미국이야말로 진정한 선군 국가 VIDEO: How the U.S. military became the exception to America’s wage stagnation problem
How the U.S. military became the exception to America’s wage stagnation problem
Brendan R. SticklesThursday, November 29, 2018
Earlier this week, Brookings scholar Richard Reeves published an enlightening analysis of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data on income inequality. His piece, “Restoring middle class incomes; redistribution won’t do,” described what frustrated Americans have felt for years: Since 1979, the wealthiest Americans experienced the most significant income gains. Counterintuitively, Reeves also highlighted that the lowest earners—the bottom quintile of household income—kept roughly on pace with the growth rates of the highest earners.'
brookings.edu
미국이야말로 진정한 先軍국가 병장 기본 연봉 3500만원 미국인의 중간값보다 많아 미국 군인(軍人) 연봉이 미국인 전체의 연봉 중간값보다 더 높은 것으로 나타났다. 미국 문화가 군(軍)을 중시하고 존중하는 것은 익히 알려져 있었지만 군인의 연봉까지 높은 것으로 나타나 미국이야말로 진정한 '선군(先軍) 국가'라고 할 수 있는 것이다. 주택세 면제 등 혜택도 듬뿍 미군 급여 경제 영향 안 받아 미국 싱크탱크 브루킹스연구소는 2016년 미군 병장의 기본 연봉이 3만1745달러(약 3500만원)로 미국인 연봉 중간값(3만533달러)보다 4% 많았다는 보고서를 최근 내놓았다. 사병 및 부사관의 중간 계급인 병장과 미국인 전체 연봉 중간값을 비교한 것이다. 브루킹스에 따르면 2000년만 해도 미군 병장은 평균 미국인보다 11% 적게 받았다. 그러나 2005년 처음으로 둘의 임금이 역전됐고, 2011년에는 병장 연봉이 무려 11%나 더 많았다. 최근에는 그 격차가 좁혀지기는 했으나 그 흐름은 이어지고 있다. 연봉 말고도 현역 미군에게 주어지는 혜택이 많다. 주택세가 면제되고 의료보험을 전액 보장해 주며 대학 학비도 지원해 준다. 이런 복지 혜택 때문에 그동안 군인은 민간 회사보다 상대적으로 적은 봉급을 받는 게 당연시됐지만 최근엔 분위기가 바뀐 것이다. 이런 흐름은 안보 위협이 점증하면서 군을 중시하는 분위기가 자리 잡은 것과 관련 있다는 분석도 나온다. 미국은 2001년 9·11테러 이후 이라크와 아프가니스탄 전쟁에 대거 파병했고 수많은 사상자를 냈다. 안보를 책임지는 군인들의 복지 수준을 향상해야 한다는 정치권 공감대가 당파를 초월했고, 이는 봉급 인상으로 이어졌다. 브루킹스는 "20년 전만 해도 군인 소득 수준이 민간인을 따라잡기에 급급했지만, 이제는 상황이 완전히 바뀌었다"며 "군이 미국 중산층의 '최후의 요새'가 됐다"고 했다. 정지섭 기자 조선일보 출처 : http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/12/08/2018120800155.html |
edited by kcontents
His analysis focuses on income stagnation and policy solutions for the Americans in the middle. While the top and bottom quintiles grew at 79 and 78 percent respectively, middle-class household income rose at a tepid 46 percent. Unlike the decades after World War II, when every income level increased at comparative rates, in recent years the middle class lagged woefully behind.
With one important exception. Over the last 18 years, active duty military pay increases significantly outpaced their civilian counterparts. A combination of economic forces and political obligations inverted the earning potential for uniformed personnel. With very little fanfare, military service became one of the last bastions of middle class social mobility.
An April 2018 demographic analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations indicated that the modern military draws heavily from middle-class families. Over 60 percent of 2016 enlistments came from neighborhoods with a median household income between $38,345 and $80,912. The quintiles below and above that band were underrepresented, with the poorest quintile providing 19 percent of the force and the richest Americans enlisting at a rate of 17 percent. The modern force comes predominantly from the middle-class households highlighted in Reeves’ article.
Historically, those middle-class enlistees expected a comparatively low salary paired with exceptional benefits. This traditionally included a tax-free housing allowance and fully compensated medical care, but more recently incorporated full tuition coverage from the GI Bill. Over the last 20 years as civilian wages plateaued, military compensation for the post-9/11 force steadily increased.
A mid-grade enlisted sailor, soldier, or airman (at an E5 paygrade) made 10 percent less than the median American in 2000 and at the time (as John McCain pointed out) was eligible for food stamps. By 2011, service members of the same rank were making 10 percent more than the median American, even without including benefits. The most recent jobs report indicated a national wage increase of 3.1 percent, slightly higher than the 2019 military pay raise of 2.6 percent. But for now, even excluding housing cost and medical insurance an “E5” is making an above-average American salary. It’s not that the Pentagon was “keeping up with the Joneses.” It’s just that in the last 20 years, the Joneses weren’t keeping up with the military.
While the military is traditionally immune to the fluctuations and volatility of their private sector counterparts, the remarkable swing over the last decade was the result of two once-in-a-century events occurring in concert. The economic recession began in 2008, around the same time as the so called “surge” in Iraq and the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. Those unrelated events created an unprecedented shift in military compensation relative to the rest of the public sector. In other words, the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression corresponded with the longest war in U.S. history.
Comparing military and civilian salaries, 1990-2016
Sources: Social Security Administration (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html); Defense Finance and Accounting Service (https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables/military-pay-charts.html); FederalPay.org (https://www.federalpay.org/military/raises). This data compares historic “median net compensation” provided by the Social Security Administration with the annual salary of an “E5” with over four years of service in the U.S. military. There are no adjustments for inflation, and “military base pay” does not include the value of any “benefits,” most notably delayed compensation from pension, medical insurance, tax benefits, or housing allowances.
The temptation for future defense budgets will be to neglect military compensation increases and regress to the historical pay gap as personnel expenditures currently encapsulate one-third of the defense budget. But, the Department of Defense (DOD) must keep an eye on the horizon and proactively anticipate and act on civilian sector economics and public policy changes. The regional implementation of tuition-free college (as instituted in Tennessee), increasing momentum behind “Medicare-for-all,” and increasing civilian wages would dramatically affect the middle class, and therefore the pool of military recruits. The Pentagon got a head start over the last decade recruiting and retaining a high-caliber team despite nearly full employment. That advantage won’t last forever.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy recognized that “the security environment is also affected by rapid technological advancements and the changing character of war” and “the drive to develop new technologies is relentless.” The modern military is competing with the private sector for skilled labor and technological savvy. If properly nurtured and maintained, the inversion of the civil-military pay gap enables the recruitment and retention of high capability talent. The DOD should take advantage of these national economic trends to improve the capability as well as capacity of the force.
Washington Times
edited by kcontents
Conversely, scholars like Reeves and his Brookings team at the “Future of The Middle Class Initiative” could gain insight from studying the modernization of the military. As the DOD transitions a growing segment of its workforce into the knowledge-based economy, leaders and stakeholders in the civilian world may glean important lessons that can restore prosperity and mobility to the middle class. We, as a nation, would all benefit from their success.
Nobody should join or remain on active duty for financial reasons. As Reeves points out, the sluggish increase in middle-class growth is a significant problem in America. But it may create an opportunity for the DOD to build a more skilled and competitive force. Ironically, the men and women in uniform are some of the few members of the middle class capable of achieving the American dream they have sworn to defend.
The views expressed are the author’s alone and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Navy, U.S. Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
kcontents
