Is the U.S. Military Affordable

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Ken White

Steve Blair answered that, I'll only add that most people went to find land as you say -- and to work for those people he cited; a good mix. Little is as simple as you seem to wish...

Steve is right but so is Fuchs to great extent, by claiming land they essentially had free capital something that can't happen today. My Great Grandparents simply staked a claim on a piece of land that had a water supply. At the time I didn't understand a lot of what they said when they talked about never having a job and never really having any money but living quite well. They saved their Social Security Checks (literally put them in a drawer) because they didn't no what to do with them and they certainly would never trust or use something called a Bank Early settlers were the original Hippies, it was all about Land, Labor and Tools and being a good neighbor. I think there is lesson in UNlearned in there somewhere.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Steve is right but so is Fuchs to great extent, by claiming land they essentially had free capital something that can't happen today. My Great Grandparents simply staked a claim on a piece of land that had a water supply. At the time I didn't understand a lot of what they said when they talked about never having a job and never really having any money but living quite well. They saved their Social Security Checks (literally put them in a drawer) because they didn't no what to do with them and they certainly would never trust or use something called a Bank Early settlers were the original Hippies, it was all about Land, Labor and Tools and being a good neighbor. I think there is lesson in UNlearned in there somewhere.

Actually the Homestead Act was a little more complicated that someone just claiming land. They had to prove it up (in other words homestead and start putting in crops), and there were some other requirements as well. And as far as the original settlers being Hippies...that looks cute in retrospect but the reality on the ground was far different and very harsh.

I could go on about Frontier history, but that's diverting the thread as Ken pointed out.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Actually the Homestead Act was a little more complicated that someone just claiming land. They had to prove it up (in other words homestead and start putting in crops), and there were some other requirements as well. And as far as the original settlers being Hippies...that looks cute in retrospect but the reality on the ground was far different and very harsh.

I could go on about Frontier history, but that's diverting the thread as Ken pointed out.

Yes, but the point none the less is they were essentially given free capital and the associated risk with it. And based upon my own real life personal history is wasn't that complicated at all, the size was determined largely by what you could control (homestead) and that was largely based upon the size of your family.....hence the problem that would arise when families grew the land disputes followed. The reality of how harsh it was depended on where that land was and what natural resources were associated with it(game,fish,timber,water,minerals,etc.) as history shows some people,families did very well indeed.

[bourbon]

The Tyranny of Defense Inc., by Andrew J. Bacevich. The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2011.

In 1961, Dwight Eisenhower famously identified the military-industrial complex, warning that the growing fusion between corporations and the armed forces posed a threat to democracy. Judged 50 years later, Ike’s frightening prophecy actually understates the scope of our modern system—and the dangers of the perpetual march to war it has put us on.

[Cole]

Originally Posted by bourbon

The Tyranny of Defense Inc., by Andrew J. Bacevich. The Atlantic Monthly, January/February 2011.

Thanks Bourbon. But perhaps a quote from his article that the percentage of overall military spending was 50% of the federal budget back then and that it represented 10% of GDP would have put his article in better perspective. I also hear all the time that the top tax bracket back then was 90%.

A quick trip to see what things cost in 1960 reveals this.

$12,700 cost of a NEW house
$2,600 cost of a new car
$220 cost of 23" TV
$20.30 cost of electric razor
30 cents cost of can of Ravioli
25 cents cost of gallon of gas
20 cents cost of loaf of bread

What this shows me is that food and electric devices are still very much a bargain relative to 1960. For instance, I can't imagine paying about the same for a can of Ravioli or a loaf of bread today as a gallon of gas, or $240 for an electric razor. And actually gas is pretty cheap today, too, even at $3 a gallon.

Use that 25 cent cost of 1960 gas as a baseline and multiply by a factor of 12. That same factor correlates pretty well to a car (12 x $2,600 = $31,200) which is a relative bargain considering the modern features you can get for a car that price today. Where that factor fails is in the cost of a house. If you use the median price of a price in the midwest and south, the current price tracks closely with 12 x $12,700 which is $152,400. But try paying that much for a house on the east or west coast and you are in for a rude surprise.

So I would advocate that many of the economic ills we face today are directly attributable to the artificial inflation of houses and incomes in our nation's primary commercial coastal hubs...like Boston. Also, the cost of paying for college is higher today relative to 1960, because apparently professors with Ph.D.s seem to think they are worth more money.

The cost of state civil servants in many of our nations hubs is also driving many problems. California for instance, may have a half trillion dollars in underfunded pension obligations. In San Jose, where I'm originally from, a police officer STARTS at over $80,000 and can make much more with overtime. So Mr. Bacevich's big city contemporaries are contributing to the problem as well, through both high salaries and high pensions. And the fact that Professor Bacevich lives near Boston tells me he probably owns a house worth considerably more than 12 times the average price of a new home in 1960...which in turn drives up prices of neighboring homes, which in turn drives up salaries of all folks living near Boston...increasing that 1 in 7 poverty rate and making affordable, safe, quality housing nearly nonexistent if you desire a reasonable commute.

I also would argue that the threat of an actual nuclear explosion in a major western city is every bit as real a threat today due to the extremists that Bacevich seems to think are an exaggeration. After all, both North Korea, soon Iran, and current Pakistan and India have nukes and targets they would be inclined to use them on either as extreme individual leaders, scientists, or military personnel in those states or while selling them to state-sponsored terrorists (except India). Unlike Russia and China in 1960, extremists don't view MAD the same way. We never experienced any actual attacks by Russians or Chinese since 1960 which is hardly the case reference extremist states and the terrorists they breed.

So no. I don't think our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were worthless exercises or an example of the military-industrial complex, or that military contractors are thieves. Also believe value exists to local economies in having military bases, or military manufacturing facilities nearby. With the price of housing and union demands, civil manufacturing is pretty much dead for many things in the U.S. That is hardly the case for military gear. And it wouldn't have to be the case if those who live near shorelines in inflated real estate allowed off shore oil drilling and wind mills generating electricity. A few new nuclear power plants and oil refineries might help, too. After all, Iran is pumping out 2.6 million barrels of oil a month now thanks to military efforts, believe I read. Think how high the price of oil would be currently if they were still only exporting "oil for food."

Think how much more manufacturing we would generate in the U.S. if everyone studied history in college instead of math and engineering...oh wait...

[bourbon]

Originally Posted by Cole

What this shows me is that food and electric devices are still very much a bargain relative to 1960.
Where that factor fails is in the cost of a house.

Cole, I think you need to examine changes in the past 50 years.

Simply put, the way a home is built in 2011 is more similar to the way it was in 1960, than the way consumer electronics were manufactured or food was produced in 1960 compared to the way they are today.

Modern technology and globalization has brought efficiency and competitive forces which have driven food and consumer electronic production costs downward. On the other hand, housing remains a labor intensive industry; and I do not believe that the housing industry has experienced the technological efficiencies or the competitive forces of a similar magnitude.

This is to say nothing of the role in which speculation has played in housing.

So I would advocate that many of the economic ills we face today are directly attributable to the artificial inflation of houses and incomes in our nation's primary commercial coastal hubs...like Boston. Also, the cost of paying for college is higher today relative to 1960, because apparently professors with Ph.D.s seem to think they are worth more money.
...
And the fact that Professor Bacevich lives near Boston tells me he probably owns a house worth considerably more than 12 times the average price of a new home in 1960...

Again, speculation in housing plays a large role. Also the tech and financial sectors of the economy are centered primarily in the commercial coastal hubs, and these industries have made for a disproportionate share of the past 20 years economic gains; as a result real estate prices followed similar growth geographically.

I would say the rise of college tuition costs has had more to do with the decline in state financing than it does with professor’s salaries. I would also look at the massive expansion of full-time support staff and administrative positions; you didn’t all these IT workers 20 years ago, and you didn’t need all the back office staff to deal with all these laws and regulations 50 years ago. The shift toward a focus on student amenities rather than academics also needs to be considered.

This forum has several Ph.Ds who are college professors, and I think most would say they could be making more money if they did something other than teaching (at-least in pre-2008). Maybe less so for the liberal arts types, but for someone like selil in IT, I am sure the difference is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual income.


Further, as a Boston University graduate and having had the privilege of taking Professor Bacevich’s American military history course, I can say that the school could easily double or triple his salary and still get its money worth. His course was the most rewarding educational experience I have ever had, and I say this as someone who at the time of taking the course was a non-matriculated student with a problem in motivation and a poor educational track-record in both experience and in practice.

Lest you have the impression that Professor Bacevich is some lefty academic jagoff or are unfamiliar with his background (which this article does not get into); it is notable that he is a West Point graduate and Vietnam vet who retired from active duty with the rank of Colonel. He is also an old school conservative and devout Catholic. This makes him a unique voice in the academic, for which he should not be brushed aside as a liberal academic elite.

And fwiw, Prof. Bacevich uses public transportation and shares a compact sedan with his family iirc. I would imagine such thrift extends to the rest of his lifestyle, including his house.

[Bob's World]

The U.S. military could become much more affordable if we did the following simple steps:

1. Stop subsidizing the defense of Western European and NE Asian and North American countries that are more than capable of providing their own defense. We have sustained this bill in order to keep a string on these guys that we can pull when we want them to do something that supports our interests, but may not necessarily support their own. Time to find a new tool for garnering that type of support, or come up with new foreign policies that demand it less often.

2. Stop seeking to "contain" problems that were arguably legitimate "threats" 40-60 years ago, but are now much more an issue of will and pride rather than national security.

3. Stop seeking to control every outcome around the globe that impacts upon some U.S. national interest or another. Assume a little risk, employ a little more diplomacy, and become a lot more flexible in how we work with others.

4. Focus on the capabilities required to deter and defeat the types of threats that actually pose a threat to our national survival.

5. Re-balance the force between the RC and the AC to fully extricate ourselves from a Cold War paradigm that required a large, forward deployed force to deter Soviets in Western Europe primarily, but also the North Koreans and the Chinese somewhat as well.

Such changes will not only produce immediate savings, but will also serve to reduce the friction that contributes so much to the "irregular warfare" that vexes us today.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

The U.S. military could become much more affordable if we did the following simple steps:

1. Stop subsidizing the defense of Western European and NE Asian and North American countries that are more than capable of providing their own defense. We have sustained this bill in order to keep a string on these guys that we can pull when we want them to do something that supports our interests, but may not necessarily support their own. Time to find a new tool for garnering that type of support, or come up with new foreign policies that demand it less often.

I'm not sure that this happens at all. Sure, there are troops deployed overseas, but I don't think that European security is being enhanced by U.S. troops in Europe. The European NATO military is sufficient, even if compared with Arab, Iranian and CIS military power at once.

It's similar with East Asia. South Korea's forces are clearly superior to North Korea's, and the lone U.S. division in South Korea and a few jets on Okinawa don't change that.

Taiwan's security strategy doesn't even seem to depend on military power, especially not land power. They could expect few if any U.S. land forces as reinforcement (paras maybe), but their army is the most neglected of their armed services - basically a mediocre 70's force.

I'm furthermore not even sure that the U.S. is even intent on subsidizing allied powers' national security.



My only logical explanation for the whole forward-basing (which is really risky, think Force Z) is therefore rather your third point; an extreme bully interventionist foreign policy.
It just happens to look like your first point, but that's mere façade.

[bourbon]

Originally Posted by Cole

The cost of state civil servants in many of our nations hubs is also driving many problems. California for instance, may have a half trillion dollars in underfunded pension obligations. In San Jose, where I'm originally from, a police officer STARTS at over $80,000 and can make much more with overtime. So Mr. Bacevich's big city contemporaries are contributing to the problem as well, through both high salaries and high pensions.

Yes, the cost of state civil servants is an issue. A bigger issue is losses to state pension funds from investment in mortgage-backed securities and toxic derivative crap, much of which fed into the housing bubble in the first place.

Originally Posted by Cole

A few new nuclear power plants and oil refineries might help, too. After all, Iran is pumping out 2.6 million barrels of oil a month now thanks to military efforts, believe I read. Think how high the price of oil would be currently if they were still only exporting "oil for food."

Think how much more manufacturing we would generate in the U.S. if everyone studied history in college instead of math and engineering...oh wait...

I think you meant to say that Iraq is now pumping 2.6 million bbl/yr, but wrote Iran. But still in error you were on to something, and that is the significant influence that Iran now holds over the Iraqi government and its oil.

Speculation through commodity index’s drove the 2008 oil price spike, and while structural issues exist in the oil market the speculators remain a significant contributor to high oil prices today. Additional Iraqi production is a marginal issue next the speculators.

Besides, the traditional strategy has favored suppressing/red-lining Iraqi oil production – so I am not sure it is favorable for us. But you would need someone who studied history to explain that concept for you...

[bourbon]

From the Pentagon to the private sector: In large numbers, and with few rules, retiring generals are taking lucrative defense-firm jobs, By Bryan Bender. The Boston Globe, 26 December 2010.

The Globe analyzed the career paths of 750 of the highest ranking generals and admirals who retired during the last two decades and found that, for most, moving into what many in Washington call the “rent-a-general’’ business is all but irresistible.

From 2004 through 2008, 80 percent of retiring three- and four-star officers went to work as consultants or defense executives, according to the Globe analysis. That compares with less than 50 percent who followed that path a decade earlier, from 1994 to 1998.

In some years, the move from general staff to industry is a virtual clean sweep. Thirty-four out of 39 three- and four-star generals and admirals who retired in 2007 are now working in defense roles — nearly 90 percent.

And in many cases there is nothing subtle about what the generals have to sell — Martin’s firm is called The Four Star Group, for example. The revolving-door culture of Capitol Hill — where former lawmakers and staffers commonly market their insider knowledge to lobbying firms — is now pervasive at the senior rungs of the military leadership.

Among the Globe findings:

■ Dozens of retired generals employed by defense firms maintain Pentagon advisory roles, giving them unparalleled levels of influence and access to inside information on Department of Defense procurement plans.

■ The generals are, in many cases, recruited for private sector roles well before they retire, raising questions about their independence and judgment while still in uniform. The Pentagon is aware and even supports this practice.

■ The feeder system from some commands to certain defense firms is so powerful that successive generations of commanders have been hired by the same firms or into the same field. For example, the last seven generals and admirals who worked as Department of Defense gatekeepers for international arms sales are now helping military contractors sell weapons and defense technology overseas.

■ When a general-turned-businessman arrives at the Pentagon, he is often treated with extraordinary deference — as if still in uniform — which can greatly increase his effectiveness as a rainmaker for industry. The military even has name for it — the “bobblehead effect.’’

“We are changing the perception and maybe the reality of what it means to be a general,’’ said retired General Robert “Doc’’ Foglesong, who retired as the second-ranking Air Force officer in 2006.

“The fundamental question,’’ he said, “is whether this is shaping the acquisition system and influencing what the Pentagon buys. I think the answer is yes.’’