4 ms·

I've heard this many times before and I've even been taught this in history class. What is the reason for this? The explanation is often that it stimulates the

by Diamons 11y ago

I've heard this many times before and I've even been taught this in history class. What is the reason for this? The explanation is often that it stimulates the economy, but really, is war effective at fixing the economy because it just acts as a giant reset button? If there's too many workers and not enough job, the easiest way to fix that problem is to kill X% of the population, and what better easier and cleaner way to sell this to the American people than your country is under attack and it needs your sacrifice?

derefr 11y ago
I don't think the deaths are the most important thing; rather, it's the absences: • Presume that a job market contains people with job-skills, and people without (i.e. "lemons"). • Presume that businesses function better when they can select from a talent pool with fewer lemons; and that lemons in a job market create "noise" in the hiring process that cause openings to go unfilled for longer. • Now, presume either a draft (which doesn't care about job-skills, but does care about age, tending to select for younger people with fewer job-skills), or simply a military with lower job-skill requirements for entry than most occupations. Thus, a military on a war footing will selectively withdraw more lemons than non-lemons from the job market, leaving it full of higher-quality candidates, making the businesses in that market more efficient. For this hypothesis to be accurate, the same thing would have to happen if we just gave all the people being sent to war public-sector jobs (or Basic Income) instead. Though that would perhaps work better than a war for stimulating the economy: people remaining in the country would be spreading their demand across the market, rather than consuming goods exclusively from the military's line-of-supply contractors.
- Retra 11y ago
  The military doesn't have lower skill requirements than the average job. It does have very large and expensive training programs to make up for that.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Which looks the same at the input end of the process - they'll suck up anyone with four limbs and both eyes, regardless of the skills they have prior to enrollment.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  Attributing all WW economics to HR hiring noise is a bit of a stretch, I think. There are many other factors, from psychological "we must produce maximum to guarantee victory" to huge belic investments leading to advances in key technologies.

by Diamons 11y ago

derefr 11y ago

I don't think the deaths are the most important thing; rather, it's the absences: • Presume that a job market contains people with job-skills, and people without (i.e. "lemons"). • Presume that businesses function better when they can select from a talent pool with fewer lemons; and that lemons in a job market create "noise" in the hiring process that cause openings to go unfilled for longer. • Now, presume either a draft (which doesn't care about job-skills, but does care about age, tending to select for younger people with fewer job-skills), or simply a military with lower job-skill requirements for entry than most occupations. Thus, a military on a war footing will selectively withdraw more lemons than non-lemons from the job market, leaving it full of higher-quality candidates, making the businesses in that market more efficient. For this hypothesis to be accurate, the same thing would have to happen if we just gave all the people being sent to war public-sector jobs (or Basic Income) instead. Though that would perhaps work better than a war for stimulating the economy: people remaining in the country would be spreading their demand across the market, rather than consuming goods exclusively from the military's line-of-supply contractors.

Retra 11y ago
The military doesn't have lower skill requirements than the average job. It does have very large and expensive training programs to make up for that.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Which looks the same at the input end of the process - they'll suck up anyone with four limbs and both eyes, regardless of the skills they have prior to enrollment.
darkmighty 11y ago
Attributing all WW economics to HR hiring noise is a bit of a stretch, I think. There are many other factors, from psychological "we must produce maximum to guarantee victory" to huge belic investments leading to advances in key technologies.