>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.
The 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.
I 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.
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:
I don’t have the links handy, but yes many are fully aware that the AVF (All Volunteer Force) is in some ways sectioning themselves off from the rest of the population. In other ways I could argue it’s almost becoming a “warrior caste” situation, where fathers serve, (at least one of) their sons serve, and so on. I’m not ready to say this is unhealthy, necessarily, but it’s a very real trend. The only way to fix it is to bring back the draft, in either full or some modified form.
>Where have you heard that?
My classmates in grad school, other networking events with perhaps over-educated professionals. N = 1 and all that.
> The only way to fix it is to bring back the draft, in either full or some modified form.
One idea is a draft for the reserves, not for active duty. That gives us the benefits of an AVF - the professionalism, etc. - and also gives Americans 'skin in the game' when at war, when reserves are called up. It's hard to imagine Afghanistan dragging on for 20 years if, for the whole time, civilians were being sent there to drive trucks, make dinner, even do some skilled labor, etc. And it would solve the civilian-military divide.
But how much effectiveness would we lose with draftee reserves? I believe that volunteer professionals are far superior to draftees in active duty, but reserve jobs frequently seem different.
> I could argue it’s almost becoming a “warrior caste” situation, where fathers serve, (at least one of) their sons serve, and so on. I’m not ready to say this is unhealthy, necessarily, but it’s a very real trend.
I've seen that phrase many times, but how can that be a good thing, especially in a democracy?
We got lied to about Vietnam. Iraq had WMDs. Afghanistan was a budding democracy, fully equipped to stand on its own. Russia was an unstoppable modern military and we need hundreds of billions to hold them off!
Now. All those people lied - buy we're blaming the civilian population for not having skin in a game which is clearly run by liars, and not "doing more" to stop these liars?
We've watched it mangle generation after generation of our young people, and none of the liars are held responsible.
Of course we don't want skin in the game.
In a healthy democracy, these military liars wouldn't last. It's not a healthy democracy.
> All those people lied - buy we're blaming the civilian population ...
Those people are us. The system is us, including you and me. There's nobody else to blame, and nobody else to do anything about it. Nothing in the parent comment offers a solution, or a better solution, or an improvement on the existing solution.
Blaming some unnamed entity, pulling out a list of bad things that have happened over a half-century, simplifying and hyperbolizing them, taking them out of context (of the good, of the possibilities, of the causes and effects, etc.) - that only disrupts the situation further, and that act is part of the reason our system sometimes doesn't work. That comment was written in your capacity as a fully fledged, fully vested actor in the system. Of course it isn't working right here, right now.
No. There's no context - they lied to get us into multiple wars. The American people don't want that shit. This sounds like apologia for the military-corporatic interventionist garbage.
Honestly it's the same infuriating "personal responsibility" CRAP like recycling - it's a smokescreen, meant to make a collective problem your personal responsibility. It doesn't matter how many bottles you throw out if you allow the factory up the street to make 1B of them, some of them are going to end up in the river, but do we hold the businesses accountable or make them switch to glass bottles? "That would impact their profits!"
A rational actor would avoid, if at all possible, anything to do with the military. It hasn't "worked" for us for decades and decades. Those people are NOT US.
That was one of the reasons I joined the USAF. Dad was in the 99th ID at the Battle of the Bulge (Purple Heart, Bronze Star) and later crossing the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen. Granddad was a Sergeant Major in the Cheshire Regiment[1] for His Majesty doing secret stuff he never talked about. I was the underachiever of the family - serving in Germany during the Cold War.[0] But I felt compelled to follow in the family tradition, and I'm glad I did as it helped me get my shit together.
Most of the people I served with had some college. There were a couple of guys in Basic with Bachelor's degrees, and we wondered why they went enlisted instead of officer. But each to their own.
There did seem to be a rule that the Ivy League turned out for Armageddon. Elliot Richardson, who as about as upper crust as you can get, landed in Normandy on D-Day, as did Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
$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.
You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution, and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.
It... Doesn't support your point at all?
Here's the Wall Street Journal saying the quiet part out loud:
"If young Americans can access free college without having to earn the GI Bill or sign up for follow-on military service, will they volunteer for the armed forces in adequate numbers?"
It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.
>You're talking about a society with HIGHER wealth inequality than right before the French Revolution
Immaterial. The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. The facts of the matter is the lower classes are underrepresented, the upper classes are overrepresented.
QED.
>and you're defining "upper class" as anything above 60-odd K - an amount that would not allow you to rent a two bedroom apartment...almost anywhere in the USA.
"Upper classes", as in, the top quantile of classes. $60k (2007 numbers) would allow you to rent a two bedroom in almost everywhere in the USA, except the most expensive areas (in 2007). Not everyone is making $300k combined. Your SV bias is showing.
>It... Doesn't support your point at all?
It... 100% supports my point absolutely.
>Here's the Wall Street Journal
Paywalled opinion piece.
>saying the quiet part out loud:
Leftist shibboleth. Not that I'm surprised, but reddit is that way.
>It's really hard to say "rich people are overrepresented" and then "who will sign up if we make college free" in the same breath.
Yeah... Because it's an opinion piece from a random contributer that similarly fell for the fake news. Poor Americans are not joining the military in disproportionately higher numbers to pay for college and what have you. That is a fact. If college becomes free, the military can raise pay and sign on bonuses, add other programs, etc. They'll find a way, no doubt.
"The class definitions are in quantiles which means proportional per capita. "
Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.
The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.
More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.
It looks like you're using statistics to lie. It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented" is only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.
>Yes - hence the problem with income inequality in the numbers.
Immaterial. You're just announcing to the world that you don't know how "per capita", census tracts, or quantiles work.
>The "upper quartile" is so low, it includes people making 60k a year.
Because that's the facts for the median income of the census tract.
During 2009–2013, Beverly Hills had a median household income of $86,141 as an example.
Pacific Heights has a median household income of $125,550 per year.
>More granularity in your numbers would show that actually wealthy people don't sign up.
It would show the complete opposite, as it shows with the quintiles now.
>It looks like you're using statistics to lie.
No. I'm using statistical FACTS to tell the truth. It's an inconvenient truth that shatters the narrative and the fake news the left has been spewing on this topic for decades, but it's still the truth.
The fact that you just can't handle the truth shows how bad you've been subverted.
>It's pretty clear that "wealthy people are overrepresented"
Of course it's clear, that is reality.
>only true if you do things like, define "rich" starting at 60k.
The upper quintile for census tract median income starts there. You want to deny statistical fact because it goes against the narrative.
The statistics show clearly that the lower classes (lowest quintile) are underrepresented. Poor people do not serve as much as the upper classes (top quintile) do. QED.
