One of the arguments for wide, across-the-board military conscription is that it would lower the costs for the armed forces. The argument goes this way: At the present time, the U.S. Armed Forces are voluntary and depend upon enlistments. Because of this, the Armed Forces must offer financial incentives to entice people to go into military service instead of pursuing higher-paying civilian jobs. A draft would pull men and women from all kinds of occupations that would be useful to the Armed Forces, and authorities could pay them less than they do now for enlisted people who do the same things for the military services. Therefore, the argument goes, if the government can save money for things like medical and legal services (draft doctors and lawyers along with others), then the whole country saves money because the cost of financing the armed forces is lower. That being the case, according to the advocates of the draft, American society is better off. Is this a sound economic argument? Why or why not?
One of the arguments for wide, across-the-board military conscription is that it would lower the costs for the armed forces. The argument goes this way: At the present time, the U.S. Armed Forces are voluntary and depend upon enlistments. Because of this, the Armed Forces must offer financial incentives to entice people to go into military service instead of pursuing higher-paying civilian jobs. A draft would pull men and women from all kinds of occupations that would be useful to the Armed Forces, and authorities could pay them less than they do now for enlisted people who do the same things for the military services. Therefore, the argument goes, if the government can save money for things like medical and legal services (draft doctors and lawyers along with others), then the whole country saves money because the cost of financing the armed forces is lower. That being the case, according to the advocates of the draft, American society is better off. Is this a sound economic argument? Why or why not?
