It occurred to me in the last blog I put together, “Why So Few Choose to Serve,” that the government has a distinct advantage over American patriots, and because we have a Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps talking about why marines should be paid less. The reason for this is that the US government, and ultimately most world governments, have what is called a monopsony. A monopsony is where there is only one buyer in the market. American patriots want to serve their country–or in this situation, sell their labor. However, there is only one buyer of that labor, putting the Patriot at a distinct disadvantage. What is one simple way to reduce the problems caused by this? Bring more buyers into the market by privatizing the military.
Do I completely believe in privatization of the military? No, but for the sake of healthy debate, I’m going to argue that it is to the benefit of the American patriot to privatize the military because it will allow them to be properly compensated for their service.
I am going to start out with some very simple assumptions:
- The government is the only purchaser of a patriot’s labor.
- The only motivation for patriots to supply their labor is to serve their country. No other form of compensation, initially, affects their decision to serve.
- The wage provided by the government is unrelated to services provided or productivity of the patriot.
I have also chosen for the simplicity of this conversation to ignore the following:
- The efficiency benefits of a privatized military.
- The potential evils of allowing greed driven decisions to be attached to military power.
With these assumptions in place, we can look at the ways that the government takes advantage of the patriot. The first being wage. Wage is the collection of all financial benefits paid: paycheck, insurance, and retirement benefits. The Government, employing laborers who are only motivated by patriotism, can set the wage wherever they desire, which is why pay is considered to be so low. In a situation like this, the only factor driving the decision for what to pay a patriot would be a minimum livable wage. There are also pay raises to account for changes in family structure, but not because of a caring for the patriots’ families. It’s merely because, without these pay increases the patriots would no longer be able to supply their labor. If the military wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one, hopefully in better condition than the gear I have already been issued.
The additional wage requirements for patriots with families,, and the cost of more mature patriots, is one of the many reasons that recruitment targets the younger patriots with the glitz and glamour of the job, not the wage, as in other civilian fields of employment. Young people join for the experience and the opportunities, not the financial return, or as it applied to me at seventeen years old, I wanted to blow shit up.
Now, with these wages intentionally kept low, this is a method of controlling enlistment numbers for more senior individuals–those with the additional responsibilities that a person gains while they get older and are no longer able to remain within the military because the cost to maintain their household requirements no longer matches with the pay and benefits they receive from the military. This leaves only those who are willing to sacrifice pay to continue to provide service to their country.
I was told by my Battalion Commander, “The Marine Corps gives you everything money can’t buy.” Fellow service members have also looked down upon me when I pointed out that one of the driving factors to remain within the military is my educational benefits. The culture of the military pushes out those mercenary thoughts, while promoting patriotic service for its own sake.
Why would a privatized military support the patriot? By providing the patriot, who is willing to supply their labor, regardless of wage, additional options as for whom to provide their labor. For example, Company A and Company B have both been contracted out to perform military operations to support America. The missions being equal, and the pay being the only difference, the patriot will have the option to choose the higher paying company.
Is this mentality mercenary, yes, but it is a means of compensating our patriots with more than a slap on the ass and a thank you for your service.
Now, the final question remains: Why do patriots deserve a higher pay? In the civilian market, a person is paid based upon the services they provide. A factory line worker is paid an hourly wage based upon their value to the company. If only ten widgets are created an hour by that worker, then their impact is ten widgets per hour. If a musician puts on a concert for twenty thousand people, their impact is the entertainment of twenty thousand people.
The patriot provides security, either through defensive or offensive operations, to three hundred and seventeen million people, producing a collective GDP of $16.8 trillion against violent threats. That responsibility is spread among the 2.3 million patriots who have decided to serve. That is the impact of the patriot’s service.
The American patriot is going to provide their service regardless of their pay, but with such a high level of impact, why not compensate them in a similar manner as we do so many others? By allowing the patriot the option to provide their patriotic service to the highest paying organization, we recognize their impact upon our nation.