We can not cut military spending. The industry is very profitable. We have political control globally. We have the reserve currency. If we cut military spending that means the manufacturing side drifts to China and Russia. Then we lose political control globally. We lose billions of lives in the process.
The military manufacturers pay employment taxes at the very least. They contribute a lot to our economy. That part of the budget is much less of a problem than portrayed.
The issue is ramping up other manufacturing sectors. We need those tax revenues.
The debt to GDP ratio will be falling for much of the next three decades regardless of how high the debt goes.
The reserve currency in Economics is considered an interest-free loan from the rest of the world. All those dollars eventually after inflation get spent on US goods.
@TucsonBones You are a nice decent guy. Seriously. But the one person who gets it wrong endlessly was the person who liked your post.
Precisely. I never said they would all be in the military. Most would NOT.
This is general age range when many/most people are trying to figure out “what next”? High school done, now what? Giving them a break for 2-3 years allows them to mature and make better choices/decisions based on a larger experience base.
There are lots of public jobs that need to be done–and do not require much training or experience. Sure, some things WILL require supervision. But, as the saying goes, it ain’t brain surgery. The objective is to broaden their horizons and give them experiences they might not otherwise get. After 2-3 years, they return home. But they will not be the same people they were when they started.
Room and board AWAY FROM HOME is the key point. In a sense, public
service. Pay is some (i.e. modest amount of) spending money each month. It could also be a way to earn the right to vote rather than have it handed to the lucky few who got “born lucky”.
You’re suggesting that the Federal government pay the room and board of approximately 15 million kids annually?
The Money would be better spent paying the room and board at colleges and trade schools and free tuition.
TusconBones pointed out that the general idea that some 15 million high school grads need to be forced into taking 2-3 years out of their lives to do public service - instead of going to college or getting jobs - is bonkers. But I’d like to respond to this:
Such as what, exactly? The entire federal government “only” has about two million employees - including the post office. Three million if you include the armed forces. What on earth are you going to have fifteen million untrained people doing for 2-3 years that’s worth diverting them from continuing their education or getting started with their working careers?
Being more productive than most other people. AND learning a lot more about the real world, and others their own age, than CAN be taught in school or in self-selected groups.
What will they DO? Good idea. Start a list–and keep it updated as you (and others) figure out what 15 million 19-21 year old high school grads can do.
There is Job #1: Teach those who did not graduate (and/or can’t read/write) so they can be HS graduates and be able to read/write.
How would that work? These kids don’t have any of the qualifications to teach high school. They don’t have the credentials or training to be high school teachers. They have no expertise in how to be an educator. Let alone to students who have already failed to graduate high school (and thus are presumably harder to teach). Nor is there any way for them to actually do this job, since “those who did not graduate” are: i) under no legal compunction, and presumably have little desire, to return to high school; or ii) are 19-21 years old and are therefore themselves being forced to be in this public service program and not available to be taught.
To say nothing of the fact that all the teachers that would have graduated from their training programs in a few years’ time are now going to be delayed 2-3 years, since they spent 2-3 years being forced to do remedial tutoring instead of, you know, actually being trained in how to be a teacher.
This is only true for some high school graduates. For many, taking a break of 2-3 years means that they will never be able to get into “learning mode” again, and will not attend college, or at least not attend college successfully. It would be far better to direct those high school graduates with good academics towards college, those with mediocre academics to either weaker colleges or trade schools, and those with dismal academics to weaker trade schools or straight to work (public service and/or various forms of labor that doesn’t require higher education. This is how almost every other country operates.
Qualifications depends upon the willingness to do the job AND to connect with the people who need to learn. Better a contemporary to the person who needs to lean rather than an older parental figure (“older” can mean 3-5 yrs older, not just a generation or more older).
19-21 years old and are therefore themselves being forced to be in this public service program and not available to be taught.
If they do not know how to read or write, that is what they are assigned to do FIRST. Ony after they have learned can they move on to other things that might interest them. If they can not learn (for some reason), that will be determined. Been there, seen that.
19-21 years old and are therefore themselves being forced to be in this public service program and not available to be taught.
So is everyone else in the age bracket for the foreseeable future. Being taught does not mean just school or formal training. Much of it is seeing reality of the job–not just the “that looks interesting”. Seeing the seamier/dirty side of that job may cause a change in perspective, and the desire to try/do something else more suited to them. For those who still want to do their original profession/job, they may then have something practical to bring to the job that they did not have before.
They would see some parts of jobs that interest them. And some that might not. But they all know one thing: This is temporary. It has a definite end date and they know it. Sure, if doing something they don’t like, it just becomes drudge work. That is real life. But they will be with others like AND unlike themselves, so it all becomes a shared experience.
Where will they go, what will they do, AFTER it ends? Don’t know. But it will be something they have in common with others. AND they will be able to sympathize with those who come after them. So the entire society will benefit as a result.
Depends on the person. If the idea is “learning mode OFF” after high school (or some other point), then they would not make good students at any school of higher education (that includes trade schools). For most jobs, there is a need for continuing education as technology changes. Thus, the need to have “learning mode ON” because their jobs depend on it. I have never said the trades were not good because I know they are valuable. This type of program could put MORE people into the trades professions because they can see it and try it themselves. Just a taste, and an understanding of what it really means to be in that profession. Then they can decide for themselves what they want to do.
jerryab2…
There are certainly some aspects of your idea that would have some societal benefits. But going from nothing to full requirement for all 19-21 year olds would have so many issues.
Here’s just one: What would happen to all the colleges and universities that first or second year? Would they just shutdown lots of freshman classes? Or just accept lots of international students or lots of older and probably less qualified students.
IMHO, at best, if you wanted to do this you’d have to start with voluntary admissions to the program in limited numbers and ramp it up over a decade or so before it became mandatory, if ever.
I think you can name quite a few project that would benefit from public service. CCC and WPA are good example. Planting trees, picking up trash. How about child care. Help with the elderly. Shopping services. Home delivery. Sorting recycled plastic.
that was 90 years ago. National relief programs make sense when unemployment is 25%, not such a good idea when unemployment is 3.6%. 90 years ago 50% of the workforce was in agriculture. It’s a whole different world today. Higher education used to be a luxury for a small segment of society, but it’s become essential in a modern technological world. If you’re goinng to spend money on programs for young adults, it’s better spent on tuition free universities.
I think the draft is the best example of universal service. Of course it was not actually universal as many found ways to get exemptions. Peace corps is also a good example of what could be done.
Universal service maybe would help future voters learn how well off we are but also what else needs to be done. A very practical education for many.