Who Signs Up to Fight? Makeup of U.S. Recruits Shows Glaring Disparity

An interesting article on Army recruits. Sounds like military service is becoming hereditary.

Who Signs Up to Fight? Makeup of U.S. Recruits Shows Glaring Disparity

More and more, new recruits are the children of old recruits. In 2019, 79 percent of Army recruits reported having a family member who served. For nearly 30 percent, it was a parent — a striking point in a nation where less than 1 percent of the population serves in the military.

The counties that produce the recruits, first in 2018 and then in 1998

 

This is becoming more and more common every decade.

Many like myself are noting this trend, that within a few decades the military will be an almost separate class. An almost hereditary group, that has become almost totally different from the majority of society.

And in seeing comments in here of people bragging on how they talked their children out of serving because they never served, it only shows how this is. And the amazing thing is, they actually revel in their bigotry and ignorance, and then work as hard as they can to pass that down to their children.

In my generation in my family (age wise), all but 1 male joined the military. 3 of us have served for 20+ years. In the generation that followed, only 1 out of around 16 joined (although one other is the spouse of somebody in the military).

And this disparity is growing. And do not expect it to change, I only see it getting worse by the time my kids are my age.

 

Perhaps it's a reflection of where they're recruiting more heavily? I presume the military doesn't want to recruit high crime areas. I'm just thinking out loud.

 

According to the article they are recruiting in areas where they've had success and where they have access to young people. As the story indicates, some areas block off recruiter access to high schoolers.

 

Oh well recruiting problem solved, Old Man's War style...

59-year-old Afghanistan veteran will report to Army basic training this summer

 

This is not all that unusual actually.

When I joined in 2007 they were hurting for people, and were doing special "Warrior Training" units in order to bring us that had been out for more than 5 years or from other branches in. My class as reception was over 300, and we were broken into a group of around 100 and a second group of 200. The training was only a month, and we ranged from mid-20s up to early 50s.

I was 42 when I went back in, and 13 years later am still going. But bringing such people in now is almost impossible. The regulation changes during the Obama era make it almost impossible for such people to be able to return. I know that if I had tried to join a few years later I would not have been able to do it.

This guy must have known the right people, because stories like this are rare now.

 

A map of pre 'Volunteer Army' circa 1950's-1960's, especially from the VN era, would make for an interesting comparison, excluding draftees numbers, though those who 'volunteered' so they could at least have some choice of their service branch would be hard to separate out of the stats. The only real consistency I see is around Alabama and environs; most of the areas in the West are low population and low jobs areas, so they look larger than a heavily urban area in north Texas. Maine has what looks like some major turn-around.

The powers that be are rapidly moving to bots and electronics anyway, so warm bodies are becoming less of a problem every year; the fewer uppity proles they need to rely on the better as far as they're concerned.

 

We need a draft.

 

That's the worst idea ever devised.

I served for 20 years. As a senior enlisted guy, the last person I'd want fighting next to me is someone who was forced to be there.

I want someone who feels a strong desire to serve his country. I want someone willing to make that ultimate sacrifice.

I want someone next to me who's more concerned with protecting his country than he is about how he's missing out on the new "Call Of Duty" game.

 

My dad (and countless others) didn't want to join the military. They served and served well.

 

And I've never said otherwise.

But if I'm going to serve with someone, I want to know that the person chose to be there, and understood the potential ramifications of joining and joined anyway.

With someone who had to be drafted, that's an unanswered question...

 

Nope, wrong.

Here is something that most people fail to grasp when it comes to "new technology". It really does not eliminate the need for bodies at all, it just moved that need to something else.

Take computers. For all the fear of them killing jobs, that never really happened. It just reduced the demand for manual work and replaced it with a higher skilled form of work. My mom was an accountant (as in pen and pencil on paper spreadsheets), and when she was told that her department was being downsized in the 1960s by computers, she went and took college courses in computers. And remained at the company as a programmer. Tanks and aircraft did not reduce the manpower in the military by the elimination of Infantry, it increased the manpower demand for people with more skills to operate and maintain those aircraft and tanks.

The adoption of trucks and jeeps replacing the cavalry and horse did not kill the manpower, it just shifted them from grooms to mechanics.

Anybody that thinks that going to some new tech will eliminate the need for warm bodies does not understand anything about manpower and the requirements to maintain that technology. In fact, if anything the demand increases. It only replaces the lowest levels of unskilled labor, and replaces them with the demand of a higher skilled segment.