Bill Overview
Title: Military Spouse Employment Act
Description: This bill authorizes federal agencies to make noncompetitive appointments of spouses of members of the Armed Forces on active duty, or spouses of disabled or deceased members of the Armed Forces, to positions in which the spouses engage in remote work.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: Spouses of members of the Armed Forces
Estimated Size: 1200000
- The bill specifically targets spouses of members of the Armed Forces on active duty, as well as spouses of disabled or deceased members.
- There are approximately 1.3 million active duty members in the US Armed Forces.
- The bill also includes spouses of disabled or deceased military members, which could increase the scope of the target population.
- Considering there are also many veterans and some deceased members, the target population could be larger than just current active duty members' spouses.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects military spouses, who often experience employment challenges due to frequent relocations associated with military life.
- The budget constraints and target population size suggest that not all affected individuals might be benefited immediately; thus, impact varies.
- Some spouses might already have employment or prefer flexibility beyond remote federal jobs, leading to varying degrees of impact and Wellbeing improvement.
- Wellbeing is measured on a subjective Cantril scale and could fluctuate based on personal circumstances beyond employment, like family health and personal aspirations.
Simulated Interviews
Unemployed (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could help me finally land a stable job that accommodates our frequent moves.
- Remote work is ideal given my husband's relocations, so I fully support this bill.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Part-time retail worker (San Diego, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm eager to transition into a more stable, better-paying role.
- This policy could provide the opportunity for me to work in IT remotely, which is a career change I'm aiming for.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Killeen, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I enjoy the flexibility of freelancing as it fits our lifestyle, but a stable job might offer better benefits.
- Not sure if federal employment would offer the creativity I enjoy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Full-time Government Employee (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Already employed in a government role, this policy doesn't significantly impact my current situation.
- It's great for others but I would not benefit directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
High School Teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a wonderful opportunity to transition into a field that allows more time at home with my child.
- I hope this could lead to a more stable work environment and better income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Stay-at-home parent (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focusing on the family is my priority now but I will eventually want to work again.
- This policy provides reassurance for my future prospects when ready to re-enter the workforce.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Part-time Security Guard (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am looking for more consistent work and income.
- If this policy enables me to find a good remote job, it would greatly improve my situation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Virginia Beach, VA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't require employment, but it's wonderful to see support for military families.
- This would have made a difference if it were available when my husband was alive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Registered Nurse (Norfolk, VA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Balancing nursing and family is hard; remote work could help.
- The opportunity for remote work in administration could be beneficial for my family balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Bartender (Honolulu, HI)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers hope for a more stable work schedule.
- The ability to work remotely with a reliable income would help tremendously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $110000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $130000000)
Year 2: $112200000 (Low: $91800000, High: $132600000)
Year 3: $114400000 (Low: $93600000, High: $135200000)
Year 5: $118800000 (Low: $97200000, High: $140800000)
Year 10: $129600000 (Low: $106200000, High: $153600000)
Year 100: $210000000 (Low: $189000000, High: $231000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy encourages employment among an underserved segment, potentially enhancing economic stability within military households.
- The unpredictability of needs related to remote work setup and ongoing support could lead to a varying annual cost.
- Potential savings may be realized through reduced need for unemployment and federal assistance programs for military families.
- There are potential positive impacts on overall GDP and tax revenue as more individuals join the workforce and contribute economically.