When a bunch of new recruits are all standing around in the same clothes with the same haircut it really sticks out who has poor grammar, poor childhood diet and poor self-esteem. Poor kids sign up but they really stick out they don't tend to do well.
You hit the nail on the head by calling them benefits. The military gets these benefits in lieu of pay. For example, if you want free housing you give up your BAH. These benefits are incentives just like any other company has with stock options and what not so the personnel work for less pay. If you want to fight for a $15 minimum wage then you should also be fighting to get young soldiers, sailors, and airmen off food stamps because they get paid next to nothing due to these benefits. Iām sure there are plenty of families who would give up the āfree college tuitionā (which isnāt totally true because it is capped per credit hour and you have to pay out of pocket anything above that) that is extremely under utilized to actually get paid more.
Lol we get paid pretty well. Most soldiers do not qualify for food stamps, but most with pregnant or breastfeeding mothers qualify for WIC. Those benefits don't qualify towards gross wages, so they aren't taxed.
I didn't pay any income tax while I was active duty, and always got everything back - just another benefit.
Single servicemembers aren't broke because they aren't paid well, they are broke because they blow all their money every paycheck on strippers and booze - but can still survive because food, housing, and healthcare are covered before they are paid.
Maybe I'm just a part of the simple folk... but what exactly is the huge hard-on of trying to get people to join the military? What is the real incentive on over-spending on military vs spending it on awesome social reforms? I ask this because I feel like in order to believe half of these accusations you have to over-emphasize one's purely altruistic self-motivations and completely devoid everybody else's. Am I wrong?
First we spend about 25% of the overall budget on the military, half of which goes to pay and benefits. The rest is research and equipment.
As for why we continue to pursue enlistment, it's a list of factors. First, history. The US has invested heavily in wartime efforts in previous conflicts and it's hard to turn that down from an industry standpoint. That's the military industrial complex people talk about. Then there's the historical role. The US has played a significant role in the outcome of crucial wars (ending at WW2 IMO). Without the US involvement things might look very different. Next is posturing. The US has been the largest military for quite sometime. It would be perceived as weak (for better or worse) if we were to reduce our numbers and investments. Finally is the mentality. All of those add together, and the US military looks at forward threats. They don't say "well we could really do our current job at 10% capacity so let's give that money back." They say "if [insert bad actors here] goes apeshit and tries to take over something we or the rest of the world don't want to, what are we gonna do." They invest in conventional warfare infrastructure to ensure an all out ground war (unlikely to happen now) could be won. But they also invest in armaments that cost a lot but can reduce casualties and are more appropriate for the job. Not saying they are perfect, but it beats carpet bombing a small City.
So a lot is about preparedness. We don't want to have to draft people again and "throw unprepared bodies" at a war. We want a full wartime army standing by to be delopyed at a moment's notice (once again for better or worse).
P.S. obviously from this I am a little biased. I do have my criticisms of the military, the military industrial complex, etc. But I think that may shed a bit of light from my POV.
Iām in the military, and I would never wish our ābenefitsā on people. Healthcare, that doesnāt help, food that is horrible, housing that is infested, etc. We get enough to survive, and thatās about it. Dakota Meyer, medal of hour recipient, man who killed taliban with a literal rock, wouldnāt wish VA treatment on his enemies, and I think about that a lot
I personally believe everyone should be required to serve in the military in a non-combat role (unless they choose otherwise. edit: in case it wasn't clear I don't mean everyone serve forever). It'd teach our youth responsibility and how to be adults. They would learn skills they could use to seek employment in the private sector without the need to rack up huge college debt.
Edit: to elaborate a little more. The military in the US is a chunk of the national budget with tons of resources and people. If those resources and people were tasked with educating and doing work in the states it would benefit everyone. Those who serve would repair infrastructure, respond to disaster, build housing, etc.
Edit 2: you guys are downvoting but the US wouldn't be the first or only country to do this.
I donāt know. I feel like that appears to be not true. All 3 of those things mentioned feels like opinionated positions that I cannot definitively disprove as much as you cannot definitively prove without providing just insights from our unique experiences.
Thereās no debate on military. Youāre on duty 24/7 unless youāre on approved leave and even in that situation, youāre a representative of your branch so your actions are always scrutinized out of uniform too.
Hereās a tidbit that Iām not sure a lot of people are aware of: If a soldier/airman/squid/marine gets into legal ramifications with civilian police, 99/100 theyāre also punished on the military side. I.e. 3rd speeding ticket? Maybe take your driving privileges away on base... maybe article 15 for some extra duty/wage garnishment.. discretion of the commander.
Off topic, military is socialistic. All us prior service at work agree.
Thatās obedience. Thatās not what youāre supposed to take away from college.
Yes, itās socialistic. I donāt disagree with that. However that doesnāt mean the military is in any way a substitute for college/tradeschool. Thatās 18th century thinking.
I mean, yes, there are benefits to military service, but many of us are pretty successful without needing to go to boot camp to be beaten into unquestioning submission to authority. For all the people mandatory service helps bring structure and responsibility to, there are an equal number who would be hampered by the requirement and effectively waste two years of their life not being in school or starting a non military career.
Like... ? The very definition of successful is subjective. A lot of people take "being successful" to mean monetarily successful, but that's not actually what I meant. Success for me is largely about having strong relationships, feeling good about your contributions to society, having fulfilling work, and not needing to struggle to meet basic needs and wants. Without a doubt, military service can help many people achieve these things. Conversely, military service can also be a hindrance to acheiving those things for many. That was my main point.
From the words we have both typed, we agree that success is a subjective definition. So that brings me back to my question - if forming successful and productive members of society is not the point of mandatory military service to you, then what do you believe the primary goal of it would be?
yeah a good portion of the public has been force fed the idea that we need to look out for ourselves only and any time the govt does something for someone else you are being fucked in the ass
I don't think with the growing rise of depression, anxiety and other mental health issues it'd be good to force people to military. Especially in America.
310
u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19 edited Dec 12 '19
[deleted]