On the subject of military recruitment

[Inkthinker]

Steven's mention of falling recruitment numbers and the obvious reasons for such brought to mind something that a friend of mine who's serving in the Marines brought up recently, and I thought that the regulars here might be a good surface to bounce this off of (and I'd like Steven's take on it, of course).

He suggested that as an incentive to re-enlistment, the gov't might consider offering a sizeable loan towards the purchase of a home (simultaneously, one might hope, helping to address all these houses on the market). In terms of mortgages and such, an enlisted serviceman has a guaranteed income (at least for the length of their duty), so one would expect that the payments would be met, and that ought to make banks happy.

What would be the downside of such a program? Would it be something that might be effective in reducing the steady drop in re-enlistments? I'll pass along whatever feedback you guys care to give.

[Brenz]

I met a Marine last week who'd been to Iraq twice and suffered a divorce by 22. He was ready to leave, but had a pile of debt and needed the re-enlistment bonus.

So I'd wager housing would be jumped on by some and less useful to others. Still: that's an idea worthy of more study. Could turn out to be a pretty good reason.

Or, y'know, we could get out of this stupid war.

[Steven Grant]

He suggested that as an incentive to re-enlistment, the gov't might consider offering a sizeable loan towards the purchase of a home (simultaneously, one might hope, helping to address all these houses on the market). In terms of mortgages and such, an enlisted serviceman has a guaranteed income (at least for the length of their duty), so one would expect that the payments would be met, and that ought to make banks happy.

What would be the downside of such a program? Would it be something that might be effective in reducing the steady drop in re-enlistments? I'll pass along whatever feedback you guys care to give.

I don't have any problem with that in principle. My objection is that it doesn't go far enough; they should give them a starter home. Or something equivalent. Hell, enlistees families should be treated a hell of a lot better while they're serving. Many military families live basically in poverty, and are preyed on regularly and frequently by payday loan outfits and similar operations. That isn't right. But the big objection you'll hear about improving conditions for soldiers overall is that it would cost too much. Apparently the notion in some circles is that our military should consider it a privilege and a duty to serve, and should be happy to get by on what they get. Which fits in with a general mentality - which for some reason I find most often in those who talk the most about "supporting the troops" - that once you enter the military your job is to surrender your free will for the remainder of your term. "Supporting the troops" is cheap code for "supporting the war effort" and the two aren't synonymous, and really supporting the troops doesn't seem to be something there's any groundswell of support for.

But in general, sure, I don't see any problem with his proposition. Though many soldiers come out of the military enough in debt that I'm not sure putting them further in debt is the right direction...

- Grant

[Imaginos666]

If you're in the service (even the Coast Guard) you are subject to transfers every few years. Just because you own a home in Town X doesn't mean you'll be living there next year (or next month.) It's difficult to manage property when you live out of state ... or out of country.

[NatGertler]

I dunno; it feels less like an incentive and more like a suggestion of trying to put people into debt bondage in order to keep them in our war machine.

[Steven Grant]

If you're in the service (even the Coast Guard) you are subject to transfers every few years. Just because you own a home in Town X doesn't mean you'll be living there next year (or next month.) It's difficult to manage property when you live out of state ... or out of country.

I can dig it. I was thinking more in terms of being given a house on your way out of the military, and in the meantime the military can make temporary housing better for military families.

Downloaded the album. I'll give it a listen.

- Grant

[mgs]

a classmate of mine had the best pitch I've ever heard to join the U.S. Army. He told me his stateside wages (non-war), and what he made was just about doubled when he was stationed in Iraq. And when he was here, he did not have to pay for living expenses as he was living on a base and with not much to buy overseas, all he did was save the generous amounts he was given. Sounded good to me! O.o

[Imaginos666]

I can dig it. I was thinking more in terms of being given a house on your way out of the military, and in the meantime the military can make temporary housing better for military families.

Downloaded the album. I'll give it a listen.

- Grant


I grew up in the military (have I already mentioned that?) and can attest that temp housing is horrible. The last time my family was stuck in temp housing was in Feb. 1985, I believe. A blizzard hit and the trailer promptly ran out of oil, with temperatures hitting -40 during the night.


And you'll forgive me if that last comment terrifies me :)

The EP is a collection of songs left over from rehearsals, experiments, etc. We're still fighting to get our first LP finished, but it won't sound much like the EP ... which is probably a terrible marketing strategy. But we've all got full-time careers, which gives us the freedom to act like morons.

[section 8]

I grew up in the military (have I already mentioned that?) and can attest that temp housing is horrible. The last time my family was stuck in temp housing was in Feb. 1985, I believe. A blizzard hit and the trailer promptly ran out of oil, with temperatures hitting -40 during the night.


.

Army brat here,and yeah from what i remember the housing was pretty shabby

[Inkthinker]

All the more reason to help people get into actual houses of some type, at some point, somewhere.

I'll let him know what you guys thought when I talk with him next. I think he's doing pilot training of some sort in California now.

[spidarwin]

Well,
On the subject of military recruitment, as the forum title suggests...

Would it be too much to ask of everyone to ask for less, in terms of
compensation, and ask for more, in terms of selection criteria for
overseas conflicts?

I think we'd get more volunteers if people flatly trusted the reasons to
go to war.

Most of the causes for deployment these days seem to be related directly
to financial interests of corporations, and less to American security, to those
with whom I interact in the heartland of the US. I could go on about how
corporate interests tend toward shifting money away from the labor force
and toward the wealthy, promoting the crafting of legislation which encourages
this shift, and putting the tax burden for corporate-instigated conflicts on
the labor force - a decreasing tax base. But why? You know this already.

And I'm not going to say that you get what you pay for, and buying an army
doesn't yield patriots, but I will say that every last person I know who's joined
the military since I graduated high school, when I've asked, has mentioned
compensation first.

I'd like my country defended by people who want to defend it. If it's too much
to ask, is the country worth defending?

S.



(And SG truly did not put me up to suggesting Icasualties. Read it weekly.
If you're unsteady about the consequences of war, you shouldn't be in one.)