Decent pay attracting undesirables? It is the responsibility of the recruiters to deal with that aspect and weed those types out. That failing, BIQ, IAP, and BOTP should help. The pay helps to attract people into at least looking into having a career in the military. I don't want to be paid less just to, possibly, keep undesirables from applying.
Recruiters are looking too hard for anybody to join to let mercenary tendencies rule out someone's employment.
But why didn't I join sooner? Because personal circumstances precluded me from being able to survive on less money than the modern pay scales allow for. It's none of your business what those circumstances are, but they aren't illegal, unusual or even uncommon and I wouldn't doubt that there are plenty of people in a similar situation
Newsflash: what I highlighted in your quote is probably what someone would say to a recruiter when pressed on if they are joining for the money, thereby negating your first argument.
Just because you come in with a different perspective (which we can all appreciate) doesn't give you the right to criticize what some people with a great deal more of experience state: some people stick around solely for the money, not the adventure, and certainly not to be a professional soldier, sailor or airman. By professional I mean someone that is dedicated to the profession of arms, and not making the rent cheque. Yes, we need to pay people a decent wage, but when the pay disparity between a Cpl and a Sgt is so minimal (the difference per month for a Cpl 4 and a basic Sgt is only $372, or $12 per day), we encourage mediocrity and complacency. The Cpl rank is the one that all the commissions and programs focussed on, from my understanding. So of course they pumped that one up, without considering things such as what I mentioned. And don't get me started on the pay difference between officers and NCM's (suffice it to say that a Captain makes more than I do, by a good $500 per month, and an average Capt reaches that rank far faster than a soldier makes it to Sgt).
I lived through the shitty pay (and many before me lived through far worse), and while many of the programs are appreciated, and I do take advantage of them, the fact of the matter is that salary is a HUGE percentage of our budget, and so it would seem that we a victim of our own success. The more they pay us, the less toys we can buy.
I would be happy IF we could get rid of the 8 to 4 soldiers, who are NOT professionals, but all the glorious programs and initiatives (human rights, harrassment, etc) brought in over the years have effectively made us a unionized force. Trying to get somebody who is an underperformer out is like trying to get a bulldog off a meat truck.
So, if your big educated brain can find a way to only keep in people who are willing to give 100%, I would be willing to advocate pay raises all around, but if it means pulling away an incentive for all the deadwood so they get their sorry asses off the gravy train, I WOULD advocate a pay reduction. I'll be waiting for your proposal (but I won't be holding my breath......)
Al