This report investigates the military/civilian pay gap and its implications for capping military pay increases. The pay gap is defined as the percent difference in military versus civilian pay growth as measured from a given starting point. The index currently used for civilian pay growth is the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reflects pay growth in the civilian labor force at large. The authors instead recommend measuring civilian pay growth for the subset of civilian workers whose composition by age, education, occupation, gender, and race/ethnicity represents that of active duty military personnel. The authors do so via construction of a Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI). They compare pay gaps based on the ECI vs. the DECI, and present DECI-based pay gaps for officer and enlisted personnel by gender and seniority and for occupational and age categories. The authors then consider the implications of these pay gaps for capping military pay.

This report investigates the military/civilian pay gap and its implications for capping military pay increases. The pay gap is defined as the percentage difference in military versus civilian pay growth as measured from a given starting point. The index currently used to measure civilian pay growth is the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reflects pay growth in the civilian labor force at large. We instead recommend measuring civilian pay growth for the subset of civilian workers whose composition by age, education, occupation, gender, and race/ethnicity represents that of active duty military personnel. We do so via the Defense Employment Cost Index (DECI), which we constructed previously and have updated to include fiscal 1992. We compare pay gaps based on the ECI versus the DECI and present DECI based pay gaps for officer and enlisted personnel by gender and seniority and for occupational and age categories. We then consider the implications of these pay gaps for capping military pay.

From the earliest days of the republic, America's Armed Forces have been compensated for their services by the federal government. While the original pay structure was fairly simple, over time a more complex system of compensation has evolved. Today's military compensation includes cash payments such as basic pay, special and incentive pays, and various allowances. Servicemembers also receive non-cash benefits such as health care and access to commissaries and recreational facilities, and may eventually qualify for deferred compensation in the form of retired pay and other retirement benefits. This report provides an overview of military compensation generally, but focuses on cash compensation for current servicemembers. Since the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, Congress has used military pay and allowances to improve recruiting, retention, and the overall quality of the force. Congressional interest in sustaining the all-volunteer force during a time of sustained combat operations led to substantial increases in compensation in the decade following the September 11th attacks. More recently, concerns over government spending have generated congressional interest in slowing the rate of growth in military compensation. Some have raised concerns about the impact of personnel costs on the overall defense budget, arguing that they decrease the amount of funds available for modernizing equipment and sustaining readiness. Others argue that robust compensation is essential to maintaining a high-quality force that is vigorous, well-trained, experienced, and able to function effectively in austere and volatile environments. The availability of funding to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mitigated the pressure to trade-off personnel, readiness, and equipment costs, but the current budgetary environment appears to have brought these trade-offs to the fore again. The average cost to compensate an active duty servicemember-to include cash, benefits, and contributions to retirement programs-is estimated at about $90,000-$100,000 per year, although some estimates are higher (methodologies vary). However, gross compensation figures do not tell the full story, as military compensation relative to civilian compensation is a key factor in an individual's decision to join or stay in the military. Thus, the issue of comparability between military and civilian pay is an often-discussed topic. Some analysts and advocacy groups have argued that a substantial "pay gap" has existed for decades-with military personnel earning less than their civilian counterparts-although they generally concede that this gap is fairly small today. Others argue that the methodology behind this "pay gap" is flawed and does not provide a suitable estimate of pay comparability. Still others believe that military personnel, in general, are better compensated than their civilian counterparts. This latter perspective has become more prominent in the past few years. The Department of Defense takes a different approach to pay comparability. The 9th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), published in 2002, argued that compensation for servicemembers should be around the 70th percentile of wages for civilian employees with similar education and experience. However, according to the 11th QRMC, published in 2012, it had reached the 83% level for officers and the 90% level for enlisted personnel.

Discusses the policy options aimed at ameliorating personnel concerns.

GAO-05-322T Military Pay: Gaps in Pay and Benefits Create Financial Hardships for Injured Army National Guard and Reserve Soldiers