Economics of a Draft

[NewXD40fun]

From my favorite economist.


Reinstating the military draft

By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Congressman Charles Rangel plans to introduce legislation calling for reinstatement of the military draft. He says, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

Rep. Rangel, D-N.Y., has it completely backward in terms of incentives created by the draft. Let's apply a bit of economic logic to it, but first get a pet peeve of mine out of the way: The term "draft" is a euphemism for what is actually "confiscation of labor services." The Defense Department can get all the military personnel it wants on an all-volunteer basis; it could simply raise wages. Indeed, there exists a wage whereby even I would volunteer my services.

The draft is needed when the military wants to pay soldiers wages lower than those earned in the non-military sector of our economy. When we did have a draft, as in 1950s, look at who was and was not drafted. The commander in chief at that time, President Dwight Eisenhower, wasn't drafted. Neither were members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Generals and other high-ranking officers weren't drafted. Who was drafted? Recruits, and it's not hard to understand why. A newly inducted recruit's pay was $68 a month. The pay of the commander in chief, Joint Chiefs of Staff, generals and other officers were many multiples higher than a recruit's pay.

It's not difficult to understand why drafting recruits was necessary. Some argue that depending on an all-volunteer military is too expensive. That's wrong. The true cost of having a man in the military is what society has to forgo, what economists call opportunity costs. Say a man worked producing televisions for which he was paid $1,000 a month. If he's drafted, he's not producing $1,000 worth of televisions. The sacrificed $1,000 worth of televisions is part of the cost of his being in the military whether he's paid $68 a month or nothing a month.

One effect of the draft is to understate the full cost of military operations. In 1959, prior to my being drafted, I drove a taxi for Yellow Cab Company in Philadelphia earning about $400 a month. In August that year, I started earning $68 a month. The military budget saw a cost of $68 as opposed to the $400 worth of taxi services society had to forgo. Simple economics suggests that if the cost of a resource is understated, there will be bias toward greater and more wasteful use of that resource. Contrary to Rep. Rangel's assertion, a draft would tend to give rise to greater, not less, use of the military. Today's all-volunteer military consists of high-quality soldiers and fewer misfits than yesteryear. I speak from experience; I was one of those misfits. Being drafted meant lower wages and a waste of my time. To make matters worse, my basic training was at Fort Jackson, S.C., and afterward, I was stationed at Fort Stewart, Ga. This was 1959, and I didn't have a very good orientation on Southern customs and its standards for blacks. There were many self-created adjustment problems associated with my activities, such as: organizing black soldiers to go to the post dance on the "wrong" night; sloppy soldiering; being court-martialed and winning; investigations of me, at least being tailed, by the military authorities; and at-home FBI inquiries of neighbors about Mrs. Williams. The military draft is an offense to the values of liberty, causes misallocation of resources, and there's a higher risk of getting a bunch of misfits. The all-volunteer military does none of this.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/W...military_draft





Tom

[tec]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaa aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[einheit 13]

yawn......wanna know how to stp anymore talk of the draft?? stop starting shyte with other countries......wanna know how to stop the draft?? require military service of all US personnell for 3 years after completion of high school...wanna know how to stop the draft?? Stop taking prisoners, always go forward, give no quarter.....destroy everything, make the aggressor suffer, make thier families suffer, make them afraid....'shock and awe' my arse.....bring back the 'blitz'

[Son of Norway]

Stupidest article I've seen posted here in a while. Comparing soldiers to television assemblers?

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by einheit 13

wanna know how to stop the draft?? require military service of all US personnell for 3 years after completion of high school

That pretty much is a draft though.

I agree with some of your other points, however.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

Stupidest article I've seen posted here in a while. Comparing soldiers to television assemblers?

That's not really the point of the article. He was making a comparion based on compensation, not on job descriptions.

Frank

[Son of Norway]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

That's not really the point of the article. He was making a comparion based on compensation, not on job descriptions.

Frank

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.

[TexicanKid]

Congressman Charles Rangel is just an idiot and another Leftist demagogue.

Have a draft, right. Maybe if we start by first drafting folks in Congress, then send them to the front lines to pull endless guard duty with big bright red targets painted on their front and backs, and have them armed with only black powder muskets

[Frenchy]

A draft would cut across all economic and racial lines, and would force the people to look seriously at our present foreign policy. This is what Rangle is getting at here.

[TexicanKid]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

A draft would cut across all economic and racial lines, and would force the people to look seriously at our present foreign policy. This is what Rangle is getting at here.

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.