NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it fascinating that Rangel and Sharpton can continue to lie in public (and have their lie repeated) about how poor people and black people are unfairly shouldering the burden of enlisting in the Armed Forces.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood, and not only have I served, but my neighbor's son is currently serving as a Marine in Iraq. Neither poor nor black.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051107-113124-8563r.htm


Middle-class youths, not the poor, are providing the bulk of wartime recruits to the armed forces, according to a new study by a conservative think tank.
The Heritage Foundation research paper found that a higher percentage of middle-class and upper-middle-class families have been providing enlistees for the war on Islamic militants since the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Researchers matched the ZIP codes of recruits over the past five years with federal government estimates of household incomes in those neighborhoods. Contrary to complaints from some liberal lawmakers and pundits, the data show that the poor are not shouldering the bulk of the military's need for new soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
The poorest neighborhoods provided 18 percent of recruits in prewar 1999 and 14.6 percent in 2003. By contrast, areas where household incomes ranged from $30,000 to $200,000 provided more than 85 percent.
"We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas," said the report, prepared by Tim Kane, an Air Force Academy graduate and economics scholar. "Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."
The debate was begun in 2002 by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, as U.S. troops were fighting in Afghanistan and preparing for war in Iraq.
"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent," Mr. Rangel wrote in the New York Times. The lawmaker called on the Bush administration to reinstate compulsory service.
Mr. Rangel's Washington office did not respond yesterday to the Heritage report.
The draft was discontinued in 1973, and the all-volunteer force eventually grew into what many national security officials see as the best-trained military force in history.
The Heritage report states that median household income for all enlisted recruits in 1999 was $41,141, compared with the national median of $41,994. By 2003, the recruit household income reached $42,822, when adjusted for inflation.
"In other words, on average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999," said the report, titled, "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11."
Mr. Kane said overall evidence "is at odds with the image, painted by some supporters of the draft, that the military exploits poor, ignorant young Americans by using slick advertising that promises technical careers in the military to dupe them into trading their feeble opportunities in the private sector for a meager role as cannon fodder."
About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.
"In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans," Mr. Kane wrote.

How any of them have a shred of credibility left, on anything, is beyond me.

Now who was it that introduced Draft legislation a little while ago? Oh yeah, Charlie Rangel.

COMMENTARY: Yes, yes, I know ... many of you will find anything coming out of The Heritage Foundation to be automatically suspect. However, I checked the statistics in this article as best I could and found them to be very accurate.


Middle class filling up military, study says (http://www.military.com/earlybrief)


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 8, 2005

Middle-class youths, not the poor, are providing the bulk of wartime recruits to the armed forces, according to a new study by a conservative think tank.
The Heritage Foundation research paper found that a higher percentage of middle-class and upper-middle-class families have been providing enlistees for the war on Islamic militants since the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Researchers matched the ZIP codes of recruits over the past five years with federal government estimates of household incomes in those neighborhoods. Contrary to complaints from some liberal lawmakers and pundits, the data show that the poor are not shouldering the bulk of the military's need for new soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines.
The poorest neighborhoods provided 18 percent of recruits in prewar 1999 and 14.6 percent in 2003. By contrast, areas where household incomes ranged from $30,000 to $200,000 provided more than 85 percent.
"We found that recruits tend to come from middle-class areas, with disproportionately fewer from low-income areas," said the report, prepared by Tim Kane, an Air Force Academy graduate and economics scholar. "Overall, the income distribution of military enlistees is more similar to than different from the income distribution of the general population."
The debate was begun in 2002 by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, as U.S. troops were fighting in Afghanistan and preparing for war in Iraq.
"A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent," Mr. Rangel wrote in the New York Times. The lawmaker called on the Bush administration to reinstate compulsory service.
Mr. Rangel's Washington office did not respond yesterday to the Heritage report.
The draft was discontinued in 1973, and the all-volunteer force eventually grew into what many national security officials see as the best-trained military force in history.
The Heritage report states that median household income for all enlisted recruits in 1999 was $41,141, compared with the national median of $41,994. By 2003, the recruit household income reached $42,822, when adjusted for inflation.
"In other words, on average, recruits in 2003 were from wealthier neighborhoods than were recruits in 1999," said the report, titled, "Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11."
Mr. Kane said overall evidence "is at odds with the image, painted by some supporters of the draft, that the military exploits poor, ignorant young Americans by using slick advertising that promises technical careers in the military to dupe them into trading their feeble opportunities in the private sector for a meager role as cannon fodder."
About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.
"In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans," Mr. Kane wrote.

1st point - I don't trust the heritage foundation on anything.
2nd point - you are using the official poverty line that is set by the government here. That is not the actual pverty line. Living across the bulk of the United States today, anything less that 50K a year will put you in the lower-middle class to poor population cross sections.


The Heritage report states that median household income for all enlisted recruits in 1999 was $41,141, compared with the national median of $41,994. By 2003, the recruit household income reached $42,822, when adjusted for inflation.

Okay, so adjusted for inflation the average income is - we'll round up to 43K.

Living wage (not minimum) is estimated at 8.60 USD per hour. And bear in mind that this is living wage for one person, not a family. On top of that, it does not provide for any sort of luxury or convienence at all, maybe it includes an 8 year old car. But it pretty much constitutes a small, cheap apartment, bills, and food.

So: we have 8.60/hr * 60 hours per week (none of the 40 hour bullshit for the poor!) = 516 USD per week. No vacation because they can't afford it so we take the 516 and multiply by 52.

We get a grand total of $26,832. That is where the poverty line should break for one person for one year.

Now lets take the family into account. The other spouse works, then again maybe she has some small children to look after. So at best, we add another 26,832 to make it 53,664. If she doesn't or doesn't make as much or work as often, then the family is out of luck. Lets add to this the fact that the kids don't work. Of course, kids can be much less expensive, until college that is.

Even if the other spouse works on the same wage and same hours, bringing the total to 53,664 - you still have at least one more person in the family that this living wage doesn't account for.

So this data that is put out by the heritage foundation? Where is the reality behind living wage. They adjust for inflation but not for livingstandards within the US. Once we adjust to the living wage we can see that yes, the majority of the military recruitment comes from the poor.

1st point - I don't trust the heritage foundation on anything.

A far more reliable source than Rangel or Sharpton.

I might add that blacks are underrepresented in combat units. Grossly underrepresented in infantry, Ranger, and Special Forces. And that's from the Army and Marines - not from the Heritage Foundation. So where are all the poor blacks that Rangel and Sharpton claim are doing the lion's share of the work?

The truth is they aren't.

2nd point - you are using the official poverty line that is set by the government here.

Please read - it is not the poverty line. It is the median income line.

Stop relabeling the numbers.

Interesting enough, two different people have chosen to start two identical threads.

On topic: The US Army resembles from this point of view the ancient Roman army from the time of the Republic: both are based on the services of its middle class, which probably has a superior national conscience.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453017

Too slow there, Eut. :)

OK, you are obviously doing this shit on purpose. Stop.

Yah, it probably is more reliable. I still don't trust them though.

And the point I was making is in regards to your title - "US Soldiers Not From the Ranks of the Poor"

My post determines that yes, the bulk of soldiers are from the poor. They may not be black (you would also have to look at hispanic, asian, and arabic distributions) but they are poor.

And I relabeled the numbers because I was being realistic here. The offical government set 'poverty line' adjusts for nothing. Inflation, real estate costs, tech booms, food shortgaes or surpluses, and global economic politics are not counted into this so called 'poverty line'.

What I simply did was take what is known as the living wage (i.e. the wage that is required for someone to live on the basics) and expand that out to a fmaily situation to see how "rich" or "poor" the families in the military really are. My numbers came out to say that they would be poor. Not by government standards, but by standards of living within the US.

Liberals will complain about anything Bush does. They'd complain that Bush ate a bowl of cereal instead of giving it to the poor. They'd complain that Bush allowed rich people to have any money at all. It's all this political crap. Why can't they just shut up and let him do his job. If he messes up, point the mistake out. Ironicly, all the yelling the liberals did may have, in fact, helped Bush gain popularity. Don't give me the "They did it with Clinton" crap. So what? Be the bigger adults instead of the bigger babies. As Jesus once said: Fight evil with evil and evil will always win. My version is "fight fire with fire and you'll just end up with a bigger fire". The "they did it" excuse is severely flawed. Why'd I rob the store? The person who works there stole my gum. Why'd I punch her? She hit me. If there's a reason why liberalism isn't more popular, it's the assholes who say that they represent it. Guess what: Nobody wants to look like an asshole. Be nicer and you'll win the next election. Be nicer and you'll have more friends.

Yah, it probably is more reliable. I still don't trust them though.

And the point I was making is in regards to your title - "US Soldiers Not From the Ranks of the Poor"

My post determines that yes, the bulk of soldiers are from the poor. They may not be black (you would also have to look at hispanic, asian, and arabic distributions) but they are poor.

The infantry in the Army, as well as Rangers and Special Forces are nearly 80 percent white (SF is around 90 percent). Considering that joining these specialties is completely voluntary, I find that telling. Roughly half of the infantry who are enlisted soldiers (not officers) already have a college degree.

The combat arm of the military doesn't seem to be black, uneducated, or poor to the Army.

Blacks are overrepresented in specialties that have to do with non-combat functions in the Army and Marines. Maintenance, supply, etc. Once again, you volunteer for it.

repeat thread. And I already set to work destroying the "soldiers are not from the poor" thing.

The infantry in the Army, as well as Rangers and Special Forces are nearly 80 percent white (SF is around 90 percent). Considering that joining these specialties is completely voluntary, I find that telling. Roughly half of the infantry who are enlisted soldiers (not officers) already have a college degree.
<snip>
Blacks are overrepresented in specialties that have to do with non-combat functions in the Army and Marines. Maintenance, supply, etc. Once again, you volunteer for it.


Okay, I'll trust you on that point unless someone brings up information counter to it. But you still haven't dealt with the economic situation I've laid out.

repeat thread. And I already set to work destroying the "soldiers are not from the poor" thing.

Which you will fail. I've been around the service my whole life. Been among enlisted AND officers. Most of the ones I've met are not poor but do, in fact, come from the middle class.

Liberals will complain about anything Bush does. They'd complain that Bush ate a bowl of cereal instead of giving it to the poor.

That is the purpose of an opposition, no? If you don't like the heat, then you can get out of the kitchen.


They'd complain that Bush allowed rich people to have any money at all. It's all this political crap. Why can't they just shut up and let him do his job. If he messes up, point the mistake out.

Somewhat of a contradiction between "shut[ing] up and let him do his job" and "point[ing] the mistake out"

Ironicly, all the yelling the liberals did may have, in fact, helped Bush gain popularity.

And you base that on?

Don't give me the "They did it with Clinton" crap. So what? Be the bigger adults instead of the bigger babies. As Jesus once said: Fight evil with evil and evil will always win. My version is "fight fire with fire and you'll just end up with a bigger fire". The "they did it" excuse is severely flawed. Why'd I rob the store? The person who works there stole my gum. Why'd I punch her? She hit me.

So you expect liberals to do what then? Nothing?

If there's a reason why liberalism isn't more popular, it's the assholes who say that they represent it. Guess what: Nobody wants to look like an asshole. Be nicer and you'll win the next election. Be nicer and you'll have more friends.

As opposed to the warm fuzzy world of the neo-cons? Get real. There are assholes on both sides. If opposition isn't vocal, then it's ignored.

Okay, I'll trust you on that point unless someone brings up information counter to it. But you still haven't dealt with the economic situation I've laid out.

I've said that's the median income, not the poverty line.

Which you will fail. I've been around the service my whole life. Been among enlisted AND officers. Most of the ones I've met are not poor but do, in fact, come from the middle class.

Yah know, Im just not so sure about that. And bear in mind, I'm not talking about the out-of-date illogical horrible piece of crap the US Government insists of calling the poverty line - somewhere around 18K a year.

I'm talking about an actual living wage for a family for a year. The other example came out to about 53K. If both parents work. If they don't have expensive kids. And if they don't want a decent car. That is where the "poverty" line (I tend to refer to it as the livable wae line) should be adjusted for a family of 3-4.

If you want to see how I got here, go visit the other thread on this topic.

Okay, I'll trust you on that point unless someone brings up information counter to it. But you still haven't dealt with the economic situation I've laid out.

First of all, you cant expect that all families require 53k a year to survive. Remember, rent/house payments dont double for a family. Some areas do, clothing and food for instance, but rarely do utilities double (phone / elec / cable / etc).

So, while you say that a married couple needs double what a single person does, that's hardly accurate.

My ex and I lived quite comfortably off my 35k a year, and sure, now that she's gone I have more money to spend but most of that comes from my truck being paid off.

Stop twisting the numbers to meet your arguments. My parents live quite comfortably off little more than I make - including a 2000sq ft house on 10 acres that they had built along with two vehicles they bought brand new (and if they didnt like them so much, they'd probably go trade them in for newer ones).

As for the topic at hand, I remember an Irish journalist who interviewed American soilders comming through Shannon. She said that they were all most univerisally white, middle class southerns. I don't know how much you can read into this though.

anyone notice that they just took things by median income in a zip code? while that's more useful than not doing the study at all, it certainly doesn't tell us about trends within a zip code. a zip code can hold tens of thousands of households (23,513 for the zip code i grew up in). for it to be really meaningful we'd need data for income distribution on the zip code level (it's rather widely distributed among those 23,513 households as far as i can tell). or better yet, we'd need the actual data of recruits' household incomes, not the average for their zip code.

i would suspect that that would tend towards the lower middle quintile, with a bit of a second peak at a higher level from the multi-generation army brats. i wouldn't expect the lowest quintile to be over-represented (except maybe among native americans).

First of all, you cant expect that all families require 53k a year to survive. Remember, rent/house payments dont double for a family. Some areas do, clothing and food for instance, but rarely do utilities double (phone / elec / cable / etc).

So, while you say that a married couple needs double what a single person does, that's hardly accurate.

My ex and I lived quite comfortably off my 35k a year, and sure, now that she's gone I have more money to spend but most of that comes from my truck being paid off.

Stop twisting the numbers to meet your arguments. My parents live quite comfortably off little more than I make - including a 2000sq ft house on 10 acres that they had built along with two vehicles they bought brand new (and if they didnt like them so much, they'd probably go trade them in for newer ones).


That, and most young enlisted soldiers are single, and living in the barracks. There isn't a "family of four" for most of them.

repeat thread. And I already set to work destroying the "soldiers are not from the poor" thing.
No, you did not. All you showed was that, if you twist the numbers long enough, you can arrive to any conclusion you like. You did some extraordinary math acrobatics to reach your figure of 53K, and also ignored the fact that the "median household income for all enlisted recruits in 1999 was $41,141, compared with the national median of $41,994". The difference comes from the fact that you won't find many people from rich families in the military, but this only brings more evidence that the army is based on the middle class.

That, and most young enlisted soldiers are single, and living in the barracks. There isn't a "family of four" for most of them.

I didnt want to bring that aspect into this discussion. We're not discussing how underpaid the military is, we're discussing the background of those who enlist.

And, just for the record, I do know many of my coworkers who came from upper-middle class families to enlist and serve. In fact, most complain that they make less now than they did before (I seem to be one of very few that doesnt voice that complaint as I make far more than I did before I enlisted).

I do believe the military is underpaid and underappreciated. I've been in for 5 years and make approximately $35k a year doing a job that would easily pay 2x as much in the private sector. Hell, the civilians working for the gov't doing my exact same job make $10k a year more than I do. But, that's neither here nor there as this thread is about the demographics of those who enlist (prior to enlistment).

I didnt want to bring that aspect into this discussion. We're not discussing how underpaid the military is, we're discussing the background of those who enlist.

And, just for the record, I do know many of my coworkers who came from upper-middle class families to enlist and serve. In fact, most complain that they make less now than they did before (I seem to be one of very few that doesnt voice that complaint as I make far more than I did before I enlisted).

I do believe the military is underpaid and underappreciated. I've been in for 5 years and make approximately $35k a year doing a job that would easily pay 2x as much in the private sector. Hell, the civilians working for the gov't doing my exact same job make $10k a year more than I do. But, that's neither here nor there as this thread is about the demographics of those who enlist (prior to enlistment).


I just think that Rangel and Sharpton have no idea who is in the military, where they came from, why they joined, how much they are paid (or not paid), and what jobs they do.

I just think that Rangel and Sharpton have no idea who is in the military, where they came from, why they joined, how much they are paid (or not paid), and what jobs they do.

I think very few of the average citizen in the US realizes how much or little the military pays.

I've got plans to seperate when my current enlistment is up, an the joke with my friends is that if I can find my job in the private sector I wont know what to do when my bi-weekly paychecks double...I mean, that's approx $1k every two weeks to play with over what I have to play with now (and I already have something like $600-700 to play with every month after bills and food are paid for).

DK - I know you were referring to median income of the area, I wasn't, I was talking about a different item entirely - how the poverty line is not the poverty line anymore.

NS - thank you for that perspective. I guess I should ask where you live, because the entire area where I come from (PHX, AZ) 35K is not livable unless you are in the poor sections of town.

Besides that, if you are talking about the family (keep in mind, I am talking about the families of the soldiers - their backgrounds, not the soldiers themselves) - an apartment cost will rise (one bedroom vs. two or three) also location is a factor. Children increase the cost of the car - more driving them around = more gas costs. Also the probability of the car needing maintenance sooner since it is being used more. Food and clothing. Higher utility bills for house owners because of more water and light use.

There are costs all over that are often not considered in the standard equation.

DK - I know you were referring to median income of the area, I wasn't, I was talking about a different item entirely - how the poverty line is not the poverty line anymore.

NS - thank you for that perspective. I guess I should ask where you live, because the entire area where I come from (PHX, AZ) 35K is not livable unless you are in the poor sections of town.

Besides that, if you are talking about the family (keep in mind, I am talking about the families of the soldiers - their backgrounds, not the soldiers themselves) - an apartment cost will rise (one bedroom vs. two or three) also location is a factor. Children increase the cost of the car - more driving them around = more gas costs. Also the probability of the car needing maintenance sooner since it is being used more. Food and clothing. Higher utility bills for house owners because of more water and light use.

There are costs all over that are often not considered in the standard equation.


Most soldiers are not married.

But for those who are, they are paid extra - there are housing allowances, etc. And theoretically, a cost of living adjustment for your area. These things are not reported as income.

Most soldiers are not married.

But for those who are, they are paid extra - there are housing allowances, etc. And theoretically, a cost of living adjustment for your area. These things are not reported as income.

This is indeed correct.

Not that any of you will pay attention, but I'll see your Heritage Foundation and raise you the Department of Defense's own numbers (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/newssummary/s_391390.html)
More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated ZIP codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on ZIP codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

Thanks.

By the way, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone--the military has always recruited most successfully from both the poor and rural areas of the country. What's the fucking point of the thread anyway?

DK - I know you were referring to median income of the area, I wasn't, I was talking about a different item entirely - how the poverty line is not the poverty line anymore.

NS - thank you for that perspective. I guess I should ask where you live, because the entire area where I come from (PHX, AZ) 35K is not livable unless you are in the poor sections of town.

Besides that, if you are talking about the family (keep in mind, I am talking about the families of the soldiers - their backgrounds, not the soldiers themselves) - an apartment cost will rise (one bedroom vs. two or three) also location is a factor. Children increase the cost of the car - more driving them around = more gas costs. Also the probability of the car needing maintenance sooner since it is being used more. Food and clothing. Higher utility bills for house owners because of more water and light use.

There are costs all over that are often not considered in the standard equation.

Apartment costs dont double though. There's a big difference between $400-500 extra a month vs $100 extra a month (costs of $4.8 - 6.0k a year vs $1.2k a year increase). Same thing with transportation. The amount of gas doesnt automatically double. So, while I'll admit that there is a difference between a single person and a married couple's poverty line, the married couple does not need 2x as much as a single person.

The point is that most of the enlisted people are coming from families making $42k a year - which is plenty enough for a family to live comfortably in many areas of the US. Living in a large city will, of course, change the minimum needed to live comfortably.

Not that any of you will pay attention, but I'll see your Heritage Foundation and raise you the Department of Defense's own numbers (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/newssummary/s_391390.html)
[/b]

Thanks.

By the way, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone--the military has always recruited most successfully from both the poor and rural areas of the country. What's the fucking point of the thread anyway?

Rangel and Sharpton insist that it is black poor that are holding up the military and taking the most losses in combat and serving disproportionately on the front lines.

Something that is obviously not true.

And just a side note:

Do any of you remember what Median mean in math? Because it sure as hell looks like you dont.

And just a side note:

Do any of you remember what Median mean in math? Because it sure as hell looks like you dont.

I certainly do.

Meh - so Rengel might be overstating his case. Big deal. It's not like he had much support from anyone on any side of the political spectrum for a draft..... so his position was hardly well recieved.

That being said, I'd like to add two comments.

First: this study seems to only reflect the Army. Over the course of the occupation there have been times where up to 40% of deployed forces have been Reservists who seem not to be covered by this study. For those reservists with families the financial hardships faced due to loss of income during deployments has been very real. This cannot be simply waved aside as if it hasn't happened.

Second: Comparing means is statistically fraught with danger as distribution is key. You can be totally lacking representation from the entire top income 10% and still have a number close to the national mean. And having this number consistently coming in under the national mean still supports the basic premise: That rich kids don't generally shoulder their share of the pain.

Second: Comparing means is statistically fraught with danger as distribution is key.

Ever wonder why the distribution of blacks in the Army is not matched by the distribution of blacks in combat arms specialties and units?

Yes, distribution is the key. Blacks were more heavily represented in the functional support and administration area and, to a lesser extent, the service and supply area in recent studies. They are extremely underrepresented in any combat arms specialty.

Coming from an upper middle class background (my parents are both doctors), I find it hard to believe that middle class teenagers would want to join the military. Most of them can afford college, cars, houses, so why would they want to do four years of backbreaking work while constantly faced with the not to cheery prospect of being killed or maimed? It just doesn't make sense. Last year in Time magazine, it said that blacks make up 20% of the military, so who is more trustworthy: Time magazine or the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation?

Coming from an upper middle class background (my parents are both doctors), I find it hard to believe that middle class teenagers would want to join the military. Most of them can afford college, cars, houses, so why would they want to do four years of backbreaking work while constantly faced with the not to cheery prospect of being killed or maimed? It just doesn't make sense. Last year in Time magazine, it said that blacks make up 20% of the military, so who is more trustworthy: Time magazine or the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation?

Then why do they make up less than 8 percent of combat arms specialties?

Or why are half the enlisted infantrymen young men with college degrees?

Coming from an upper middle class background (my parents are both doctors), I find it hard to believe that middle class teenagers would want to join the military. Most of them can afford college, cars, houses, so why would they want to do four years of backbreaking work while constantly faced with the not to cheery prospect of being killed or maimed? It just doesn't make sense. Last year in Time magazine, it said that blacks make up 20% of the military, so who is more trustworthy: Time magazine or the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation?

Maybe because they love their country so much that they felt like serving their nation by being in the service?

I'm from a middle class family and if I was medically eligible, I would be in line signing up to serve the nation that I love.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/11172/

Northampton, Mass. - infoZine - Lower and middle-income communities experience higher military enlistment rates than higher income areas, according to a new analysis released today by the non-partisan National Priorities Project (NPP).

Well, using Google, I managed to come up with a study that says the opposite of the Heritage Foundation.

I must be using it wrong.:p

Maybe, this is a guess, the reason not many blacks end up in special forces, is because when they volunteer, they are turned down because they're black.:confused:

Maybe because they love their country so much that they felt like serving their nation by being in the service?

I'm from a middle class family and if I was medically eligible, I would be in line signing up to serve the nation that I love.

Indeed. I dropped out of college to join the military. Not because I couldnt afford college nor because I couldnt hack it, but because I felt like serving in the military.

Rangel and Sharpton insist that it is black poor that are holding up the military and taking the most losses in combat and serving disproportionately on the front lines.

Something that is obviously not true.
Not to be a dick or anything, but the article you linked does not disprove anything Rangel or Sharpton claimed. They're not making claims of the same data. Now Rangel and Sharpton may well be in error, but this article doesn't prove that. In order to disprove Rangel and Sharpton, you need a breakdown of casualties as well as frontline soldiers by ethnicity and income level. Apples and oranges here. Not that I'm surprised--it's the Heritage Foundation and the Washington Times, for crying out loud.

Maybe, this is a guess, the reason not many blacks end up in special forces, is because when they volunteer, they are turned down because they're black.:confused:

You can't be turned down for joining the infantry.

No, the Army knows the reason - they are deliberately picking administrative and support specialties instead of picking combat arms specialties.

you need a breakdown of casualties as well as frontline soldiers by ethnicity and income level.

The DoD already handed Rangel that data, which is why he's largely shut up.

Seems that blacks are grossly underrepresented in casualty figures as well as in combat arms specialties.

They are grossly overrepresented in areas like administration and supply. Not in the infantry, not in the Rangers, and scarcely in the Special Forces or SEALs.

All of which are volunteer positions (you can't be turned down for the infantry if you're a warm body who volunteers).

Well, using Google, I managed to come up with a study that says the opposite of the Heritage Foundation.

and this one provided data (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=181&Itemid=107)too. that's awfully convenient...


Representation of Recruits by Income
Monday, 07 November 2005

The graph below shows representation of Army, Navy, Air Force Active Duty and Army Reserve recruits by income range. Each bar represents the ratio of two proportions: the share of total recruits living in zip code areas whose median household income fall within the range over the share of the total population living in such zip codes. A score of more than one means the income range is over-represented in the army. A score of less than one means the range is under-represented. Note that the peak of the bars falls in the range of $25,000 - $54,999. In other words, neighborhoods with low to middle median household incomes are over-represented. Neighborhoods with high median household incomes are under-represented.

http://nationalpriorities.org/images/stories/militaryrecruitment/totalrecruitsrepresent2.gif

The DoD already handed Rangel that data, which is why he's largely shut up.

Seems that blacks are grossly underrepresented in casualty figures as well as in combat arms specialties.

They are grossly overrepresented in areas like administration and supply. Not in the infantry, not in the Rangers, and scarcely in the Special Forces or SEALs.

All of which are volunteer positions (you can't be turned down for the infantry if you're a warm body who volunteers).
None of which has jack shit to do with the article you quoted. The claims made by the article you posted do not--I repeat--do not refute the charges made by Rangel and Sharpton, and it's misrepresenting the article to claim that it does.

http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP32Adamshik.pdf

Well worth reading. Especially the conclusions.

None of which has jack shit to do with the article you quoted. The claims made by the article you posted do not--I repeat--do not refute the charges made by Rangel and Sharpton, and it's misrepresenting the article to claim that it does.

I believe it does refute the claim that Rangel and Sharpton have that the poor are overrepresented in the military.

I believe it does refute the claim that Rangel and Sharpton have that the poor are overrepresented in the military.
The Heritage Foundation has already been busted on that in this thread--by the DOD figures posted in at least three posts.

You can't be turned down for joining the infantry.

No, the Army knows the reason - they are deliberately picking administrative and support specialties instead of picking combat arms specialties.

Well, I was talking about the more elite forces, i.e. Special Forces, SEALS, etc.

I assume that anyone who passes the minimum tests and basic training can join the infantry.

It seems like everyone is missing the fundamental point here.

Yes, most personnel in the military are from middle income households, but that's because the middle class is the most populous class in American society. The poor do however, make up a significant portion of the military, more than they make up of the national population. Any recruiter will tell you the same, which is why they target rural and low-income areas.

Not to insult current and ex-soldiers here at NS, as you guys obviously don't have this problem but:

The number of new recruits who scored at the bottom of the Army's aptitude test tripled last month, Pentagon officials said, helping the nation's largest armed service meet its October recruiting goal but raising concerns about the quality of the force...

"We have clear experience from the 1970s with recruiting a sizable number of people from the lowest mental categories," said [Former Army Secretary Thomas E.] White. "After the Vietnam War, the Army accepted a higher proportion of low-scoring recruits, leading to training and discipline problems."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.recruit08nov08,1,1130565.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

They've done it before, and now they're doing it again. Granted it's only 12% of accepted recruits that are scoring that low, but there is a reason they capped it at 4% before and today the army is high-tech, which increases the learning curve.

It seems like everyone is missing the fundamental point here.

Yes, most personnel in the military are from middle income households, but that's because the middle class is the most populous class in American society. The poor do however, make up a significant portion of the military, more than they make up of the national population. Any recruiter will tell you the same, which is why they target rural and low-income areas.
Yellow flag for quoting relevant technical statistics. Take your logic to the bench.

I wonder if this has to do with the fact that middle class youth have better schools than poorer neiborhoods??:confused: :confused:

About 98 percent of all enlistees from 1999 to 2003 had a high school diploma, compared with 75 percent of nonrecruits nationwide.
"In an education context, rather than attracting underprivileged young Americans, the military seems to be attracting above-average Americans," Mr. Kane wrote.
Just a point, but isn't this stat meaningless? If memory serves, don't you have to have a high school diploma or GED to enlist in the military now?

This use would be as silly as saying that of the incoming freshman class at a university, 98% held a high school diploma.

Just a point, but isn't this stat meaningless? If memory serves, don't you have to have a high school diploma or GED to enlist in the military now?

yeah, pretty much. which also probably explains part of the under-representation of the poorest members of society.