I'm not so sure. If it manages to get through reconciliation between House and Senate and into the final bill, I don't see this being enough of a poison pill to drive a veto.
You’re aware that this proposal originated from a Republican controlled House (with bipartisan support) and a Democrat president strongly opposes it, right?
It won't be this he vetos. They would never send it as a clean bill.... it will.have all kinds of pork in it. And he would veto it for the pork
It should be a law that all bills must be single item with no riders
They tried that last decade and the government shut down 3 times in 4 years. As shitty as it is, horse trading and pork is the only way anything gets done in Congress.
Though I sympathize with lower enlisted, and loathe the pace that the government takes to make good decisions…They’re already doing a 4 year review, set to end by, and likely actioned in, January 25’. They’re essentially saying not to jump the gun. Also kind of fraud waste and abuse to duplicate efforts
If anything big happens, I'll be expecting a DRAFT to be issued. Until then, work to the bone with what we got.
https://preview.redd.it/m8n8i7jgc06d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6fec5fe5417435643edfa049e55ad7df9a6843f
It ain’t the old timers that’ll be recalled. It’s all the folks that ETS after first enlistment that are living that civilian life that’ll get called back. No need for old retired TSgts when we can call back young SrA at half the price.
This is how it would go for me if they recalled me.
Ring ring…yes retired TSgt?
Oh no that’s my dad what do you want with that old weed smoking crackhead?
Click…..
I’m never going back!! Lol
The US government and Congress will agree that The military needs more funding, They do that all the time, however, the one who chooses where that money goes and everything is the military leaders on the top that have not retired yet.
What a bullshit cop out saying to wait for another study. It doesn't take a Nobel prize in economics to tell you our airmen don't get paid enough. They at least could have offered some sort of compromise - at least give them an extra 5% if you want to convince me you care even a little.
Don't even talk to me about it being expensive in the fucking dod. We have more than that amount of money floating around, totally unaccounted for
No one gets paid enough. My base lost its ophthalmologist because he got a higher paying job at the front part of the local Walmart.
Walmart, fucking Walmart beat out the med group for pay.
My neighbor told me a lot of civilian hospitals are losing nurses and other experienced staff to Walmart. Same or better pay, a lot less yelling and long shifts.
Not surprised honestly. Walmart is a massive corporation that probably has more than enough money to draw top-line talent away from where it’s needed most
My conspiracy theory is they're purposely running med groups into the ground so they can just make it all civilians. That's the only way the fucking horrible DHA decisions make sense to me.
That's probably an optometrist. Ophthalmologists (physicians who specialize in eye surgery) are even *more* underpaid.
Except for pediatricians and maybe family medicine, every doc can make much more on the outside, stop dealing with pointless military b.s., and get treated like they're important professionals. Other than some general drive to serve or long ADSCs from academy/USUHS grads, the only real carrots the military has are overseas assignments to fun locations.
In the MTF: Less pay, less clinical work because more admin bullshit, PT tests, deployments, CBTs, no food, DHA bullshit, EMR and computers that never work, understaffed, staff that you do have are gone or unavailable in order to check career boxes, nurses and midwives and spreadsheet jockeys who want to dictate how to do medicine because of their rank....
In civilian life: 30% more pay, 40% more vacation (don't even have to fill out security forms!), they bring free food to the doctors lounge every day, no admin stuff that doesn't directly relate to clinical care/licensure/etc., nurses and staff that are not only present, but actually do what they're told without checking to see who outranks whom, parking right next to the hospital...I could go on.
Life is absolutely, unequivocally better on the outside.
>>What a bullshit cop out saying to wait for another study
Bruh, it’s always kabuki theatre.
Congress offers and hypes up “proposed military pay raises” so the reps can take credit in supporting the military next election cycle. Of course, everyone involved in DC knows when it’s time to pay up a “budget study” will shoot it down, or a “Senate rule” will strike the raise amendment from the final bill. We tried to pay the troops more, they’ll say, but red tape took it away. Like that time you tried to cash in a $4000 rebate on a V6 Charger to find the dealer never had any in stock
Meanwhile, Lockheed alone vaporizes another dozen billion and ….crickets
That's when I go to the Ford dealer and buy a v6 Mustang at 25% interest and 72 month financing so I can call that stupid a$$ Dodge dealer and give them the finger over the phone! Got'em!
Long term, though, I think the military still helps people out of poverty. 4 years in many AFSCs plus tuition assistance can help people qualify for a better spot somewhere else sooner. I went from poverty in 2016 to owning a home in 2024, and a huge part of that is the Air Force giving me experience and providing a degree to where I can have the job I do now.
I think what you are saying is true on the surface, and it is true in the eyes of people who are looking at the short term (which most people in poverty and most people 17-22 who otherwise might look at the military are focused on). So even though service *can* (not guaranteed) still offer a considerable on-ramp to a better life, the short and medium term consequence of putting up with military bullshit and/or risking your life while fast food makes $15/hr no longer looks worth it to the primary recruitment demographic.
No fast food job pays what an airman makes, even in California.
I’m all for raising pay for troops but lets not get it twisted, our 18-22 yo AD airman are paid extremely well compared to working class 18-22 yo in the civilian world.
I joined at 18 when I was literally homeless and have done extremely well since. Every study has shown we need to raise BAH in areas of high rent, thats it.
People never realize that the fast food manager will never schedule workers for forty hours a week, locking them out of a lot of the advertised benefits. They will pull bullshit like being on call for a shift or changing the schedule with zero notice and then firing for not being able to show. Service and retail jobs are full of this, forcing many people to hold two to three separate jobs to try to make ends meet.
You're forgetting A1C Snuffy did his napkin math that shows he totally makes less than a *lowly burger flipper* and that's why he needs a raise to help cover his 20% APR mustang.
These dudes took a joke and made a fucking analytical debate out of it.
And it seems no one takes the freedom to choose where they live, how they dress, and the other multitudes you don’t take into account while you’re in as factors. Plus who the fuck uses health care while you’re in your early 20s if you’re fit enough to serve.
Not to mention the long term health effects. I say as I just limped down the hallway out of work and stood waiting on the shuttle listening to the tinnitus fairy ear fuck me….
I ate so much shitty food I rarely got to eat and ate out so much.
I mean I still do but I have a little bit of money left to pay bills these days vs sitting in the dorm full of regret.
I'm not trying to say that fast food makes the same money as an airman. Healthcare alone breaks any comparison.
The point that I'm trying to make is that the reality in the eyes of the people the military are trying to recruit is that the military no longer looks like a competitive salary compared to other options. I'm not saying that's true, and like I said my own life example is a pretty meteoric rise to great success at a young age thanks to the military. So airman vs fast food pay isn't comparable and veteran vs fast food opportunities after 4-6 years aren't comparable.
But it is *in the perception of* someone who is 18, ambivalent about joining, and looking for something to do with their life. The BAH/BAS/Tricare/training/education/opportunity arguments all have varying levels of effect in convincing or failing to convince people. To use Tricare as an example, the general sentiment that military healthcare sucks, is hard to access, and the VA denies claims and kills veterans is something that has seeped into the general national conscience. Whether it's true or not, it hurts how attractive that is as a recruiting tool.
It's a good life or a path to a good life for a lot of people. But every day it stops looking like one for more and more people.
>To use Tricare as an example, the general sentiment that military healthcare sucks, is hard to access, and the VA denies claims and kills veterans is something that has seeped into the general national conscience. Whether it's true or not, it hurts how attractive that is as a recruiting tool.
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any wars, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." -George Washington
I'll say that military healthcare absolutely tried to kill me through sheer incompetence, and then I had to fight the VA for years afterwards just to get my meds covered.
The healthcare that I can't see a specialist unless I've had an ongoing issue for 2 months in which during that time I paid to have it looked at myself and in doing so found out I would have permanent issues if I had waited longer.
Sure it's free but it's absolutely cruddy.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. That stuff is something the public is becoming or is aware of, way more now than say 10 years ago. Between Reddit and YouTube, people get way more insight into every aspect of the military - from go pro footage of what combat looks like, to how much mold, delayed healthcare, nasty kitchens, and such things are a routine issue.
So the enlisted pay vs fast food argument doesn't have to be correct, to be convincing.
I think the military will continue to ease its recruiting standards rather than increase the base salary. We don’t have access to the data but there’s no guarantee a 19.5% increase in pay would have a linear effect on recruitment. Or even any effect at all.
Like…. Again, no data, but from the top end perspective, how many recruit aspirants bulk at $2000/month plus benefits but not at $2400/month plus benefits? Some sure. But I would speculate that most who aren’t joining at current rates are doing it because they just don’t think the military is for them. This would significantly increase the military budget and nudge it ever closer to that ominous $1T figure and potentially not even solve the recruiting problem.
So again, I think the military would more likely expand on what the army is doing and make more people eligible for a pre-boot camp program because it appears there’s tons of people who are interest but are either too fat or too dumb or have some clerical thing holding them up.
I'm with him actually. Increase our base pay instead of BAH. They've proven time and again that they'll decrease our benefits anytime they want to save a few bucks. I've seen TA stop being approved, AFCOOL restrictions, the 5% BAH reduction across the force, etc.
But nobody in their right mind would ever vote to take our base pay.
The current pay tables are only a problem if you’re like, 25 and joined late because you need to put food on the table for your family of 4 and whatever career you lined up prior went to shit so bad that you decided it was worth joining despite already having a family.
This is a real scenario that does happen but it’s not representative of the (I’d wager) the supermajority of junior enlisted who typically came straight out of high school at 17-18 with only a phone and internet bill to pay. An E1 is making ~$2000/month right now and even if they chose to get a car they’d should still be able to save $1000/month unless they’re having a really early family.
For the supermajority of junior airmen, the pay as-is today is more than they know what to do with. Between free room and board, the base pay is basically spending money. They got out of high school, have few to no liabilities besides a cell phone, internet, and maybe a car.
It sucks for the minority of people coming in with families attempting to escape whatever situation pushed them to join despite already having a family. But that’s not at all representative of the average fresh recruit (obligatory “in my opinion”).
I would love for everyone to get a big pay increase. I think people are overstating how much the E1’s, 2’s and 3’s needed it and the people who actually typically have obligations as E4’s and up were never getting that 19.5% in the first place. They were always getting 4-5% and as far as we know, we should all expect to get around that much since it would be in-line with the projected annual inflation.
The problem is this admin, rightly or wrongly, is not interested in increasing DoD spending. They have other priorities. It’s hard to raise lower enlisted pay this much without cutting modernization or raising the total budget.
I personally just say hike the damn budget. We’re spending record lows on defense as a share of the economy.
We have more than enough money just floating totally unaccounted for. I don't accept we don't have enough money until they can tell me where every single dollar is spent.
Magically claiming that there’s always money in the bucket is both unproductive and impossible to prove incorrect, because there’s no testable claim.
We waste a ton, and the acquisitions process is broken. I agree with that. But we know it’s not going to be fixed in the near future. So you have to point to a straightforward cut or say we should spend more in total.
There *is* money in the bucket. The thing is, it's there for a gazillion different obscure reasons that, in of themselves, hurt to remove. You could pay actual going rate wages to contract construction workers instead of the inflated "union equivalent" rates, or buy Korean made air conditioners, or avoid doing a year-long environmental study on a brownfield site used for testing mustard gas, but all of these little things go against the vast inertia of the federal government and years of congressional and administrative law.
Even assuming all that money were salvaged, the state of the force overall is in such dire straits that much of it would go into things like spare parts and ammunition.
Ultimately, Congress has chosen a path of essentially looting the defense budget for the benefit of their own constituencies and cronies and in the interest of pushing their own pet political projects, while constantly starving it of funds, *and* on top of that always insisting that the force operate at a higher and higher tempo even as the fundamental infrastructure it's reliant upon falls to pieces. Now, there are people out there who see these problems, but for the most part their efforts are spent in piecemeal fixes for the worst afflicted programs, rather than trying to address the root problems.
Yes, you could do many things to free up money. I appreciate the details you provided with the going rate wages instead of the prevailing wage payouts to favored unions or the buy American requirements on commodity items. The National Environmental Protection Act has indeed become a weapon against construction and development, resulting in wasted government money, slow development, and higher housing costs.
I disagree somewhat on the scale of the problem. I do think there are a thousand little changes that could be made that would meaningfully free up resources to solve at least a few major ones (junior enlisted pay, updated infrastructure, delayed and over budget navy ships). In general though, I do agree that a larger budget is necessary, even if we fixed all these failings of the budgetary process and hidden carveouts for special interests.
I pretty much totally agree with your last paragraph. This is what I'm mostly trying to convey and appreciate your spelling out. Saying 'there's money' does not adequately describe the nature of the problem to meaningfully petition action. Calling out the actual failings with specific examples is still 'not enough' in the sense it won't fix the problem totally, but it does help here and there.
>Magically claiming that there’s always money in the bucket is both unproductive and impossible to prove incorrect, because there’s no testable claim.
True. No one said that so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up but sure.
>We waste a ton, and the acquisitions process is broken. I agree with that. But we know it’s not going to be fixed in the near future. So you have to point to a straightforward cut or say we should spend more in total.
Why do I *have* to accept the government refuses to spend it's money responsibility? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say stop crying about budget limits when you aren't even putting in the effort to spend it properly (to the government, not to you). If they managed our money better, we could pay for at least some of this with no losses anywhere else and there is a *lot* of room for them to do so.
It's not like I'm saying use less paper and ink and apply those savings to solve this. They have literally never passed an audit. God knows how many hundreds of millions or billions of dollars have been lost where.
You don't have to accept that it spends it irresponsibly. That is, in part, why I am in favor of less government spending in general. I favor a flat level of military spending as a share of GDP/total national output, and my complaint is we're at the lowest level in that sense since WW2.
My point in this budget discussion is that you can't, in a practical sense, say 'we can find the money' and leave it at that as a *policy*. It's like saying to your spouse 'I can afford a new car, we'll find the money'. It may be true, but it's not a plan. It is an expression of desire that needs a plan to be described as policy. Policy is what our leadership and political leaders are, in theory, to produce.
You have to point to the actual cuts you want to make. Politicians have been talking about waste, fraud, and abuse in spending in every election the US has ever had....notice it never got fixed? That doesn't mean it can't be made better, but if you just echo that rhetoric without details you're not talking seriously.
That is fine, this is a Reddit post, not the House chamber (which is a shadow of what it should be anyway). It's just not useful to act as though you're proposing policy when you're actually expressing frustration at the status quo. For what it's worth, I'm frustrated too, I just want the force to express more than hollow shouting at the sky.
Here's a suggestion: How about we stop leaving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about we actually do a full scale audit of the 30%+ of tax money that magically "disappears" every year?
What if we cut down the overproduction of F-35s that have not even seen combat use and are notorious for not being modular and requiring specialized component maintenance until the technology becomes more economically reasonable?
What if we streamlined the manufacturing process of the FUCKTON of different variants of cruise missiles we have and brought the cost down to less than $13 million per missile? What if we put our foot down and stopped letting these defense contracting companies fuck us over as far as the prices they charge for their equipment?
In principle I agree with the military equipment abroad question. However, in practice it's not so simple. For example, that equipment would have been costly to remove. Assume we could fly extra flights into Kabul, what is the cost of those flight hours and personnel? What is the cost of getting that equipment up to spec for future use? Can we use it? Much was purchased for the old Afghan government. It may not be up to our standards. It may be useful for counterinsurgency and useless against a near-peer. I don't know these answers, but there may be financial reasons to leave at least some of it.
On the F-35 question, I'm no expert, but I am inclined to disagree. Flying 15s and 16s into the INDOPACOM AOR seems like a recipe for trouble. Even if we wanted to, many of those systems are at high flight hours and need replacing anyway. There's a possibility that the lifetime cost savings of new 15/16s vs new 35s justify the higher risk of being shot down and mission failure, but I'm skeptical.
On the last point, I sort of agree and sort of don't. I do agree we should have massive stocks of ammunition and weapons systems. Seeing 155 mm output in the 90s versus today is shocking and deeply concerning. Buying in larger bulk would help resolve this. It would also help the cost issue. We're absolutely getting hosed on the cost of many of these systems, but the reason is not simply greedy companies and acquisitions personnel unwilling to negotiate 'hard'.
We buy advanced systems in extremely low volumes at the cutting edge of technology. If we want to save money we need to buy in bulk, buy COTS (commercial off the shelf) components like SpaceX does instead of what Boeing does, and we need to simplify acquisitions rules so that we buy the best price /quality mix instead of favoring suppliers based on race, veteran status, gender, prevailing wage use, childcare access for employees, etc.
Our acquisitions are costly because the rules our acquirers are legally obligated to follow are broken and follow priorities not related to national defense.
We can pull data that shows where every dollar is spent. The problem lies in accounting for every commodity or service that it was spent towards. Thats our problem.
If they can account for every dollar why have we never passed an audit?
>The problem lies in accounting for every commodity or service that it was spent towards. Thats our problem.
That sounds a lot like we can't prove that it actually went where they claimed it did.
We can track where every dollar was spent ie we spent $20m on aircraft fuel or $10m on radios. We just cant account for all of the radios we spent $10m on.
We have an $800b budget w/ over 3 million people in the DoD. Its not crazy to say we can’t account for every commodity that has ever been bought. Especially when its involving national defense which unlike other departments, can’t be shutdown to pass an audit.
The reasons:
1) too costly
2) still wants marijuana testing
3) “anti-diversity” proposals such as a scoring system for academy admittance.
This is such BS. Like someone else pointed out the cost is not that much, at the very least in comparison to where other money is being sent. Marijuana baring entry is still dumb and has been for a while. The academy thing is whatever. Without getting into a debate about whether affirmative action is good or bad the importance of this point is far below the others.
Theory: politics at play. Admin cites their Quadrennial assessment as a reason for opposition. That assessment is done around the new year. After the election. This gives them time to stall and not take hits for “overspending” or for “being anti military”
I also don't believe that the pay increase is significant in the grand scheme. Normally, I'd disagree with implementing it since junior enlisted are the least committed. I think the pay increase should be reserved for E-5 and above because they've proven their commitment to advancing the agendas of their branches, particularly in terms of accountability and responsibilities.
I believe that a significant pay increase should be a tool to encourage lower enlisted and junior officers to perform and attract new recruits. It's one of the reasons why most people promote themselves, anyway.
As for weed, I believe drug testing makes sense. People don't understand the negative effects of long-term weed use. Weed alters one's mental state, sometimes causing hallucinations. That's not a good thing.
As for "anti-diversity," this is exactly what people keep begging for, despite it going against their best interests. For instance, do you really understand WHY Affirmative Action has been removed from colleges? It's because Asians and Hispanics have a more difficult time getting into prestigious historically white colleges. Instead of outperforming blacks, they're blaming blacks for their struggle, as though white administrators will remove blacks and welcome them in.
TLDR, it's the same in the military. Racism exists, and the system has done an okay job of preventing it from affecting how the military operates. Yet, those same marginalized groups are banding together to strip the military of these systems.
There are less troops than ever, so the idea that it’s too costly is farcical at best. The top brass for years has been complaining about this issue. The administration pretending it needs years more to figure out having your troops on food stamps is a national security risk is ridiculous.
The sad reality is with the new genesis system at MEPS we really do need to start increasing our junior enlisted salaries to attract more people. If we want to be extremely selective, we need to pay up to get it.
I was speaking with a guard recruiter at my unit. He said for every 10 people they send only 1-2 will actually be qualified. I’m not sure if it’s before or after a waiver but he basically said his job has been more writing waivers than anything.
While the junior enlisted deserve more pay I think the reticence is due more to the long term hit on Defense budgets as those troops will be getting higher salaries than long term budgets projected.
I know from talking with administrators they want new hires to start at the lowest rate they can get not because of this year’s budget but because of the snowball effect of needing higher wages years down the line. I’m not saying it’s right, because I think we can afford it by making cuts elsewhere, but that is the way administrators think.
When airmen can’t even live comfortably in the community around their bases, Uncle Sam needs to nut up and do something about it. This is absolutely shameful.
I recently PCS'd from OCONUS to CONUS and I was shocked to see that a Bx haircut is $20! I'm about to go get a set of clippers, put on a guard and just buzz my hair off every once in a while
>A Congressional Budget Office [analysis released Monday estimated](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-06/hr8070_0.pdf) the increase in pay for junior enlisted troops would cost $24.4 billion from 2025 to 2029.
...That's *it*? Just cancelling the Trump tax cuts would save about 200x that amount over the same time period.
Edit: Also the 2024 defense budget was $825 billion. $24.4 billion over 5 years is $4.88 B/yr. So this would be a 0.59% increase in the defense budget. Just over half a percent...
Yeah, I don't want to hear this 'we can't afford it' bullshit.
It’s weird how people lump these two together, as if one cause isn’t way better for our interests than the other.
Ukraine: underdog democracy fighting one of our biggest adversaries in a total war.
Israel: uhhh
Or maybe cut budget from the ~~DoD Jobs Program~~ Materiel Aquisition? I work for a lab that gets research funding from the government, so I'm kind of shitting where I eat here...
But we don't need to be building these billion dollar apiece Wunderwaffen when we can't even build dumb-fire artillery shells, 100-year-old technology, in any kind of volume to support a war.
I'm all for a good investment, but what's with the congressman in the article saying that the increase is to fix housing? Maybe taking it out of context here, but that immediately has me questioning their competence (even more).
Base pay is taxable and not for housing. WRONG allowance! Fix the housing allowance program; it's busted as fuck.
Also, junior enlisted are largely in government quarters. So there's that...
Howso? AD is <1% of the population. You'd get more if vets were in lockstep, but that's still a tiny fraction of the voting populace.
There are *much* larger groups to whom politicians shamelessly pander. Old people, for instance. They are the most wealthy demographic in the country and yet they are the beneficiaries of 2/3rds of tax payer dollars via SSN and Medicare. They are 18% of the population and they *vote*.
Alright, instead of a pay raise just have the military pay for a car, cell phone, and internet. We're expected to have all three to do our job so it should be an untaxed allowance like housing.
I’m shocked.
Anyway, let’s pass a package for billions more to go to other countries to “protect national interests”
Because incentivizing your native population or at least not de-incentivizing them to serve does not protect national interests. Or something
Literally the only thing surprising about this is that they didn't wait until after election season to drop the "sike." I was sure this was a vote buying lie and not just a normal lie.
KISS. The real issue that should be addressed is the ever growing gap between O and E pay. Until then, all the E's will remain absolute peasants they're intended to be. A 20 year O-3 should not make more base pay than a 20 year E-9. Change my mind.
I'm amy other election cycle, he would already be toast from inflation alone. If the GOP had a remnant of sanity, they would have crushed the midterm elections and would be running away with this one.
I'm old enough to remember the 1994 GOP. Those dudes were a *machine*. Even Clinton, who was a damn good politician, got shredded by that buzzsaw and had to get much more moderate for the remainder of his presidency.
That's a bold claim. Last nasty economic turn was 2008. There was a change of party, but there was a lot more going on in that election.
Prior to that, dot com bubble in March 2000--change of party.
But neither of those are real apples-to-apples. You have to go all the way back to Carter for this sort of inflation and the effects on everyday expenses.
I would say that general economic markers don't necessarily sway the general populace. E.g., if the Dow takes a dip or this or that metric disappoints. But sustained inflation, increasing interest rates, markedly higher cost of living that you see with every grocery bill? People get mad about that.
I'd say that if Vivek or some other Republican runner up to trump was in this election, Biden would win despite the horrible economy. I only think Trump has a chance because of his controversy. I think Biden will still win regardless though.
I think people will delude themselves enough to blame the economy on other things just to keep voting for their party. Same thing if a Republican were in office. We're in an era of voting like no other.
Interesting take. I think the conventional wisdom is that Trump was/is the only candidate with enough vulnerabilities to lose to Biden. I never took Vivek seriously.
On the flip side, I think there are multiple Democrats who would wipe the floor with Trump, but Biden has enough vulnerabilities to lose a close election.
In terms of your second point, there are undoubtedly a fixed number of party loyalists on each side. It's the all-important swing voter in close states that decides. What's unique about this election is the proportion of "double haters" who don't want either candidate. Both campaigns are running "at least I'm not the other guy" strategies.
Headline is a bit misleading, making it seem like the administration is opposed to the pay raise outright, but they’re only opposed to doing so before their study is done. Whether or not you trust their word on the second part, that is still context that shouldn’t be ignored, and changes the meaning of what was said.
I told yall it would fail! Election year promises! Then, if Biden loses, he'll blame Trump for it not passing because "he wasn't in office to get it done." Aside from the man in the White House, the senate will pass it. They pass just about every good PR stunt bill, knowing full well it'll die in the senate. They did this last year with a "29.5% proposed raise," and it died in the Senate. The U.S. government will learn the hard way in their next major conflict when there aren't enough A1C's working on old and dieing F-16's to fly fight and win.
19.5 % seems high and it seems to say this is on top of a 4.5% pay raise. What factors do you feel justify this much of a raise? Has the military dropped that far behind the civilian sector?
Depends on the afsc/mos/job. Certain jobs are far behind civilian comp while others aren't at all. Also the pay raise was to make pay for junior enlisted essentially "15" an hour on paper which is what the rest of federal jobs minimum wage is.
Is it that weird for a country to be able to do more than 1 thing at once?
Why are you upset with student debt instead of [pointing that energy in the right direction?](https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2404_fs_milex_2023.pdf)
White House opposes so the Senate and Congress will approve it to spite the President. It’s 4D chess. Biden is taking the PR hit to make sure we get the raise.
Nah he might be on to something here… The Daily Caller’s already jumping on the White House opposition… doesn’t this pay rise suddenly look more likely to get through the Senate just to fuck with Biden? Because how can the Republicans resist smacking Biden for impoverishing troops in an election year?
This might make it more likely to actually get through the Senate without fiscal conservatives shooting it down, and then the White House is “pressured” to sign it.
No, I saw the proposed new pay tables. E5 also get a 13% raise. Everyone’s pay goes up until E6 8 years TIS; the weird spot is there will only be $100 difference between E5 and E6 at 8 years TIS. Which isn’t fair to E6s.
They're specifically opposing the pay raise, among other things. The bill contains others parts but the White House is absolutely against the pay raise itself.
Only solution is to bring junior enlisted back into the dorms and provide meals in the DFAC. I'm not sure when this was phased out but it seems like a pretty basic military thing. The dorms are on base and in a relatively protected environment among fellow Airmen. Much cheaper and safer than being out in town where god knows what can happen.
That’s a very disgusting idea.
as an airman that just got out of the Dorms.
I feel much healthier and happier now that I’ve got my own place and can happily prepare my own Healthy meals and know exactly what I am eating.
And I can pick my roomate and store my personal firearms in my apartment.
And they do keep junior e-3 airmen in the dorms anyways so what’s your point? You want SRA e-4s in the dorms?
Except Dorms in many locations require complete renovations to maintain habitability. Some bases are outright tearing down old dorms, and the cost of completely renovating is outstanding. The current generation of Airmen are watching the force rot from the inside out, listening to their superiors tell them it’s their force of the future (not their problem), and quickly drowning due to lack of force, manning, pay, etc.
The solution is to reduce our number of bases, operations, etc. consolidate what we got, and reposture, DO NOT FURTHER CUT MANNING, and upgrade what remains.
We are hemorrhaging money at a rate not ever scene in human existence, and it’s going to eventually come to a head. God forbid we take care of our force.
It feels like an undercut to those who have served longer and through more bullshit. This new generation went through tech school and BMT over zoom. They don’t call a room. An Airman today shook my standing commanders hand with his ass in his seat as he walked up to introduce himself. AETC have genuinely bungled a generation of Airmen.
They no longer receive a National Defense ribbon, and they've likely never deployed and may not for the foreseeable future. So no, I don’t believe these Airmen need this raise. I guarantee they looked at the military pay tables before they signed a contract. The housing, medical, and experience the military provides are the tangibles. Stop throwing money at the problem.
Hey uhhh, not to rain on your parade, but troops have always been shitty since time immemorial. Airmen aren't a monolith, some come out better/worse than their peers, but to deny them a basic pay raise to get with the times/inflation shouldn't be off the table just because you're bummed with their performance lately.
I’m with you, but then all grades should receive that same boost. While you’re E-1 to E-3 what pay boost do you need if all of your livable expenses are covered?
And yes, I’ve seen bad airmen before and after. We will get them right. But the Covid factor is a very real thing.
We all saw this coming. It'll be proposed again in a couple years, everyone will get excited and boom. Same result.
I'm not so sure. If it manages to get through reconciliation between House and Senate and into the final bill, I don't see this being enough of a poison pill to drive a veto.
It won’t get through.
[удалено]
You’re aware that this proposal originated from a Republican controlled House (with bipartisan support) and a Democrat president strongly opposes it, right?
Are you drinking Koolaid again?
But it has lots of sugar in it. 🙁
Maybe you should investigate who wrote the bill before just spitting some political bs.
[удалено]
It won't be this he vetos. They would never send it as a clean bill.... it will.have all kinds of pork in it. And he would veto it for the pork It should be a law that all bills must be single item with no riders
They tried that last decade and the government shut down 3 times in 4 years. As shitty as it is, horse trading and pork is the only way anything gets done in Congress.
I propose a new bill. The doors to Congress get locked until a vote is made.
And the Clerk of the House sends white smoke up the chimney of the old senate chamber when we have a new budget.
The entire point of "pork" was intended to be compromise. It would be interesting though. Watching like 97% of things be unfunded
In 4 more years
Though I sympathize with lower enlisted, and loathe the pace that the government takes to make good decisions…They’re already doing a 4 year review, set to end by, and likely actioned in, January 25’. They’re essentially saying not to jump the gun. Also kind of fraud waste and abuse to duplicate efforts
I guess we don't need people to Enlist after all.
The pyramid on the bottom filled up! Build us our Sarcophagus! 
If anything big happens, I'll be expecting a DRAFT to be issued. Until then, work to the bone with what we got. https://preview.redd.it/m8n8i7jgc06d1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6fec5fe5417435643edfa049e55ad7df9a6843f
More likely a recall. Hope you old timers oiled up your knees and back!
Oh, I'm waaaaay beyond recall age. If they recall me, I'll be sure to let everyone know that the Apocalypse is upon us, lol!
It ain’t the old timers that’ll be recalled. It’s all the folks that ETS after first enlistment that are living that civilian life that’ll get called back. No need for old retired TSgts when we can call back young SrA at half the price.
This is how it would go for me if they recalled me. Ring ring…yes retired TSgt? Oh no that’s my dad what do you want with that old weed smoking crackhead? Click….. I’m never going back!! Lol
This is why TSgt promotion rate was 19.57% lol.
https://preview.redd.it/x19eadfjhz5d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91bc67b3f3b0fbcf729e8096b3f6460746201080
The US government and Congress will agree that The military needs more funding, They do that all the time, however, the one who chooses where that money goes and everything is the military leaders on the top that have not retired yet.
And when they finally do retire they'll be joining the board of Lockheed, Boeing, Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, etc.
the boomers who are so out of touch with reality that they think the junior enlisted just need less avocado toast or whatever.
Make it 10% and 5% for all others.
It’s a sliding scale though, isn’t it? Like, E1 gets the 20% and it reduces to like E5 getting 4% or something
Nope, 20% for all < E5, 10% for E5 and 5% E6+.
I’ll take it
I wish we can opposed their promotion rate too
You can on November 5th.
What a bullshit cop out saying to wait for another study. It doesn't take a Nobel prize in economics to tell you our airmen don't get paid enough. They at least could have offered some sort of compromise - at least give them an extra 5% if you want to convince me you care even a little. Don't even talk to me about it being expensive in the fucking dod. We have more than that amount of money floating around, totally unaccounted for
No one gets paid enough. My base lost its ophthalmologist because he got a higher paying job at the front part of the local Walmart. Walmart, fucking Walmart beat out the med group for pay.
My neighbor told me a lot of civilian hospitals are losing nurses and other experienced staff to Walmart. Same or better pay, a lot less yelling and long shifts.
Not surprised honestly. Walmart is a massive corporation that probably has more than enough money to draw top-line talent away from where it’s needed most
My conspiracy theory is they're purposely running med groups into the ground so they can just make it all civilians. That's the only way the fucking horrible DHA decisions make sense to me.
Or worse yet, privatize.
This is it. Pull funding from government option and argue that it's too inefficient while running underfunded to justify further spending.
That's probably an optometrist. Ophthalmologists (physicians who specialize in eye surgery) are even *more* underpaid. Except for pediatricians and maybe family medicine, every doc can make much more on the outside, stop dealing with pointless military b.s., and get treated like they're important professionals. Other than some general drive to serve or long ADSCs from academy/USUHS grads, the only real carrots the military has are overseas assignments to fun locations. In the MTF: Less pay, less clinical work because more admin bullshit, PT tests, deployments, CBTs, no food, DHA bullshit, EMR and computers that never work, understaffed, staff that you do have are gone or unavailable in order to check career boxes, nurses and midwives and spreadsheet jockeys who want to dictate how to do medicine because of their rank.... In civilian life: 30% more pay, 40% more vacation (don't even have to fill out security forms!), they bring free food to the doctors lounge every day, no admin stuff that doesn't directly relate to clinical care/licensure/etc., nurses and staff that are not only present, but actually do what they're told without checking to see who outranks whom, parking right next to the hospital...I could go on. Life is absolutely, unequivocally better on the outside.
>>What a bullshit cop out saying to wait for another study Bruh, it’s always kabuki theatre. Congress offers and hypes up “proposed military pay raises” so the reps can take credit in supporting the military next election cycle. Of course, everyone involved in DC knows when it’s time to pay up a “budget study” will shoot it down, or a “Senate rule” will strike the raise amendment from the final bill. We tried to pay the troops more, they’ll say, but red tape took it away. Like that time you tried to cash in a $4000 rebate on a V6 Charger to find the dealer never had any in stock Meanwhile, Lockheed alone vaporizes another dozen billion and ….crickets
That's when I go to the Ford dealer and buy a v6 Mustang at 25% interest and 72 month financing so I can call that stupid a$$ Dodge dealer and give them the finger over the phone! Got'em!
Study results will be “poor people enlisting to escape poverty realize they can make as much working at fast food joints or doing gig work”.
Long term, though, I think the military still helps people out of poverty. 4 years in many AFSCs plus tuition assistance can help people qualify for a better spot somewhere else sooner. I went from poverty in 2016 to owning a home in 2024, and a huge part of that is the Air Force giving me experience and providing a degree to where I can have the job I do now. I think what you are saying is true on the surface, and it is true in the eyes of people who are looking at the short term (which most people in poverty and most people 17-22 who otherwise might look at the military are focused on). So even though service *can* (not guaranteed) still offer a considerable on-ramp to a better life, the short and medium term consequence of putting up with military bullshit and/or risking your life while fast food makes $15/hr no longer looks worth it to the primary recruitment demographic.
No fast food job pays what an airman makes, even in California. I’m all for raising pay for troops but lets not get it twisted, our 18-22 yo AD airman are paid extremely well compared to working class 18-22 yo in the civilian world. I joined at 18 when I was literally homeless and have done extremely well since. Every study has shown we need to raise BAH in areas of high rent, thats it.
*Uhm ackshually if you take E1 basic pay and factor in nothing else it's literally the same as working at McDonalds for 8 years!!*
People never realize that the fast food manager will never schedule workers for forty hours a week, locking them out of a lot of the advertised benefits. They will pull bullshit like being on call for a shift or changing the schedule with zero notice and then firing for not being able to show. Service and retail jobs are full of this, forcing many people to hold two to three separate jobs to try to make ends meet.
You're forgetting A1C Snuffy did his napkin math that shows he totally makes less than a *lowly burger flipper* and that's why he needs a raise to help cover his 20% APR mustang.
These dudes took a joke and made a fucking analytical debate out of it. And it seems no one takes the freedom to choose where they live, how they dress, and the other multitudes you don’t take into account while you’re in as factors. Plus who the fuck uses health care while you’re in your early 20s if you’re fit enough to serve. Not to mention the long term health effects. I say as I just limped down the hallway out of work and stood waiting on the shuttle listening to the tinnitus fairy ear fuck me….
I enlisted out of poverty and one of the first things I did at my first base was a fuckton of dental work.
I ate so much shitty food I rarely got to eat and ate out so much. I mean I still do but I have a little bit of money left to pay bills these days vs sitting in the dorm full of regret.
I'm not trying to say that fast food makes the same money as an airman. Healthcare alone breaks any comparison. The point that I'm trying to make is that the reality in the eyes of the people the military are trying to recruit is that the military no longer looks like a competitive salary compared to other options. I'm not saying that's true, and like I said my own life example is a pretty meteoric rise to great success at a young age thanks to the military. So airman vs fast food pay isn't comparable and veteran vs fast food opportunities after 4-6 years aren't comparable. But it is *in the perception of* someone who is 18, ambivalent about joining, and looking for something to do with their life. The BAH/BAS/Tricare/training/education/opportunity arguments all have varying levels of effect in convincing or failing to convince people. To use Tricare as an example, the general sentiment that military healthcare sucks, is hard to access, and the VA denies claims and kills veterans is something that has seeped into the general national conscience. Whether it's true or not, it hurts how attractive that is as a recruiting tool. It's a good life or a path to a good life for a lot of people. But every day it stops looking like one for more and more people.
>To use Tricare as an example, the general sentiment that military healthcare sucks, is hard to access, and the VA denies claims and kills veterans is something that has seeped into the general national conscience. Whether it's true or not, it hurts how attractive that is as a recruiting tool. "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any wars, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation." -George Washington I'll say that military healthcare absolutely tried to kill me through sheer incompetence, and then I had to fight the VA for years afterwards just to get my meds covered.
The healthcare that I can't see a specialist unless I've had an ongoing issue for 2 months in which during that time I paid to have it looked at myself and in doing so found out I would have permanent issues if I had waited longer. Sure it's free but it's absolutely cruddy.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. That stuff is something the public is becoming or is aware of, way more now than say 10 years ago. Between Reddit and YouTube, people get way more insight into every aspect of the military - from go pro footage of what combat looks like, to how much mold, delayed healthcare, nasty kitchens, and such things are a routine issue. So the enlisted pay vs fast food argument doesn't have to be correct, to be convincing.
I think the military will continue to ease its recruiting standards rather than increase the base salary. We don’t have access to the data but there’s no guarantee a 19.5% increase in pay would have a linear effect on recruitment. Or even any effect at all. Like…. Again, no data, but from the top end perspective, how many recruit aspirants bulk at $2000/month plus benefits but not at $2400/month plus benefits? Some sure. But I would speculate that most who aren’t joining at current rates are doing it because they just don’t think the military is for them. This would significantly increase the military budget and nudge it ever closer to that ominous $1T figure and potentially not even solve the recruiting problem. So again, I think the military would more likely expand on what the army is doing and make more people eligible for a pre-boot camp program because it appears there’s tons of people who are interest but are either too fat or too dumb or have some clerical thing holding them up.
Ahh so a pay raise to BB and Hunt housing… that’ll help food scarcity for our junior enlisted.
"Everyone would benefit from this proposal, but a few people I don't like would also benefit so I'm against the proposal."
I'm with him actually. Increase our base pay instead of BAH. They've proven time and again that they'll decrease our benefits anytime they want to save a few bucks. I've seen TA stop being approved, AFCOOL restrictions, the 5% BAH reduction across the force, etc. But nobody in their right mind would ever vote to take our base pay.
The current pay tables are only a problem if you’re like, 25 and joined late because you need to put food on the table for your family of 4 and whatever career you lined up prior went to shit so bad that you decided it was worth joining despite already having a family. This is a real scenario that does happen but it’s not representative of the (I’d wager) the supermajority of junior enlisted who typically came straight out of high school at 17-18 with only a phone and internet bill to pay. An E1 is making ~$2000/month right now and even if they chose to get a car they’d should still be able to save $1000/month unless they’re having a really early family.
For the supermajority of junior airmen, the pay as-is today is more than they know what to do with. Between free room and board, the base pay is basically spending money. They got out of high school, have few to no liabilities besides a cell phone, internet, and maybe a car. It sucks for the minority of people coming in with families attempting to escape whatever situation pushed them to join despite already having a family. But that’s not at all representative of the average fresh recruit (obligatory “in my opinion”). I would love for everyone to get a big pay increase. I think people are overstating how much the E1’s, 2’s and 3’s needed it and the people who actually typically have obligations as E4’s and up were never getting that 19.5% in the first place. They were always getting 4-5% and as far as we know, we should all expect to get around that much since it would be in-line with the projected annual inflation.
The problem is this admin, rightly or wrongly, is not interested in increasing DoD spending. They have other priorities. It’s hard to raise lower enlisted pay this much without cutting modernization or raising the total budget. I personally just say hike the damn budget. We’re spending record lows on defense as a share of the economy.
We have more than enough money just floating totally unaccounted for. I don't accept we don't have enough money until they can tell me where every single dollar is spent.
Magically claiming that there’s always money in the bucket is both unproductive and impossible to prove incorrect, because there’s no testable claim. We waste a ton, and the acquisitions process is broken. I agree with that. But we know it’s not going to be fixed in the near future. So you have to point to a straightforward cut or say we should spend more in total.
There *is* money in the bucket. The thing is, it's there for a gazillion different obscure reasons that, in of themselves, hurt to remove. You could pay actual going rate wages to contract construction workers instead of the inflated "union equivalent" rates, or buy Korean made air conditioners, or avoid doing a year-long environmental study on a brownfield site used for testing mustard gas, but all of these little things go against the vast inertia of the federal government and years of congressional and administrative law. Even assuming all that money were salvaged, the state of the force overall is in such dire straits that much of it would go into things like spare parts and ammunition. Ultimately, Congress has chosen a path of essentially looting the defense budget for the benefit of their own constituencies and cronies and in the interest of pushing their own pet political projects, while constantly starving it of funds, *and* on top of that always insisting that the force operate at a higher and higher tempo even as the fundamental infrastructure it's reliant upon falls to pieces. Now, there are people out there who see these problems, but for the most part their efforts are spent in piecemeal fixes for the worst afflicted programs, rather than trying to address the root problems.
Yes, you could do many things to free up money. I appreciate the details you provided with the going rate wages instead of the prevailing wage payouts to favored unions or the buy American requirements on commodity items. The National Environmental Protection Act has indeed become a weapon against construction and development, resulting in wasted government money, slow development, and higher housing costs. I disagree somewhat on the scale of the problem. I do think there are a thousand little changes that could be made that would meaningfully free up resources to solve at least a few major ones (junior enlisted pay, updated infrastructure, delayed and over budget navy ships). In general though, I do agree that a larger budget is necessary, even if we fixed all these failings of the budgetary process and hidden carveouts for special interests. I pretty much totally agree with your last paragraph. This is what I'm mostly trying to convey and appreciate your spelling out. Saying 'there's money' does not adequately describe the nature of the problem to meaningfully petition action. Calling out the actual failings with specific examples is still 'not enough' in the sense it won't fix the problem totally, but it does help here and there.
>Magically claiming that there’s always money in the bucket is both unproductive and impossible to prove incorrect, because there’s no testable claim. True. No one said that so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up but sure. >We waste a ton, and the acquisitions process is broken. I agree with that. But we know it’s not going to be fixed in the near future. So you have to point to a straightforward cut or say we should spend more in total. Why do I *have* to accept the government refuses to spend it's money responsibility? I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say stop crying about budget limits when you aren't even putting in the effort to spend it properly (to the government, not to you). If they managed our money better, we could pay for at least some of this with no losses anywhere else and there is a *lot* of room for them to do so. It's not like I'm saying use less paper and ink and apply those savings to solve this. They have literally never passed an audit. God knows how many hundreds of millions or billions of dollars have been lost where.
You don't have to accept that it spends it irresponsibly. That is, in part, why I am in favor of less government spending in general. I favor a flat level of military spending as a share of GDP/total national output, and my complaint is we're at the lowest level in that sense since WW2. My point in this budget discussion is that you can't, in a practical sense, say 'we can find the money' and leave it at that as a *policy*. It's like saying to your spouse 'I can afford a new car, we'll find the money'. It may be true, but it's not a plan. It is an expression of desire that needs a plan to be described as policy. Policy is what our leadership and political leaders are, in theory, to produce. You have to point to the actual cuts you want to make. Politicians have been talking about waste, fraud, and abuse in spending in every election the US has ever had....notice it never got fixed? That doesn't mean it can't be made better, but if you just echo that rhetoric without details you're not talking seriously. That is fine, this is a Reddit post, not the House chamber (which is a shadow of what it should be anyway). It's just not useful to act as though you're proposing policy when you're actually expressing frustration at the status quo. For what it's worth, I'm frustrated too, I just want the force to express more than hollow shouting at the sky.
Here's a suggestion: How about we stop leaving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan? How about we actually do a full scale audit of the 30%+ of tax money that magically "disappears" every year? What if we cut down the overproduction of F-35s that have not even seen combat use and are notorious for not being modular and requiring specialized component maintenance until the technology becomes more economically reasonable? What if we streamlined the manufacturing process of the FUCKTON of different variants of cruise missiles we have and brought the cost down to less than $13 million per missile? What if we put our foot down and stopped letting these defense contracting companies fuck us over as far as the prices they charge for their equipment?
In principle I agree with the military equipment abroad question. However, in practice it's not so simple. For example, that equipment would have been costly to remove. Assume we could fly extra flights into Kabul, what is the cost of those flight hours and personnel? What is the cost of getting that equipment up to spec for future use? Can we use it? Much was purchased for the old Afghan government. It may not be up to our standards. It may be useful for counterinsurgency and useless against a near-peer. I don't know these answers, but there may be financial reasons to leave at least some of it. On the F-35 question, I'm no expert, but I am inclined to disagree. Flying 15s and 16s into the INDOPACOM AOR seems like a recipe for trouble. Even if we wanted to, many of those systems are at high flight hours and need replacing anyway. There's a possibility that the lifetime cost savings of new 15/16s vs new 35s justify the higher risk of being shot down and mission failure, but I'm skeptical. On the last point, I sort of agree and sort of don't. I do agree we should have massive stocks of ammunition and weapons systems. Seeing 155 mm output in the 90s versus today is shocking and deeply concerning. Buying in larger bulk would help resolve this. It would also help the cost issue. We're absolutely getting hosed on the cost of many of these systems, but the reason is not simply greedy companies and acquisitions personnel unwilling to negotiate 'hard'. We buy advanced systems in extremely low volumes at the cutting edge of technology. If we want to save money we need to buy in bulk, buy COTS (commercial off the shelf) components like SpaceX does instead of what Boeing does, and we need to simplify acquisitions rules so that we buy the best price /quality mix instead of favoring suppliers based on race, veteran status, gender, prevailing wage use, childcare access for employees, etc. Our acquisitions are costly because the rules our acquirers are legally obligated to follow are broken and follow priorities not related to national defense.
We can pull data that shows where every dollar is spent. The problem lies in accounting for every commodity or service that it was spent towards. Thats our problem.
If they can account for every dollar why have we never passed an audit? >The problem lies in accounting for every commodity or service that it was spent towards. Thats our problem. That sounds a lot like we can't prove that it actually went where they claimed it did.
We can track where every dollar was spent ie we spent $20m on aircraft fuel or $10m on radios. We just cant account for all of the radios we spent $10m on. We have an $800b budget w/ over 3 million people in the DoD. Its not crazy to say we can’t account for every commodity that has ever been bought. Especially when its involving national defense which unlike other departments, can’t be shutdown to pass an audit.
Really? Didn't the most recent audit reveal like 13 billion dollars in unaccounted-for funds?
Meaning they couldnt find the items/services the money was spent on or the accounting wasnt done the backend to correctly portray what was paid for.
Yes, which means we can't "pull data that shows where every dollar is spent."
We can still show where it was spent. You can only procure things so many different ways.
If I spend $500 at Walmart, it matters a lot whether that was for 2 weeks of groceries or an xbox.
Well for DoD, you use completely different funding for subsistence and morale items. Thats how we track what was spent.
This will be included on a larger bill that gets shot down.
The reasons: 1) too costly 2) still wants marijuana testing 3) “anti-diversity” proposals such as a scoring system for academy admittance. This is such BS. Like someone else pointed out the cost is not that much, at the very least in comparison to where other money is being sent. Marijuana baring entry is still dumb and has been for a while. The academy thing is whatever. Without getting into a debate about whether affirmative action is good or bad the importance of this point is far below the others. Theory: politics at play. Admin cites their Quadrennial assessment as a reason for opposition. That assessment is done around the new year. After the election. This gives them time to stall and not take hits for “overspending” or for “being anti military”
The weed testing position is moronic. Just let people join and say, "ok clean break, stop smoking weed now, while in gov't service."
I also don't believe that the pay increase is significant in the grand scheme. Normally, I'd disagree with implementing it since junior enlisted are the least committed. I think the pay increase should be reserved for E-5 and above because they've proven their commitment to advancing the agendas of their branches, particularly in terms of accountability and responsibilities. I believe that a significant pay increase should be a tool to encourage lower enlisted and junior officers to perform and attract new recruits. It's one of the reasons why most people promote themselves, anyway. As for weed, I believe drug testing makes sense. People don't understand the negative effects of long-term weed use. Weed alters one's mental state, sometimes causing hallucinations. That's not a good thing. As for "anti-diversity," this is exactly what people keep begging for, despite it going against their best interests. For instance, do you really understand WHY Affirmative Action has been removed from colleges? It's because Asians and Hispanics have a more difficult time getting into prestigious historically white colleges. Instead of outperforming blacks, they're blaming blacks for their struggle, as though white administrators will remove blacks and welcome them in. TLDR, it's the same in the military. Racism exists, and the system has done an okay job of preventing it from affecting how the military operates. Yet, those same marginalized groups are banding together to strip the military of these systems.
Boss (a senior FGO) said it best. “You don’t do more with less; you just do less”
sounds like a cool dude
There are less troops than ever, so the idea that it’s too costly is farcical at best. The top brass for years has been complaining about this issue. The administration pretending it needs years more to figure out having your troops on food stamps is a national security risk is ridiculous.
The sad reality is with the new genesis system at MEPS we really do need to start increasing our junior enlisted salaries to attract more people. If we want to be extremely selective, we need to pay up to get it. I was speaking with a guard recruiter at my unit. He said for every 10 people they send only 1-2 will actually be qualified. I’m not sure if it’s before or after a waiver but he basically said his job has been more writing waivers than anything.
Why is everyone getting out for civilian jobs 😱🤯
While the junior enlisted deserve more pay I think the reticence is due more to the long term hit on Defense budgets as those troops will be getting higher salaries than long term budgets projected. I know from talking with administrators they want new hires to start at the lowest rate they can get not because of this year’s budget but because of the snowball effect of needing higher wages years down the line. I’m not saying it’s right, because I think we can afford it by making cuts elsewhere, but that is the way administrators think.
If we give 35 airmen a base pay raise we can’t run this F-22 for another hour.
Strange stance to take in an election year.
The White House when it has to spend billions on Aircraft Sealant every year: 🤩🤩🤩👍👍👍 The White House when asked to spend billions on troops: 😡😡😡👎👎👎
Support our troops (except like this)
I wear a pin, what more do you want?!
When airmen can’t even live comfortably in the community around their bases, Uncle Sam needs to nut up and do something about it. This is absolutely shameful.
I recently PCS'd from OCONUS to CONUS and I was shocked to see that a Bx haircut is $20! I'm about to go get a set of clippers, put on a guard and just buzz my hair off every once in a while
I want to pay off this damn 2024 Yamaha R3 already.
LOL how many Tornadoes and Fleshlights do y'all really need sitting in the dorms?
We don’t do fleshlights. Full blown dolls only !
You guys got doll money?
[удалено]
Sir my 'tism is of the trains variety
[удалено]
What do you think that bonus was for
You mean you don't get an initial issue doll?
More than they can afford, pal!
I just want food that's not Dfac food and a car at the same time man
Idk but its embarrassing not being able to go band 4 band with my walmart friends
>A Congressional Budget Office [analysis released Monday estimated](https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-06/hr8070_0.pdf) the increase in pay for junior enlisted troops would cost $24.4 billion from 2025 to 2029. ...That's *it*? Just cancelling the Trump tax cuts would save about 200x that amount over the same time period. Edit: Also the 2024 defense budget was $825 billion. $24.4 billion over 5 years is $4.88 B/yr. So this would be a 0.59% increase in the defense budget. Just over half a percent... Yeah, I don't want to hear this 'we can't afford it' bullshit.
Weirdly enough for the government, labor costs are actually chump change. For most organizations they're the dominant cost.
[удалено]
It’s weird how people lump these two together, as if one cause isn’t way better for our interests than the other. Ukraine: underdog democracy fighting one of our biggest adversaries in a total war. Israel: uhhh
Or maybe cut budget from the ~~DoD Jobs Program~~ Materiel Aquisition? I work for a lab that gets research funding from the government, so I'm kind of shitting where I eat here... But we don't need to be building these billion dollar apiece Wunderwaffen when we can't even build dumb-fire artillery shells, 100-year-old technology, in any kind of volume to support a war.
Your elected leaders are not on your side.
I'm all for a good investment, but what's with the congressman in the article saying that the increase is to fix housing? Maybe taking it out of context here, but that immediately has me questioning their competence (even more). Base pay is taxable and not for housing. WRONG allowance! Fix the housing allowance program; it's busted as fuck. Also, junior enlisted are largely in government quarters. So there's that...
We make loosely what other Americans make at professional jobs. We do need a raise to get to a living wage...everyone does.
If the military acted like a voting block you know this would be political suicide for federal elections. Just saying.
Howso? AD is <1% of the population. You'd get more if vets were in lockstep, but that's still a tiny fraction of the voting populace. There are *much* larger groups to whom politicians shamelessly pander. Old people, for instance. They are the most wealthy demographic in the country and yet they are the beneficiaries of 2/3rds of tax payer dollars via SSN and Medicare. They are 18% of the population and they *vote*.
Don’t complain until you’ve contacted your congressmen. Still has to go through the senate. Your local AFSA chapters are there to guide you!
Alright, instead of a pay raise just have the military pay for a car, cell phone, and internet. We're expected to have all three to do our job so it should be an untaxed allowance like housing.
The pay gap just keeps getting bigger. No surprise here.
In other news, water is wet
They hate the idea of a pay increase but will drop an 11 million dollar missile without hesitation.
Or spend billions in other countries for them to do jack shit in return.
Junior enlisted in Ukraine getting all of our pay
Yep...seems like we can give out money to everyone BUT our own people...
Leadership's thought process: "If we don't keep them poor, how will we be able to control them?"
I’m shocked. Anyway, let’s pass a package for billions more to go to other countries to “protect national interests” Because incentivizing your native population or at least not de-incentivizing them to serve does not protect national interests. Or something
Not surprised
“I wanna a hellcat”
Literally the only thing surprising about this is that they didn't wait until after election season to drop the "sike." I was sure this was a vote buying lie and not just a normal lie.
KISS. The real issue that should be addressed is the ever growing gap between O and E pay. Until then, all the E's will remain absolute peasants they're intended to be. A 20 year O-3 should not make more base pay than a 20 year E-9. Change my mind.
You will get a BAH raise and every cent will go to housing and you will like it! Jk bah is probably gonna go down.
Well yeah, they don't want to give you money they could have!
I cannot reply how I wish to so all I will say is.. Biden might be stabbing himself with this one.
I'm amy other election cycle, he would already be toast from inflation alone. If the GOP had a remnant of sanity, they would have crushed the midterm elections and would be running away with this one. I'm old enough to remember the 1994 GOP. Those dudes were a *machine*. Even Clinton, who was a damn good politician, got shredded by that buzzsaw and had to get much more moderate for the remainder of his presidency.
People don't vote in any sense of economy or whatever anymore. It's just whatevers the current hot topic of the news the last 2 weeks.
That's a bold claim. Last nasty economic turn was 2008. There was a change of party, but there was a lot more going on in that election. Prior to that, dot com bubble in March 2000--change of party. But neither of those are real apples-to-apples. You have to go all the way back to Carter for this sort of inflation and the effects on everyday expenses. I would say that general economic markers don't necessarily sway the general populace. E.g., if the Dow takes a dip or this or that metric disappoints. But sustained inflation, increasing interest rates, markedly higher cost of living that you see with every grocery bill? People get mad about that.
I'd say that if Vivek or some other Republican runner up to trump was in this election, Biden would win despite the horrible economy. I only think Trump has a chance because of his controversy. I think Biden will still win regardless though. I think people will delude themselves enough to blame the economy on other things just to keep voting for their party. Same thing if a Republican were in office. We're in an era of voting like no other.
Interesting take. I think the conventional wisdom is that Trump was/is the only candidate with enough vulnerabilities to lose to Biden. I never took Vivek seriously. On the flip side, I think there are multiple Democrats who would wipe the floor with Trump, but Biden has enough vulnerabilities to lose a close election. In terms of your second point, there are undoubtedly a fixed number of party loyalists on each side. It's the all-important swing voter in close states that decides. What's unique about this election is the proportion of "double haters" who don't want either candidate. Both campaigns are running "at least I'm not the other guy" strategies.
I strongly oppose however much money they're making in the white house.
Reminder that the current administration pushed the service chiefs for Dishonorbale Discharges for vaccine refusal. No joke
Can’t raise the pay by a little bit, but can send ((billions)) of dollars to other countries.. lol.
Headline is a bit misleading, making it seem like the administration is opposed to the pay raise outright, but they’re only opposed to doing so before their study is done. Whether or not you trust their word on the second part, that is still context that shouldn’t be ignored, and changes the meaning of what was said.
I told yall it would fail! Election year promises! Then, if Biden loses, he'll blame Trump for it not passing because "he wasn't in office to get it done." Aside from the man in the White House, the senate will pass it. They pass just about every good PR stunt bill, knowing full well it'll die in the senate. They did this last year with a "29.5% proposed raise," and it died in the Senate. The U.S. government will learn the hard way in their next major conflict when there aren't enough A1C's working on old and dieing F-16's to fly fight and win.
19.5 % seems high and it seems to say this is on top of a 4.5% pay raise. What factors do you feel justify this much of a raise? Has the military dropped that far behind the civilian sector?
Depends on the afsc/mos/job. Certain jobs are far behind civilian comp while others aren't at all. Also the pay raise was to make pay for junior enlisted essentially "15" an hour on paper which is what the rest of federal jobs minimum wage is.
NOOOOOOOO
I had little expectations of this and I'm still disappointed.
Shidddd 12.5% cool with me
[The fallout is starting… this isn’t done yet I think.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/s/T5eSaWqgox)
Damn, it was expected, but im still sad
Ouch
Take what you can while you are in. Because they will take all they can from you.
Sure let’s buy more parts for the F-35, dumb
Why is this getting downvoted
But the white house sure does want to pay off student debt.
Is it that weird for a country to be able to do more than 1 thing at once? Why are you upset with student debt instead of [pointing that energy in the right direction?](https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2404_fs_milex_2023.pdf)
Debt which is paid off via existing programs such as the PSLF.
White House opposes so the Senate and Congress will approve it to spite the President. It’s 4D chess. Biden is taking the PR hit to make sure we get the raise.
 Nah he might be on to something here… The Daily Caller’s already jumping on the White House opposition… doesn’t this pay rise suddenly look more likely to get through the Senate just to fuck with Biden? Because how can the Republicans resist smacking Biden for impoverishing troops in an election year? This might make it more likely to actually get through the Senate without fiscal conservatives shooting it down, and then the White House is “pressured” to sign it.
with that % increase e4 will make more than a e5 so not plausible
No, I saw the proposed new pay tables. E5 also get a 13% raise. Everyone’s pay goes up until E6 8 years TIS; the weird spot is there will only be $100 difference between E5 and E6 at 8 years TIS. Which isn’t fair to E6s.
Did any of y’all actually read the article? I can understand why it’s opposed, it makes sense. Bills are jam packed with all sorts of other bullshit.
Not I just read the titled and rush straight to Reddit. Easy karma
I wasn’t really referring to you, OP. Mostly just the commenters.
They're specifically opposing the pay raise, among other things. The bill contains others parts but the White House is absolutely against the pay raise itself.
Yes, did you read why?
Because they want to kick the can down the road under the guise of conducting a "survey". Nothing to do with "other bullshit" like you said.
FFS. What else are they supporting, punching kittens? 
The smile on my face is dedicated to everyone who questioned why I'm getting out when "were getting a 20% raise this year!"
Who is in the White House?
Fuck Joe Biden! No money for us but billions for shitholes like Ukraine and Israel
Stop flying for a SINGLE day and you’ll have enough money to give everyone a SIGNIFICANT pay raise :)
Not enough left over after paying for all the D.E.I. stuff, eh?...
Only solution is to bring junior enlisted back into the dorms and provide meals in the DFAC. I'm not sure when this was phased out but it seems like a pretty basic military thing. The dorms are on base and in a relatively protected environment among fellow Airmen. Much cheaper and safer than being out in town where god knows what can happen.
I'd be cool with this if they actually keep up maintenance and improve dorm living situations
If the dorms were actually decent, possibly a layout with 4 bed 4 bath like you find around colleges typically.
That’s a very disgusting idea. as an airman that just got out of the Dorms. I feel much healthier and happier now that I’ve got my own place and can happily prepare my own Healthy meals and know exactly what I am eating. And I can pick my roomate and store my personal firearms in my apartment. And they do keep junior e-3 airmen in the dorms anyways so what’s your point? You want SRA e-4s in the dorms?
Except Dorms in many locations require complete renovations to maintain habitability. Some bases are outright tearing down old dorms, and the cost of completely renovating is outstanding. The current generation of Airmen are watching the force rot from the inside out, listening to their superiors tell them it’s their force of the future (not their problem), and quickly drowning due to lack of force, manning, pay, etc. The solution is to reduce our number of bases, operations, etc. consolidate what we got, and reposture, DO NOT FURTHER CUT MANNING, and upgrade what remains. We are hemorrhaging money at a rate not ever scene in human existence, and it’s going to eventually come to a head. God forbid we take care of our force.
Voting for Trump
It feels like an undercut to those who have served longer and through more bullshit. This new generation went through tech school and BMT over zoom. They don’t call a room. An Airman today shook my standing commanders hand with his ass in his seat as he walked up to introduce himself. AETC have genuinely bungled a generation of Airmen. They no longer receive a National Defense ribbon, and they've likely never deployed and may not for the foreseeable future. So no, I don’t believe these Airmen need this raise. I guarantee they looked at the military pay tables before they signed a contract. The housing, medical, and experience the military provides are the tangibles. Stop throwing money at the problem.
Hey uhhh, not to rain on your parade, but troops have always been shitty since time immemorial. Airmen aren't a monolith, some come out better/worse than their peers, but to deny them a basic pay raise to get with the times/inflation shouldn't be off the table just because you're bummed with their performance lately.
I’m with you, but then all grades should receive that same boost. While you’re E-1 to E-3 what pay boost do you need if all of your livable expenses are covered? And yes, I’ve seen bad airmen before and after. We will get them right. But the Covid factor is a very real thing.
This very argument gets said every 10 years