Here's a horrid thought: what if the wars *were* ended and all those troops came home

[Duer 157099]

How high would the unemployment rate go then?

Makes me wonder if this isn't somehow in the back of the mind of those guys who want the wars to continue...

[DesertFlower]

1. i've thought about that many times. nt

[cdsilv]

Well, if we really want to 'protect our border', put the troops along ....

...the Mexican border, say 1 every 50 or 60 feet? <sarcasm>

[NightWatcher]

2. "horrid thought"? would you rather get shot at or stand in the unemployment line?

the war mongers are not thinking about this

[mdmc]

3. war all the time

[mike_c]

4. the troops are only the tip of the MIC iceberg....

Perpetual war is the only way to insure perpetual profits!

[Echo In Light]

21. +1

[Individualist]

5. Better to be unemployed and alive than dead or maimed for life.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. Leave them in the employ of the government.

Convert their duties from military to civilian. Pay them to do everything from firefighting to park cleanup to infrastructure building and a thousand other things.

Kind of a shot in the arm for the economy, don't you think?

[Duer 157099]

11. Excellent suggestion!

Which of course is why it will never happen :sigh:

[Salviati]

17. exactly, turn them into a military poplulated version of the CCC

There'd probably be plenty of work to go around just in restoring and refurbushing all of the old CCC projects in addition to new ones.

[leftstreet]

24. +1

[MADem]

47. The firefighters' and maintenance workers unions would have a problem with your plan.

So would the construction and other assorted trade unions. AFL-CIO would not be happy. IBE and others would be up in arms. They shovel a lot of money at politicians. They're not going to move aside and suffer unemployment or underemployment to provide "make work" to returning veterans.

[MineralMan]

7. Unintended consequences often stop things dead in their tracks.

[Lorien]

8. Have them work on green energy projects instead

right now they're killing and dying for oil.Pay them as much or more for working on massive public works projects instead. Everybody wins (except the oil barons and war profiteers).

[Quantess]

9. That's the worst conspiracy theory ever.

[DevonRex]

10. They'll still be in the military when the wars end. And more likely to STAY in

because of the economy.

[MADem]

56. If there's a Reduction in Force (RIF), they may not have anything to say about their career paths.

Example: The relatively recent "Cheney Drawdown" that started in the waning years of Bush I and continued through Clinton's term.

Perfectly good servicemembers were tossed over the side to get the numbers down, using any and every excuse. The same thing will happen when DOD decides they want fewer boots on the ground in deployed positions.

[jonnyblitz]

12. why do you people here assume troops automatically get out of

the military the minute a war ends? they don't get out until their enlistments are up and those don't end when the wars do. Perhaps they would be more apt to even re-enlist if they didn't have bullshit wars to fight. I was in the military for 10 years and was ony at war the few months Desert Storm lasted.

[MADem]

62. Generally, after wars end, the military downsizes.

See the years following WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1 as examples. Many of the people in the service frequently don't have a choice--they're RIF'd and unable to complete a 20 year/retirement eligible career. Promotion tests are made more difficult, rules (weight, fitness, drugs, etc.) that are ignored when people are needed are suddenly enforced in order to cull the masses. Often, too, an operational asset has a hard time adjusting to a peacetime force--they don't suffer the nitpicking rules terribly well.

[Jakes Progress]

13. Well, we won't have to worry about that happening. nt

[subterranean]

14. Some would still be employed by the military, wouldn't they?

At least the ones who are still on active duty.

Even if all 100,000 or so troops came home without jobs, that would probably increase the unemployment rate by less than 1 percent.

[Fridays Child]

15. Would they not still be members of the military, government employees?

[DevonRex]

23. Yes. nt

[The_Commonist]

16. Let's find out.

Bring 'em all home, and let's see what happens.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. We would still need a military even if we ended all the current conflicts. eom

[Paper Roses]

19. There would be plenty for the troops to do. The infrastructure of this

country is falling apart. I'm sure our soldiers would much rather be grading roads, building bridges and the like. The women could also do this work. We're just as capable.

Programs like the WPA or the CCC of years ago built thousands of projects that were valuable to the country. We need to spend our dollars-or what is left of them here, in the good old USA, not in the sands of countries on the other side of the world. As a benefit, some of the radicals might give us a break if they thought we were minding our business for a change.

[Travis_0004]

32. What makes you think a soldier knows how to build a bridge?

Construction is a very complicated line of work, and with the exception of a few people (Corps of engineers, a few construction MOS), most people in the military don't know a lot about construction. They could help border patrol along the Mexican border, and I would be for that.

[Paper Roses]

42. Certainly the examples I gave would be under the supervision of

professionals who would teach these soldiers the "how to". Engineers plan, but workers can do the work at their skill level. Whatever they did, I'm sure the pay would be better than the military. Plus, there is that added benefit of not being shot or blown up.

I know, this is simplistic but sometimes the old ways are better.

[seeinfweggos]

49. the military doesn't build bridges? when did they stop?

nt

[Warren Stupidity]

53. temporary only

This is not what you want, in general, when you ask for a bridge.

[MADem]

64. Most don't--unless they're SEABEES or ACOE.

And I'll wager all those union bosses, who give big money to politicians, would not stand idly by while "unemployed soldiers" take the bread from their plates.

I don't go for "posse comitatus" use of the military, absent a grave national emergency, and even then, I think they need a very precise ROE. If departing military members want to patrol the Mexican border, then the government should increase the size of the border patrol, and encourage demobbed personnel to apply for the jobs, perhaps offering facilitated advancement as a consequence of their service--not put soldiers in military uniforms with a chain of command that goes to the Secretary of Defense at the border. We aren't at war with Mexico, or Canada.

Mixing of INS duties (customs and immigration) with the business of war is a bad idea. It's insulting to our neighbors as well.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. This ain't WWII

we do not have a significant portion of the labor force in the army.

[JaneQPublic]

22. Most would still be in the military, just not at war.

They still train and maintain ships, aircraft, avionics, weaponry, etc. Like the Boy Scouts, they must always be prepared.

I know many folks who spent 20-25 years in active duty military with scarcely any war experience.

[DevonRex]

25. Exactly. Some folks have no clue, apparently. nt

[jonnyblitz]

28. you just described me. I find it funny people talk like the military

ends and everybody gets out and becomes a civilian the minute war is over. Like i said upthread, I was in the navy for 10 years and only at war a few months and i managed somehow to be super busy that whole time.

[Warpy]

26. You're assuming it would be like the end of WWI and WWII

and everybody would be mustered out of the military at the same time. That's simply not true, especially since our all volunteer military is now a professional fighting force, many of them careerists.

That scenario only worked when there was a wartime draft and draftees were only in until the war ended.

[divvy]

27. There would be some economic liability.

I do not support the wars, but do understand that we had trouble after the vietnam war and probably would after this one also.

[DevonRex]

31. This is VOLUNTEER MILITARY with enlistment CONTRACTS.

They do NOT just get out when the wars are over. Good grief.

[divvy]

36. This is the most expensive war on record.

As after Vietnam, government spending on defense will slow and folks who work in those sectors or supprort them would have at-risk jobs.

100 Billion plus per year is not just for wages.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Only in nominal dollars.

We were spending 42% of GDP on WWII by the end of that war.

[divvy]

54. Oh for fucks sake

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

With all the incidentals, military spending is over 1 Trillion Dollars in 2010. Read all the way to the bottom line.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Oh for fucks sake

Read this: http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/us-military-spending.pdf

Oh never mind. Here is the data in inflation adjusted 2004 dollars.

1945 871.0
2008 455.5

However % of GDP is really a much better number than 'inflation adjusted dollars' as the latter for political reasons been grossly understated for the last 30 years while GDP is fairly accurate. Even more so, the 'expense' of a military to a nation is directly described by how much of that nation's GDP is consumed by its military spending. WWII - which at the end was consuming over 40% of our GDP - was vastly more expensive than the cold war and long war expenditures which peak at between 6-7% of GDP. The WWII expenditures represented a war economy consumed by its military efforts. Rationing, industrial output redirected to military equipment, mobilization of the entire male workforce, a modern industrial economy in total war mode.

You can characterize the current military efforts as the most expensive ever only by using nominal (non-inflation adjusted) dollars and that is more than a bit dishonest.

[divvy]

60. oh for fucks sake

Your list includes only partial payments to the active brances of the military and not that long long list of directy related expenditures. The manhatten project alone (that gave us the bomb) was over $1 Billion.

Your effort to use silver certificates and currency based on gold as the basis for any meaningful analysis is also suspect. In 1964, four quarters were worth $1 and today they are worth about $11, so this justifies spending 11 times more?

Frankly, you need also to look at the costs you are not including on your spreadsheet. Your method for accounting is like projecting a household budget strictly on the basis of the electric bill alone. I agree with the comparision to GDP but even that number is skewed because the payment burden is more unevenly distributed upon the US taxpayer today due to the multinational nature of modern corporations.

We are spending a trememdous amount of money on this war as measured by any standard if you include all the expenses.

[piratefish08]

29. They weren't drafted. They'd still be in the military and could be used in MANY productive

domestic, nation building tasks at a FRACTION of the cost of war overseas.

jmho.

[AndyA]

30. Why, naturally we'd need the troops on active duty here in the U.S.

Because if we ended the wars in the Middle East, and brought all the troops home, they'd be fighting the terrorists here--in our streets.

The Bush Administration said that would happen, so it must be true...

:sarcasm:

[seeinfweggos]

33. they'd still be in the military. nt

[Duer 157099]

34. OK let me slightly amend the OP

It was too simplistic and I didn't state anything about all of the "supportive" economic activity--meaning, the Contractors would also have to pare down their employee rolls, the military hardware contractors would have to lay people off, etc.

Does that change anything?

[DevonRex]

35. No. Military hardware is always being made, updated, etc. They're the last

ones who ever have to cut back.

[divvy]

38. Not quite accurate.

To be sure, military spending will not disappear after these wars but it certainly will be reduced. It ALWAYS is.

[piratefish08]

37. Exactly!

They can all go find jobs that don't make them complicit in the murder of civilians.

I know what you are trying to say, but any industry that needs an active war to stay in business can fucking fail as far as I'm concerned.........

[Duer 157099]

41. Well I totally agree. I just wonder if this isn't in the minds of those who don't

and they're the ones who seem to be making the decisions...

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Not really. We had a huge bloated military budget before

and we will continue to have a huge bloated military budget after these two wars are over. The constant is 'huge bloated military budget'.

Perhaps the question you meant to ask is "is our economy dependent on a huge bloated military budget?" and the answer is "yes" and that has been the answer for a very long time.

[Obamanaut]

39. If "the troops" could come home from ALL the military sites in ALL

the other countries, there would be an expansion of the current military sites in the US. It would include many families.

The money currently being spent by these troops/families in local communities in other countries would be spent locally here, boosting economies.

Lease payments on all those hundreds of sites would end, saving mega-bucks to spend here.

No transport of personnel, dependents, equipment - more savings.

Decreased need for so many active duty personnel would reduce the recruiting activity.

If there are too many on active duty, reduce end strength via normal attrition and reduced recruitment.

[Duer 157099]

40. Why is it that the most logical and hope-inducing scenario

is also the one least likely to actually happen?

Makes me want to break into song, John Lennon's "Imagine" :sigh:

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. I support your idea eleventy bizillion percent.

Eleventy bizillion.

[Fleshdancer]

43. Bringing troops home doesn't mean they will suddenly become civilians

The troops would still be under contract. :shrug:

[Javaman]

45. Not very. It's an all volunteer service.

they would still be in the military.

[haele]

46. That's what happened in the twenties - lots of unemployed young men who had fought in WWI.

As businesses and government started "being fiscally responsible" by cutting spending and internal investments, more and more jobs went away, unemployment increased, and the Bonus Army came into being and marched on D.C. as all those WWI vets who were promised a pension for their 2 - 4 years sacrifice wanted it "now" to be able to save their homes and feed their families...
...and that didn't end very nice.

Could our struggling economy handle sudden influx of a couple hundred-thousand more unemployed - and the loss of the additional thousands of supporting jobs and smaller businesses that developed in those communities due to the employed military population? Could our society handle a large socially related and most likely pissed off group of people, unemployed and looking for work, suddenly adrift and out in the communities?

There are probably ways of doing this and not adversely affecting the economy, but it would take the joint agreement and serious focus of government and business to make employment in "green" jobs and re-investment in local manufacturing and infrastructure in the United States a priority above election politics and making a quick profit.

Haele

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Bonus Army: 1932

We had a boom in the 20's, a crash in '29, and a depression in the 30's.

[malaise]

48. Then they support government employment

since all those soldiers are paid by taxpayers

[Grand Taurean]

57. Same thought here.

[Hugabear]

58. You just solved the unemployment problem. Declare war on EVERYONE

Well, at least Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and every country in the Middle East that's not named Israel. That should create plenty of new military jobs.

[salguine]

59. They don't want the wars to continue because of some concern for the troops and the people at

home. Are you joking!?

[area51]

61. This is why ...

... it would make sense to dovetail ending the two wars of choice and start a transition to single-payer. Offer returning soldiers training in the medical professions and it could help on both fronts.

[Cleita]

63. Perhaps reopen the bases that were closed and keep them in the military

but doing peace time work like they did in the fifties. The military did employ a lot of young people back then as well as civilians. I know it won't lower the military budget very much but at least it would be of benefit to a large segment of the population without having to kill them in the process.

[RedCloud]

65. Bring em back to round up terrorist polluters and Wall Street rip off billionaires.

[kenny blankenship]

66. What if we counted people incarcerated in jails and prisons as unemployed?

2.29 million adults are in prisons or jails in this country - or were at the end of 2008. Then on top of the labor that's outright "missing" because it's rotting behind bars, you have to add the reduced labor of those who're out of prison but as convicted felons can't get a good job.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS): "In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."

The United States of America they say is dedicated to the full flourishing of the individual. But for a country that supposedly cherishes individuals, it sure throws away vast numbers of them, from earliest childhood on.