Military draft... What do you think? - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

djtestudo · 02-19-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

considering that we spend 400 BILLION a year on the military, and that starting pay is, IIRC, already in the 13,700 range for a new E-1, yeah, it'd increase manpower costs, but certainly less than implementing a draft would.

Well, to be fair, that $13K+ is already a decent wage considering the military feeds, clothes, and houses you IIRC, making that more like $23K-$25K already.

However, just like anything else, if you increase the pay you will increase the demand for the job.

I'm sure there are things that can be cut in the military budget if need be for this (maybe projects in Democratic districts

).

daswig · 02-19-2005, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Well, to be fair, that $13K+ is already a decent wage considering the military feeds, clothes, and houses you IIRC, making that more like $23K-$25K already.

Uh huh. Tell us, if a guy is in the military as an E-1, with a wife and one child, will the family qualify for foodstamps? Answer: YUP.

Kadath · 02-20-2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

considering that we spend 400 BILLION a year on the military, and that starting pay is, IIRC, already in the 13,700 range for a new E-1, yeah, it'd increase manpower costs, but certainly less than implementing a draft would.

I don't think your math tracks. If we upped salary by 10K, people would join on their own at a rate of 23,700. If we drafted people, they'd start at 13,700. We still need the same number of new people whether we get them at 23,7 or 13,7, right? So increasing the pay rate would make things more expensive.

Not that I'm saying military personnel don't deserve a raise, but I don't think your idea is feasible. Also, I think about a quarter of that 400 billion is salary, the remainder is, you know, tanks 'n stuff.

daswig · 02-21-2005, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

I don't think your math tracks. If we upped salary by 10K, people would join on their own at a rate of 23,700. If we drafted people, they'd start at 13,700. We still need the same number of new people whether we get them at 23,7 or 13,7, right? So increasing the pay rate would make things more expensive.

There's a lot more to a draft than just paying the conscripts. You'd have to factor in things like financing the draft boards, financing the physicals for all potential draftees, et cetera. Additionally, draftees serve for a very finite time and then wave "Bye-bye" to "tha G". Pay volunteers more money, you get more volunteers, better motivation to perform, better retention (which means less "meaningless" training like close order drill is required) , et cetera, ALL of which lowers costs of an all volunteer force over draftees. It would also increase morale, and have a far lower POLITICAL cost associated with it.

raveneye · 02-21-2005, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Pay volunteers more money, you get more volunteers, better motivation to perform, better retention (which means less "meaningless" training like close order drill is required) , et cetera, ALL of which lowers costs of an all volunteer force over draftees.

I agree with this in principle, but in practice it doesn't seem to fly the way we would like it to.

Our volunteer military requires a willingness to serve regardless of the financial benefits. If the only reason somebody is serving is the monetary advantages, then he's not a soldier, he's a mercenary.

If you're going to be a mercenary, why work for the U.S. military? You could work as a security guard for Halliburton in Iraq, and make 100x the money.

drakers · 02-21-2005, 07:56 AM

1. No, it will create more problems than trying to solve any.

2. Yes, these people have families it is ridiculous to not give them a little break in between.

3. Yes and No. If we commit ourselves to Iran, Syria, or the dreaded North Korea country we will be forced to open a draft. But if Bush can get his thumb out of his ass and cool it maybe we will get out of Iraq before we get into another country.

daswig · 02-22-2005, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Our volunteer military requires a willingness to serve regardless of the financial benefits. If the only reason somebody is serving is the monetary advantages, then he's not a soldier, he's a mercenary.

Really? So those kids who joined up for the money for college program/GI Bill are mercenaries?

People who would like to serve but don't want to rely on foodstamps to feed their family might very well join up if they got decent pay. And people who are already in may very well stay if they were paid a true living wage.

Janey · 02-23-2005, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

janey, I've also heard that Canada will send the draft dodgers back this time. The US gov't's thought ahead this time and very quietly established an agreemetn with Canada to send the dodgers back home. It's a very messed up situation.

I say fuck Canada. Go to Mexico. They don't care and they have cuter women.

!!!!!!!! I'm not cute???????????

Hardknock · 02-24-2005, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey

!!!!!!!! I'm not cute???????????

Sorry about that Janey, didn't mean any personal offense. It's Just a preference.

02-21-2005, 07:56 AM	#86 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	1. No, it will create more problems than trying to solve any. 2. Yes, these people have families it is ridiculous to not give them a little break in between. 3. Yes and No. If we commit ourselves to Iran, Syria, or the dreaded North Korea country we will be forced to open a draft. But if Bush can get his thumb out of his ass and cool it maybe we will get out of Iraq before we get into another country. __________________ Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!