From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 10:14:17 MDT
In a message dated 9/4/02 15:39:54, talon57@well.com writes:
>From: CurtAdams@aol.com
>>People in military service are paid to provide benefits to others.
>>Often, they provide detriment instead (the US Army is pretty
>>nice to Americans but often not to others; many armies act
>>directly to harm those they supposedly protect). This is no
>>different from any profession. You could legitimately argue
>>the service is essential; but the same applies to fire, police,
>>medicine and food.
>
>People in the military are serving their country. A small part of
>what they receive in return is a ridiculously small amount of
>money.
By standard economics, they're not "ridiculously" underpaid.
Fair pay is whatever gets enough people to freely choose to
do the job, and the current compensation is ~ adequate for that
(actually a bit short, since they are falling short of quota).
>Burger flippers make more.
Not really. The strict money compensation might be more
(but I don't think so - does the army really only pay $10K
per year?) but the military provides an enormous pile
of benefits - housing, food, clothing, insurance, training,
and retirement- which you don't get with casual jobs
and can rarely match even with the best benefit packages.
In any case, there's no honor in being underpaid and exploited.
Your data just backs up the contention that the military must
be kept on a short leash as, if they do this to their own soldiers,
imagine what they'd do to somebody else?
>While you are a member of the military you are NOT an American
>citizen, you are NOT subject to or protected by the U.S.
>Constitution.
>In no other " job or profession " is this true.
True, that's an additional duty. But there's no honor in that either.
In some other jobs you are required to surrender parts of your
constitutional rights - doctors have speech restrictions, for example.
It's not unprecedented, just extreme.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:44 MST