Economics of a Draft

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by TexicanKid

The bulk of our military is white, middle-class, is it not? I wonder just what ethic, social groups Rangel is trying to push his message too. His own?

Anyway, I do agree that folks need to take a closer look at our foreign policy and realize what is at stake. If we allow the Third World to remain unstable AND to advance its research on nukes and other WMD, then there will come a time when a tactical nuke will be unsecured or even lost... and end up in God knows whose hands.

I think Rangel himself is blind to the true stakes of this War on Terror. This isn't about payback on Iraq and Hussein, this is about handing a safer world off to our grandchildren.

Do you believe that this is the right direction to provide that?

[TexicanKid]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Do you believe that this is the right direction to provide that?

I think the advancement of technology is inevitable. I also think that advancement of governments in Third World nations is lagging.

We could very well see some nations develop nukes but not have any guarantees upon securing them.

Example: Thailand was recently taken over by a military coup. Thailand did not have nukes, but if they had, those nukes would now be in the hands of the rebel general that sacked his own nation. A wild card, essentially. What would/could he do? Secure the nukes? Sell some to pay off his military? Anything could happen. Anything.

What do you do?

One option is regime change for nations close to developing WMD and not having governments suitable for securing such. Figuring a conventional war has to be less costly than a nuclear war.

Another option is to wait and see what happens. The problem with this option is that if a city goes BOOM under a huge mushroom cloud, and if there is no clear evidence of whose nuke it was, we will have a worldwide catastrophe, and the Age of Nuclear Blackmail will have begun.

There was an interesting documentary I watched last month that discussed the two nuclear ages:

1st Nuclear Age: Superpowers (i.e., U.S. and former U.S.S.R.) have nukes and square off. Nothing happens, because neither nation wants to get taken out blowing up the other.

2nd Nuclear Age: Privatized nukes. Smaller nations develop nukes and some of these weapons end up on the black market or in the hands of clandestine groups. The "nuclear blast with no return address" becomes a real threat.

It's a scary time (Iran almost has nukes). The only way I see it is that governments must mature and advance faster than their science, OR Western nations must take dramatic steps.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

Exactly. Still dumb.

$68 per month only explains monetary compensation with regards to military service. By comparison (albeit lame) the author cites that he was making $400 per month driving a hack but only $68 per month as a soldier.

Did that taxi job include a residence? All food? clothing? health insurance? training? Retirement with health benefits? And let's not forget that back in those days they had the GI Bill to pay for college. You didn't get that driving a taxi. How about a guarantee on a mortgage loan? Does driving a taxi give that? Nope.

And after paying rent, food, clothing, insurance and the rest of life's necessities did he have more than $68 of disposable income as a Taxi driver? I'm going to bet on no.

Soldiers do not make a bounty of money. They never have. They do, however, enjoy many other benefits and privileges that other jobs simply do not offer. That stated, I do feel that it is a shame that our serving men and women with families qualify for food stamps. Their pay should not put them in poverty. But typically someone who decides to raise a family in the military does so knowing that they are making a sacrifice for the love of their country. Single people in the military, by comparison, make out like bandits.

Whether or not someone supports the draft, this article presents a weak argument.

One of the main points the article is making is about opportunity costs. If someone is making $68 per month instead of producing a $1000 worth of televisions, they aren't contributing to the non-military sector of our economy as much. The market is losing out on $1000 worth of goods/services while the gov't is paying $68/month. There definitely is a discrepancy here even if you figure in other expenses like food, clothing, etc. He is not really comparing actual job duties, he is making a point about what happens when you pull people from their jobs in our economy and pay them less.

An all-volunteer military is not too expensive, if you learn to take into account opportunity costs. You have to take into account what society is losing if the draft takes people productive jobs and pays them less money to go into the military, like in the 1950's--which the article described. There is a discrepancy here, no matter how you look at it.

The draft is needed when the military wants to pay soldiers wages lower than those earned in the non-military sector of our economy.

This is another good point. Doing that HURTS the economy! People forget about opportunity costs! Sure, it may look like on paper to you that the cost of a draft might be less if you pay soldiers a very low wage, but everyone forgets the costs of taking people away from their current jobs. The article makes some very good points. It could have been a little bit clearer, maybe, that it wasn't making a direct comparison between television makers and soldiers solely based upon job duties and salary.

Rangel is obviously playing politics and is trying to get something passed that he doesn't even agree with in order to prove a political point! Is that really what we want from our members of congress? How about try to solve what you think are problems, instead of just trying to make political points by attempting to pass legislation that you don't even want.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by TexicanKid

I think the advancement of technology is inevitable. I also think that advancement of governments in Third World nations is lagging.

We could very well see some nations develop nukes but not have any guarantees upon securing them.

Example: Thailand was recently taken over by a military coup. Thailand did not have nukes, but if they had, those nukes would now be in the hands of the rebel general that sacked his own nation. A wild card, essentially. What would/could he do? Secure the nukes? Sell some to pay off his military? Anything could happen. Anything.

What do you do?

One option is regime change for nations close to developing WMD and not having governments suitable for securing such. Figuring a conventional war has to be less costly than a nuclear war.

Another option is to wait and see what happens. The problem with this option is that if a city goes BOOM under a huge mushroom cloud, and if there is no clear evidence of whose nuke it was, we will have a worldwide catastrophe, and the Age of Nuclear Blackmail will have begun.

There was an interesting documentary I watched last month that discussed the two nuclear ages:

1st Nuclear Age: Superpowers (i.e., U.S. and former U.S.S.R.) have nukes and square off. Nothing happens, because neither nation wants to get taken out blowing up the other.

2nd Nuclear Age: Privatized nukes. Smaller nations develop nukes and some of these weapons end up on the black market or in the hands of clandestine groups. The "nuclear blast with no return address" becomes a real threat.

It's a scary time (Iran almost has nukes). The only way I see it is that governments must mature and advance faster than their science, OR Western nations must take dramatic steps.

Good post! I prefer option #1 any day!

Welcome to the forums, btw.

Frank

[LUVMYSIGP225]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

That pretty much is a draft though.

I agree with some of your other points, however.

Frank

No, the word "draft" is much more of a dirty word. I would prefer "cumpulsory service".

[KP Ling]

I do not agree with the draft but I think it would be the quickest way to see exactly how many people and exactly to what extent they support the war. The war would be over in weeks, at least our involvement, and the troops would be home.

There is also a disconnect in rhetoric. Bush says this is a multi-generational war for our survival. Well, the current military age generation does not seem to want to kick in (I speak not of those already in the military), and if we truly are in a war for survival then wouldn't a draft be prudent to consider?

[einheit 13]

Originally Posted by KP Ling

I do not agree with the draft but I think it would be the quickest way to see exactly how many people and exactly to what extent they support the war. The war would be over in weeks, at least our involvement, and the troops would be home.

There is also a disconnect in rhetoric. Bush says this is a multi-generational war for our survival. Well, the current military age generation does not seem to want to kick in (I speak not of those already in the military), and if we truly are in a war for survival then wouldn't a draft be prudent to consider?

Yes it would......ya know why there is all this draft talk.....we're gonna go broke because of this war. Printing more money will drive up inflation, increase taxes, borrowing from the bond market will drive up intrest rates, but kick in the draft........cheap labour, saves money.

You really wanna find out who supports the war, tell them what its gonna cost them.........then put it out to vote.