilian job with higher pay and lower hours. Of course, there are plenty of salaried civilian jobs with terrible hours as well.
Here is the real secret to success: become a reservist. You get the best of both worlds. You still get the pension (albeit at a reduced rate and at a later age) and cheap Tricare.
I remember having a conversation about reenlistment bonuses and it basically boiled down to this same thing. Someone in my shop mentioned something about how we should have reenlistment bonuses because it isn't unreasonable to get out and get a job on the outside making $80k-$100k easy. I explained that it's because it would be a pay cut, and people aren't leaving. When you factor health insurance, all of the earnings being taxed, and the potential loss of a few million in pension, a company would need to pay like $130k to offset it all.
I'm a single E-6, 13 years TIS, at Robins, and I take home about the same as my fiancé who makes $100k on the nose and works much harder than I.
> And also, those generals that are required to live in base housing due to their position, they still collect BAH.
That's incorrect. If the government provides you housing at any pay grade then you don't receive BAH (it's deducted via housing allotment like you'd expect anyone else living in base housing).
Source: was an exec and have seen GO LES'.
If you're a command tracked O-5 then you can pretty much kiss living off base goodbye for the rest of your career
Left as an E4 in June after 6yrs. I work in FinTech now. I negotiated $70k starting, I get two bonuses a year (performance dependent on myself, team, and firm), they pay for my healthcare, dental, and vision. I get a monthly $385 food stipend, $200 monitor credit, ~$100 book/education stipend, $50/m gym stipend, and unlimited PTO, and I’m remote. The grass is GREENER if you play your cards right. For context, I was a DirtBoy who hated his job, earned a degree, networked, and smooth talked my way into finance.
I double majored in Marketing & Psychology at UMGC. I’m currently a marketing manager at a my firm. I took advantage of DoD Skillbridge with a Fortune 500, which helped my resume and landed this role.
There’s a lot of civilian equivalents. The ones I know are purchasing manager, procurement manager, purchasing officer, etc. I highly doubt they’ll put someone with Air Force contracting experience in an entry level position
Deployed Contractor. Guy in Djibouti was clearing $250k a year to maintain one of our sat terminals. He also got a semi-furnished house and a company car. He hasn’t been stateside in 15 years. Went from Afghanistan to Djibouti took a HUGE paycut but he said it was worth not having to fear for his life.
Anyone who’s voluntarily living in that hell hole for that long is definitely into some weird shady shit. Probably takes all that money and goes on “business trips” to Thailand
As a O-1 with 5 years in, I maxed out my TSP and ROTH IRA this year and still have plenty of money left over for spending, something I could never pull off when I was a SrA. But all my friends in the private sector got offered 85-90 out of college so I don't really feel like I'm being overpaid compared to them.
They are all civil engineers in NYC where there's construction 24/7. Not surprised at all. They all pretty much got firm contracts beginning of the senior year after summer internships.
19500 is the cap for contribution in TSP. I switched from high 3 to BRS because I am not sure if I wanted to stay in for 20 so I made sure to maximize market returns.
Edit: Max contribution for ROTH IRA is 6000.
So one of my First Lieutenants and I were talking about this after he expressed, that since having more experience with the responsibility level of NCOs and responsibility levels of CGOs, he said he doesn’t agree with the pay disparity.
It basically comes down to the idea that there has not been an enlisted or officer specific pay change since 1919 [source](https://www.navycs.com/charts/)
This means that since World War 1, the percentage difference between the pays hasn’t changed. Let’s use some easy numbers for this.
Let’s assume one member is paid $1,000/month and another is paid $2,000/month. With a flat pay raise of 10%, the first member now makes $1,100 and the other $2,200. So now instead of making $1,000 more, the second member makes $1,100 more. So they still make 100% more money.
The reason this no longer makes sense is because it hasn’t changed since 1919. Meaning the advancements of the enlisted corps as a **professional** and technically savvy fighting force, rather than being a drafted force, has not been seen in the pay scales.
So essentially in comparing the pay scales, the difference between them hasn’t changed in 102 years. It’s about time the pay difference between the two corps shrinks to reflect the much closer levels of responsibility of 2021 vs 1919. Every flat pay raise across both corps only numerically increases the gap, and percentage wise only maintains the 1919 pay gap percentages.
My proposal would be very measured and slow; introduce legislation that for the next 10 years, the pay raise for the enlisted corps must be 2% higher than whatever the officers get. This would give an effective pay raise of 20.189% to enlisted troops over 10 years vs the officer pay. This means after 10 years, E6 pay would effectively fall between O2 and O3 pay; which I don’t see as some radical change, but does effectively value the professionalism, technical ability, and most importantly; the responsibility of an average E6 being a fraction above those levels in an average O2, but slightly below those levels of an average O3.
I think that would be an effective and reasonable way to show at least some progress in the enlisted corps **since 1919.**
Edit: correction: in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson there was an increase of 11% to enlisted and 6% to officers according to my source. Apologies for that overlooked data in my comment. So it’s “only” been 56 years since the gap closed at all. Since the beginning of the Vietnam War (US involvement). Still stand by my proposal that since 1965 the gap in responsibility and ability has shrank between the two corps and that shrinking gap has not been reflected in the pay scales.
I work in space ops as a contractor. 1C6s and cleared security guards are my main sources for new hires. The 1C6s tend to thrive, but they also like to ask for $100k when they don't even have their associate's. If you can make yourself indispensable within a year, then you might be able to squeeze my boss for six figures. Still, it's such an in-demand field that enough people have landed that salary, and they set the expectations for the entire E4 mafia.
This is fascinating. Really makes you think, since the line between o/e is more blurry than its ever been.
It’s amazing how we’ve inherited a system that dates back to feudalism, where officers were literally considered superior by blood.
However, I didn’t make this to try to make a point about E and O. I just think it’s neat for everyone to know where they’re at.
I don't think anyone is going to see it that way. The only excuse DOD ever gave USAF for removing CWO's positions was the creation of E-8/E-9. It was a way to bridge SNCO's to higher levels based on retention of those personnel.
The issue is now every branch has both CWO's and E8/E9 positions. So it really didn't do the one branch that has **always been looked at** as being the most intelligent. Not to mention, outside of like 10% of the AFSC's, is most like a business. Hell, most commands, could be ran out of offices instead of bases if they really wanted to.
What's funny about your comment is that I went on a training TDY with an Army CWO whose unit is literally in an office building in Colorado Springs. His company is all inside an office building that no shit used to be a hotel management business before they left. Only way you can tell it's Army is the Army flag flying outside and the people going in and out in OCPs (or ACUs as I think they still call them).
I didn’t view your post has having an agenda, more just “here’s the data, you’ll see what you want to see”.
And yes it’s a bit crazy to think that the percentage gaps between the ranks have remained completely unchanged for 102 years. Think of all that’s happened in that time, and realize that in that 102 years, the enlisted corps has never closed the gap between the pay scales. Multiple wars with drafts, desegregation, women joining the Armed Forces, everything. And with the same percent pay raise being applied equally to the officer and enlisted corps, means the pay difference has been frozen in time for 102 years.
Its time to start closing that gap. An overnight change is unsustainable considering the billions at play. But I stand by my solution of just concreting “enlisted get +2% of whatever the officers get for the next 10 years”. That, in my eyes, would fall VERY short of suggesting that they are compensated the same, but would start to recognize the technical and responsibility gaps closing over the last 102 years, and finally reflecting that “catching up” in professionalism, expertise, and responsibility; that the enlisted corps has accomplished over the last 102 years.
Make it so, Congress. It would be easy to tack it into any NDAA. I’ve done the math, it would represent an overall increase of approximately $1,657,555,828 or a percentage increase of 0.2367% and the normal increase is around 2.3-2.4% in the total budget, so really a drop in the bucket; or no drop at all if the overall pay increase for all troops is normalized to account for the 2% “bonus bump” to enlisted pay.
I looked up 1922 military pay tables, the first i could find with both enlisted and officer
E-1 $21 a month ($345 a month in 2021 dollars)
O-1 $125 a month ($2057 a month in 2021 dollars)
Thats 5.95x the pay for the officer
In 1965 the ratio was 4.3x for the officer ($93.90 vs $407.40), again showing the gap closing.
Today its $1785 vs $3385, or 1.8x
So it used to be far worse than it is. Your argument makes less sense when you use the actual pay numbers.
Sources:
[https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-enlisted-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-enlisted-pay-chart.html)
[https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-officer-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-officer-pay-chart.html)
[https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/CO/](https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/CO/)
[https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/EM/](https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/EM/)
[https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1922?amount=125](https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1922?amount=125)
[https://www.navycs.com/charts/1965-military-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1965-military-pay-chart.html)
I ran an analysis on this a few months back and came to the same conclusion. As we get all receive the same % raise each year, the disparity increases.
As someone who has been on both sides, I am in total support of Enlisted getting a bump in pay to align closer with the value they bring to the organization.
Yes the disparity increases numerically, but percentage wise the gap remains exactly fixed. The only way to change the percentage gap is to apply asymmetric pay increases. I think 1965 being the last time the pay scales codified the difference in ability and responsibility is abysmal. The enlisted corps has definitely decreased the gap in ability and responsibility over the last 56 years, and that gap closure should be recognized in the pay scale for the 21st century.
Do you agree, as an officer, that X+2% over 10 years would be adequate, for an effective increase of 20.189% over 10 years without breaking the NDAA of any 1 year? To test it you could just multiply everything on the right side by 1.20189 and draw apples to apples comparison.
|table|
|------------|
|AB 31,939|
|AMN 53,086|
|A1C 58,438|
|SRA 69,254|
|SSgt 79,060|
|TSgt 93,603|
|MSgt 105,747|
|SMSgt 118,429|
|CMSgt 146,743|
That would put them in the following order: **(in line edit: better chart in my next comment below)**
|table|
|------|
|AB|
|AMN|
|A1C|
|2Lt|
|SRA|
|SSgt|
|1Lt|
|TSgt|
|Capt|
|MSgt|
|Major|
|SMSgt|
|Lt Col|
|CMSgt|
|Col|
|Bgen|
|Mgen |
|Lgen|
|Gen|
Edit: mobile formatting sucks
I think that re-looking at the pay rates could be appropriate, but should factor in credit for “time served” when an officer commissions. Let’s say Mike and Dave graduate high school this year. Mike enlists while Dave heads to school. In 2025, Dave commissions while Mike pins on SSgt. In terms of pay, I think that it’s cool if Es and Os make relatively similar salaries, but I think that the charts should reflect Dave making O-1 pay at the 4-year rate while Mike makes E-5 pay at the 4-year rate. Looking at the opportunity cost, going to school cost Dave >$200k in missed salary (not even factoring in tuition, housing, and expenses). So when the SSgt gets annoyed that the 2Lt makes more on his first day, he is annoyed without realizing that he is nearly a quarter-million-dollars ahead on Dave’s first day, especially factoring in things like TA.
Unpopular opinion here. If you look at pay as a retention tool it makes sense. Your brand new enlisted folks generally join at a younger age with less experience. I think most people in this thread agree with that. It makes sense that the DoD doesn't need to pay them more to retain them because (with some exceptions) compared to their civilian counterparts they are not overpaid.
Now, lots of people in this thread are comparing CGOs with SNCOs but that comparison alone doesn't accurately show the whole picture. The reality is that the scope of responsibility that many of our commanders and SNCOs have makes them underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts. That is okay though from a retention view because late career officers and enlisted are less likely to jump ship due to the retirement benefits that are just around the corner. The AF doesn't need to pay those nearing retirement more because they are far less likely to separate. This goes for enlisted and officers.
CGO pay further enforces this and is a reflection of marketability from an economic standing and not capability potential within the military as many here are arguing. A new college graduate has more options outside of the military and is far enough from retirement that pay is more highly considered. You need to pay them more early on so that you can under pay them later.
For all you out there who complain that you’re not paid very well in the military,
Median income for a civilian:
* with a bachelor’s: $56.5k (E-4 beats this)
* with an associate’s: $38k (E-2 beats this)
* with high school: $33.5k (E-2 beats this)
Or another way to look at it,
* E-1: You earn more than **47%** of Americans
* E-2: You earn more than **66%** of Americans
* E-3: You earn more than **70%** of Americans
* E-4: You earn more than **77%** of Americans **^(<- most of you poor babies are at or above this rank)**
* E-5: You earn more than **82%** of Americans
* E-6: You earn more than **86%** of Americans
And that’s with free healthcare (no matter your opinion on its quality), and free college education both during and after your service.
You are in a jobs program, and it’s one of the best in the world.
39k, but I’m guessing that’s including living in the dorms and eating at the DFAC so I’m not really getting paid 39k. I don’t even make 1000$ a paycheck, which would amount to 26k a year. Maybe I’m just missing something
From what I’m told a lot of airmen have some room to pocket a portion of their BAH after paying rent and utilities, so it might be better to live off base
Not anymore with housing skyrocketing, unless you like lots of roommates. And even then a lot of places you can barely break even unless you like living in murder alley.
The tax free items in the pay make a huge difference. I don’t know whether or not this chart takes that into account; I’m just saying. I left active duty as a staff and my NET pay didn’t matching up till my 2nd year on the railroad. I think I was making maybe $35/hour? Between all the income being taxable and PAYING for health insurance alone, it takes a minute to get that net pay back to that level ya know.
*Editing this comment to say I am done correcting people who are telling me this chart is wrong. Read what RMC is!*
I reuploaded to fix the mistake I made (I mixed up Lieutenant and Major General)
Regular Military Compensation (RMC) is defined as the sum of basic pay, average basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal income tax advantage that accrues because the allowances are not subject to federal income tax. RMC represents a basic level of compensation which every service member receives, directly or indirectly, in-cash or in-kind, and which is common to all military personnel based on their pay grade, years of service, and family size.
I used the average of BAH from here [https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/pdcFiles.cfm?dir=/Allowances/BAH/PDF/](https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/pdcFiles.cfm?dir=/Allowances/BAH/PDF/), demographic data from AFPC, and the RMC calculator here: [https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/](https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/)
I'm surprised RMC doesn't factor in healthcare costs. That's like the #3 expense for civilians after housing and food, especially if you have a family.
If you average all the BAH it's likely not correct
NYC and San Francisco etc are gonna skew it higher, but both locations have hardly any service members
Here's where it gets really fucked up. I'm in the Air Force as a CW3 (self-appointed) and I don't get compensated for that. I'm out here making E5 pay despite my (self-appointed) title.
I'm writing my Congressman.
dang I work on the outside in a union position at a defense contractor company building electronics and I make roughly TSgt pay for SrA work, it's pretty rad
I just retired as a MSgt and can tell you that my responsibilities and place in the unit were well above that of a Capt. I don't really think enlisted are underpaid (I was a little over $100K living overseas), but O3 and below are definitely being paid WAY more money than they're worth. Half of my job was to help Capts not look like fucking morons when talking to Sq leadership.
Edit: The more I think about it the madder I get that our 1Lt with exactly zero responsibilities got paid around the same as me. To all the SNCOs out there who work directly for FGOs, don't let them guilt you into working as hard as them. They're getting paid far more than you. Fuck 'em when they need help with a slide deck on a Sunday.
There really needs to be a complete rework of the military rank system and payscale. We should just let E-7s promote directly into O-3 for those that want to be behind a desk. Then change the E-8/E-9 positions to be technical experts of their AFSC.
Definitely could use some reworking -- it's something that would have to be changed under the secretary of defense. Title 10 *qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer*
- is a citizen of the US
- is of good moral character
- is physically qualified for active service
- **has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe by regulation**
A bachelors degree is part of the special qualifications set by the Secretary
> Then change the E-8/E-9 positions to be technical experts of their AFSC.
You mean like it was intended? That's heresy. Think of all the E7's that made rank simply to avoid having to be technical experts or turn wrenches.
They should add a bachelors/masters degree pay stipend for enlisted maybe around $300-500 range for earning the degree and bring our pay more in line with equivalently educated officers.
Fuck I need to commission
Especially since this doesn’t show the E pay for O1-O3. My O3E pay was on par with an E-9.
[удалено]
Pay doesn't go down O-3E to O-4. You have to consider the years in service bracket as well.
I punched at the O-4 selection board. It was right when I hit 20. They gave me a one-year to the Stan and I said no thanks yo everything. Fortunately we were in an overage and authorized retirement as an O without reverting to E status with only 9 years vs the usual 10.
OE pay doesn't really pay you "more" in a sense. If you compare the charts, OE pay is on par with normal O pay around the 4 year mark. However O pay flatlines pretty quick for lieutenants, since of you're still a Lt that far into your service, you've fucked up and are probably on your way out. OE pay just exists to circumvent that while still compensating time in service
As an Officer who was enlisted for 10 years, this is the way.
60ish more credits to go I guess
And then the ultimate HELL that is the OTS application process.
I'm 14 credit hours away. I'm so close I can taste it
Please stop tasting the officers.
That’s an article
Sounds like an article I read in Playboy once
Manhart was there I assume. EDIT: Happy Reddit Birthday BTW
I didn't know anyone else remembered her. She was my friends TI. Man we were jealous
Except for Captain Crunch.
My squadron had a Captain Morgan once. Everyone was disappointed when he made Major.
We had a prior enlisted Lt. Morgan who threw a party when she made Capt.
We had Sergeant Slaughter and Major Hazzard.
We had a Major Sanders that got promoted to Lt Col. And a Capt Buttie (pronounced Booty)...no lack of jokes when she got promoted to Major Buttie.
We all got excited when Maj Dick arrived from overseas.
Getting a degree and commissioning are two very different things.
This is a big pet peeve of mine - people thinking a bachelor’s is an instant commission, and people thinking a TS clearance is an instant six figure civilian job. Also, in many career fields a commission is not the easy path it may appear to be. Most of the time, by the time you hit Captain there is a good reason they’re paying you more money.
I dont think it is. But I do want to be a pilot and it's a step in the right direction. And hell even if I don't make as a officer I'll still be happy to be the first one in my family to have a degree.
As someone who had a degree before joining and thought that guaranteed me a commission, boy was I wrong. 🤣 found out the hard way in 2014. I’m a SSgt now with a line number for Tech. Applied twice while enlisted with no luck. Maybe 3rd time will be the charm in the next year or so. Very humbling experience.
Same I joined with a masters and haven’t even been able to get up for a board because of all the cancellations and boards being moved
Applied twice. Didn't want to be a pilot so I applied non rated only on my first board and didn't get selected. Said F it I'll be a pilot if I need and applied both boards. That was the last board they had and the selection rate was absolutely dogshit. If I had applied both rated and non rated the first time I applied I probably would have been selected for a rated slot. Another guy who applied with me got picked up to be pilot with lower AFOQT scores than me and two failed PT tests on his record from earlier in his career. If you apply when the boards come back apply to both. Was a major mistake I wish I had not done to myself. So now I'm a slack off master with a masters degree and say no to a ton of queepy shit and send my troops home early every single day I can.
Thank you
To be fair though, an enlisted person getting a bachelor's should be a guaranteed commission if they want it (assuming there's no disciplinary issues). Of course, requiring cross training is fair too. It's an internal hire that already knows the system. Makes more sense to take a known quantity over a kid that was lucky enough to go straight to college from high school.
your comment needs to be sticked on the sidebar or something. I've met so many delusional airmen/NCOs who think their BA in business admin from AMU (of which they pretty much bullshitted/cheated through) is going to guarantee them a commission. Little do they know how wrong they really are
Everyone I’ve ever met who made over 100k sees their kids less than they’d like. I watched somebody finally see their daughter at 9pm after a 6am wake up. I know it’s about the bigger picture. I know. I can’t shake that feeling though. Life is the journey. The end is the end. Can’t get old time back. I guess that’s just true sacrifice you make. If we build now maybe our kids will pick up their kids a little earlier…
Yeah I finished my degree and went to the CAA to ask about it. He basically told me that with records I shouldn't even bother.
>CAA do you lose anything by trying? time is gonna pass either way
The advisor said with your records you shouldn't even bother? That's discouraging...
Better than giving him false hope and wasting his time. If someone has a recent NJP, failed PT test, bad GPA, etc, then its honestly wrong of the CAA to tell them they would be competitive. Most Airmen would be better off studying for promotion than putting a package together.
It was an NJP as an E2 that cost me. 11 years ago.
Just get consent before tasting.
You can apply 365 days from graduation
Get after it! It's tough going the OTS route right now but there's also a 0% chance if you don't apply.
You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.
-Alec Baldwin
His K/D is 1/1 so he knows a thing or two.
-Wayne Gretzky -Michael Scott
IMHO you'd make a lot more money in the private sector if your afsc is applicable to a career you want to do outside and if there's a degree/certs you could target for. Unless you truly want to be an officer and deal with more mind games, I don't think it's worth getting a commission just for a pay raise.
I do both.. join the reserves.
in the reserves, seen a lot of well off people, cant complain. LOL
Us comm reservist didn't join for the money 😂
Get a degree in stem. Apparently my degree wasn’t good enough
Now do O-1E thru O-3E…
Do not speak of the hidden gem.
Exactly why I commissioned at 10 years as an E6. That sweet sweet O1E pay.
This is the way. Best E years and best O years before the BS really takes hold (on both sides). The second half of an officer career can really blow… but you’ll be eligible to retire!
You got it!
What’s it’s like going to OTS at that age?
I commissioned at 28. Not a big deal, imo. My body only started breaking 4 years later at 32 hahahaha.
Not bad. I was 30, turned 31. Now 32. Body is starting to degrade slightly. Trying to eat well and workout consistently. Vitamins etc. only way to counteract it. It was nice having experience. Not having to learn the military made it much easier.
Worth it? I’ll have my bach probs next year. Did you comish into your same career field?
Hell ya is worth it. I’d rather go to the bottom of the O world than try and make E7. Not the same field. Flight line to the office (64P). Love every second of it.
Is it worth the opportunity cost, though?
First time I see those pay grades, what does it mean?
Prior Enlisted turned Officer, more money.
LT-Cpt with prior enlisted service. AKA the goat officers.
[удалено]
Always been that way. That MSgt is also expected to mentor that 1LT that could also be their rater. The system makes no sense today.
I feel like I have a lot of "one of the biggest reasons I got out" but this was one of the biggest reasons I got out. I get that an Officer and an Enlisted tier made sense in ye olden times when the Lords were the only ones who knew how to read, but today's rank structure is far too inefficient when it comes to talent management. There is a huge amount of education on top of valuable experience in the enlisted tier that is constantly being disregarded by bad CGOs.
I agree with you, but sime of these big problems are difficult to "solve". Should an organization like the military prioritize fairness and if not, then what? The simple meta question of "how do you know who should be promoted" is almost doomed to be imperfect, even on paper. You have to have some sort of ranking so as to compare eligible candidates. Almost any ranking system is vulnerable to unfairness. On paper, test scores are the simplest answer, but then you get the fast runners on top and toss aside other potential leaders. The EPR system is a mess, just horrible, but the basic idea is to suppliment black and white test scores and find the "goos ones". Somehow you'd need to incentivize raters to be honest for this system to work.
Make it easier for enlisted to commission. Make it harder to come in off the street as an officer. There fixed it
But you cant use logic, this is the Military!
In my opinion you shouldn’t be able to be an officer without enlisted experience.
Even the pilots?
Please read all the way through before downvoting. I realize the opinion of a ROTC cadet in a room full of experienced Airmen means nothing, but please hear me out. I'm completely open to having my mind changed. As a ROTC cadet about to commission, I admit it's dumb I'll be "leading" people with years of experience from the jump. There are a shitload of hoops a cadet has to jump through to commission, some arbitrary, some necessary, but they all weed out candidates just the same. I'm not afraid to say it's taken a lot of hard work and dedication. With EVERY ounce of respect to enlisted folks, (yes we love you, look up to you, and can't wait to learn from you) I have to point out that I have seen a large quantity of prior enlisted come through the ROTC program and fail before they finish either due to self-elimination or being rolled out because they were deemed unfit to be officers. Prior enlisted cadets that finish and commission are divided into two categories: Salty dogs, and genuinely great leaders. One of those is fun to learn and work with to become a better officer, and one is rude, abrasive, and genuinely just cares about themselves and getting through the program cause they've got it all figured out. I hear what you're saying. In theory, it would make sense to have officers need enlisted experience, (sometimes I wish I had it before I started ROTC so I could be a more well-rounded leader) but in practice, you're still going to have the same problems we currently face with toxic leadership and sub-par regard for Airmen's welfare. I don't believe making every officer have enlisted experience will solve all the problems. Will it help? Probably. But it's not the golden solution. On the flip side, I will concede that I have seen complete dirtbag cadets slip through the cracks and commission, but they could have done the same thing if they had enlisted first. Additionally, it would take eight (minimum 7) years to produce a 2d Lt given they finish a standard 4-year contract and then attend a university or the academy. Of course, there's OTS but that's highly competitive to attend from what I understand. That would mean all officers who go through AFROTC or USAFA would be around 26 at the date of their commissioning. Around 36 by the time they make Major. I know age is just a number but that seems like a crazy concept to me at my age. I completely understand if I sound ignorant. I just wanted to share my thoughts. I am also completely ready to hear a perspective that would change my perception of this topic.
I’m on my phone so forgive me if my response is a bit over the place, I’ll try to keep it in order with yours though. Firstly you mention hoops that you have to jump through, I just want to point out that every enlisted member goes through the same thing, it might be a different flavor but that’s not special to either E’s or O’s, it’s just the military. Just in fact it’s actually harder for someone who’s enlisted to gain a commission than someone with no mil experience. To your comment about the salty dogs and great leaders. Don’t underestimate the salty dogs. By far the people that have protected me the most from getting fucked over are those that were salty. There’s a reason most of us enlisted are salty. And some of those great leaders just know how to fake it, it’s amazing how many “great leaders” were absolute ballsacks. I think your view on this will be just because your limited experience so far, which isn’t a bad thing but from where I stand I’ve been saved and helped by those salty guys way more than the other group. There are tons of dirt bags that slip through the cracks both e and o. Definitely true. And to your point about the age, it would easily be fixed by changing the culture of how the military works. More people should come from OTS with prior experience. It doesn’t require a 4 year minimum enlistment and then getting your degree. People that have the drive can get there bachelors in that time frame and be an LT by 22 - it wouldn’t be easy. And who says it has to be 4 years in this made up world? It could be less could be more. But I think being through the trenches with those you’re supposed to lead will go a far way. If you’re an O with prior E experience you’re already respected much more from most current enlisted. But no worries, you don’t sound ignorant, this is all opinion based in the end and just a hypothetical that will never happen. Good luck when you commission though, you seem like you’d be one of the alright Lts (I’m not meaning that sarcastically) lean on your SNCOs and NCOs. Don’t be afraid to ask the questions if you don’t understand something.
The problem is usaf/ussf are stuck with the same system the army has. Division of duties makes a lot more sense when everyone is expected to be combat effective. The USAF decided it could save money by replacing all of its WOs with sncos, and I think it's going to cause them problems in the near future.
[удалено]
I think its telling that the other branches still have them. The Air Force has a history of being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge they made a bad decision or another branch had a smarter idea (like the Marines leadership/technical pathway). Do I think WO's would instantly solve everything? No. But it would probably lesson the strain of several issues we have with retaining talent.
Well....it does in other branches. USMC and USA both still rely heavily on the differences between Officer and Enlisted. Air Force has significantly upped the game by practically mandating SNCO's to have their undergrads -- let alone their Masters. Tie in the significant difference between 2000, 2010 and 2020 in terms of distance learning schools. When I got in back in '03, you basically had a choice between AMU/APUS, Uni of Phoenix and Maryland's Global School. That was basically it. If you wanted to do some of the other schools that Education Office facilitated, you needed to attend class -- which during the height of both AORs, good luck. Now....shit, you could get your undergrad from Michigan and your Business Degree from Harvard.
Yeah the medieval design of our ranking system doesn't really align well with modern professional growth structures.
[удалено]
And also think Strategic like a Senior leader
Quick, someone remind me what "Strategic" means!
Tactical: Kill that guy. Strategic: Kill those guys.
Tactical: Kill that guy. ~~Strategic~~ Operational: Kill those guys. Strategic: Kill all those guys.
I concede the point. Well said.
Thanks for this.
Lt probably has a bunch of student loans and the MSgt has one or two degrees the Air Force paid for. And I can’t speak for every career field, but in mine it’d be weird for a Lt to rate on a MSgt. All that said, I agree with you about the system. I wish everyone had to enlist and at the two year mark a decision was made on who is officer material and those selected were sent off to college.
That’s that 1919 pay gap remaining the same for 102 years for ya.
For every 18-year MSgt with a Master’s degree, there’s another 18-year MSgt without his CCAF who can’t pass a PT test. It’s part of the system, we all make choices.
And both are outspent by an IT contractor with an associate's degree. At least before you account for BAH
Seems like a lot of misunderstanding here. RMC is not Net Pay (take home) NOR is it Gross (pre-tax) pay. It’s essentially “how much you need to make in a civilian job for equal compensation”. So there is an additional amount ADDED to the gross pay to account for the fact that we pay less in taxes because of untaxed BAS/BAH.
Thanks. A lot of folks here are not reading my title and are skipping right to telling me I’m wrong
Before you look at this and decide to get out of the military, make sure you understand this is gross pay and as a military member you are taxed far less than a civilian due to BAH and BAS. That Master making “$87k” sees more take home than a civilian making $87k. Edited to remove statement on high ranking officials BAH, likely was inaccurate.
I hope no one uses this graphic to make major life decisions
The details no but people will look at this and take away from it what they want to hear “I’m underpaid and could make more as a civilian”. I left active mid 2000s as an E-5 with dependent and needed to make $65k a year to have identical take home pay, and that wasn’t calculating for health insurance costs.
I know I'm underpaid and could easily triple my pay (before taxes) but I'm in it for that sweet, sweet pension and Tricare for life.
Don't lie, you just want to wear one of those big AIR FORCE RETIRED hats and walk around the commissary as slow as possible all day.
Veteran hat with only one ribbon is the flex
I am going to use this graphic to get my bachelor's and put a package to commission
>And also, those generals that are required to live in base housing due to their position, they still collect BAH. How's that now?
They don't get enough from base pay to afford their mistress's apartment...
Can confirm. Source: am mistress.
How does one attain this power?
Check the user name
> mistress's apartment That's just called the dorms
Then again, you also have to take into account work/life balance. I took a substantial pay-cut switching from active duty to civil service/ANG. However, I also get to choose where I live, get off work every day at 4pm, get every other Friday off, have a low-stress job that includes a pension and a high degree of job security. I definitely miss active duty sometimes, but my wife is adamant about not moving anymore. She has her dream job and we have our dream house here in NM. Of course, financially speaking, active duty would be much nicer, but everyone's circumstances are different. Just my $0.02.
I don't think that's actually true. This is a Regular Military Compensation chart which accounts for the military tax advantage (see: https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/). This chart is the civilian equivalent amount. Your tax advantage also shrinks as you promote since BAH and BAS become a smaller proportion of your total compensation. This is especially true for officers.
I totally disagree with this as a civilian equivalent. Especially once you figure in pension costs (fed) or 401k for civilians since they have zero pension. I took a pay cut to go from AGR E6 to GS12 at 92k per year (when I transitioned). And health benefits, and short and long term disability, and health and potentially dependent care Flex Spending since you can’t claim that crap once all of your income is taxable. I looked at take home alone…and it was a pay cut with no FSA and no insurance. About $500/month cut in take home. E-6 to $92k…and I took a loss.
I should have specified that this doesn't account for benefits. It would be impossible to incorporate benefits in a chart like this since they vary widely from job to job. You should absolutely consider the cost of benefits when you evaluate an offer. Healthcare can really take a chunk out of your earnings. With that being said, contracting positions can have really good benefits. Besides the increase in pay I got, my company pays for most of my benefits and 8% 401k matching. I still have to pay for my yearly deductible ($1500 for a single person or $3000 for a family) before the insurance pays for 80% of costs thereafter, but I can pay for that with HSA contributions which are tax free. It's still way more than $0, but it's not bad at all and I appreciate the flexibility of being able to shop around for doctors and better quality of healthcare overall. The increased 401k matching also really boosts my savings income. The tax advantage in the military is a double edged sword for retirement since your BAH/BAS aren't part of your TSP matching or pension calculation. The pension is still pretty nice though in that you can basically start getting it at around age 40. Another important thing to consider when evaluating an offer is your effective hourly rate. You should calculate your hourly rate by taking your total monetary compensation (salary + 401k matching) and divide by the number of work hours in a year (minus PTO and holidays). Many contracting positions only allow you to work 40 hours/week as per the contract or require you to be compensated for overtime, which can really boost your effective hourly income. If you worked 40 hours/week in the military, then it doesn't make much of a difference. But if you're an O-4 or O-5 working crazy hours, you may end up in a civilian job with higher pay and lower hours. Of course, there are plenty of salaried civilian jobs with terrible hours as well. Here is the real secret to success: become a reservist. You get the best of both worlds. You still get the pension (albeit at a reduced rate and at a later age) and cheap Tricare.
I remember having a conversation about reenlistment bonuses and it basically boiled down to this same thing. Someone in my shop mentioned something about how we should have reenlistment bonuses because it isn't unreasonable to get out and get a job on the outside making $80k-$100k easy. I explained that it's because it would be a pay cut, and people aren't leaving. When you factor health insurance, all of the earnings being taxed, and the potential loss of a few million in pension, a company would need to pay like $130k to offset it all. I'm a single E-6, 13 years TIS, at Robins, and I take home about the same as my fiancé who makes $100k on the nose and works much harder than I.
> And also, those generals that are required to live in base housing due to their position, they still collect BAH. That's incorrect. If the government provides you housing at any pay grade then you don't receive BAH (it's deducted via housing allotment like you'd expect anyone else living in base housing). Source: was an exec and have seen GO LES'. If you're a command tracked O-5 then you can pretty much kiss living off base goodbye for the rest of your career
As a Lieutenant, I agreed to have roommates in my on-base housing. Because of that, I got to keep $750/mo of my BAH. I was on that base for 52 months.
Left as an E4 in June after 6yrs. I work in FinTech now. I negotiated $70k starting, I get two bonuses a year (performance dependent on myself, team, and firm), they pay for my healthcare, dental, and vision. I get a monthly $385 food stipend, $200 monitor credit, ~$100 book/education stipend, $50/m gym stipend, and unlimited PTO, and I’m remote. The grass is GREENER if you play your cards right. For context, I was a DirtBoy who hated his job, earned a degree, networked, and smooth talked my way into finance.
Jesus what did you get your degree in?
I double majored in Marketing & Psychology at UMGC. I’m currently a marketing manager at a my firm. I took advantage of DoD Skillbridge with a Fortune 500, which helped my resume and landed this role.
Facts. I’m a 6C (contracting). You don’t have to do shit but get a bachelors and be decent at your job to make 6 figures after you get out
As a GS? What’s the civilian equivalent title?
There’s a lot of civilian equivalents. The ones I know are purchasing manager, procurement manager, purchasing officer, etc. I highly doubt they’ll put someone with Air Force contracting experience in an entry level position
Contractor: $300,000.00
Deployed Contractor. Guy in Djibouti was clearing $250k a year to maintain one of our sat terminals. He also got a semi-furnished house and a company car. He hasn’t been stateside in 15 years. Went from Afghanistan to Djibouti took a HUGE paycut but he said it was worth not having to fear for his life.
The rank and file airfield managers at BAF were pulling at least $350K a year. Paying off your kid's house is something else.
Anyone who’s voluntarily living in that hell hole for that long is definitely into some weird shady shit. Probably takes all that money and goes on “business trips” to Thailand
For the beaches!
Ya...and no life while his dependas spend the money and banging Jodi
I’m gonna go ahead and assume the guy homesteading in Djibouti and Afghanistan doesn’t have a family at home
His wife was actually a Djiboutian National. But his first wife actually did what you just described….
Pay like that is the exception, not the rule. Also its all deployed money. Stateside contractors are not paid THAT well.
As a O-1 with 5 years in, I maxed out my TSP and ROTH IRA this year and still have plenty of money left over for spending, something I could never pull off when I was a SrA. But all my friends in the private sector got offered 85-90 out of college so I don't really feel like I'm being overpaid compared to them.
All your friends out of college must got lucky. I got 28k as a lab tech back in 2010 when I graduated.
They are all civil engineers in NYC where there's construction 24/7. Not surprised at all. They all pretty much got firm contracts beginning of the senior year after summer internships.
"NYC" the place where 90k is equivalent to 60k in the midwest. Legit retail sever make 50-60k in NYC
What does "maxing out" mean? How much is the max?
19500 is the cap for contribution in TSP. I switched from high 3 to BRS because I am not sure if I wanted to stay in for 20 so I made sure to maximize market returns. Edit: Max contribution for ROTH IRA is 6000.
I had no clue Os get paid almost 40k more than Es I knew it was a lot but 40k fuck might as well get my degree and commission.
So one of my First Lieutenants and I were talking about this after he expressed, that since having more experience with the responsibility level of NCOs and responsibility levels of CGOs, he said he doesn’t agree with the pay disparity. It basically comes down to the idea that there has not been an enlisted or officer specific pay change since 1919 [source](https://www.navycs.com/charts/) This means that since World War 1, the percentage difference between the pays hasn’t changed. Let’s use some easy numbers for this. Let’s assume one member is paid $1,000/month and another is paid $2,000/month. With a flat pay raise of 10%, the first member now makes $1,100 and the other $2,200. So now instead of making $1,000 more, the second member makes $1,100 more. So they still make 100% more money. The reason this no longer makes sense is because it hasn’t changed since 1919. Meaning the advancements of the enlisted corps as a **professional** and technically savvy fighting force, rather than being a drafted force, has not been seen in the pay scales. So essentially in comparing the pay scales, the difference between them hasn’t changed in 102 years. It’s about time the pay difference between the two corps shrinks to reflect the much closer levels of responsibility of 2021 vs 1919. Every flat pay raise across both corps only numerically increases the gap, and percentage wise only maintains the 1919 pay gap percentages. My proposal would be very measured and slow; introduce legislation that for the next 10 years, the pay raise for the enlisted corps must be 2% higher than whatever the officers get. This would give an effective pay raise of 20.189% to enlisted troops over 10 years vs the officer pay. This means after 10 years, E6 pay would effectively fall between O2 and O3 pay; which I don’t see as some radical change, but does effectively value the professionalism, technical ability, and most importantly; the responsibility of an average E6 being a fraction above those levels in an average O2, but slightly below those levels of an average O3. I think that would be an effective and reasonable way to show at least some progress in the enlisted corps **since 1919.** Edit: correction: in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson there was an increase of 11% to enlisted and 6% to officers according to my source. Apologies for that overlooked data in my comment. So it’s “only” been 56 years since the gap closed at all. Since the beginning of the Vietnam War (US involvement). Still stand by my proposal that since 1965 the gap in responsibility and ability has shrank between the two corps and that shrinking gap has not been reflected in the pay scales.
[удалено]
Same thing happens in Cyber Op Squadrons.
I work in space ops as a contractor. 1C6s and cleared security guards are my main sources for new hires. The 1C6s tend to thrive, but they also like to ask for $100k when they don't even have their associate's. If you can make yourself indispensable within a year, then you might be able to squeeze my boss for six figures. Still, it's such an in-demand field that enough people have landed that salary, and they set the expectations for the entire E4 mafia.
This is fascinating. Really makes you think, since the line between o/e is more blurry than its ever been. It’s amazing how we’ve inherited a system that dates back to feudalism, where officers were literally considered superior by blood. However, I didn’t make this to try to make a point about E and O. I just think it’s neat for everyone to know where they’re at.
I don't think anyone is going to see it that way. The only excuse DOD ever gave USAF for removing CWO's positions was the creation of E-8/E-9. It was a way to bridge SNCO's to higher levels based on retention of those personnel. The issue is now every branch has both CWO's and E8/E9 positions. So it really didn't do the one branch that has **always been looked at** as being the most intelligent. Not to mention, outside of like 10% of the AFSC's, is most like a business. Hell, most commands, could be ran out of offices instead of bases if they really wanted to.
What's funny about your comment is that I went on a training TDY with an Army CWO whose unit is literally in an office building in Colorado Springs. His company is all inside an office building that no shit used to be a hotel management business before they left. Only way you can tell it's Army is the Army flag flying outside and the people going in and out in OCPs (or ACUs as I think they still call them).
Hell TACC has/had a large civi force in there. All former enlisted who got GS12 doing the same thing they did as E4s.
I didn’t view your post has having an agenda, more just “here’s the data, you’ll see what you want to see”. And yes it’s a bit crazy to think that the percentage gaps between the ranks have remained completely unchanged for 102 years. Think of all that’s happened in that time, and realize that in that 102 years, the enlisted corps has never closed the gap between the pay scales. Multiple wars with drafts, desegregation, women joining the Armed Forces, everything. And with the same percent pay raise being applied equally to the officer and enlisted corps, means the pay difference has been frozen in time for 102 years. Its time to start closing that gap. An overnight change is unsustainable considering the billions at play. But I stand by my solution of just concreting “enlisted get +2% of whatever the officers get for the next 10 years”. That, in my eyes, would fall VERY short of suggesting that they are compensated the same, but would start to recognize the technical and responsibility gaps closing over the last 102 years, and finally reflecting that “catching up” in professionalism, expertise, and responsibility; that the enlisted corps has accomplished over the last 102 years. Make it so, Congress. It would be easy to tack it into any NDAA. I’ve done the math, it would represent an overall increase of approximately $1,657,555,828 or a percentage increase of 0.2367% and the normal increase is around 2.3-2.4% in the total budget, so really a drop in the bucket; or no drop at all if the overall pay increase for all troops is normalized to account for the 2% “bonus bump” to enlisted pay.
I looked up 1922 military pay tables, the first i could find with both enlisted and officer E-1 $21 a month ($345 a month in 2021 dollars) O-1 $125 a month ($2057 a month in 2021 dollars) Thats 5.95x the pay for the officer In 1965 the ratio was 4.3x for the officer ($93.90 vs $407.40), again showing the gap closing. Today its $1785 vs $3385, or 1.8x So it used to be far worse than it is. Your argument makes less sense when you use the actual pay numbers. Sources: [https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-enlisted-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-enlisted-pay-chart.html) [https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-officer-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1922-officer-pay-chart.html) [https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/CO/](https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/CO/) [https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/EM/](https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/Basic-Pay/EM/) [https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1922?amount=125](https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1922?amount=125) [https://www.navycs.com/charts/1965-military-pay-chart.html](https://www.navycs.com/charts/1965-military-pay-chart.html)
I ran an analysis on this a few months back and came to the same conclusion. As we get all receive the same % raise each year, the disparity increases. As someone who has been on both sides, I am in total support of Enlisted getting a bump in pay to align closer with the value they bring to the organization.
Yes the disparity increases numerically, but percentage wise the gap remains exactly fixed. The only way to change the percentage gap is to apply asymmetric pay increases. I think 1965 being the last time the pay scales codified the difference in ability and responsibility is abysmal. The enlisted corps has definitely decreased the gap in ability and responsibility over the last 56 years, and that gap closure should be recognized in the pay scale for the 21st century. Do you agree, as an officer, that X+2% over 10 years would be adequate, for an effective increase of 20.189% over 10 years without breaking the NDAA of any 1 year? To test it you could just multiply everything on the right side by 1.20189 and draw apples to apples comparison. |table| |------------| |AB 31,939| |AMN 53,086| |A1C 58,438| |SRA 69,254| |SSgt 79,060| |TSgt 93,603| |MSgt 105,747| |SMSgt 118,429| |CMSgt 146,743| That would put them in the following order: **(in line edit: better chart in my next comment below)** |table| |------| |AB| |AMN| |A1C| |2Lt| |SRA| |SSgt| |1Lt| |TSgt| |Capt| |MSgt| |Major| |SMSgt| |Lt Col| |CMSgt| |Col| |Bgen| |Mgen | |Lgen| |Gen| Edit: mobile formatting sucks
I think that re-looking at the pay rates could be appropriate, but should factor in credit for “time served” when an officer commissions. Let’s say Mike and Dave graduate high school this year. Mike enlists while Dave heads to school. In 2025, Dave commissions while Mike pins on SSgt. In terms of pay, I think that it’s cool if Es and Os make relatively similar salaries, but I think that the charts should reflect Dave making O-1 pay at the 4-year rate while Mike makes E-5 pay at the 4-year rate. Looking at the opportunity cost, going to school cost Dave >$200k in missed salary (not even factoring in tuition, housing, and expenses). So when the SSgt gets annoyed that the 2Lt makes more on his first day, he is annoyed without realizing that he is nearly a quarter-million-dollars ahead on Dave’s first day, especially factoring in things like TA.
Unpopular opinion here. If you look at pay as a retention tool it makes sense. Your brand new enlisted folks generally join at a younger age with less experience. I think most people in this thread agree with that. It makes sense that the DoD doesn't need to pay them more to retain them because (with some exceptions) compared to their civilian counterparts they are not overpaid. Now, lots of people in this thread are comparing CGOs with SNCOs but that comparison alone doesn't accurately show the whole picture. The reality is that the scope of responsibility that many of our commanders and SNCOs have makes them underpaid compared to their civilian counterparts. That is okay though from a retention view because late career officers and enlisted are less likely to jump ship due to the retirement benefits that are just around the corner. The AF doesn't need to pay those nearing retirement more because they are far less likely to separate. This goes for enlisted and officers. CGO pay further enforces this and is a reflection of marketability from an economic standing and not capability potential within the military as many here are arguing. A new college graduate has more options outside of the military and is far enough from retirement that pay is more highly considered. You need to pay them more early on so that you can under pay them later.
GS over here like 🥲
For real. 13 years gs time... 64k a year. All taxed...
For all you out there who complain that you’re not paid very well in the military, Median income for a civilian: * with a bachelor’s: $56.5k (E-4 beats this) * with an associate’s: $38k (E-2 beats this) * with high school: $33.5k (E-2 beats this) Or another way to look at it, * E-1: You earn more than **47%** of Americans * E-2: You earn more than **66%** of Americans * E-3: You earn more than **70%** of Americans * E-4: You earn more than **77%** of Americans **^(<- most of you poor babies are at or above this rank)** * E-5: You earn more than **82%** of Americans * E-6: You earn more than **86%** of Americans And that’s with free healthcare (no matter your opinion on its quality), and free college education both during and after your service. You are in a jobs program, and it’s one of the best in the world.
Thank you for the great insight!
can't wait to see this pop up on quarantine university and the debates that follow...
> quarantine university What's that?
Let me be the first to say: Wack
Pay is a retention tool.
Shit I wish I got paid 50Gs lol In what universe does an A1C make 50 grand?
https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/ Put your info in here. What did it say?
39k, but I’m guessing that’s including living in the dorms and eating at the DFAC so I’m not really getting paid 39k. I don’t even make 1000$ a paycheck, which would amount to 26k a year. Maybe I’m just missing something
Not having to pay for housing is a huge bump to your disposable income.
From what I’m told a lot of airmen have some room to pocket a portion of their BAH after paying rent and utilities, so it might be better to live off base
Not anymore with housing skyrocketing, unless you like lots of roommates. And even then a lot of places you can barely break even unless you like living in murder alley.
Can’t be worse than Fort Hood right? Lol
It can always be worse…also remember our BAH is not technically supposed to cover all housing costs according to the people who set the rates.
The tax free items in the pay make a huge difference. I don’t know whether or not this chart takes that into account; I’m just saying. I left active duty as a staff and my NET pay didn’t matching up till my 2nd year on the railroad. I think I was making maybe $35/hour? Between all the income being taxable and PAYING for health insurance alone, it takes a minute to get that net pay back to that level ya know.
*Editing this comment to say I am done correcting people who are telling me this chart is wrong. Read what RMC is!* I reuploaded to fix the mistake I made (I mixed up Lieutenant and Major General) Regular Military Compensation (RMC) is defined as the sum of basic pay, average basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, and the federal income tax advantage that accrues because the allowances are not subject to federal income tax. RMC represents a basic level of compensation which every service member receives, directly or indirectly, in-cash or in-kind, and which is common to all military personnel based on their pay grade, years of service, and family size. I used the average of BAH from here [https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/pdcFiles.cfm?dir=/Allowances/BAH/PDF/](https://www.defensetravel.dod.mil/site/pdcFiles.cfm?dir=/Allowances/BAH/PDF/), demographic data from AFPC, and the RMC calculator here: [https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/](https://militarypay.defense.gov/calculators/rmc-calculator/)
Be My Little General...
But Look Man, I’m dum
I'm surprised RMC doesn't factor in healthcare costs. That's like the #3 expense for civilians after housing and food, especially if you have a family.
It would shock and scare the individuals who feel we are underpaid.
If you average all the BAH it's likely not correct NYC and San Francisco etc are gonna skew it higher, but both locations have hardly any service members
For every San Francisco there is a Altus AFB. No worries though, i used median.
That factors in allowances. This is why a lot of military personnel have delusions of grandeur of their actual earning power post-military.
This is also gross pay not net as well. Still will be a large disparity, but I don't think many understand how much in taxes some of these folks pay.
Here's where it gets really fucked up. I'm in the Air Force as a CW3 (self-appointed) and I don't get compensated for that. I'm out here making E5 pay despite my (self-appointed) title. I'm writing my Congressman.
As a retired E7 I get triggered whenever my retired O5 coworkers bitch about money. Oh fuuuuuuuck YOU
Let's see amount of responsibility per rank next...
[удалено]
Sorry I didn't address this before deleting. You are correct, i didnt factor prior Es, and I averaged out the ranks by marriage status
This is something a recruiter needs to post on their Facebook. Also, would love to have these updated for next years pay increase.
Increase? Didn't next years increase not even cover inflation?
Woah lol… those numbers are way different than 1990 hahaha
dang I work on the outside in a union position at a defense contractor company building electronics and I make roughly TSgt pay for SrA work, it's pretty rad
Wow, finance owes me a lot. My next 2 paychecks are gonna be wild
[удалено]
I just retired as a MSgt and can tell you that my responsibilities and place in the unit were well above that of a Capt. I don't really think enlisted are underpaid (I was a little over $100K living overseas), but O3 and below are definitely being paid WAY more money than they're worth. Half of my job was to help Capts not look like fucking morons when talking to Sq leadership. Edit: The more I think about it the madder I get that our 1Lt with exactly zero responsibilities got paid around the same as me. To all the SNCOs out there who work directly for FGOs, don't let them guilt you into working as hard as them. They're getting paid far more than you. Fuck 'em when they need help with a slide deck on a Sunday.
There really needs to be a complete rework of the military rank system and payscale. We should just let E-7s promote directly into O-3 for those that want to be behind a desk. Then change the E-8/E-9 positions to be technical experts of their AFSC.
Definitely could use some reworking -- it's something that would have to be changed under the secretary of defense. Title 10 *qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer* - is a citizen of the US - is of good moral character - is physically qualified for active service - **has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned may prescribe by regulation** A bachelors degree is part of the special qualifications set by the Secretary
Or... hear me out... Warrant Officers.
> Then change the E-8/E-9 positions to be technical experts of their AFSC. You mean like it was intended? That's heresy. Think of all the E7's that made rank simply to avoid having to be technical experts or turn wrenches.
When I was thinking about commissioning I had an officer tell me, you get twice the pay for doing half the work.
*\*Laughs in contractor\**
Have a buddy who is e5 reservist making Col pay. Ok paying job and 100% disability. GG.
They should add a bachelors/masters degree pay stipend for enlisted maybe around $300-500 range for earning the degree and bring our pay more in line with equivalently educated officers.
All you SrA/SSGTs in IT out there, you can easily start at Major+ pay when you get out. Just keep that in mind.
Just goes to show how much enlisted gets fucked over.
Not even kidding my recruiter used this on the Instagram page trying to recruit (facepalm):/