To flip it around again, given that all three are equally qualified, should the potential employer consider the needs of the potential employee when hiring? Should employers have the right to hire those who might cost the company less in the long run?
True, but basic allowance for housing is more for one with dependents than one without. Also, not living in quarters is not always a choice; if none are available you will receive BAH and live off post/base.
That’s not so.
The worker will certainly factor in his own needs. My factors are related to whether or not he stays hired or leaves. So I suppose his needs indirectly drive the cost of his labor.
This is all I meant, actually.
Ok, but what is this all about? Is there some point you’re driving at, or was this just a way to get the discussion going?
The med tech not only got free training in a job that will pay more in the civilian world, he got paid while receiving that training. That has worth on top of base pay.
Sure, but the flip side to that is that married with kids workers are more concerned with job security than single unmarried people, and are more likely not to bail.
Anyway, I’m sure those sorts of considerations come into play, even if they’re not explicitly written down.
I don’t think the actual MOS/AFSC’s here are the point, the point is that the military compensates you primarily based on pay grade and time in service, regardless of how skilled or dangerous your job is. Some jobs (like the flight ones mentioned) do receive bonuses, but not all. However, just like in the civilian world, these bonuses are not a result of the military being “nice”, they are for all intents and purposes a retention effort to encourage troops in certain career fields to reenlist. They are routinely adjusted depending on whether or not there are enough people in that career field.
Perhaps as a better example, compare the E-4 handing out basketballs at the gym with an E-4 standing watch on a guard tower. The gym guy might work 7:30 to 4:30 with an hour lunch, time off for doctor appointments, personal errands, etc. The guard works a 12-hour shift, but is required to attend pre- and post- shift briefings, weapons check-out and -in, etc., meaning it’s more like 13 or 14 hours. Any doctor’s appointments or personal errands must be before or after the shift, too.
But they get paid the same. Okay, sure, maybe the guard makes a tiny bit extra for food since he can’t go to the chow hall, but that’s inconsequential. You have essentially the same pay, but one works about 8 hours a day, sometimes less, while the other routinely works 13-14 hours a day. Oh, the gym guy is likely Monday-Friday or some other similar shift. The guard probably works 6-day weeks.
So yes, pay inequality (or would it be “equality”) is rampant in the military.
Of course the actual MOS/AFSC’s is the point. I was responding to a point made about different jobs paying the same based on rank. Getting trained and getting paid for it has worth. And there is such a thing as hazard pay, so your last point quoted above is incorrect. I also recall medical doctors that I worked with (Captains and Majors) getting offered very high bonuses for staying in after their obligations were fulfilled- much higher than other officers of equal rank that had AFSCs not as high paying in the civilian world.
Maybe I’m hopelessly naive, but I think some employers do genuinely care about their workers.
Can you cut to the chase and tell us what the gotcha is?
I don’t get this “argument” at all.
Of course needs on both sides should be factored into the cost of labor. Just as employers don’t hire people out of charity, laborers do not provide labor out of the goodness of their hearts. Both are trying to take care of their needs, whether explicitly laid out or kept private.
When interference is left out, the price of anything in the market will be determined by supply and demand. Labor is no different. Workers are selling their labor and skills for as much as they can get, employers are buying it for as little as possible. Of course need figures into the demand side. But if you go past a gas station with a sign that says $5 because I have 2 kids in college and “need” the money, are you going to buy it there?
ps most of the posters in this thread would fail econ 101
I think we’re differing on what the “point” is. 
I think the point of the original “military” post was not:
“Many jobs in the military pay more because the work is dangerous/skilled.”
Instead, it was:
“Many jobs in the military pay the same regardless of whether they’re dangerous/skilled.”
Both of which, of course, are true, just arguing from different sides.
True, the military has a whole plethora of special bonus pays and hazardous duty pays and so on. But as anyone in the military knows, not everybody gets them. And among the ones who don’t, the amount of work done per day/difficulty of work/working conditions vary widely. Which I think is the original point - same pay, vastly different work.
I know that was the point. The particular one I responded to was comparing med techs to guys at the gym handing out towels.
I’ve seen this fallacy proven wrong in business. I watched an executive underbid his competitors to get the job.
It’s not to say someone with a really good track record isn’t a good candidate but there appears to be a pay bonus based on being a board member in a number of companies. I think the term is called “back scratching” which may be what you’re describing. It occurs at the highest level but does not translate downward as easily.
Not really relevant to the general discussion, but I actually had an employer once tell me the reason he paid a co-worker more than he paid me was because the other guy had a family to support.
As an employer I do wish to pay a wage that will provide a living for the worker.
And really it’s much more complicated than the employer calculating the wage based on its needs, and the worker either accepting or rejecting it. Workers aren’t fungible goods; more experienced and stable people often have families to support and those may be the workers I want; while the worker without a family (who may also have less experience and commitment) may be happy to accept a lower wage in exchange for a chance to learn the job or somewhat lowered expectations about pitching in when overtime is required and all that.
Actually, that’s pretty directly on point to the original post.