Josh - technically a market is setting the price. However, it is not a competetive market, and the government can take advantage of its position as a monopsonist to offer lower wages than would be offered in a purely competitive market. There is a huge deadweight loss associated with this. The bottom line is there is a single buyer that can wield an incredible amount of market power. Instead of reaching an equilibrium where demand price = supply price, the equilibrium reached is closer to a monopsony equilibrium where price is set to the competitive equilibrium price multiplied by a parameter gamma>1 which is a function of the elasticity of supply of military labor. I can give you more technical readings if you're interested.
I understand what you are saying and to a degree I believe it is true. It is a competitive market setting the price. They are the only buyer ... True. But it's not like AT&T where they are the only provider of long distance and everyone needs that with only that option. They do have some competition though. They have competition from grocery stores and all other employers that entry level workers can go out of High School. You are right though .. it is not purely competitive because the people that want to be in the military just for being in the military for patriotic duty or whatever regardless of the pay do not have a choice of where to go like there is in other competitive industries. So I shouldn't use that as a 100% argument, but I guess earlier my main point was just trying to say that the military members voluntarily joined, and are not a "Quasi-Draft" situation as was stated before. But we could go around in circles with that so I'll just leave it alone. Thanks for your level-headed interpretation though.
Bring back the draft. We need to fortify our depleted number of military men and women. The only sad thing here is that I will not qualify
why does this sexist comment not surprise me My sister is in the US Army and serves our country well, why do you think women shouldnt be in the services at all?
I missed that, Chump. I'm surprised even bama would say something like that. They serve. We're lucky to have the women who do and I hope that more join up. Your sister has my deepest respect. (is she cute? what's her number? whoops... the old lady wouldn't be pleased. nevermind! )
The Bushies have singlehandedly destroyed the readiness of the US military to face a real threat for the next few years. Never mind the draft, it's going to take years of actual production on the factory floor to build it bacbk up. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099408/ . . . A December 2003 study by the Army War College concluded that the war in Iraq had stretched the force to near its "breaking point." The cumulative effect of logistical problems, spare parts shortages, and unprepared reserves is that the Army will be significantly less ready to fight for the next several years. Should another threat appear on the horizon, these issues will make it exceedingly difficult for the Army to respond with anything close to the force it mustered to invade Iraq last year. There is some irony in this. Heading into the 2000 election, then-candidate George W. Bush blasted the Clinton administration's 1990s deployments to places like Bosnia and Kosovo, saying they depleted our military's readiness. "Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander in chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, 'Not ready for duty, sir,' " said then-Gov. Bush, referring to the readiness of the 10th Mountain and 3rd Infantry divisions after their respective deployments to the Balkans. Today, the same criticism is being leveled at the Bush administration, except that Iraq is having a much worse effect on military readiness than the Balkans deployments ever did. The administration responds to this criticism by saying that Sept. 11 changed everything and that military force was necessary in Afghanistan and Iraq to respond to the new threat from terrorism. This riposte has merit, but it misses the essence of the new global security environment. Dangerous and unknown threats do exist, therefore the U.S. military must be ready to act on a moment's notice in ways and places that can't fully be predicted. By tying the military down in Iraq to the point where it can barely manage to reinforce itself, the Bush administration has hurt America's ability to respond militarily in the post-Sept. 11 world. . . .
haha, it would prolly be hard for you to sneak off and hook up with her, Austin to Korea is a long way to fly for some tail Try to make up an excuse for the old lady on that! uh, I'll be back in a week honey, I'm going to get some milk -why do you need your passport then? hahha
I'm nearly 33 years-old and wouldn't be affected personally by a draft, but if they do reinstate the draft, I'm moving to Canada anyway just on principle.
Absolutely. No one wants to be affected by stop loss or stop movement, but it happens. That is part of the contract. Uncle Sam can send you to Antarctica if he wants to. For those of you who would move to Canada because of a draft, you need to stay there. You are unAmerican trash. In order for the draft to happen, Congress will have to approve the military strength to be bumped up. Right now the US Army has a maximum of 850,000 active duty. They are currently somewhere around 865,000 strong. First thing is first. Military pay is not that bad. A married person who lives off post and is deployed right now not only gets his base pay which is varied by rank and time in service, but he gets basic allowance for housing, basic allowance for subsistence, separation pay (spousal), TDY pay, hazard duty pay, and airborne units get jump pay. Besides that, those who reenlist and get a bonus while they are deployed get the full bonus and are not taxed since they are overseas. Soldiers are not that bad off. This administration has given one of the largest pay increases since the Reagan years.
The pay increases are across the board which means officers and old guys at the top get most of it. And the Bushies simultaneously attempted to cut benefits to all soldiers and former soldiers. I think I know why the Bushies think they can go small with the military forces. They want to legitimize the use of nuclear weapons by the *United States*. http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/ Our Hidden WMD Program Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons. By Fred Kaplan Posted Friday, April 23, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT The budget is busted; American soldiers need more armor; they're running out of supplies. Yet the Department of Energy is spending an astonishing $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year, and President Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his much-cherished missile-defense program, by the way. This is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads. Measured in "real dollars" (that is, adjusting for inflation), this year's spending on nuclear activities is equal to what Ronald Reagan spent at the height of the U.S.-Soviet standoff. It exceeds by over 50 percent the average annual sum ($4.2 billion) that the United States spent—again, in real dollars—throughout the four and a half decades of the Cold War. There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations—especially "rogue regimes"—to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged. . . .
I guess you've never followed the pay increases at all. The reason they are increasing the pay of company grade officers and upper enlisted is because they are losing them to the civilian world. The pay in the civilian world is extremely competitive and alot of people, mostly officers, view that because they have a degree and a secret security clearance, they would rather go out in the civlian sector and make more money. Upper enlisted are getting pay increases because they haven't had one in a long time and they are way over due. It is viewed widely throughout the military that senior enlisted deserve a large pay raise. Lower enlisted pay is not really all that bad. They make a decent chunk of change. Anywhere you go, you have to start on the bottom. That's what is wrong with everyone these days. Everyone wants to start off making more than their boss. No one wants to put in some time and work towards it. What is this mumbo jumbo about? Learn the facts. VA benefits have gotten much better in the last 10 years since the Bush Administration has taken over. I guess you don't read anything about North Korea, China, India, or Pakistan. All you care about is a bunch of liberal cannon fodder. Nuclear weapons are one of the reasons that American can and will remain on top. Nobody wants to get nuked.
The Bush-hating left gets crazier by the day and this is proof positive that you have gone off the deep end as well. Nuclear weapons wear out over time and they must be replaced. Mind you, I think that is a bit too much to spend on weapons, but I have no problem with us developing more limited weapons that are accurate and capable of eliminating forces deep in caves (like OBL and his goons in Afghanistan).
Well, I'd like to be able to win an occasional war every now and then... under this plan we'd lose everytime. On the serious side. take this for what it's worth... I have a relative who is very high up in the Selective Service hierarchy. He's convinced that if Congress and the WH are GOP come January, we're getting some form of a draft.
The pay raises only make sense if you believe in regressive pay hikes and regressives taxes and you think you can win wars with small armies. Take a look at Iraq for counterexhibit number one. For those who can't do math or AFAIK make up stuff, I provided some data. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/May/07/local/stories/03local.htm May 7, 2003 Area veterans criticize Bush’s proposed cuts By JEANENE HARLICK Sentinel staff writer Just weeks ago, Korean War vet Terry Reeder, who lives in Aptos, watched the television with pride as a new generation of soldiers fought in Iraq. But as the soldiers return home, Reeder says, the federal government is thumbing its nose at them, forgetting their sacrifice. Reeder is referring to cuts in veteran health benefits that are part of President Bush’s proposed tax cut. By adding a $250 enrollment fee and doubling prescription co-payments for uninjured troops, the cuts would force 2,400 Central Coast veterans out of the veteran health system, according to a report prepared by the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform. The cuts would apply to veterans earning more than the local annual threshold of $39,000, set by the department of Housing and Urban Development. Reeder said veterans, even ones with stable incomes like himself, rely on Veterans Administration benefits. "It’s kind of a safety net, really," said Reeder, who taps into the system for services his private health plan doesn’t cover. "Just because a discharged veteran comes home to a decent civilian job, does this mean he or she should be shut out from the VA health system?" Roughly 19,000 veterans live in the county. The report looked at Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties, home to 67,000 vets combined. The House report, prepared at the request of Congressman Sam Farr, D-Carmel, estimates it will cost veterans who are dropped from the VA health system up to $600 more per year to remain in it. Many will drop out because they can’t afford it, the report said. The proposal comes on top of news in January that the same veterans will be barred from enrolling for benefits when accessing the system for the first time. . . . http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8184139.htm?1c email this print this license this reprint this Posted on Sun, Mar. 14, 2004 Many veterans reject Bush LONG DEPLOYMENTS, BENEFIT CUTS ERODE SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT By William Douglas Knight Ridder WASHINGTON - When the Bush campaign asked James McKinnon to co-chair its veterans steering committee in New Hampshire -- a job he held in 2000 -- the 56-year-old Vietnam veteran respectfully, but firmly, said no. ``I basically told them I was disappointed in his support of veterans,'' said McKinnon, who served two tours in Vietnam with the Coast Guard. ``He's killing the active-duty military. . . . Look at the reserves call-ups for Iraq, the hardships. The National Guard -- the state militia -- is being used improperly. I took the president at his word on Iraq, and now you can't find a single report to back up or substantiate weapons of mass destruction.'' . . . http://www.ibpo.org/press.html OVERTIME VICTORY!! White House and DOL Retract Most Overtime Changes! April 20, 2004 The Bush Administration and the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a revised proposal for overtime exemption in the Federal Registrar today that retracts much of the Administration's original plan to cut overtime for millions of American workers. The changes are largely due to a tremendous lobbying effort by NAGE to protect first responders, nurses, veterans and others from overtime cuts.
Seems to me it's pretty unAmerican to force (under penalty of prison) people into jobs they don't want to do. The stop loss orders, while inconvenient for those involved, were part of the contract these people willfully signed. They may have been aware of such of thing being possible, but surely it's there. But forcing people into the military is just something that Freedom-loving Americans shouldn't like. If being for freedom is unAmerican, then we need to ask what the hell America stands for anymore.
Leaving the country in order to avoid service to it is essentially betrayal. When your country needs you, you decide you don't need to serve it and you flee? "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Even a Democrat had his standards. Draft dodgers should be tried as spies.
The Bushies are so in love with trying to win wars small they are forcing the men in the field to do without tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, because, if we are using a smaller force, they think we need less armor. http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/8506725.htm email this print this Posted on Fri, Apr. 23, 2004 Increased presence of U.S. troops in Iraq likely to continue BY STEPHEN J. HEDGES Chicago Tribune WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Pressure is building in Congress and the military for a significant, indefinite increase in the size of the U.S. force in Iraq, as the recent surge of violence shows little sign of abating and a crucial period in the occupation approaches. The Pentagon has portrayed the recent extension of the tours of duty of 20,000 troops through July - keeping the total U.S. troops in Iraq at 135,000 - as an emergency measure. But with more violence expected between the transfer of power to Iraqis on June 30 and an election to be held early next year, experts inside and outside the Pentagon say the United States will likely need those 20,000, and possibly more, on a permanent basis. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., among others, argues that these numbers will have to be maintained as the transfer of authority to Iraqis draws near. "The president must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment required to prevail in Iraq," McCain recently told the Council on Foreign Relations. "He needs to be perfectly frank. Bringing peace and democracy to Iraq is an enormous endeavor that will be very expensive, difficult and long." The troop buildup is necessary simply to make sure things don't get worse, added retired Army Col. Kenneth Allard, a Georgetown University adjunct professor. "What it means is that we're trying to break even," Allard said. "Here, for people in the Pentagon who are clueless, is a clue: One fact of warmaking is that it takes fewer troops to take down a regime and dismantle an army than it does to win the peace." Pentagon officials have played down the recent holdover of troops, saying all they have done is delay the return of 20,000 troops from Iraq for three months. But they acknowledge that plans have been drawn up to send in more troops if necessary. "Are we considering it? No," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last Tuesday. "But have we prepared? You bet." Officials from President Bush on down have said forcefully that the moment commanders on the ground ask for more troops, they'll get them, but that so far they have not done so. Yet some military scholars and analysts say the decision to hold the 20,000 soldiers in Iraq marks an important turning point, and that Rumsfeld and other officials are simply being coy about further increases. . . . To the surprise of some, even while the fighting intensified the military moved forward with plans to dramatically reduce the number of Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles in Iraq. The idea was to support the administration's goals of de-emphasizing combat operations and expanding the military's peacekeeping role as the June 30 deadline for the transfer of power approached. So Army divisions now arriving in Iraq as part of a massive switchover of forces have left much of their heavy armored tanks and Bradleys back in the United States. More troops are riding in lightly protected Humvees, trucks and troop carriers. . . . We literally have 72 percent of our combat units deployed or deploying in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, eastern Africa," McCaffrey said, indicating that the Pentagon was overextended. The Army has about 490,000 troops, and was recently given the authority by Rumsfeld to expand by 30,000. But those additions won't help in the short term. . . .
There is a reason for that: they are testing out the Stryker Brigade right now. Once that is proven, the Stryker will be used more frequently. There is no use for heavy armor in Iraq. When these terrorist insurgents get ahold of some T-72s, then we would need the Abrams. Both the M1 Abrams and the M2/M3 Bradley are designed for open terrain conflict. They are not meant to be used in a city. If you have a convoy protected with heavy armored tanks and you have your lead tank knocked out on a small city street, you're screwed. You've just triggered an ambush and the scenario is most likely that they will have to use more troops to bail the convoy out. Tactically, the Abrams and Bradley have little use in Iraq. An RPG can penetrate the walls of a Bradley anyway, so having a vehicle of that size in operation is not necessary. Armored humvees provide somewhat adequate protection and can give just as much firepower as a Bradley. How do you catch a fish? You have to think like a fish.
Yes, but staying in the country and using spoiled rich kid connections to avoid service is essentially laudable I guess. "Draft dodgers should be tried as spies." Either that or we can make them president and talk about how someone who served and was injured in service isn't fit for the office. You are hilarious. You should take this stuff on the road.
