Conscription and women

[Chulanowa]

Perhaps with your superior grammar and logic, you can actually make an explanation instead of blathering on.

I don't need to though. That would just be dignifying someone's dishonest and bad-faith misrepresentation of what I said.

Now if staff is done trying to needle me into engagement with someone I don't want any further engagement with, can we move on?

[GloomCookie]

I think the issue isn't so much that people need to be compelled to fight for their nation but more putting people into a much more defined hierarchy than a militia. Militias by their nature are rather fluid and don't have much in the way of organization, and so there can often be disagreements that lead to arguments and fighting within the ranks. An actual military structure, meanwhile, means that there's a very clear chain of command and that orders coming down from on high put people where they need to be, leading to a more effective resistance movement.

In addition, the Geneva Convention states that prisoners captured in uniform must be offered the protections of being combatants due to their wearing of a uniform, while militia are not. This means it can actually be somewhat safer for a uniformed combatant if they surrender and get captured. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

And my final point is that a lot of people want to defend their homes, but they run into a legitimate problem of who stays behind to take care of family? Not just wives and children, but the elderly who need the young and able bodied to get around and go places like the doctor. What happens to grandma if all her grandchildren are off at war? It's an unfortunate situation to be in, but there are some people who absolutely must be told that their nation needs them more than their grandma does, which is a tragedy itself but if the situation is indeed dire enough, then it will happen.

There are always going to be draft dodgers, protests, even riots. People can and do protest wars because they are opposed to them on both moral and practical grounds, since many people don't want to be drafted to go off to war. Both sides are right for different reasons, which is why a volunteer military is the best option, since then people who are willing and able to join will do so and the normal population can avoid the draft.

Like many topics, there isn't a good black and white answer.

[greenknight]

In addition, the Geneva Convention states that prisoners captured in uniform must be offered the protections of being combatants due to their wearing of a uniform, while militia are not. This means it can actually be somewhat safer for a uniformed combatant if they surrender and get captured. It's not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

This is not a true statement. See First Geneva Convention, Art. 13 Protected Persons. Militias, provided they meet structural criteria, are protected (part (2)). Civilians who take up arms at the approach of the enemy are likewise protected and are to be afforded all protections of other combatants, uniform or not (part (6)).
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-13

[RedRose]

Gloomcookie, there's a movie about a kid whose dad has gone at war, mom is drowning, kid is basically free ranging in Paris and getting into worse and worse trouble.

[GloomCookie]

This is not a true statement. See First Geneva Convention, Art. 13 Protected Persons. Militias, provided they meet structural criteria, are protected (part (2)). Civilians who take up arms at the approach of the enemy are likewise protected and are to be afforded all protections of other combatants, uniform or not (part (6)).
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-13

However, the third Geneva convention prohibits civilians from engaging in combat operations unless they meet the requirements of levee en masse, which is covered under 3rd Geneva Convention Article 4A(6) which states that levee en masse is only applicable during the initial invasion of a country when there is insufficient time to organize into militias and individuals may perform combat operations as lone individuals. After the period of invasion they lose the protections of levee en masse and are treated as civilians and are thus not offered the protections of other parts of the convention for prisoners of war. There is a lot of argument about if it is still applicable, but as of right now it is considered in force.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4/commentary/2020?activeTab=undefined

Gloomcookie, there's a movie about a kid whose dad has gone at war, mom is drowning, kid is basically free ranging in Paris and getting into worse and worse trouble.

Ok? But if he's not actively taking up arms or acting as a saboteur, then he isn't covered under article 4.

[greenknight]

That is from the Red Cross's commentary and interpretation, not the text of the treaty. This commentary, in fact, seems to be justification for the "unlawful combatant" label in fashion in the last two decades. It is an egregiously dangerous interpretation.

[GloomCookie]

In my line of work we do have commentary that's not official but still used to influence decisions. The fact this commentary points to civilians under certain circumstances as not being protected by the provisions of Article 4 still stands as an interpretation. If war crimes are brought against a group for violating the rules, the official wording and the interpretation both are used as basis for both sides, similar to how supreme court decisions can be used as the basis of legal defense.

I don't like it, but it is what it is. Most international war crimes tribunals would look at the interpretation as part of their rulings.

[greenknight]

I am ashamed of the ICRC for publishing this interpretation. This is an ex post facto endorsement of a change in US policy in this century. It is not how the subject was regarded previously.

[Regina Minx]

Seems to me that if people in your nation aren't willing to stick their necks out to fight for that nation, without a gun at their back compelling them to do so, then your nation probably needs to be rolled over.

Really. You looked at what I wrote, and came away with a nearly inverse reading of it?

That's genuinely fascinating.

Anyway, that sounds like a struggle well above my pay grade to address. What I wrote is still where I left it, feel freed to keep working on it.

Wow, you're right. How foolish of me to assume I know my own statement better than someone else. Imagine a dumbfuck like me choosing to use one word as the object of a sentence, not realizing that I actually meant a completely different word which totally changes the meaning of that sentence. Because I'm too stupid and inept to understand my own point and just completely fucked it up. Thank goodness you and Keelan were here to set me straight and show me the words I actually meant, and the meaning I actually intended.

I don't need to though. That would just be dignifying someone's dishonest and bad-faith misrepresentation of what I said.

In this panel from webomic XKCD, the main character (known as Cueball) is upset that people are mad at him because they misunderstand what he's saying and come to an incorrect conclusion about his meaning. Cueball's source of irritation is his belief that since, in his mind, he's being perfectly clear, it's not his fault that people don't understand what he's saying. The off-screen voice sarcastically agrees with him and gives him kudos for the one-person activity known as communication.

The joke here, of course, is that communication is not complete until the message has been received and understood. Cueball is refusing to take responsibility for his part in the partnership between sender and receiver. An escalation of the joke of this panel could be achieved by showing in subsequent panels Cueball having become incredulous if someone was to ask for clarification of his message, engage in sarcastic rhetoric by calling himself a dumb fuck or that he's not being paid enough to elaborate on his misinterpreted message, and then refuse to elaborate when others challenge him to do so while also accusing listeners of a bad faith, deliberate misunderstanding.

The author of the webcomic has a theme of the responsibility of the speaker for how they are interpreted. You can see that in issues 169, 1028, 1860, and 1911. Here, perhaps, is the least subtle declaration that people who put all responsibility for their wording on the receiver are not, in fact, great communicators.

To circle back to Beorning's original point, mandatory military service is practiced in quite a few nations throughout the world. In the vast majority of those nations, only men must serve. I'm going to add my voice to the choir here and say that I agree that if it's something that a particular society agrees must be done, I can't see a good argument restricting it to men only. I don't think it comes across as some MRA argument to say that women should be conscripted if men are as well. At one point in history in the US, women were not allowed to serve on juries. It wasn't an anti-feminist act to extend jury duty to include women as well.

[Chulanowa]

I love webcomics. There's this one from David Malki's "Wondermark" where a sea lion continually bothers a Victorian couple despite their demands that it go away. So silly.

Anyway.

The original question is kind of a strange one really; if there's a frankly terrible idea, which mandates forced service by unwilling people, is it "only fair" that it not be segregated by gender? Is equal-opportunity exploitation something to be considered a social achievement? In my measure it's more of a backwards slide; the goal should be moving away from the exploitation, not making it "more inclusive."

[Regina Minx]

The original question is kind of a strange one really; if there's a frankly terrible idea, which mandates forced service by unwilling people, is it "only fair" that it not be segregated by gender? Is equal-opportunity exploitation something to be considered a social achievement? In my measure it's more of a backwards slide; the goal should be moving away from the exploitation, not making it "more inclusive."

I can't think of a meaningful way in which jury duty does not "mandate forced service by unwilling people," to use your words. Do you similarly believe we ought to move away from the "exploitation" of forcing people to serve on juries, or does this only apply to mandatory military service? And if so, why?

[Chulanowa]

I can't think of a meaningful way in which jury duty does not "mandate forced service by unwilling people," to use your words. Do you similarly believe we ought to move away from the "exploitation" of forcing people to serve on juries, or does this only apply to mandatory military service? And if so, why?

Jury duty isn't exploitative. When you go to the juror pool, if you are selected to serve on the jury, no one is making a turnaround on your time and $7/day compensation. It might be annoying and frustrating, but it is a pretty good example of a genuinely necessary service to society as a whole.

The same can't be said of the military. It is exploitative at every level, from the fact that entry recruits are paid below minimum wage, to the lying and propaganda used to garner recruits, all the way up to reality that militaries mostly exist to generate wealth for private entities at great public expense. This is all without considering the realities of an actual war and the impact that has on literally everyone involved.

[Keelan]

The same can't be said of the military. It is exploitative at every level, from the fact that entry recruits are paid below minimum wage [...]

False, at least in the US: Lowest level recruit is an E1, pay is $23,011.20 found here (other branches have similar rates): https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/while-you-serve/money-pay.html

$23,011.20 / 52 Weeks = $442.52/Week, /40hrs = $11.06/hr

Federal Minimum wage is $7.25 found here: https://www.usa.gov/minimum-wage

Also, the above pay rate is lower than only around 20 states/DC minimum wages, but higher than the other 30ish: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state

This also does not factor in stipends for off-base housing and food, or free on-base housing and dining, combat/hazard pay, signing bonuses, reduced prices for items purchased on-base, etc.

[greenknight]

Soldiers are salaried employees, so minimum wage is $685/week. However, even recruits get at least the equivalent of over $1100 after tax housing and subsistence benefits per month, driving their $1773/month into the $3000 equivalent range. All of this is, of course, rather fuzzy as US military compensation isn't directly relatable to civilian compensation. Estimates have to be made, resulting in varying truth values based on the accuracy of the estimates.

[Chulanowa]

$23,011.20 / 52 Weeks = $442.52/Week, /40hrs = $11.06/hr

Federal Minimum wage is $7.25 found here: https://www.usa.gov/minimum-wage

Does the recruit clock in at 9, clock out at 5, and have weekends off? I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there's substantial differences between joining the military and working at a Denny's.

(On the other hand probably substantial similarities if we replace Denny's with Waffle House...)

[Regina Minx]

Jury duty isn't exploitative. When you go to the juror pool, if you are selected to serve on the jury, no one is making a turnaround on your time and $7/day compensation. It might be annoying and frustrating, but it is a pretty good example of a genuinely necessary service to society as a whole.

"Exploitative" wasn't part of the description you gave. And depending on whether or not the jury is for a civil case in which damages are being sought, someone may in fact be making a turnaround on the verdict I return as a juror. But I suspect your reply buries the lede and the 'genuinely necessary service' is the most important part of what you said.

If we agree that necessary service to society as a whole is a fair case for compelling service, now we're in the situation where we consider whether or not that obligation should be denied to certain classes of society. If we said that only black people had to perform mandatory military service...or that black people were not required to perform mandatory military service, we're in an equally untenable position. There’s a fundamental dissonance between pursuing equal opportunity and being unable to bear equal responsibility. Throughout the past 100 years, women have worked hard to expand their rights and opportunities in American society. Exposing female American citizens to the draft ensures an equal sharing of citizenship’s burdens.

Does the recruit clock in at 9, clock out at 5, and have weekends off? I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there's substantial differences between joining the military and working at a Denny's.

There's a difference between being on call 24/7 and actually working 24/7. With the exception of mandatory PT, most of my friends in the armed services tell me that their workday is 8-10 hours, but with considerable amounts of downtime. But you also neglect to consider that the military not only provides high levels of benefits, but also 30 days of paid leave per year, which is not a thing required by law of any company that pays minimum wage.

[Keelan]

Soldiers are salaried employees, so minimum wage is $685/week. However, even recruits get at least the equivalent of over $1100 after tax housing and subsistence benefits per month, driving their $1773/month into the $3000 equivalent range. All of this is, of course, rather fuzzy as US military compensation isn't directly relatable to civilian compensation. Estimates have to be made, resulting in varying truth values based on the accuracy of the estimates.

I honestly did forget that Salaried is treated differently, and also that it was increased from $455. In my defense, I *did* stop paying attention to how little they were required to pay me by law just prior to 2020 in a general shift in perspective.

You did motivate me to go looking for general benefits evaluation, and the Navy one was the best I could find: https://www.navy.com/what-to-expect/military-pay-and-benefits

E-1 Pay Grade works out to $1917.63 after Basic, with an apparent estimate of $3634.54/month average benefits which per the site is "based on an average of salary, housing & food allowances and health coverage with dependents"

Looking up BAS, that's $452.56 for the food cost ($2370.19 with pay), available here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Allowances/BAS.aspx

Looking up BAH, had to use a calculator ( https://www.travel.dod.mil/Allowances/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing/BAH-Rate-Lookup/ ) and used Charleston SC's Joint Base, which gave me $1614 for an E-1 with no Dependents ($3984.19 with pay and BAS), though this number seems to vary depending on area.

This leaves approximately $1567.98 in outstanding benefits for that average, which I presume to be the 'health coverage' and/or the 'with dependents'.

So, ignoring the health coverage part since that's not concrete: using hard numbers for if you're Navy E-1 in Charleston, SC your wage+benefits is at least $3984.19 per month, or $47,810.28/year.

If it's your first year, your first 4 months is prorated at to like 1.7k instead, so it'd only be $46.5k-$47k

Additionally:

Hardship Duty Pay is $50-$150/month
Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger Pay is $225/month
Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay is variable per month
Assignment Incentive Pay is also variable per month

All per that same DoD site, and I will say that I am surprised how low some of these ones are.

There's a difference between being on call 24/7 and actually working 24/7. With the exception of mandatory PT, most of my friends in the armed services tell me that their workday is 8-10 hours, but with considerable amounts of downtime. But you also neglect to consider that the military not only provides high levels of benefits, but also 30 days of paid leave per year, which is not a thing required by law of any company that pays minimum wage.

This is largely the case for non-combat deployments and assignments, as someone I know in active duty has informed me. Combat  deployments and being deployed to at-sea vessels get more complicated given the nature of the beast, but that is not the case for the overwhelming majority and both of those scenarios receive pay increases by my understanding.

It also does not encompass the majority of deployments or assignments from what I can tell.

[Chulanowa]

"Exploitative" wasn't part of the description you gave. And depending on whether or not the jury is for a civil case in which damages are being sought, someone may in fact be making a turnaround on the verdict I return as a juror. But I suspect your reply buries the lede and the 'genuinely necessary service' is the most important part of what you said.

I mean we were both talking about exploitation.

Think of it as the difference between having your kid wash dishes after dinner, and children working in a restaurant. One is chores for upkeep of a shared home, the other is labor for someone else's profit. One is a necessity, the other is an exploitation.

If we agree that necessary service to society as a whole is a fair case for compelling service, now we're in the situation where we consider whether or not that obligation should be denied to certain classes of society. If we said that only black people had to perform mandatory military service...or that black people were not required to perform mandatory military service, we're in an equally untenable position. There’s a fundamental dissonance between pursuing equal opportunity and being unable to bear equal responsibility. Throughout the past 100 years, women have worked hard to expand their rights and opportunities in American society. Exposing female American citizens to the draft ensures an equal sharing of citizenship’s burdens.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear:

The same can't be said of the military.

Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

[Regina Minx]

Meaning that unlike jury duty, the military is not a necessary service.

Almost everyone that's weighed in on this thread with an opinion has granted it as a hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Should there be a draft is not the same question as if we are to have a draft, should we draft women as well. If you don't want to discuss that and instead say we shouldn't have a draft in the first place...ok. But that's not really what we're talking about.

[greenknight]

Looking up BAS, that's $452.56 for the food cost ($2370.19 with pay), available here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/Pay/Allowances/BAS.aspx
Looking up BAH, had to use a calculator ( https://www.travel.dod.mil/Allowances/Basic-Allowance-for-Housing/BAH-Rate-Lookup/ ) and used Charleston SC's Joint Base, which gave me $1614 for an E-1 with no Dependents ($3984.19 with pay and BAS), though this number seems to vary depending on area.

For reference, non-locational BAH (i.e., the floor) is ~$700/month, or ~$930 with dependents. $452 is the regular BAS rate, doubled if absolutely no government messing and no refrigerated food storage is available (meaning the only mess option is prepared meals from a 3rd party). These must be treated as after-tax values as these benefits are taxable income from any other employer, hence part of the estimate of the linked benefits calculator.. Goods, services, and real estate as taxable compensation is why the Secret Service owns a condo in Trump Tower:

   
• one of Trump's employees received it as part of his compensation package and didn't report it.
• IRS took it as pat of the settlement of back taxes.
• Secret Service was running protective operations out of a response van parked outside Trump Towers because Trump demanded exorbitant rent for a site inside.
• USSS requested it as it was a better facility for their protective detail mission.

[Keelan]

For reference, non-locational BAH (i.e., the floor) is ~$700/month, or ~$930 with dependents. $452 is the regular BAS rate, doubled if absolutely no government messing and no refrigerated food storage is available (meaning the only mess option is prepared meals from a 3rd party). These must be treated as after-tax values as these benefits are taxable income from any other employer, hence part of the estimate of the linked benefits calculator.. Goods, services, and real estate as taxable compensation is why the Secret Service owns a condo in Trump Tower:

   
• one of Trump's employees received it as part of his compensation package and didn't report it.
• IRS took it as pat of the settlement of back taxes.
• Secret Service was running protective operations out of a response van parked outside Trump Towers because Trump demanded exorbitant rent for a site inside.
• USSS requested it as it was a better facility for their protective detail mission.

That is correct on the Transit/Non-Locational amount; I had not noticed that part, found a DoD explanation here: https://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/allowances/bah_types.aspx

Seems to be primarily about in-transit for Active Duty however so not the best marker perhaps? With barracks living I presume falling under Partial? Makes it harder to calculate benefit using partial though; the low cost of $6.90 is largely due to the fact that the government isn't having to provide you with funds to pay for off-base housing as they're providing the housing. Yet, we could probably calculate the financial equivalent for the 'benefit' of the provided barracks living? I don't have enough background in tax and/or accounting and stuff for much more beyond this though...

...why the fuck am I having fun trying to figure this shit out? Then again my favorite part of work involves going through spreadsheets filled with metadata...

[greenknight]

Partial BAH is basically to cover toilet paper and scouring powder, things the unit supply system covers for other buildings. But you're still getting the benefit of employer provided housing, which for any other employer is a taxable compensation at the market value of the housing. In this case, the best estimate of that value for general discussion is probably nonlocational BAH.

[Keelan]

Partial BAH is basically to cover toilet paper and scouring powder, things the unit supply system covers for other buildings. But you're still getting the benefit of employer provided housing, which for any other employer is a taxable compensation at the market value of the housing. In this case, the best estimate of that value for general discussion is probably nonlocational BAH.

That makes sense, and funny you mention that because according to an active Airforce/Spaceforce an E-1 would likely be required to be in barracks housing so that would be the more accurate calculation. He also mentioned that E-2 is 6 months time in service but we can ignore that for the moment since this keeps things simpler for calculation.

So 1917.63 + 700.80 + 452.56 =3070.99/month *12 = $36851.88/year

For your first year, months 1-4 however are at 1695.00, which would subtract 890.52 from year one for a first year of $35961.36 (and does not include healthcare benefits as mentioned before)

Meanwhile 685/week * 52 = $35620/year

Substantially closer given more realistic circumstances sans the E-2 promotion since I'm not sure when the pay increase would actually kick in. And of course BAS and BAH aren't taxable but for the civilian sector it would be as you keep noting greenknight (thank you very much by the way ^_^)

At least I *think* that's where we'd ultimately leave off?

[greenknight]

Note, it's $1773/month for the first four months for an E-1. The $1695 figure is for last year, IIRC.

[Keelan]

Note, it's $1773/month for the first four months for an E-1. The $1695 figure is for last year, IIRC.

So +78/month *4 = +312 to the First-year rate for $36273.35, thank you again! ^_^