Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-03-11
BY DONALD A. CRAIG.


Benefits received by the officers of
the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and
allied Government services, exclusive
of retirement, are more than counter
balanced by the pecuniary disadvan-
tages suffered by the officers and not
mentioned by the Bureau of Efficiency in
its report to President Hoover on the
pay increase recommendations of the
interdepartmental pay board, accord
ing to the view of the Army general
staff
The true comparison" says a state
ment from the Office of the assistant
chief of staff for personnel, should
show service compensation plus retire
ment benefits on one hand and civilian
earnings plus similar benefits, bonuses,
or participation in profits, on the other"
Comparisons made by the pay board
between service officers and civilians
compensation indicate that civilians
are receiving on the average much more
than officers in similar lines of work.
Tables prepared by the Bureau OF Eff
cheney, already cited in these articles
indicate, that the salaries OF civilians
are not as much greater as the boards
figures seem to prove.
After discussing in detail the various
comparisons and suggestions made by
the Efficiency Bureau, the assistant
chief of staff sums up his reply to the
bureau report in this manner: .
l. The compensation of the higher
grades in the services should be COM
pared with the earnings of those who
attain success in civil life and not with
the average earnings Of all who grad
uate from college, as cited by the
bureau.
2. The earnings of college graduates
who attain success in commerce and
business, over a period of 40 years, and
including their financial returns from
all sources, VIII exceed either present,
proposed or expected compensation in
the services.
Graduate Engineers Earnings.
8. The earnings of graduate engineers
afford a reasonble basis for comparison
with the services, provided officers in
the higher grades are compared with
civilians who have attained positions
of equal responsibility.
4. Conditions in the teaching profess
sion are so different from those in the
services that this group should be elimi-
mated from comparison.
s. The rate Of advancement in the
Army during the past 80 years has been
above normal and will decrease sharply
in the future. The graphs prepared by
the services, showing the compensation
of representative officers under the
present and proposed pay schedules. are
a truer picture of the working OF those
schedules than the curves drawn by the
Bureau of Efficiency.
at is unfortunate" says the assistant
chief of staff, that the report of the
Bureau of Efficiency contains no discus
sion of the basic factor in the claim of
the services for increased pay, that is,
the advancement in the cost OF living
for which no adequate compromising
increases in pay have been granted to
the services.
1.-THE 1908 pay schedule was adopted
after careful consideration of all factors
which should determine the compensa-
ton of commissioned officers. Funda-
mental economic conditions have
changed since the determination was
made and the cost of living has stabi-
lized at a level which makes the value
of the 1880 dollar about one-half what
1t was In 1908. This is the most i'm
portant factor In determining the just
ness of the claim of the services for an
increase in compensation"
The Bureau of Efficiency, replying to
the assistant chief of staff of the Army,
says it cannot agree that the civilian
groups used for comparison were Ito
IhIBcI CAGCAI Jildll lliC AlliAVoly oCAN
ices composed of persons unsuccessful
in their careers"
THE figures used" continues the
board, were compiled from returns
submitted voluntarily by members OF the
three groups and were filed by mi
nority of the total number solicited
The tendency was to produce an aver
age compensation substantially higher
than the true average for the entire
number solicited. Undoubtedly the re-
Spouse to the inquiry was relatively
smaller from the failures and those OF
only mediocre success. Furthermore,
the returns taken for any one OF the
three groups in fact represented only
the successful survivors of once much
large number. 1t is the feel
ing of this bureau that, If anything,
competition is less keen and the
chances of survival greater for those
entering the military services than for
those entering civilian occupations with
which they were compared"
Comparisons "Impracticable."
The bureau says it is "impracticable"
to make comparisons between officers
and civilians on the basis OF relative re-
sponsibility, because for the most part
employments in the commissioned Serv-
ices of the United States have no
counterpart In civilian life" The
bureau agrees that perhaps compenSa-
ton of college instructors cannot be
appropriately compared with that OF
officers, but says this was done by the
bureau merely because it has been first
cited as basis of comparison in the