Why do well-off individuals join the military?

[Gucumatz]

I was reading through some things when I came across this (http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/) from the Freakonomics website, which states that the middle class and upper class are over-represented in the military compared to individuals with low-income backgrounds.

The military apparently demands 90% of its enlistees to have at least a highschool diploma which I guess explains why low income individuals (if we consider low income individuals most likely had lower grades, therefore preventing them from enlisting) are underrepresented.

I am curious however why it seems the middle-class/wealthy seem to join the military more than the general population. Anyone have ideas why this data seems to suggest this?



Is it these wealthier kids watched more tv than their peers and joined the military, or that they were dissatisfied with their parents expectations for them and joined, that they were middle children whose parents invested less time in them and they joined as a result, or since they were wealthier as kids they could invest more into the concept of patriotism?

I just find it curious and am curious what do you think causes this skew

 

[MobBoss]

It used to be student load repayment for some...for others its the challenge of doing it to prove themselves.

People were often shocked when I told them I met soldiers all the time with Bachelors and Masters degrees.

 

[classical_hero]

It's all part of the military industrial complex. Only the wealthy win out of it and right now USA#1.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The question isn't really about 'over representation', since it is the first quintile that is really skewing the distribution.

In that quintile, I would guess, there are a number of factors.

The demand "you are of age, now do something" is not as strong. In the world of the lowest incomes, being 'in between' is not unusual, or as stigmatized. So even though parents are the least able to help their offspring willingly, they are the most likely.

The young person also has lower demands. Growing up poor makes 'no job, no prospects, questionable shelter' more familiar and less intimidating. The middle and upper class youth, if they are out of the nest, are easy prey for the recruiter offering the security of a job that comes with three hots and a cot.

 

[Kozmos]

Military service of officer ranks looks good on any resume, I might add.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Military service of officer ranks looks good on any resume, I might add.

Officers aren't "enlistees".

 

[Kozmos]

Officers aren't "enlistees".

You are right. It is late here, my mistake. Well then I woud hazard to guess it's based on good ol' patriotism and being a Hard Man.

 

[warpus]

Because well off people are in the know and realize that joining the army can result in nice benefits, healthcare, an education, and sizeable entitlements for life.

Poor people generally don't have it what it takes to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to lead the qualify of life necessary to join the ranks of the esteemed members of one of the branches of the U.S. military. And those who do, end up as cannon fodder. For the most part only the elite and wealthy have the self-discipline necessary to become successful and raise a bit in the ranks.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What's a comparable occupation and the associated distribution of income classes?

 

[Arwon]

I suspect this might be more surprising in an American context with its massified military and huge welfare/insurance benefits compared to the universally available support.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I suspect this might be more surprising in an American context with its massified military and huge welfare/insurance benefits compared to the universally available support.

Can you explain, for us non-Aussies, what 'American massified military' might mean? It would also be useful in comparing 'huge welfare/insurance benefits' and 'universally available support' if I had some clue what you mean by either of them.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Smellincoffee]

It may depend on the culture you're raised in, but all of my uncles (on both sides) were military men, and all of my aunts married military men. My own father was an Airman.We're not well-off, more the kind who works from paycheck to paycheck, but one reason for joining was a sense of duty, or the attraction of honor. That was certainly was attracted me -- I liked the idea of a place where great things were demanded of people in terms of self-discipline and high deals, and where that service was rewarded by the sense of having contributing to something greater to one's self. I realize to a modern, cynical audience, that reeks of groupthink or tribalism or whatever, but the desire to create something that lasts is pretty much the essence of civilization. I say this because, in the absence of a financial motive, I think it explains in part why wealthy individuals would join the service. In service there is meaning for one's own life. It's why people get married or join religions, they want to know that at some point, they aren't just a humping chimpanzee that will rot into the jungle when it perishes.

Additionally and related is the fact that in times past the officers caste was limited to the high-born, and one of the ways to preserve and advance status and respectability.

 

[Arwon]

Can you explain, for us non-Aussies, what 'American massified military' might mean? It would also be useful in comparing 'huge welfare/insurance benefits' and 'universally available support' if I had some clue what you mean by either of them.

Thanks in advance.

You guys have a higher number of active military people per capita than a lot of wealthy western countries, as high as some places with national service like Norway. So I'd expect that the military has gotta be less of an exclusive institution by virtue of the larger share of population.

You also have ways in which joining up can help with college entry (and citizenship for your outlying territories), and there's health insurance that military people can get access to. Those are attractions that would be strongest with people on low incomes, and they're attractions that don't really exist in places with universal healthcare and much cheaper higher education entry costs.

So there seems to be a strong perception in the US that military service is for the poor, which is probably a result of these features of the American military and society.

 

[Arwon]

Although I just noticed the OP is drawing potentially a fallacious conclusion from the information.

That's showing what neighbourhoods individuals joining the armed forces are coming from. It's indicating that by the median income of those neighbourhoods. That doesn't mean the high-income people from there are joing up, it could still be low-income earners living neighbourhoods that are, on average, well-off.

(Also: I'd imagine most Native American predominant census districts are in the bottom income quintile? They wouldn't be joining up at high rates would they? Are there enough to skew the data?)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You guys have a higher number of active military people per capita than a lot of wealthy western countries, as high as some places with national service like Norway. So I'd expect that the military has gotta be less of an exclusive institution by virtue of the larger share of population.

You also have ways in which joining up can help with college entry (and citizenship for your outlying territories), and there's health insurance that military people can get access to. Those are attractions that would be strongest with people on low incomes, and they're attractions that don't really exist in places with universal healthcare and much cheaper higher education entry costs.

Ah. Yeah, there is certainly nothing 'exclusive' about the US military.

I think you have the insurance thing backwards though, because it actually fits in with what I said earlier. Poor people in America are accustomed to surviving without health coverage, so that isn't as big an attraction. When eighteen loomed ahead for me, on the other hand, I took a full dose of "you won't be on my insurance any more so you better do something", and among the somethings there was the navy.

 

[warpus]

Poor people in America are accustomed to surviving without health coverage, so that isn't as big an attraction.

That's a curious dynamic, if accurate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's a curious dynamic, if accurate.

In pre-ACA America people who couldn't afford health insurance would only go to doctors (ie, emergency rooms where they couldn't be turned away) when they had a genuine serious need, while middle and upper class families with health coverage take their youngsters in for every bump, bruise, and sniffle for "necessary doctoring". So as a kid from that kind of family hits adulthood they have a false idea that if they don't have health insurance or some way to afford the necessary doctoring they are surely going to die. The kid from the uninsured family knows that they don't really need health coverage because if anything goes really wrong they can go to an emergency room and they can do without the "necessary" doctoring that health insurance provides.

 

[tokala]

(Also: I'd imagine most Native American predominant census districts are in the bottom income quintile? They wouldn't be joining up at high rates would they? Are there enough to skew the data?)

Actually, they do.

 

[Agent327]

I was reading through some things when I came across this (http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/) from the Freakonomics website, which states that the middle class and upper class are over-represented in the military compared to individuals with low-income backgrounds.

The military apparently demands 90% of its enlistees to have at least a highschool diploma which I guess explains why low income individuals (if we consider low income individuals most likely had lower grades, therefore preventing them from enlisting) are underrepresented.

I am curious however why it seems the middle-class/wealthy seem to join the military more than the general population. Anyone have ideas why this data seems to suggest this?

You seem to have answered your own question already.

 

[The_J]

Usage of quintiles makes the whole thing look a bit suspicious . It also says nowhere "statistically significant".
Also Arwon's remark has to be considered, I guess.


For more clarification: Enlisted recruites means only the people who've signed up, not the ones which actually got through the basic training, or does it?
It also doesn't mean anyone joining on higher ranks as specialized officers (e.g. research officer, or in the pharmacy, etc.), as pointed out before, right?