Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotsofpulp | Hacker News Reader

> The entire "essential worker" hero ad campaign at the start of COVID really put a bad taste in my mouth.

The US does the same with their military. Drape the flag over everything, trip over themselves thanking people for service, giving 10% military discounts and giving home loans with 3% down payments....but should we pay the armed forces a competitive wage? No. It’s even more cringe when all this service stuff is then extended to police and firefighters.

As if there are two classes of people in the country, those sacrificing themselves and willingly accepting less money to “serve” their country, when it’s really just their only option because all the business left their town or they messed up in high school.

I don’t ever want to be paid with “thanks” or “hero worship”. I’ll take the cash.

View on HN

Oddly enough, I’ve noticed this even down at my level as a teenager who worked as water-park lifeguard last summer. We had two months of rigorous training before we could even start work, and because the park I worked at was huge and very safety oriented, our job was actually very mentally and physically taxing, much more so than, say, that of a cashier.

We were paid 50 cents above minimum wage, and it wasn’t until just recently that I realized what was going on: the park was leveraging the social status associated with being a guard in order to pay us much less than we deserved for such a demanding job. They substituted “hero worship” (like you mentioned) for the cash our labor was actually worth.

I quit a month before the season ended and don’t intend to go back.

Some jobs have non-pecuniary benefits, such as social status or personal gratification; these mean that people are willing to do the work for less than they otherwise would (even to the point of making the position volunteer-only). I am not sure what someone 'deserves' for being a lifeguard, or any other job with substantial non-pecuniary benefits, but these things should be taken into account.

so an inverse compensating differential

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_differential

“Should we pay the armed forces a competitive wage?”

Have you looked into what the armed forces pays? It’s not bad.

Even as a low ranking enlisted person, you get housing, healthcare and then a salary (albeit low, but it’s mostly discretionary). You can qualify for the GI Bill which pays for schooling once you get out. And if you’re in for 20, you get a pension and healthcare with the option of retiring at 40 if you went in at 20.

I believe you also get a housing allowance is you qualify to live off base and if you serve in a combat zone, a big chunk of pay is tax exempt.

I’m sure someone will be along to correct my inaccuracies.

If you add it all up, a military career is by no means a poor financial choice.

Armed forces pay is way, way less than the competitive pay paid to the same people to perform the same job as employees of private companies.

That's true of government jobs in general.

But what about total compensation, including all benefits?

You can't find a private job with a pension plan any more.

A pension plan isn’t magic, it is just a fixed-income security. You can buy them on the private market. A pension can thus be converted to a dollar value and compared to a private sector job.

Total compensation is decent in the military, but imo it’s definitely not work the risks to life and limb if deployed. Any good soldier could probably make a lot more in the private sector for the same amount of work hours and stress.

I don’t know that this is true for all government jobs... I know that California and especially San Francisco have (or had) lavish compensation programs.

I agree entirely. You also need look no further than veteran treatment to see this exact behavior exhibited by government and many average citizens. Thrown into training, paid a compensation for what is essentially their life/health, throw into harms way, and then pushed in a closet once they've been used, thrown a few scraps to keep going.

Is it still an uncompetitive wage when you:

1. Don't require housing etc money

2. Are ranked up to any degree higher than random POG

I don’t see any of my well educated, well heeled peers recommending their children to join the military. Because their children have better options.

You ignored the entire middle class.

That may be your bubble.

There are plenty of people going to Ivy League schools who have military backgrounds.

Going to one of the military schools is highly prestigious. They aren’t easy to get into in the least.

Even with BAH, a commission, a higher rank, and lots of time in service, on average you still typically make significantly less than private industry.

However, it is predictable. If you aren't super career minded and are on track to be stuck at minimum wage for a long time, then the military provides a lot of structure and probably higher compensation.

If you have the option to get into a tech/finance/etc high paying career, then there's no contest. Entry level engineer at big tech companies make about the same wage as an O6 living in a high cost of living area and like 20++ years in service. Once you get promoted once, you're making more than a general.

Lower compensation than private sector is not specific to the military. It is true of most government positions.

Typical offsetting factors that rational agents weigh include pensions, education subsidies and other benefits, job stability, and perceived upward mobility.

True - and for some areas of government it can be crazy. Someone working tech on GS really needs to want to work in government, because they're making 3-5x less.

What is really crazy to me is financial regulators on GS schedule.

And federal government pays well compared to a lot of local stuff.

Which is it? Their only option, or a non-competitive wage?

If there aren’t any buyers, $1 is a competitive offer.

Also, to your last sentence: check out whatever they're calling Blackwater these days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com