5 ms·

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
        Of course, it’s just a spitball at rates.
- 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!

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
      Of course, it’s just a spitball at rates.
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!