The Heritage Foundation has a paper on who serves in the military, and it’s not who you would expect.
The things that surprised me:
- The numbers for the enlistees. I would expect most officers to come from middle class homes and upward, but it’s a surprise to hear that even those who enlist directly tend not to come from the lower incomes.
- Utah’s very low recruitment numbers. Utah is known for being fertile recruiting ground. But not the military? The best reason I can come up with for this is that at the time when most men are enlisting, they’re serving their missions. Then they get back, go to college, and and married. I think this messes with the general timeline of such things. On the other hand…
- North Dakota doesn’t have that excuse. North Dakota has the lowest enlistment numbers of any state (DC is lower, Utah is the second-lowest state). Why? I have no idea. I would have been sure that they would have been overrepresented. Particularly given that there is generally a lot of mobility in North Dakota. The state is gaining population, but most counties are losing. South Dakota and Nebraska also have lower numbers, although nowhere near as low as North Dakota’s. Interestingly enough, South Dakota has extraordinary representation in the ROTC.
- Also, Louisiana and Mississippi? What’s up with that? Louisiana is an entity unto itself, but what makes Mississippi so different from Arkansas and Alabama?
- I would have guessed that Hawaii would have been underrepresented, but instead were mildly overrepresented.
- Maine, of all states, is pretty significantly overrepresented in all three categories (enlistees, ROTC, and US Service Academies).
In the overall, the ROTC representation and particularly the Service Academy maps were surprising. With the exception of North Dakota and Louisiana, most of the above-mentioned underrepresented states are overrepresented when it comes to ROTC or service academies. Utah is mildly represented in ROTC AND USSA, South Dakota is wildly overrepresented in ROTC and moderately in USSA
Things that did not surprise me:
- The demographics (SES and otherwise) of those who serve in the military academies.
- That Arkansas, Texas, Montana, and New Mexico are well-represented in each category.
- Idaho and Wyoming are well-represented in at least two of the three categories (USSA being the third).
- Enrolees in the service academy tend to come from privileged backgrounds.
I think you nailed the low recruitment numbers in Utah pretty good. There are returned missionaries who go into the service after they come home but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule.
Comment by Abel — March 29, 2011 @ 4:45 pm
Enlistment rates for people in the lower income groups are reduced by the fact that many of them are ineligible for reasons such as criminal records.
Comment by Peter — March 29, 2011 @ 6:01 pm
I’m shocked, SHOCKED that The Heritage Foundation is going to put out a report that is pro-military…
I admit that I think of anyone who joins the military is a loser with no other options. Then again I live in a part of the country where the ratio is 0.73 .
There are two immediate flaws I see with this report. First, it doesn’t correct for the fact that the army is highly incestuous. I would think the demographic numbers would drift downward if you removed the children of veterans. Second, you might want to call this site ColdCoffee, since this report is from August 2008, just before the economy started to free-fall.
Comment by Mike Hunt — March 29, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
I admit that I think of anyone who joins the military is a loser with no other options. Then again I live in a part of the country where the ratio is 0.73 .
It’s not the sort of thing that I would go around broadcasting in real life, and I would use the term “loser”, but yeah. And I grew up in an overrepresented state. The two people I know that started the enlistment process were, though bright, limited in options. The ROTC at my high school was filled with rednecks and more than a couple racists. I had, up until the high school reunion, thought that at least some of them would serve in the actual military. None did, to my knowledge.
If the legacy-nature of enlistment is significant, it actually tells me that people in the military actually make more than I would have expected or that they go on to make more money (rather than end up shell-shocked and living on the streets, as the papers sometimes suggest).
Second, you might want to call this site ColdCoffee, since this report is from August 2008, just before the economy started to free-fall.
Yeah, I knew that it wasn’t new and probably should have mentioned that. But I only now actually got around to reading it.
Comment by trumwill — March 29, 2011 @ 8:48 pm
“I admit that I think of anyone who joins the military is a loser with no other options.”
I think people who say stuff like that just don’t have the guts to join.
Comment by Kirk — March 30, 2011 @ 12:33 am
It’s not the sort of thing that I would go around broadcasting in real life
Well yeah, it isn’t, and I don’t. But behind closed doors, it is the common SWPL opinion.
Also, just to be clear, the reason I mentioned the economic free-fall was not just to set a random time line; I think if the report was done now, the demographics would be different, since there are fewer opportunities now.
people in the military actually make more than I would have expected or that they go on to make more money
I can’t speak for other states, but in NJ veterans get preferences for civil service jobs. I know plenty of vets who are now police officers, who are well paid here.
Comment by Mike Hunt — March 30, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
Well yeah, it isn’t, and I don’t. But behind closed doors, it is the common SWPL opinion.
Maybe, but your view lacks the warm condescension.
I think if the report was done now, the demographics would be different, since there are fewer opportunities now.
Probably, but how? On the one hand, more people with fewer options are trying to enlist and so you might have more people from sectors of the economy that are struggling… on the other hand, though, they can be more selective, which probably means taking more people that do well on the qualifying exams and writing less waivers for people with criminal records.
I know plenty of vets who are now police officers, who are well paid here.
Cops. Good point. The comparatively few vets I’ve known have tended to have lackluster careers. Smart guys, actually, but low on the totem-poll for their age.
Comment by trumwill — March 30, 2011 @ 9:30 pm
Hawaii doesn’t have much industry except tourism and the U.S. military, so I’m not surprised at the high recruitment rates even though Hawaii is a “blue state.”
The enlistee rate on American Indian Reservations is very high as well; again, the employment opportunities are not significant on Indian Reservations (plus some Indian tribes like the Navajo have a long-standing relationship with the Army/Marines that’s now part of their cultural tradition, somewhat like the Gurkhas and the British Army.)
Comment by Maria — March 31, 2011 @ 5:27 pm
The comparatively few vets I’ve known have tended to have lackluster careers. Smart guys, actually, but low on the totem-poll for their age.
I have read this point online before, and it seems to have credence. The problem is, private sector employers generally don’t care that you are a vet, unless the company does business with the DOD. Otherwise, you might as well as been unemployed. The years are lost.
Now, if you are going into the public sector, by law they have to give you credit for being a vet. That is something a prospective soldier should take into consideration.
Probably, but how? … they can be more selective
I thought that as long as the prospective soldier met the age requirements, wasn’t retarded, and wasn’t morbidly obese, they were good to go. Other than those three things, I don’t think the military is selective at all. If they had more than enough enlistees, they wouldn’t be using the services of Reserve Units.
Comment by Mike Hunt — March 31, 2011 @ 6:58 pm
I thought that as long as the prospective soldier met the age requirements, wasn’t retarded, and wasn’t morbidly obese, they were good to go. Other than those three things, I don’t think the military is selective at all.
At least one of the two people I know that tried to get in didn’t. That was before Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a sneaking suspicion that they might have taken him a year later.
I suspect that there is a gray area. During times of low enlistment, I suspect that they’re signing a lot of wavers for people that score poorly on the test or have some probably-negligible health issue. I doubt that they’ve had to do that as much recently.
Comment by trumwill — March 31, 2011 @ 10:13 pm
I’ve heard that in the Southeast, military officer is considered an acceptable option, like doctor or lawyer, for the sons of the upper-middle-class. Is this true?
Comment by SFG — April 3, 2011 @ 7:02 am