Members of the Military Make More Than 80-90 Percent* of Private Sector Workers of the Same Age and Education Level


In other words, it's not *just* teachers, cops, firefighters, and the bulk of civil federal employees who are riding high on the hog. Tom Philpott at reports

As private sector salaries flattened over the last decade, military pay climbed steadily, enough so that by 2009 pay and allowances for enlisted members exceeded the pay of 90 percent of private sector workers of similar age and education level.

That's one of the more significant findings of the 11th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation report released last week, given its potential to impact compensation decisions by the Department of Defense and Congress as they struggle to control military personnel costs.

The military pay advantage, which had been a worrisome gap in 1999, is larger now than it has ever been, said QRMC director Thomas Bush.

"I believe it is, and there is a chart in our report that illustrates that. [It] shows where we are, which is probably the highest point that we have been" compared with civilian pay, Bush said.

The military gained its lead with annual raises from 2000 to 2010 that exceeded private sector wage growth and some extra increases in housing allowances to eliminate average out-of-pocket rental costs.  Meanwhile, civilian pay growth stalled as markets collapsed and jobs disappeared.

Officer pay by 2009 exceeded salaries of 83 percent of civilian peers of similar age with bachelor and masters degrees. Enlisted are compared to workers with high school diplomas, some college or associate's degrees.

Recently Nick Gillespie asked if we could get by with fewer cops, teachers, and firefighters. Now that we're allegedly winding down our overseas adventures, it's fair to direct that question at our military, which has a base annual budget of $550 billion and 1.4 million troops. 

*The original headline butchered the statistic. 

NEXT: "Drafting the Declaration of Independents": Nick Gillespie Talks Libertarianism with Arthur Kade

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are they counting money made while deployed or just base salary? Are they also including housing and everything else?

    1. They throw in everything, including ramping up TRICARE to about 5 times what it’s worth.

      But they usually don’t count “combat pay” or any deployed per diem or anything.

    2. They’re definitely counting housing allowance.

      I find it dishonest when people claiming that the military are underpaid use the base salary numbers without housing allowance. It’s worth something.

      1. Have you ever slept in a hole in the ground that you dug so that the guys across the field from you don’t shoot you? Oh yeah, don’t forget the grenade sump so you don’t get blown up. People should be compensated more for having dangerous jobs, and it doesn’t get much more dangerous than a profession where you go places where people are trying their hardest to kill you. btw, compare DOD salaries to private counterparts and you’ll see that they actually don’t get paid very well compared to what they could make, doing the same thing, in the private sector.

        1. Exactly, if you do a dangerous job in the private sector, you’re going to make more money then your average fry cook as well. And it’s not like their counterparts in the private sector can’t also volunteer to go get blown up. I don’t argue that we could get by with less soldiers by bringing the bulk of them home, but to argue that they’re underpaid by comparing their pay to the average job doesn’t make any sense.

        2. Don’t volunteer?

        3. Of course I agree that people should be compensated more for having dangerous jobs. And I didn’t say anything about hazard pay either.

          All I said was that housing allowance is part of compensation, and it’s dishonest when people ignore that.

          I agree with complaints that this study seems simplistic, but that doesn’t change my opinion that housing allowance should be considered part of compensation.

          1. I was in the military and still have lots of friends in the military and they do get paid waaay too much. Let’s also not forget that they’re not getting taxed on their houseing allowance and food allowances.

            1. Most people in the military go nowhere near the battlefield. I have a cousin who is an engineer and gets paid by the army. So does his wife.

        4. Have you ever slept in a hole in the ground that you dug so that the guys across the field from you don’t shoot you? Oh yeah, don’t forget the grenade sump so you don’t get blown up.

          Yeah, but there are substantial offsets to the discomfort. Every now and then you get to shoot a motherfucker, and that ain’t for nothing.

        5. “compare DOD salaries to private counterparts and you’ll see that they actually don’t get paid very well compared to what they could make, doing the same thing, in the private sector.”

          I call bullshit on this – most jobs in the military are compensated quite well. Take base salary, add in housing allowances and special pays (which are not taxable) and you take home a pretty darn good check.

          How many entry level jobs allow a 19 year old to afford to support a wife and kid with full medical insurance for the family, a two+ bedroom home, $450,000 worth of life insurance (plus other pays in case of death), and leave money in your pocket?

          If you didn’t get paid so well do you really think that so many people would stay in. Why spend a year away from family if you can get the same pay working 9-5? Don’t tell me its about patriotism and a service ethic – I’ve spent 20 years in and the vast majority of people coming in do it for money and benefits and stay for the same.

          1. Obviously the answer is that the government needs to pay the military whatever is necessary to reach recruiting and retention numbers.

            I’m just saying that the housing is worth something, even if people are in the barracks. Comparisons of base pay alone are misleading.

      2. How much are we talking?

        1. The military claims that housing allowance is generally sufficient to fully reimburse servicemembers for renting an apartment when they are stationed in locations that don’t have provided housing. It’s based on geography (cost of living), pay grade, and if you have dependents.

          Here’s one official site. Here is another.

          For example, if you live in the DC metro area, it starts at $1428 without dependents and $1902 with for an E-1, and goes up from there.

          That is a fairly sizable amount of money, worth including in compensation.

          I don’t disagree with the assertion that people might deserve their pay, but it is silly not to count basic housing allowance.

        2. Depends on location (cost of living), rank, and if you have dependents.

          For the DC area, something like $1500 a month without dependents, $1900 with, for an E-1, and goes up from there. That’s a reasonable amount of money that ought to be included in compensation.

        3. Depends on location, rank, and if you have dependents.

          For the DC area, about $1500 a month without dependents, $1900 a month with, for an E-1, and goes up from there.

          1. That’s very good money.

            1. That’s incredibly good money – though keep in mind only servicemembers with dependents or who are for some reason not able to be billeted on base will get that.

              Single people get to live in the barracks (or pay out of pocket) until they reach E-6.

          2. I don’t know the specifics of housing at DC area military bases, but generally in the army you can’t live off post (and earn housing allowance) if you’re below a certain rank (usually E5/E6) unless you’re married. I also doubt that there are many E1s in DC.

            As a captain with no dependents in Colorado Springs (a slightly higher priced area than most army bases) I get $1362 for housing.

            1. Back in 2007 at Fort Benning I got $893 per month for housing.

            2. In San Diego I got (as an E-6) $1800.

              Unfortunately I moved to Yuma and that got cut to $900, which is still 50% higher than the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment.

            3. Yes, but the value of the free housing at the base is worth something. It’s hard to quantify exactly how much it’s worth, so for a rough estimate we look at the value of the housing allowance for people that do live off base.

              You certainly can’t value the housing and food provided at zero.

        4. Also note that that $1500/$1900 a month for an E-1 is tax free, like all allowances.

          When people complain that an E-1 makes poverty level income because of his basic salary, I think it’s entirely reasonable to point out when they make $18,000 a year tax free on top of that, plus other allowances.

          1. It’s very rare that an E-1 recieves housing allowance at all unless he has dependents. They usually have to live in the barracks, which, although it’s free housing, is it’s own special kind of hell.

          2. A married E-1 (under 2 years – the lowest spot on the pay table)takes home over a grand a month minimum and has his housing and utilities paid for.

            Unless he’s a total screw-up he’ll make E-3 inside 18 months taking home at least $1300

    3. Don’t forget Security Clearance. I’m a civilian technical writer and it is virtually impossible for me to obtain Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) clearance due to the enormous expense. Unless you can find a company willing to risk/invest half a million dollars in performing the necessary background checks and research, the only way to get that kind of clearance is through the military.

      Vets with a Security Clearance can easily land jobs in the private sector earning well over $100,000 annually.

      1. I had one of those, but passed on the contract work when I got out and let it expire. Fuck government work. Navy: never again volunteer yourself.

  2. Keep your government hands off my military pay.

  3. I’m sure that the risk associated has at least something to do with the pay difference. I don’t know of many private sector jobs where you go to a foreign nation and get shot at. Whether we should be there is a separate question, but if a war is risky or unpopular it seems obvious that the pay would have to rise in order to attract/maintain a sizable force.

    1. I would agree for the enlisted men who are on the front lines getting shot at. But what about the senior officers who are sitting in the Pentagon or in air conditioned offices in Afghanistan? Their lives are certainly not — or not nearly as much — at risk.

      1. You think those guys are going to see their compensation cut? Dream on. This is nothing but an excuse to fuck the rank and file. Instead of cutting the numbers of senior officer billets and reducing staff, getting rid of unneeded weapons systems and all of the other bullshit, they will fuck over the people who actually do the fighting and keep all of the bullshit.

      2. Most of the flag officers – and even the birds – that I knew or encountered when I was in were top-rate guys who could have run any corporation in America. I don’t begrudge their pay a bit. That there might well be too may of them is another issue.

        1. People want to rant on them, but they are often the first ones to arrive in the morning and the last to leave at night… well the good officers anyway.

          1. Agreed. I’ve seen many a field grade officer routinely work 18 hours a day. Of course, I’ve seen it because I worked 16 hour days and they were there before me and still there when I left.

        2. ANd they tend to incur a lot of expenses that won’t be reimbursed. Officers have to pay for food and uniforms out of pocket (granted not to great of a hardship for an admiral) and reserve flag officers have to pay for most of their travel expenses OOP.

    2. This. I mean seriously? Yes, people who spend all day wading through sewers also get paid more than workers in other jobs of the same age and education level.

      1. Yeah. I don’t have a problem with my garbage man making a lot of money. I wouldn’t do that job for cheap wages.

        1. With garbage men there is a comparison to the private sector that can easily be made. Not so much with soldiers. And I certainly agree that, at least for those who actually face being shot at or other dangerous situations, paying them well is quite appropriate, whether or not I think they should be doing it at all in the first place.

      2. But there are plenty of people willing to enlist?

        1. This is the important thing – most won’t consider that pay is largely determined by supply and demand, not how important the job is considered, but how many people are willing to do it.

          I woulnd’t support cutting pay, but we could do without large raises for a couple of years.

          1. Exactly, it’s about supply and demand.

            If we actually start fighting so many wars, then it’ll be time to go without large raises and so forth.

  4. Maths is a difficult thing. And quantitative comparisons are even more difficult. I don’t know that this is not true. But I want to hear it from another source than the Pentagon who drafted the QRMC. You have to remember those assholes know the gravy train is ending and they are dying to fuck over the rank and file to make sure their defense contractor buddies and fat post retirement jobs are taken care of. I wouldn’t trust anything they say.

    1. “Maths”? Didn’t we fight a revolution so we didn’t have to say “maths”?

  5. Romney: “It’s time to shrink Federal Government. But we need to spend $100B MORE on the military!”

  6. Ya I was starting to see some pretty sweet compensation when I got out. Some jobs are not worth it.
    The real pay boost comes if enlisted members are allowed to live off base. Then they draw BAH pay which tax free and nearly doubles their paycheck at the E3 to E5 level. If you’re slick you can buy a house thus taking a mortgage deduction off a house paid for with tax free money….but it still was not worth the money, and I have enjoyed every day after that pay cut.

    1. No civilian job I know of gives you a raise for getting married, having kids, or moving off base.

      But, no civilian job can arbitrarily order you to move across the country or to a different country – with no option of quitting until your contract is over. Sometimes accompanied by your family, sometimes not.

  7. The waste of the government, the overspending, is honestly more than any of us can grasp. Like distances between stars, the numbers are truly far greater than we can actually wrap our minds around. And every single day we find out about more.

    How much wealth has been squandered and wasted? How much diverted and stolen? More than we can even imagine.

    1. I can imagine a lot.

      1. So can I, Tulpy-poo, and that’s what scares me. Because I know there’s no way I’m imagining even close to it all.

    2. There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it’s only a hundred billion. It’s less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.
      Richard Feynman
      US educator physicist (1918 – 1988)

      That was over twenty years ago. Maybe we should call them defensical numbers.

      1. there’s a 100 billion stars in the Milky Way?! holy crap i had no idea.

      2. Well, at least astronomical distances (if you put them into common units like miles or meters) are still way bigger than any economic numbers.

      3. What a moron. A star is worth way more than a dollar.

      4. And I think he meant the debt, not the deficit.

  8. The article doesn’t say that members of military make 80-90 percent more then the private sector, it says that military pay exceeds that of 80-90 percent of private sector workers.

    1. Good catch. Too bad Reason doesn’t employ editors to catch such mistakes.

      1. It does. They are called commenters. Free, free commenters.

    2. I was going to point that out. Sort of a significant difference.

  9. And who says that 1999 was some magical year? Maybe they were underpaid in 1999 and the last 13 years made up for that. How much should they be making? That is an interesting question. Why not answer it rather than throwing up statistics without context?

  10. And what good are they… they’re just government bureaucrats.

    1. with guns – wait, I should say more guns than most SWAT teams!

      1. They get our sloppy seconds.

    2. Tony – Please take a ride down to your nearest Infantry base and call them “bureaucrats”.

  11. Wait, so is the argument that they should get paid less? Should engineers or high level managers only get paid based on an average pay for their educational level? I thought credentialism is bad? Shouldn’t folks who provide a more useful service or product get paid accordingly with their output rather than with their credentials?

    1. To elaborate, I sure as hell would pay a person who was willing die for me more than someone wh works at the coffee shop.

      1. Yeah but along the same line, people in the military don’t get paid for their performance. The dude that sits next to you sleeping all day gets paid the same. If I offered to mow your yard and was willing to die for you, would you pay me $50,000 a year?

  12. Can we also compare amount of hours put in verses pay rate? Military members don’t work 8 hrs a day, 5 days week. Most work far more… getting up for formations well before the sun rises and often not getting home until late at night most nights. No extra pay for long hours. They get the same pay no matter how many hours worked.

    There is no union to go crying to because they were on duty for 72 hours straight and have worked 100 or more hours per week.

    1. All good questions. And remember the Pentagon brass is trying to screw the rank and file to save their favorite weapon system ponies. This report is nothing but propaganda put out in support of that effort.

    2. Yeah, I think a better argument would be that the military folks aren’t getting paid too much, just that there are too many of them.

    3. Most civilian jobs won’t destroy your body as fast as serving in the Infantry. Old Infantry Marines have no knees, ankles, and bad backs – they get by on pure anger and meanness.

    4. I’ve worked in the private sector for well over a decade. The next job that I have that is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week will be the first.

      1. I don’t know about “most” working far more. Maybe the people deployed to combat zones, but the people stateside don’t. I probably work 500 or more hours a year than I did in the military, and with no overtime. And it’s not like they’re having to take-out debt and spend years in school to get their jobs.

      2. I was gonna say the same thing. Since I got out of the Air Force in 1990 I have never had a job where I averaged less than 45 hours a week and the most hours I ever worked in a week was 115, this BTW was an an exempt salary position meaning I got no extra compensation for it either. On the flip side when I was in the Air Force I frequently had assignments where my actually work day was significantly shorter than 8 hours a day and they lasted for multiple weeks at a time. Hell at one point I was assigned to be the “janitor” for our units building, for some reason everyone hated that duty because you had to come in during the middle of the night to clean while everyone else was home but I could completely clean the place in about 2.5 hours and after that I got to go back to bed.

        Ultimately yeah, your average infantry grunt in a war zone probably is underpaid however they are not even the bulk of the military anymore and for the overwhelming majority the most dangerous activity they face on a daily basis is their morning commute.

  13. Nice work Richard, you beat me too it. I just signed up so I could submit that correction. Does Reason really not go thorugh comments, etc. to catch these kinds of mistakes? I’d expect better adherence to facts from this magazine.

  14. Why do we have 50,000 troops in Germany?

    Why do we have 10,000 troops in Italy?

    Why do we have 9,000 troops in the UK?

    1. Why do we have 9,000 troops in the UK?

      A reminder.

      1. Yeah, if that Queen gets uppity and thinks she can get us back into the Realm…! I think many are at Mindenhall AFB?

        1. I for one, refuse to drink tea and have bad teeth.

    2. We shouldn’t. People just fawn over how well Europe’s socialist system does, but if those countries had to pay for their own defense and we weren’t there protecting them, they would be in the fucking toilet right now with their socialism. Hell, they are already failing miserably now without having to pay for their own defense.

    3. Why do we have 50,000 troops in Germany?

      To stop the commie-nazis coming through the Fulda Gap.

      Why do we have 10,000 troops in Italy?

      Primarily to test the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle.

      Why do we have 9,000 troops in the UK?

      Apparently you’ve already forgotten about a little thing called The War of 1812?

    4. Because we have always been at war with Eastasia.

      1. There’s a line from Princess Bride about that.

  15. It’s a little dishonest to look at age and education and say that they are paid more. There is productivity and risks involved with the work. Should two fishermen get paid the same if one of them works in the sunny gulf of mexico and the other is one of those guys on Deadliest Catch?

    1. Also responsibility. A typical officer manages FAR more people than their private equivalent ever will.

      1. BN command is approximately 640 soldiers. Life and death decisions. I had a BA, MA and JD… what would someone get for that in the private sector?

        I think those saying this is a prelude to shafting the EMs and NCOs are probably right. I could probably select 15-25% of the flag rank folks in the DoD to get shitcanned and we would do nothing but better. Who needs an Navy with more admirals than ships? How many more generals than divisions do you need? How many bases remain open that need not?

        1. Plus getting rid of Flag Officers also gets rid of the headquarters and the flunkies that fill it. As soon as you create a new Flag Officer you create positions for dozens and even hundreds of personnel in the new Flag command.

          And of course that Flag Officer wants to do something so for example if they are in command of the new “Africa Command” then they are proposing all sorts of operations to justify their new command

      2. Could they file a grievance against you w/ the union?

  16. I have no problem with individual soldiers being well paid. I just think that we should have maybe half as many individual soldiers as we currently maintain, and stop sending them to foreign countries to die needlessly.

  17. A better comparison would be between the military and military contractor companies like Blackwater. Compare apples to apples. Warfighters to Warfighters.

    1. Don’t let Xe hear you say that…them boys is pricey.

  18. Why do we keep on comparing salaries based on what college education someone has. I don’t care how many diplomas someone has, I care about if they can do their job and how much money is needed to get them to do that job. I had a boss who got a masters and then a doctorate yet he was no better a boss with a doctorate then with a masters or with a bachelors

    Even the degrees themselves don’t match up and are difficult to compare, is a doctor of feminist study the same as a medical doctor or a engineering doctor?

  19. most of those guys also do not have the liberty to live out in town. They are forced to live in the Barracks, share rooms, showers, bathrooms, etc. many don’t own a vehicle. they share or hitch rides with their fellows Marines (from my experience as a Marine Officer) because they can’t afford it. Those that do live out in town, unless they are an Officer or Staff NCO (in for 6 years or so), have to share houses and apartments because they could not afford the rent on their own.

    1. Most people in that age group, military or otherwise, have roommates for affordability.

      1. lol yeah, I have ever in my life lived on my own.

        I moved back in with my parents after being in the Air Force, moved out again when I moved in with my first wife and the first time in my life when I could have afforded a house of my own had I been single was when I was 28 years old, 2 years later the dot com bust hit and I was out of work for nearly 2 more years and it was 2 more years after that before I could have afforded to live on my own again by which time I was living with wife #2.

        None of which is meant to trivialize the difficulties of being in the miliary, however if you’re not a frontline grunt or deployed to a warzone the fact is that it is generally a pretty cushy job with decent pay. This is especially true if you are in the Air Force or Navy.

        1. True that. I was in the Navy and started out on an Army base right after bootcamp. They were like, “fyi, this is probably the worst barracks you’ll ever live in.”

          1. Yeah, don’t know if it is still like this but back in the 80’s SOP for building a new base went like this…

            Air Force: First things to go in are the living quarters, swimming pool, golf course, PX, Messhall, Movie Theater and Officers/NCO’s club then if they ran out of money they went back to Congress and said you need to give us more to finish the air field.

            Army: First things to go in are the firing range machine shops, chopper landing field, tank repair bays, fuel storage depot and then if they ran out of money they slapped together a couple of “temporary” buildings to be used as Barracks.

  20. The headline reads military members make 80%-90% more than civilian counterparts, but the quote says military members are paid higher than 90% of their civilian counterparts.

    It seems to me these two statements are at odds with each other, but math is definitely not my strong suit.

    1. It’s not necessarily that they are at odds, as it’s possible for them to both be true, but they do mean different things. It’s likely the headline is off.

  21. kind of in a “reverse privacy” issue, here in WA, red light camera data (pictures) which are taken in a PUBLIC PLACE and under even our much more restrictive constitution (we have a right to privacy much stronger than the 4th), cannot be used (since the law was written that way when they were enabled) for ANYTHING other than red light tickets

    iow, seattle , which is running roughly double the homicide rate they had last year cannot access red light camera data to help solve HOMICIDES

    oh yea, and the stuff is erased on a 30 day basis

    the legislature is “working on it”

    talk about unintended consequences. nobody thought when they passed this disabling law, that maybe red light cameras might be useful in solving oh say… an occasion A felony?

    jesus christ

    SEATTLE, Wash. (Metro) — The Washington State Legislature will be asked to change state law that will allow police departments to review video captured by red-light cameras for the purpose of solving murders.

    The Seattle Police Department and King County prosecutors will request that lawmakers change the statute that currently prohibits any use of red-light cameras other than for the purpose of catching motorists who run stop lights.

    Seattle Police Sergeant Sean Whitcomb says if red-light cameras record footage of suspect vehicles, it will provide valuable information to murder investigations.…..e/13621838

    1. You know what else would help solve crimes? If the cops were allowed unfettered access to every home in the city without need of a warrant.

      IOW, I fail to see how doing something the state has declared unconstitutional could have positive consequences. Slippery slope and all that.

      1. you very rarely fail to be wrong on the law

        the state did not declare it unconstitutional

        never did

        because it’s not. see: plain view doctrine

        what the state did was pass a law that said that the info could only be used for red light enforcement

        NO court has ruled use of the data otherwise unconstitutional

        it’s statutory

        jesus christ, you are so consistently wrong on the law

      2. you very rarely fail to be wrong on the law

        the state did not declare it unconstitutional

        never did

        because it’s not. see: plain view doctrine

        what the state did was pass a law that said that the info could only be used for red light enforcement

        NO court has ruled use of the data otherwise unconstitutional

        it’s statutory

        jesus christ, you are so consistently wrong on the law

        1. I’ll quote your first paragraph above: kind of in a “reverse privacy” issue, here in WA, red light camera data (pictures) which are taken in a PUBLIC PLACE and under even our much more restrictive constitution (we have a right to privacy much stronger than the 4th), cannot be used (since the law was written that way when they were enabled) for ANYTHING other than red light tickets

          The way you wrote it was what led me to the conclusion that it was unconstitutional in WA. If you don’t want me to come to the wrong conclusion, learn to write more clearly.

          and: NO court has ruled use of the data otherwise unconstitutional

          guess again, fucknut.

          1. Oops. Link fail. Google: “Red light cameras ruled unconstitutional”. I think you’ll see that you are waaaaaaaaaay off on your claim. (And don’t try to claim some bullshit about getting different data being OK but the issuance of tickets from the data being unconstitutional. The rulings are pretty clear.)

    2. Also, red light cameras have been shown to create more dangerous situations at intersections. Especially when it has been discovered that yellow cycles have been routinely shortened where cameras are present because it will help generate revenue.

      They are rarely used to make intersections safer and the entire process that follows a red light ticket is anything but what I would consider “due process.” Tear every fucking one of them down.

      1. which is of course entirely irrelevant to the issue. nobody said red light cameras were a good idea

        of course, in your usual moronic lack of legal understanding you thought the courts had declared it unconstitutional to use red light picture data to solve homicides


        the provision is STATUTORY which the moronic legislature passed in enabling red light cameras

        there is no privacy issue here

        it’s pictures taken in a public place (an intersection) of motor vehicle movements.

        and only a moron would say that if the pictures are already taken, that they shouldn’t be available for solving HOMICIDES

        again, your lack of understanding basic legal concepts is a consistent shortcoming

        research first, THEN spout

        1. Um, that was just an aside about red light cameras. Again, I’ll point you to my legal argument above and my inability to wrestle with your poorly constructed writing leading to a misinterpretation of your jacked-up sentence.

          And perhaps you could explain to us why how there is no double standard here.

    3. On the other hand, at least the cameras can’t be used to provide evidence of you tasing pregnant women.

    4. Maybe you could tell Sgt Whitcomb that it would also be useful if all those missing SPD dashboard cam videos would be made public.

      1. But the cops can’t be forced to turn over evidence that might incriminate them under their CBA. A taxpayer-funded dashcam is the property of the officer driving the car, and if it has evidence of him beating someone to a pulp, he cannot be made to turn it over and cannot be made to file an accurate police report that may incriminate him.

        Again: the double standard is alive and well in the Pacific Northwest, where cops can act with impunity as long as the only evidence is their radio and/or dashcam.

  22. The sheriff is dead.
    Long live the sheriff.

    Poor Andy Griffith.

    1. Yeah, I heard, too.

      “BUT ANDYYY!!!!”

      /Barney Fife

  23. That jsut does not make any sense at all dude. Wow.

  24. Based on what I know about my brother and his friends’ rates of pay, I’m actually fine with what the soldiers get, esp those Captain and under. (and whatever the equivalent is in the Navy)
    Couldn’t pay me enough to do what they’ve done.

    Majors and above? Probably too many of them, esp. the ones not in field command. Like any gov’t group.

    But the Captains and under? I don’t begrdge them a penny. Fuck it – they’re worth it for my tax money.

    Now – do we need a million point four of ’em? No. And start at the top with the reductions, as I implied earlier…I want the dudes toting rifles on the payroll more than the ones toting pens and portfolios…

    1. i can approve this message ^

  25. still waiting for sloopy to cite what court ruled using red light camera data to solve homicides was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL” (under independent reading grounds of WA constitution which is substantially more restrictive than the federal one OR the federal one)

    hint: it wasn’t ruled unconstitutional, since it wouldn’t be under the plain/open view doctrine

    it’s a STATUTORY restriction passed in the law that enabled the red light cameras.

    the REASON THEY PASSED THE LAW was because it’s obvious that it would NOT be unconstitutional to use open view pcitures taken in a public place for other purposes besides red light enforcement

    sloopy: when you want to be wrong on the law, call sloopyinca

    consistently, kneejerkingly wrong

    1. Give him a break. Some people have a visceral reaction to red light cameras that overrides their rational processing.

    2. still waiting for sloopy to cite what court ruled using red light camera data to solve homicides was “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”

      Here’s one court that has.

      Here’s a second judge that has.

      Sorry, but the two link minimum has kept me from giving you the dozens of other rulings. And before you move the goalposts, I’ll go ahead and preempt you: you never said WA, and if the cameras themselves are unconstitutional, then any data they collect would also be unconstitutional.

      I also especially like how you snuck this down below after I gave you the google search info above. It as an especially clever move. I’m not too shocked the commodore fell for it.

  26. The real measure of the appropriateness of military pay is simple – can you fill all the slots you want with new recruits and are you retaining the leaders you need. What other occupations pay is irrelevant, because supply and demand are already almost in balance. If the military was paying way too much any reasonably fit 18 year old couldn’t just show up and get a job. This is different in then in most other public sector jobs were there are many people interviewing for few positions. You get recruited into the military, you apply and interview for a DOT job.

    1. Except that it’s the government setting the demand. Like you said, all the slots you WANT, not the slots you need.

      1. Fair enough.

  27. I think this article exposes a large problem with America today. I see nothing wrong with what people in the military are making. The problem I see is that there are no other jobs which pay as well that are available to people who are just getting out of high school. There is an idea integrated into our society that you must go to college to get that good job, and employers put too much emphasis on a college degree. It is a viscous cycle, the disciplined kids, who make good employees, go to college and so employers have learned they want college educated people for their jobs. The end result here is that we are wasting years that could be spent productively racking up college debt which might never get paid back.

  28. Abolish the armed forces, and let the market decide the appropriate pay rate.

  29. Hey, gotta make it worth their while when Ohopeyma turns them on their fellow citizens.

    People won’t commit atrocities for free, ya know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.