Restore the Draft? What a Bad Idea

A long report in Time magazine a few weeks back carries the headline: “Restoring the Draft: No Panacea.”

Milton Friedman must be turning over his grave at the mere suggestion of a draft. If the problem is that not enough young people are volunteering to fight in Iraq, there are two reasonable solutions: 1) take the troops out of Iraq; or 2) compensate soldiers well enough that they are willing to enlist.

The idea that a draft presents a reasonable solution is completely backwards. First, it puts the “wrong” people in the military — people who are either uninterested in a military life, not well equipped for one, or who put a very high value on doing something else. From an economic perspective, those are all decent reasons for not wanting to be in the military. (I understand that there are other perspectives — for example, a sense of debt or duty to one’s country — but if a person feels that way, it will be factored into his or her interest in military life.)

One thing markets are good at is allocating people to tasks. They accomplish this through wages. As such, we should pay U.S. soldiers a fair wage to compensate them for the risks they take! A draft is essentially a large, very concentrated tax on those who are drafted. Economic theory tells us that is an extremely inefficient way to accomplish our goal.

Critics might argue that sending less economically-advantaged kids to die in Iraq is inherently unfair. While I wouldn’t disagree that it’s unfair that some people are born rich and others poor, given that income disparity exists in this country, you’d have to possess a low opinion of the decision-making ability of military enlistees to say that a draft makes more sense than a volunteer army. Given the options they face, the men and women joining the military are choosing that option over the others available to them. A draft may make sense as an attempt to reduce inequality; but in a world filled with inequality, letting people choose their own paths is better than dictating one for them. As a perfect example of this, the Army is currently offering $20,000 “quick ship” bonuses to those who are willing to ship out to basic training within 30 days of signing up. (This bonus likely has something to do with the fact that the Army just hit its monthly recruiting goal for the first time in a while.)

It would be even better if the government was required to pay fair wages to soldiers during war time — i.e., if combat pay was market-determined and soldiers could opt to leave whenever they wanted, like most jobs. If that were the case, the cost to the government would skyrocket and more accurately reflect the true costs of war, leading to a truer assessment of whether the benefits of military action outweigh the costs.

Critics also argue that, if more affluent Caucasians were in the military, we wouldn’t be in Iraq. That is probably true, but it doesn’t automatically mean that a draft is a good idea. A draft would make fighting wars much less efficient, which should mean fewer wars. But it may be the case that, if you can fight a war efficiently, it is worth fighting — even if it’s not worth fighting inefficiently. Just to be clear, I am not saying this particular war is necessarily worth fighting — just that, in theory, this could be true.

As a side point, the current system of relying on reservists doesn’t seem like a good one, either. Essentially, it involves the government overpaying reservists when they aren’t needed, and underpaying them when they are needed. This setup shifts all the risk from the government to the reservists. From an economic perspective, such a result doesn’t make any sense, because individuals shouldn’t/don’t like risk. Ideally, you would want a system in which the payment to reservists is extremely low in peace time, and high enough in war time that they would be indifferent to being called up or not.

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 257

View All Comments »
  1. mgroves says:

    Why is it “probably true” the “if more affluent Caucasians were in the military, we wouldn’t be in Iraq”?

    It also seems like you are assuming that being in Iraq is somehow undesirable, economically or otherwise. That may be the popular opinion, but popularity doesn’t mean correctness.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  2. mgroves says:

    Why is it “probably true” the “if more affluent Caucasians were in the military, we wouldn’t be in Iraq”?

    It also seems like you are assuming that being in Iraq is somehow undesirable, economically or otherwise. That may be the popular opinion, but popularity doesn’t mean correctness.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  3. Joe says:

    From Withleather.com
    “And everyone who talks about how awesome it is that golfers were able to play golf during the summer heat for thousands or millions of dollars is totally right: I mean, they weren’t even allowed to wear shorts.
    In other news, thousands of soldiers and Marines woke up in Baghdad today for the 47th consecutive day of 110+ degree heat. Then they put on their body armor, helmets, and 40 pounds of gear each and went on patrol in a Humvee without air conditioning. When asked to comment, they said that the extra $150 a month for combat pay made it all worthwhile.”

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  4. Joe says:

    From Withleather.com
    “And everyone who talks about how awesome it is that golfers were able to play golf during the summer heat for thousands or millions of dollars is totally right: I mean, they weren’t even allowed to wear shorts.
    In other news, thousands of soldiers and Marines woke up in Baghdad today for the 47th consecutive day of 110+ degree heat. Then they put on their body armor, helmets, and 40 pounds of gear each and went on patrol in a Humvee without air conditioning. When asked to comment, they said that the extra $150 a month for combat pay made it all worthwhile.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Jim Walsh says:

    Economics only goes so far. While I certainly do not advocate a draft, this post fails to account for many variables. This current war is UNnecessary but what if it were truly necessary. Would we then still apply your efficiency criteria? If we paid soldiers a fair wage for their true value, risking death, they would all be millionaires. Sometimes, society cannot pay a market rate, and government must intervene. What is the true value of a cardiac surgeon? If we really compensated them according to supply and demand, they would have ALL of the money.
    Everyone who supports the war should be required to fight it. Taken further, only vets should be able to vote because they are the only ones who are qualified and know the true cost.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Jim Walsh says:

    Economics only goes so far. While I certainly do not advocate a draft, this post fails to account for many variables. This current war is UNnecessary but what if it were truly necessary. Would we then still apply your efficiency criteria? If we paid soldiers a fair wage for their true value, risking death, they would all be millionaires. Sometimes, society cannot pay a market rate, and government must intervene. What is the true value of a cardiac surgeon? If we really compensated them according to supply and demand, they would have ALL of the money.
    Everyone who supports the war should be required to fight it. Taken further, only vets should be able to vote because they are the only ones who are qualified and know the true cost.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Pablo says:

    The benefit of a draft would be, like some taxes, its redistributive element in which it would guarantee that the army would be composed of demographics that are similar to those of the United States and would certainly include more people from the decision making classes. While your solution of using market forces to show the “true” cost of war would probably be better, it is also harder to implement because of the Government’s reluctance to pay fair wages and allow the soldiers the freedom this solution would require.

    http://poli-think.blogspot.com/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Pablo says:

    The benefit of a draft would be, like some taxes, its redistributive element in which it would guarantee that the army would be composed of demographics that are similar to those of the United States and would certainly include more people from the decision making classes. While your solution of using market forces to show the “true” cost of war would probably be better, it is also harder to implement because of the Government’s reluctance to pay fair wages and allow the soldiers the freedom this solution would require.

    http://poli-think.blogspot.com/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0