Do you believe enlistment bonuses should be paid for combat positions? If they are valid shouldn't all military positions be equally valid and desirable? And if they're valid then why don't they pay even more money as you move into a military career?
by 
Anonymous
ANSWERS: 4
-
You see the problem with an all-volunteer force. Under the draft system, you were assigned a MOS according to the needs of the service. You may have been given a limited choice of needed jobs, but that was it. All jobs are valid in that they need to be done but not all are desirable to the general enlisting population. Combat arms fall under the "less desirable" category but they need to be filled, so you get a bonus for putting your life in harm's way. People generally do not join the military to be a warrior; they join for the benefits. You get paid a basic pay but you are also provided with benefits that you would normally have to pay for on your own on Civvie Street, such as housing, food, and clothing.
-
My personal opinion, but I think combat positions get better bonuses because everyone knows your life expectancy is cut down drastically! Plus if you survive the war it's really difficult to use your combat skills in a civilian career. If you're a sniper in the military, what job will you do besides law enforcement? Most people know this so the military entices people. its kind of like carrot on a stick. The military would also go broke if they paid people what they were really worth in the civilian world. Back in the day, the military wasn't about money, but about defending your country. So now that things aren't the same and our society is money-driven, the pay rate of the military seems a bit barbaric.
-
I was in the Navy during the Vietnam war, if you went over where the action was, you would get "Hazardous Duty Pay" added to your regular pay. I'm sure they still have this. I volunteered to go to Vietnam and they said no, that there were too many people that outranked me that wanted to go.
-
You ask for conflicting information. On the one hand, you postulate that enlisted bonuses should be paid for combat positions. On the other hand, you argue that ALL military positions should be equally valid and desirable. And yet on a mysterious third hand, you ask why they don't pay even MORE money as you move into a military career. What is it you are asking, anyway? I'm confused. People DO get pay benefits associated with combat zones. Some can be quite significant.
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC