Please keep in mind that arguments with regard to pay equity must be taken in the proper context; highly technical jobs that require specialized training aren't what the military needs right now, the military needs grunts. The skills required on the battlefield are uniqe and not very interchangeable with the skills required in the private sector so skill/wage comparisons are rather apples to oranges.
Another point on this topic...any job comparison becomes an apples to oranges one...can you reasonably compare the salary made by a lawyer to say a shelf stocker at Wallmart?
The market drives our economy, and that has the most direct impact on where demand is for jobs, which directly or indirectly determines salary...look at the IT industry, where in the early to mid 90s, you could make an amazing salary in that profession to do demand...now that programmers are nearly a dime a dozen, and readily available through outsourcing, the salary cap on many IT jobs has drastically decreased or disappeared altogether.
Extending this to the military, it becomes a question of market demand...if we choose to maintain an all volunteer military, we are doing so with the expectation that something has to attract individuals to join the military...whatever that motivation might be, and some have speculated or mentioned a wide range of factors that are all true...however, if the military finds itself in a position where it does not have enough soldiers to meet its obligation, it has to find a way to attract recruits...and in a market based free society, money is usually the incentive...it becomes a question of how much risk are you willing to accept in return for your salary.
We all take risks in the market place...for civilians, this extends to job security and benefits...for soldiers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants, it becomes a question of weighing the risk of life and limb compared to the benefits of taking on such a job.
Now this begs the question of, if we have to attract soldiers with money, are we essentially creating a mercenary force...if you look at the Roman empire towards the start of its decline, this was very much the case, as Roman citizens were less willing to give up the comforts of society to serve in the rank and file.
If they were drafting people to go fight that fscking war the streets would explode into protests. In fact if they had to fight that war with draftees instead of volunteers I seriously doubt we would have invaded Iraq in the first place.
Given the social climate of our society, implementation of a draft is simply impractical...I often wonder what would have happened if the public had as much access to information during the 1940s as we do today...would the reaction to WW2 have been any different...Vietnam was probably the first war in American history where individual citizens had access to enough information to question the decision making of our leaders in committing the nation to war...it is a healthy process, and one that at some point will hopefully keep our leaders in check before they start beating the war drums.
