Military
Jobs: A Case Study
Whether the debates are about higher education or the
Greek default on its debt, they seem to revolve around the question of job
creation. The message has been part of the political landscape since the Great
Depression, and is bound to preoccupy the upcoming presidential election.
What does it really mean to create jobs? It could mean
opening a little shop or restaurant, a garage or salon, and hiring people to
help run the operation.
In such cases, it is presumed that the new employee was
unemployed before—otherwise this would only mean job transfer rather than job
creation.
Economists and politicians alike promote this idea of job
creation as a means towards economic growth, a way to increase the economic pie
so that it can feed more mouths.
The appeal of job creation isn’t limited to economic
growth, but also includes the presumption that every new job necessarily means
one less welfare recipient. If you have a job, you won’t collect unemployment
benefits.
But here, too, there is as much an economic justification
as a moral one: the newly employed will become productive members of society,
earning their keep rather than remaining lazy dependents on the welfare state.
The moral argument ends up being about fairness, as candidate
Mitt Romney was overheard to have claimed: 47% of Americans who don’t pay taxes
will never understand a) how the system really works, b) how they are a drag on
the economy, and c) why they don’t count.
In the name of preserving jobs, Governor Hickenlooper
went hat in hand to plead for the retention of the military presence at Fort
Carson. But does it matter what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are there
better or worse jobs, well-paying or below-poverty jobs?
The recent announcement of Walmart that it’ll increase
wages to 40% of its employees was greeted with cheers around the nation. It
even agreed not to have its employees “on call,” and provide them with regular
schedules.
To some extent, this is progress. It has been well
documented that Walmart employees have cost taxpayers $6.2 billion in Medicaid
costs and other welfare programs, like food stamps (Forbes, 4/15/14). So, if Walmart pays its employees more in wages,
America’s support of its employees decreases.
Not all jobs are alike, and some, like the Walmart ones,
can be costly to the public at large. We should carefully examine the facts
before we applaud a policy change.
What about marijuana jobs in Colorado, now that
recreational consumption is as legal as medical use? No matter how much the
leaders of Colorado Springs dislike the idea, I’d venture to say that the jobs
created in this industry pay better than at Walmart, and thus contribute
positively to the state’s economy.
If you have a moral objection to pot jobs in comparison
to Walmart jobs, we are having a different conversation: no longer about job
creation but about morality. Is the morality of Walmart—outsourcing overseas
and poverty-level wages—superior to that of the pot industry, where chilling
with a joint increases food consumption?
If we remove moral judgment about which industry is
better than the other, perhaps the debate can focus on the economy itself. And
if economic health is the goal—sustainability and/or growth—we might turn to
the military for advice.
No, I’m not suggesting that we all apply for military
service or that we should expect the armed forces to ensure the economic health
of the nation; it has enough on its plate.
Yet, the military is a successful welfare system
developed over a century: educating young men and women, training them, and
preparing them for civilian jobs and careers.
The ROTC program is a model of sensible investment in the
future of students who become officers and then serve in the military. Why not
replicate it for all other national needs, from teachers and engineers, to
nurses and scientists?
What if corporate America identified young college
students, paid for their education, and then signed them to work for them at
reduced rates for the first few years of their careers until they repaid for their
education?
If the military can do this efficiently—a government
agency by any definition—couldn’t the private sector do it even better? From
hospitals to technology startups we can envision a crop of dedicated and highly
qualified young students eager to contribute to their country’s wellbeing.
Incidentally, this would of course reduce student debt
which right now overshadows mortgage debt. Win-win? Too good to be true? If
tried, this experiment can be as good as the military one, and perhaps more
popular for those not interested in warfare.
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See
previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com
