5 ms·

This might be a controversial take, but I grew up in a very rural community in the Midwest and military service was widely seen as a pathway to stability and to

This might be a controversial take, but I grew up in a very rural community in the Midwest and military service was widely seen as a pathway to stability and to a degree, glory, for those that didn’t have the opportunity to pursue higher education. It’s essentially a massive job creator that we don’t really talk about as a massive job creator. It’s always framed with national security in mind. We often talk about the human cost of war, but as I’ve gotten older and seen the never-ending military presence in the Middle East, I can’t help but wonder how much of that is driven by this political desire to provide these kinds of jobs to thousands of young men and women that don’t have many opportunities back home. Of course, it’s not really talked about this way, but I remember first thinking about it watching Ken Burns Vietnam war series. It wasn’t the rich kids that died in that war either, it was the children of the working class. Military is just as much of a domestic political tool as it is a force to shape geopolitics globally, and it’s deeply effective in communities that are reliant on military presence.

skinner927 6y ago
The best way to jump from lower class to middle class in the US is to enlist.
- hunter-gatherer 6y ago
  Grew up lower class, and am now comfortably making 120k a year. Family and extended family is all still lower class. The military gave me structure, discipline, and then a GI bill. Only catch was to survive a deployment in 07. But yeah, my case is not unique, and most the people I served with are doing well now compared to where they would have been without it.
  - cbm-vic-20 6y ago
    Being too lazy to research this myself, I wonder if the "survival rate" of someone in the military is higher than the rate in other jobs, like construction.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      The military is not an especially dangerous occupation, especially because politicians tend to be sensitive to the resulting news reports of soldiers dying. The US military has 2-3 million people, and even with recent wars at peak I don't think the US lost more than ~1k people/year. In other words, you're looking at a rate in the upper tens of people per 100,000 in an active war. According to https://stats.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm https://stats.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-in..., that would probably put it in the top 5 (fishermen might still have a higher death rate than the military). In a more peaceful time, it's probably not going to hit the top 10.
      - FrojoS 6y ago
        Those numbers are insane! Are they really per year? Every year, one in a thousand loggers die? When using paper you often hear warning about saving the forest, but it seems there is a big blood toll as well.
    - jcims 6y ago
      Active Duty deaths 2006-2020 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf CDC Mortality 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm Just quick stubby pencil work, probably a bit safer to be active duty at ~100 per 100k per year. Once you're out of the 15-24 age range, mortality rates start to elevate rapidly. Of course those all include military deaths, but the overall effect should be relatively low given the small percentage of active duty vs. rest of the country.
      - LanceH 6y ago
        Selection bias from the military rejecting the unhealthy. It also doesn't properly represent our vastly improved ability to keep people alive but severely injured.
        jcims 6y ago
  - mattigames 6y ago
    That's by design, poverty is the main supply creator for recruitment; and the trillion dollars spent on war benefits on both fronts the military complex, meaning it's money they get to use and it's money not spend on reducing poverty. In developed countries without a huge military (eg Norway, Japan) there are many better options to escape from poberty, and it's less prevalent amomg it's citizens.
    - varjag 6y ago
      There isn't necessarily a causal relationship. Norway was poor while being a neutral country with a tiny military, it's more the resource blessing than anything which helped. Similarly, I have huge doubts that wealth redistribution of eliminating military in the USA would end up with the poor.
      - mattigames 6y ago
        Meanwhile in real life: https://i.imgur.com/L27d5xU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/L27d5xU.jpg
        varjag 6y ago
        It's a great point which however does not detract in any way from mine.
- pstuart 6y ago
  Kind of like a State-sponsored jobs program, eh?
- komali2 6y ago
  Possibly the most reliable path to mental illness, to boot!
busterarm 6y ago
And all this talk about smaller forces and abundance of robots means that the political will to maintain this is waning. Training people and providing them opportunities is expensive and the federal government has less and less desire to pay. Such a shift in policy could have negative consequences and I hope the Army doesn't evaluate this lightly.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  Maybe, but I could also see the shift towards automating war as a profit incentive for the military industrial complex. It’s very clear that the military has enjoyed decades of relatively lax financial oversight. IIRC, the military branches were ordered to become audit-compliant during the Obama admin and they never did. Every once in a while, some general would retire in disgrace after financial impropriety was discovered, but by and large, its been a massive cash-rich free-for-all for those with military contract connections. I think this is just next evolution of the private military sector tbh.
blackrock 6y ago
You know, you can also just pay them to build bridges to nowhere. Roads to connect those bridges. And then resorts and mountain getaways to connect those roads. And build mass housing for everyone. This would still be far cheaper than endless wars. And you at least get some useful infrastructure out of it.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  I'm a fan of this idea. If we have these people employed by the government in a highly disciplined environment, why not give them something constructive to do?
komali2 6y ago
> It’s essentially a massive job creator that we don’t really talk about as a massive job creator. This is very accurate. Similarly, the TSA doesn't protect america from terrorists, it functions as a conservative-palpable socialist jobs program. The obvious counterpoint is that the attraction for furthering Dick Cheney's imperialist wars abroad almost entirely vanishes if you don't need to kill foreigners to get free healthcare and education. So sure it's a jobs program, it's a path to education, and it's a guarantor of healthcare (it actually isn't, the VA is a dumpster fire), it does all three things perfectly awfully.
swiley 6y ago
I'm really pretty convinced we could be more productive if we were ok with people spending long stretches of time idle while they figured things out.

skinner927 6y ago

The best way to jump from lower class to middle class in the US is to enlist.

hunter-gatherer 6y ago
Grew up lower class, and am now comfortably making 120k a year. Family and extended family is all still lower class. The military gave me structure, discipline, and then a GI bill. Only catch was to survive a deployment in 07. But yeah, my case is not unique, and most the people I served with are doing well now compared to where they would have been without it.
- cbm-vic-20 6y ago
  Being too lazy to research this myself, I wonder if the "survival rate" of someone in the military is higher than the rate in other jobs, like construction.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The military is not an especially dangerous occupation, especially because politicians tend to be sensitive to the resulting news reports of soldiers dying. The US military has 2-3 million people, and even with recent wars at peak I don't think the US lost more than ~1k people/year. In other words, you're looking at a rate in the upper tens of people per 100,000 in an active war. According to https://stats.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm https://stats.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-in..., that would probably put it in the top 5 (fishermen might still have a higher death rate than the military). In a more peaceful time, it's probably not going to hit the top 10.
    - FrojoS 6y ago
      Those numbers are insane! Are they really per year? Every year, one in a thousand loggers die? When using paper you often hear warning about saving the forest, but it seems there is a big blood toll as well.
  - jcims 6y ago
    Active Duty deaths 2006-2020 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf CDC Mortality 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm Just quick stubby pencil work, probably a bit safer to be active duty at ~100 per 100k per year. Once you're out of the 15-24 age range, mortality rates start to elevate rapidly. Of course those all include military deaths, but the overall effect should be relatively low given the small percentage of active duty vs. rest of the country.
    - LanceH 6y ago
      Selection bias from the military rejecting the unhealthy. It also doesn't properly represent our vastly improved ability to keep people alive but severely injured.
      - jcims 6y ago
- mattigames 6y ago
  That's by design, poverty is the main supply creator for recruitment; and the trillion dollars spent on war benefits on both fronts the military complex, meaning it's money they get to use and it's money not spend on reducing poverty. In developed countries without a huge military (eg Norway, Japan) there are many better options to escape from poberty, and it's less prevalent amomg it's citizens.
  - varjag 6y ago
    There isn't necessarily a causal relationship. Norway was poor while being a neutral country with a tiny military, it's more the resource blessing than anything which helped. Similarly, I have huge doubts that wealth redistribution of eliminating military in the USA would end up with the poor.
    - mattigames 6y ago
      Meanwhile in real life: https://i.imgur.com/L27d5xU.jpg https://i.imgur.com/L27d5xU.jpg
      - varjag 6y ago
        It's a great point which however does not detract in any way from mine.
pstuart 6y ago
Kind of like a State-sponsored jobs program, eh?
komali2 6y ago
Possibly the most reliable path to mental illness, to boot!

busterarm 6y ago

And all this talk about smaller forces and abundance of robots means that the political will to maintain this is waning. Training people and providing them opportunities is expensive and the federal government has less and less desire to pay. Such a shift in policy could have negative consequences and I hope the Army doesn't evaluate this lightly.

save_ferris 6y ago
Maybe, but I could also see the shift towards automating war as a profit incentive for the military industrial complex. It’s very clear that the military has enjoyed decades of relatively lax financial oversight. IIRC, the military branches were ordered to become audit-compliant during the Obama admin and they never did. Every once in a while, some general would retire in disgrace after financial impropriety was discovered, but by and large, its been a massive cash-rich free-for-all for those with military contract connections. I think this is just next evolution of the private military sector tbh.

blackrock 6y ago

You know, you can also just pay them to build bridges to nowhere. Roads to connect those bridges. And then resorts and mountain getaways to connect those roads. And build mass housing for everyone. This would still be far cheaper than endless wars. And you at least get some useful infrastructure out of it.

nitrogen 6y ago
I'm a fan of this idea. If we have these people employed by the government in a highly disciplined environment, why not give them something constructive to do?

komali2 6y ago

> It’s essentially a massive job creator that we don’t really talk about as a massive job creator. This is very accurate. Similarly, the TSA doesn't protect america from terrorists, it functions as a conservative-palpable socialist jobs program. The obvious counterpoint is that the attraction for furthering Dick Cheney's imperialist wars abroad almost entirely vanishes if you don't need to kill foreigners to get free healthcare and education. So sure it's a jobs program, it's a path to education, and it's a guarantor of healthcare (it actually isn't, the VA is a dumpster fire), it does all three things perfectly awfully.

swiley 6y ago

I'm really pretty convinced we could be more productive if we were ok with people spending long stretches of time idle while they figured things out.