Why do well-off individuals join the military?

[MobBoss]

Yeah, I think I've heard stories about veterans in the U.S. getting the shaft. Aren't their programs being cut or something? Aren't a lot of them committing suicide, homeless, on drugs, etc.?

Suicide rate of veterans is more than double the civilian average. They also experience a far higher unemployment rate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...still-experiencing-double-digit-unemployment/

Considering vets have a far higher unemployment rate, something odd must be going on for vets to earn 10k a year more than civilians.

Edit: found an interesting data point from the Department of Logistics. It could be veteran women are swaying the earning datapoint. Apparently veteran women earn significantly more than civilian women, while veteran men only make marginally more than civilian men. That's interesting.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not sure I would readily accept the premise you present. If your thesis is accurate than why would this behavior be noted in Hispanics and not Asians?

I'm not sure. I suppose that most Asian countries, like most Western countries, have a traditionally high regard for military service, while in a lot of Latin America the military has not over the last couple of centuries occupied a particularly esteemed role in political or social life. It might also reflect attitudes toward the United States itself, based on America's history of involvement in different regions of the world; a lot of Asian-American subgroups such as Vietnamese-Americans and Chinese-Americans admire the United States as an anti-Communist power, while poor Latin Americans are likely to have a much more ambivalent attitude towards the United States. The net result of that might be that Asian-Americans are more likely than other migrant groups to pursue military service, while Latin Americans are less likely.

At any rate, it's apparent that Asian-Americans do enlist at higher rates than Latin Americans, so this is all really besides the point.

 

[warpus]

I'm not sure. I suppose that most Asian countries, like most Western countries, have a traditionally high regard for military service

I think there are a lot of factors at play here. My dad for example derided military life as the exact opposite of a place where honourable men go. Then again, he hated having to spend 2 years "working for the Russians", and potentially having to fight against the Germans and/or Americans, if the cold war warmed up..

I would never consider joining the military, not only based on what my father has taught me, but.. Well, I don't know, I just don't equate service to honour. I don't see any sort of obligation for a citizen to "serve" a country in this manner. I view these as foreign and "slightly wrong" ideas.

I'm not sure if our experience is similar to other Polish families, but I can see other similar (or not) dynamics affecting something like this. And having said all that, I am very grateful what those men did in WW2 - and I honour their service once a year on November 11th. I just view that as a different time. Those men did what they had to do - but in our day and age, the world is quite a different place.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I think I've heard stories about veterans in the U.S. getting the shaft. Aren't their programs being cut or something? Aren't a lot of them committing suicide, homeless, on drugs, etc.?

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. I think the original idea of generational gains producing 'military families' that are above the lowest income group is probably accurate enough, even if this generation is seeing that come to an end.

MobBoss' counterpoint is also accurate and contributes. Military members who do not transition well to civilian life tend to drop out completely through suicide or homelessness . When discussing the "on average" income results of veterans the data is skewed by the fact that the zeroes are disregarded rather than averaged in. What the data actually shows is that the 'successful' veterans tend to make more than the average civilians, to which the only sensible response is "well, duh."

 

[Flying Pig]

I will admit, after 26 years of service, making the communication transition from military speak to civilian speak was the hardest.

Ah, that's certainly true - I was lucky that my first job after getting out was with the police, so at least most of my colleagues if not the general public knew what I was going on about! Still, you get funny looks for 'mag to grid that', 'how about we go put some warmers into the bank?' 'I'm chinstrapped', and the like...

 

[MobBoss]

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. I think the original idea of generational gains producing 'military families' that are above the lowest income group is probably accurate enough, even if this generation is seeing that come to an end.

MobBoss' counterpoint is also accurate and contributes. Military members who do not transition well to civilian life tend to drop out completely through suicide or homelessness . When discussing the "on average" income results of veterans the data is skewed by the fact that the zeroes are disregarded rather than averaged in. What the data actually shows is that the 'successful' veterans tend to make more than the average civilians, to which the only sensible response is "well, duh."

I think this may very well be the case.

 

[Tahuti]

It's not the eighteenth century.

Well, considering the very content of the OP, this 'eighteenth century' virtue seems to be quite relevant.

 

[Traitorfish]

Because people whose families make $70,000 a year are more likely to join the military?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ah, that's certainly true - I was lucky that my first job after getting out was with the police, so at least most of my colleagues if not the general public knew what I was going on about! Still, you get funny looks for 'mag to grid that', 'how about we go put some warmers into the bank?' 'I'm chinstrapped', and the like...

My first job after the military was managing the QA department at an electronics manufacturer. It took me six months to determine that managing civilians as compared to managing people who are motivated by life and death is no fun at all. Then I discovered the meritocracy of the car business and everything was good.

 

[Tahuti]

Because people whose families make $70,000 a year are more likely to join the military?

Well, consider the fact that a lot of Radical Muslims including the late Usamma Bin Ladin were from wealthy backgrounds.

Wealth may compell some individuals to pursue more wealth, yet wealth also allows families to set aside financial concerns, in favour of concerns of honour.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, consider the fact that a lot of Radical Muslims including the late Usamma Bin Ladin were from wealthy backgrounds.

Wealth may compell some individuals to pursue more wealth, yet wealth also allows families to set aside financial concerns, in favour of concerns of honour.

It should be noted that for people with wealth the pursuit of more wealth is not actually a financial concern. The richest man I have ever personally known told me that if I wanted to succeed I would have to teach myself that money is not something I needed, it was the means of keeping score. If I couldn't do that I would become satisfied eventually, at which point I would fail. I opted to be satisfied immediately and quit pursuing money at all. I am much happier than he is, which irritates him beyond measure.

 

[Tahuti]

It should be noted that for people with wealth the pursuit of more wealth is not actually a financial concern. The richest man I have ever personally known told me that if I wanted to succeed I would have to teach myself that money is not something I needed, it was the means of keeping score.

Well, I do not disagree here. Indeed, wealthy people who seek to earn more wealth definitely do so out of achievement. Military service is simple another way to seek out achievement.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, consider the fact that a lot of Radical Muslims including the late Usamma Bin Ladin were from wealthy backgrounds.

That seems like a rather crass and broadly-painted analogy.

Wealth may compell some individuals to pursue more wealth, yet wealth also allows families to set aside financial concerns, in favour of concerns of honour.

It might. But what does that have to do with anything in the OP? These aren't the offspring of dukes we're talking about, here, it's people whose parents are, like, pharmacists.

 

[Gucumatz]

Have you given any thought to the idea that you are putting the cart before the horse? Consider the following syllogism.

A person is more likely to join the military if he came from a military family.

Being in the military makes one, over the course of his or her life, more economically successful.

These economic successes add up over time.

∴ Families are more likely to be wealthy if more of their members join the armed forces.

--

Also, people should consider that "well-off" isn't really applicable here. I'm uncertain what "Neighborhood Income Level" means (anyone have any guess?) . but the figures there aren't very high. Someone in Quintile 4, for example, is not what I would call wealthy or well-off. Quintile five is a bit more complicated, but it has a huge range starting from $65k and running up. A family making $65k / yr is also not necessarily well-off either.

So the chart here is poorly presented. It fails to define its independent variable sufficiently and misrepresents being in the upper 20 or 40% of the population, by earnings, as being well-off or upper class.

I think the neighborhood income level was used as an instrumental variable to test for family backgrounds. Instrumental variables are useful for relatively accurate portrayals (although they may be less efficient in their representation)

As for your point about military families spawning further military families, I think thats a good point there. There is a civilian-military gap in society although I don't know how statistically significant it is. It might just be that this gap between more military families/more civilian families is what causes this skew.

Anyways I was primarily interested in this article since it made me wonder how soldiers view their fellow soldiers from a socioeconomic perspective. Some of you I know served in the military here, did you all ever notice any economic/socioeconomic tensions? Did soldiers of certain backgrounds tend to clump together or did this kind of distribution ensure a more equitable society

 

[dutchfire]

Has anyone mentioned criminal records already? I reckon it might be more difficult to get into the military with a criminal record, and I suppose people from low income neighbourhoods have a higher chance of having a criminal record. [Mostly due to how policing works]

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyways I was primarily interested in this article since it made me wonder how soldiers view their fellow soldiers from a socioeconomic perspective. Some of you I know served in the military here, did you all ever notice any economic/socioeconomic tensions? Did soldiers of certain backgrounds tend to clump together or did this kind of distribution ensure a more equitable society

Speaking for my own experience, the military is the great equalizer. We were all poor together, and nobody really had any noticeable connection to their background.

 

[Perfection]

They plan to run for office

 

[BvBPL]

I think the neighborhood income level was used as an instrumental variable to test for family backgrounds. Instrumental variables are useful for relatively accurate portrayals (although they may be less efficient in their representation)

You think that's what it stands in for, but do you know what it means?

Is the neighborhood income level average household income, average adult income, average wage earner income, average income for whole population? Something else?

The first one seems likely, but if that's the case then why didn't they just say average household income? There's a huge difference between average household income and average income for the whole population, a difference that would significantly alter the analysis of the data.

 

[Tahuti]

It might. But what does that have to do with anything in the OP? These aren't the offspring of dukes we're talking about, here, it's people whose parents are, like, pharmacists.

The same logic stands: Pharmacists, compared to the average Joe, command more social eminence in today's society. So while they may not be aristocracy by any sense, the logic why their offspring would appear in the military is identical to why sons of barons would appear to it.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's starting to get a little social Darwinist, isn't it? The rich are rich because they're just better people?