Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
Ignorant stereotyping aside, the latest statistics show that 36% of the 18-24 year-old population reside in the south while 41% of recruits come from the south. So the demographic bias to the south is a whopping 5%. That 5% bias could come from any number of factors, not just those you choose to believe. In addition to the bias, the military is more southern because more young people live in the south than other regions.
It's not bias, it's fact. The South has consistently had higher enlistment rates than the rest of the country. Six of the top ten states were in the South. And yes, beer, fishing, and Nascar are more likely among this demographic than the rest of the nation. The recruitment bias is because recruits are more likely to come from rural areas, of which a greater proportion is in the South (and then West). Rural areas also have fewer job opportunities.

Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
Apparently I should thank conscription for the internet instead of Al Gore. Who knew?
Yup.

Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
Anyway, I guess you think military spending is great, right?
Depends on the circumstances.

Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
After all, look at all the cool things it produced, which you helpfully listed! But wait, what about this:

So, uh, how do you reconcile that?
I have previously provided in another post the connection between the latest draft period and US economic productivity. So, you wonder, what is the difference between the 1940 - 1973 era and the post 1973 era? It's quite simple: unlike the draft period where trillions of dollars were spread across multiple industries and invested in millions of people, today's defense economy concentrates spending in a few large corporations that produce products with narrower applications. So while it is very profitable for those companies and their investors, on the whole it is wealth destroying, with the opportunity costs being the returns that may have been gained had the funds been invested elsewhere.

Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
I suppose I could point out irrelevant things that were worse when the draft was implemented. There certainly is a huge list to choose from and by doing so I could imply that the AVF is clearly better without having to provide actual evidence or a coherent argument. But that would be pointless and dishonest or ignorant, wouldn't it?
Actually, I've laid out a very clear argument about the benefits of the most recent draft period compared to the costs all-volunteer force since then.