> Well it seems that it woud be not too much trouble to subtract the
> # of incacerated black and white and hispanic individuals from
> their relevant populations to derive a demographic breakdown of the
> non-incarcerated population. I also would correct for age because
> what we really want to know is the demographic breakdown of the non-
> incarcerated service age populations. I suspect that once those
> corrections are made we will find that black americans are over-
> represented.
"One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 was either in jail or prison, or on parole or probation in 1995" (<http:// www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm>).
<blockquote>Blacks in the population: 11.33 %
Black in the military recruits: 14.99%
Blacks in the Army: 16.25%
<http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/loader.cfm?url=/ commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=85112></blockquote>
I haven't got around to finding the proportion of Black in the recruitment age US population, but supposing that's about the same as their share in the total US population, Blacks surely are more overrepresented than the Heritage Foundation comparison of 14.99% vs 11.33%. It would be more like 14.99% vs. 9.43%.
That said, we need to think about Black political consciousness, too. Blacks are far more opposed to the war than other races, and their opposition -- especially the opposition of Black parents -- has had impact on Black military recruitment:
<blockquote>Here is an extremely important fact: Black volunteers for the Army "have fallen 41 percent" (Tom Philpott, "Military Update: Black Army Recruits Down 41 Percent since 2000," The Daily Press, March 6, 2005). To be more precise, "[f]rom 22.7 percent at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the share [of Blacks among recruits] slid to 19.9 percent in 2002; 16.4 percent in 2003 and 15.9 percent last year, according to figures provided by Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith. The slide has continued, dropping to 13.9 percent as of Feb. 9." -- a severe blow to the Army, since it depends upon Blacks to supply "about 23 percent" of its active-duty troops today (Robert Burns/Associated Press, "Young Blacks Less Willing to Join the Army," Detroit Free Press, Tuesday, March 8, 2005). "Officer recruiting is hit, too. Black soldiers enrolled in the Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps program is down 36 percent since 2001" (Philpott, March 6, 2005). Women are also shunning the Army: "the share of females in Army recruiting classes falling for four years running, from 21.6 percent in 2001 to 19.2 percent last year. It has slipped still further this year to 17.1 percent" (Burns, March 8, 2005). The plan to increase active-duty Army soldiers by 30,000, approved by Congress last year, is now in danger. The Army is about "6 percent behind schedule to meet its 2005 recruiting goal" (Burns, March 8, 2005).
<http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/03/black-army-recruits-down-41- since-2000.html></blockquote>
In short, more and more Blacks began to say no to the military in just about the same period that the Heritage Foundation man studies. Of course, the HF man doesn't take that into account.
Wojtek wrote:
> Yoshie:
>
> > Empirically, "the working-poor draft" describes the economic strata
> > from which the largest proportions of recruits are drawn. The
> number
> > of recruits rises sharply at the threshold of $20,000 and declines
> > steeply at the peak of $40,000 in absolute numbers (at <http://
>
> Yoshie, you are changing the subject. Income is really irrelevant
> her,
Incomes surely matter in consideration of who signs up for the military and why. If incomes didn't matter at all, the military could be paying recruits the federal minimum wage and the same number would still join it out of patriotism, the need to prove themselves, the desire to see the world, etc. alone. As it happens, the Pentagon considers what levels of incentives are necessary to maintain the volunteer military very carefully and raises pays, bonuses, etc. when the economy is booming and/or deployments in war zones become more frequent.
> what matters is the central claim of the working poor draft myth
> that people join the service because they do not have any other
> opportunities.
Few in the world have zero opportunity. Even the poorest of the poor have _some_ opportunities, such as collecting benefits, committing crimes, depending on employed members of their families, and so on. On the supply side, the question is opportunities relative to ability and ambition. The poorest -- say, high school dropouts -- may not be as easily lured by the military's promise of college money as the working poor from the $20,000-40,000 income households. If you haven't even got a high school diploma or GED, you may not think it worth it to endure hardships in the military -- especially in a time of an unpopular war -- in the slim hope that they will one day make time to get the GED and then apply for some college. Not so with the children of the $20,000-40,000 per year households. On the demand side, the Pentagon, when they can afford it, would rather not take the poorest and least educated. Indeed, what sane employer -- except maybe farmers dependent on undocumented workers -- would when they have a choice of picking better-trained and better-behaved materials? That said, there is evidence that the military is now beginning to relax its standards (age, education, criminal record, etc.) due to recruitment difficulties -- Damien Cave of the New York Times has done a good job reporting on military recruitment woes.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>