5 ms·

"Enlisted recruits in 2006 and 2007 came primarily from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds. Low-income neighborhoods were underrepresented among en

by 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...

dagw 5y ago
My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class. While that may very well be true, it i worth highlighting that the reports you are citing as evidence is looking at the years 2003 and 2006-2007, and a lot has changed, economically and politically, since then. Also their cut off for "high-income" seems to be significantly lower than what most people would consider "upper class".
- relaxing 5y ago
  “Upper class starts at $65k/yr” is peak Heritage Foundation.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Jeeze, not just 65k, but 65k household as your neighborhood's median.
    - YATA1 5y ago
      Because 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
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Or that just means that upper class doesn't start at the boundary of the top quantile. I'm sorry but no stretch of the imagination has upper class as a couple making 33k/yr each. That's absolutely absurd. That's $16.50 an hour with no overtime. Looking at it, upper class typically is the top one or two percent of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class
        YATA1 4y ago
        The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0]. [0] http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf
        analognoise 5y ago
        That's not absurd - if you define "upper quartile" to be so broad, you get the conclusion you want - that they're "overrepresented".
  - YATA1 5y ago
    > “Upper class starts at $65k/yr” is peak Heritage Foundation. Yes, peak facts that don't care about your feelings. $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 ago
      There might be good reasons to use that breakdown, but I still think referring to people with a household income of $65K as "upper class" is misleading. There's also something a bit strange with this breakdown. The top 20 percent of households made more than $91,705 [0][1] in 2007. $65K appears to be the top 20 percent of census tracts. That doesn't seem right, though, because you wouldn't expect 20 percent of the population to come from 20 percent of the tracts, unless they're exactly the same size (which tracts are not), so maybe I made a mistake in interpretation. [0] https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/11/05/2005-us-income-distribution/ https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/11/05/2005-us... [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-06.2007.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      But ‘class’ isn’t income quantiles.
      - YATA1 5y ago
        The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0]. [0] http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf
relaxing 5y ago
And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so the effect is going to be minor. Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West Point Cadets, and I’d bet both are wealthier on average than the officer corps as a whole.
- YATA1 5y ago
  >And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so the effect is going to be minor. Immaterial. You're announcing to the world that you don't understand what "per capita" and "underrepresented" means. >Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West Point Cadets, and I’d bet both are wealthier on average than the officer corps as a whole. No it doesn't. It specifically talks about enlistment. Of course officers are going to be from upper classes, a four year degree is a requirement.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    No need to be rude. It sounded like you were suggesting that if the two populations were merged, the underrepresented-rich effect would rise above the minimal level for enlisted alone (0.1%). And I’m saying it’s not going up by much. The section of the report on officers starts at page 9, I’m looking at the graphs on pages 9, 10, and 11. If you see the data elsewhere, please share.
    - YATA1 5y ago
      >If you see the data elsewhere, please share. $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
wolverine876 5y ago
Thanks for providing some citations. The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad, and Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy (look at their front page). Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members. [0] IIRC, the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas - which matches my experiece in major urban areas. [EDIT: 1] Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group. However, I realize I've only provided one [edit: 2!] good cite[s] myself! [0] 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... [1] 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...
- YATA1 5y ago
  >The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad military.com is a news and information website that covers topics such as benefits to military members, veterans, their families and those with military affinity. Even if there are links to recruiting, this does nothing to refute the facts. >Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy Reality has a conservative bias apparently. The facts are here for all to see. >Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members. Which is a meaningless statistic. This number could be the same across all income classes, or again, higher income classes could be overrepresented. >the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas That is hilariously wrong. Your own sources shows Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Tampa, Atlanta, etc. all in the top counties for recruitment. "Blue cities" != "[all] major urban areas". Your anti-Southern bias is showing. >Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group. This is to be expected due to requiring a four year degree, among other things. Whites are slightly overrepresented in the officer corps. The US is 73% White (including Hispanic), and the officer corps is 75.8% White (including Hispanic). Asians are also ever so slightly overrepresented in the officer corps. You can see the report that covers this here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf I can easily attack your source(s) as fake news outlets (New York Times especially), but I'm not going to use fallacies like you have here. Your sources simply do not back up your claims. The richest quantile is overrepresented. The aforementioned 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. QED.

by YATA1 5y ago

dagw 5y ago

My point stands: upper class serve more than lower class. While that may very well be true, it i worth highlighting that the reports you are citing as evidence is looking at the years 2003 and 2006-2007, and a lot has changed, economically and politically, since then. Also their cut off for "high-income" seems to be significantly lower than what most people would consider "upper class".

relaxing 5y ago
“Upper class starts at $65k/yr” is peak Heritage Foundation.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Jeeze, not just 65k, but 65k household as your neighborhood's median.
  - YATA1 5y ago
    Because 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
    - monocasa 5y ago
      Or that just means that upper class doesn't start at the boundary of the top quantile. I'm sorry but no stretch of the imagination has upper class as a couple making 33k/yr each. That's absolutely absurd. That's $16.50 an hour with no overtime. Looking at it, upper class typically is the top one or two percent of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_upper_class
      - YATA1 4y ago
        The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0]. [0] http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf
      - analognoise 5y ago
        That's not absurd - if you define "upper quartile" to be so broad, you get the conclusion you want - that they're "overrepresented".
- YATA1 5y ago
  > “Upper class starts at $65k/yr” is peak Heritage Foundation. Yes, peak facts that don't care about your feelings. $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 ago
    There might be good reasons to use that breakdown, but I still think referring to people with a household income of $65K as "upper class" is misleading. There's also something a bit strange with this breakdown. The top 20 percent of households made more than $91,705 [0][1] in 2007. $65K appears to be the top 20 percent of census tracts. That doesn't seem right, though, because you wouldn't expect 20 percent of the population to come from 20 percent of the tracts, unless they're exactly the same size (which tracts are not), so maybe I made a mistake in interpretation. [0] https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/11/05/2005-us-income-distribution/ https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2006/11/05/2005-us... [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-06.2007.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-p...
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    But ‘class’ isn’t income quantiles.
    - YATA1 5y ago
      The OP specifically mentioned "upper classes". It is a fact that the lower classes (lowest quantile) are underrepresented, and the higher classes (highest quantile) are overrepresented [0]. [0] http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf

relaxing 5y ago

And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so the effect is going to be minor. Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West Point Cadets, and I’d bet both are wealthier on average than the officer corps as a whole.

YATA1 5y ago
>And the military is far more likely to be enlisted, so the effect is going to be minor. Immaterial. You're announcing to the world that you don't understand what "per capita" and "underrepresented" means. >Also that report seems to only consider ROTC and West Point Cadets, and I’d bet both are wealthier on average than the officer corps as a whole. No it doesn't. It specifically talks about enlistment. Of course officers are going to be from upper classes, a four year degree is a requirement.
- relaxing 5y ago
  No need to be rude. It sounded like you were suggesting that if the two populations were merged, the underrepresented-rich effect would rise above the minimal level for enlisted alone (0.1%). And I’m saying it’s not going up by much. The section of the report on officers starts at page 9, I’m looking at the graphs on pages 9, 10, and 11. If you see the data elsewhere, please share.
  - YATA1 5y ago
    >If you see the data elsewhere, please share. $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

wolverine876 5y ago

Thanks for providing some citations. The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad, and Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy (look at their front page). Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members. [0] IIRC, the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas - which matches my experiece in major urban areas. [EDIT: 1] Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group. However, I realize I've only provided one [edit: 2!] good cite[s] myself! [0] 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... [1] 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...

YATA1 5y ago
>The military.com link is to a military recruiting ad military.com is a news and information website that covers topics such as benefits to military members, veterans, their families and those with military affinity. Even if there are links to recruiting, this does nothing to refute the facts. >Heritage's business is generating talking points and 'research' for conservative/Republican policy Reality has a conservative bias apparently. The facts are here for all to see. >Here's a report saying that 79% of US Army recruits come from families with service members. Which is a meaningless statistic. This number could be the same across all income classes, or again, higher income classes could be overrepresented. >the military is overwhelmingly rural and does not recruit in major urban areas That is hilariously wrong. Your own sources shows Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Tampa, Atlanta, etc. all in the top counties for recruitment. "Blue cities" != "[all] major urban areas". Your anti-Southern bias is showing. >Also, the officer corps is overwhelmingly white people, afaik, in a country that is only about half white people in that age group. This is to be expected due to requiring a four year degree, among other things. Whites are slightly overrepresented in the officer corps. The US is 73% White (including Hispanic), and the officer corps is 75.8% White (including Hispanic). Asians are also ever so slightly overrepresented in the officer corps. You can see the report that covers this here: http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2008/pdf/cda08-05.pdf I can easily attack your source(s) as fake news outlets (New York Times especially), but I'm not going to use fallacies like you have here. Your sources simply do not back up your claims. The richest quantile is overrepresented. The aforementioned 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. QED.