10 ms·
>especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve This is a often repeated myth. The upper class serves more per capita than the lower class.
by YATA1 5y ago
>especially in the upper classes where people do not need to serve
This is a often repeated myth. The upper class serves more per capita than the lower class.
- chrisseaton 5y agoThe man who did my job back in the 80s was a literal billionaire, putting on the same uniform as me for the same pay.
- wolverine876 5y agoAre you claiming that billionaires serve at the same rate as others? Or that there are many billionaires in the military?
- chiph 5y agoThey're even more rare in the military than in the general population. Firstly for the obvious reason - they don't need any of the benefits so they don't join. Secondly - someone that becomes that wealthy while serving (via a trust-fund, large inheritance, or winning the lottery) would no longer be a good fit for the military. They usually get offered an Honorable Discharge. However, if they still desire to serve the remainder of their term, they can place the money into a blind trust.
- wolverine876 5y ago> someone that becomes that wealthy while serving (via a trust-fund, large inheritance, or winning the lottery) would no longer be a good fit for the military. They usually get offered an Honorable Discharge. That's shocking. Where is this rule? Have you seen it happen? I didn't know wealth defined fitness for service.
- analognoise 5y agoOf course wealth defines fitness for service (in America, anyway). Isn't "money for college and healthcare" kinda obvious about it? Like there's almost a wink and a nudge at the end of it. It's super blatant that having very few economic options and no healthcare chooses fitness for service for you.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIn the UK it’s pretty common for wealthy upper-class people to do a few years in the Army before they take over the family business.
- jwithington 5y agoThe evidence is to the contrary--middle class and above are over-represented in the US military. "Their median family income is more than $73,000, compared with $66,000 for civilians, and recruits are most likely to come from families in the middle of the wealth distribution, with median wealth of $87,000, almost $10,000 more than civilians." This is for enlisted members. It's probably safe to have some intuition that officers will skew wealthier.
- chrisseaton 5y agoI just gave you an example of someone who was still in as a billionaire.
- chrisseaton 5y agoThere have been many billionaires, or billionaire-equivalent for their time-period, in my tiny unit alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheshire_Yeomanry_officers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheshire_Yeomanry_off...
- wolverine876 5y agoThanks. Quickly looking at the links, it seems all pre-WWI, mostly 19th century. Is that still true?
- chrisseaton 5y agoNo, as I said the Squadron was operationally commanded by a billionaire as recently as the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_... It's still very common for upper class people to join the Army in the UK.
- wolverine876 5y agoThanks for explaining it all!
- throwaway0x7E6 5y agosure, but not in combat roles and while sure, those 6 or 8 or whatever out of 10 army people per 1 grunt do contribute a lot, they don't get shot at. no risk, all reward
- notch656a 5y agoYeah because no one in a logistics or support role was ever awarded a purple heart /s.
- throwaway0x7E6 5y agosure, and if you go back in time far enough, you can say that generals get killed in combat too how many logistics and support personnel casualties did the US have in any war during this century?
- agapon 5y agowhy go back in time, just be a russian general...
- notch656a 5y agoNot sure if this is sarcasm, but quite a few on here from 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/oifnames-of-fallen.pdf https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/oifnames-of-fa...
- throwaway0x7E6 5y agowell alright, I stand corrected still tho, senators' and millionaires' sons aren't the E-rank grunts driving the trucks
- chrisseaton 5y agoNo they’re the young platoon leaders putting themselves in harm’s way.
- losvedir 5y agoDo you have a source for that? The nearest I could find was this[0] and it doesn't support your assertion. [0] https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
- aksss 5y agoYes, and that data stops the grouping of household income at $87k and higher, which isn’t really that high of a floor, and is telling in itself. There are no further breakouts, such as 87-100, 100-200, 200+ because it would presumably be insignificant.
- YATA1 5y agoBecause that is reality. $65k is where the richest quantile for neighborhood median household income starts, by census tract [0]. The linked report was compiled by Dr. Shanea Watkins, a policy analyst specializing in empirical studies. Unless you have sources that claim otherwise, my original claim stands. [0] http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf
- actuallyalys 5y agoThe link YATA1's been posting actually does [0]. About 3.46 percent of people enlisting come from households making more than $100K, although those households make up about 8 percent of the population [1]. In general, it looks like it matches the population more than the quintile breakdowns do. [0]: On page 6: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf#page=6 http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf#page... [1]: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2007/demo/cps/hinc-06.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2007/demo/cps/hinc-06.htm...
- YATA1 5y ago"Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among enlisted troops, while middle-class and high-income neighborhoods were overrepresented." [0] "Military recruits mirror the U.S. population and are solidly middle class. A recent report shows that more recruits come from middle-income families, with far fewer drawn from poorer families. Youth from upper-income families are represented at almost exactly their fair share." Your source is inaccurate because it's for enlisted only. Upper class are far more likely to be officers or warrant officers. My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class. [0] https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/who-serves-the-us-military-the-demographics-enlisted-troops-and-officers https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/who-serves-the-us-mi... [1] https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/whos-joining-military-myth-vs-fact.html https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/whos-joining-mili...
- coldtea 5y agoYeah, just not in any combat duty, except the rare ocassion. Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor
- remarkEon 5y ago>Combat is for the lower classes, preferably rural poor (Former 11A here) This kind of glosses over a lot of cultural reasons for why you find "rural poor" in combat branches. For a lot of the folks in my platoon, it was a family affair. Many were from e.g. Texas or Georgia, and had a brother/cousin/uncle/whatever who were also an 11B/13B etc. There isn't really a "preference" that the Army or Marine Corps has for poor people, but there is a cultural reason why people who like combat tend to be rural poor. This is of course my experience, and precise demographic data is hard to come by without a FOIA request. Just wanted to throw my two cents out there. The guys in my platoon weren't the "dumb hicks" a lot of people seem to think populate the infantry.
- dfxm12 5y agoThe parent poster is talking about "rural poor", i.e., socioeconomic class, not "dumb hicks", i.e. perceived intelligence/education level. I think this is an important distinction. Yes, this is anecdata, and yes, there are many reasons why people serve, but I know some smart people (from college and in my career) who've served (in infantry) because they saw it as their only way to get money for college. I think that says less about military recruiting tactics than the government overall, because there really should be more options presented to someone looking to get an education to move up the socioeconomic ladder.
- wolverine876 5y agoI recently read an article where Army Chief of Staff, Gen. McConville, said that 79% of recruits come from families with service members, and how they need to expand the pool. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/03/about-face-army-expects-shrink-next-year/363878/ https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2022/03/about-face-army-ex... As far as the rural, the military focuses their recruiting in rural areas and barely touches major cities - an odd choice given where the population centers are and the efficiency of sales in high-density population. In a quick search, I found this from 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-tech-industry-seattle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/army-recruiting-tech-i... > The guys in my platoon weren't the "dumb hicks" a lot of people seem to think populate the infantry. Where have you heard that? I've never heard someone say that. People deify the military (in an unhealthy way) these days, IME.