Is Mandatory Military Service Actually a Good Idea?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2024
- On its face mandatory military service seems like a relic of the past. Forcing mostly young men to devote often several years of their lives to training for conflicts that haven't happened looks like a waste of resources. Those men could be building businesses or going into further study. But a strange thing emerges economically... military service only seems to take place in very wealthy and very poor countries, and in the wealthy ones, it might actually be good for the economy. But why?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Thank you so much for watching. If you liked this video, hit the 👍 and let us know what you thought in the comments 💬
#ContextMatters #militaryservice
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Context Matters is Produced by @EconomicsExplained and @TheRedLinePod
It's very weird that a video on this topic fails to mention Israel, who despite what you might think of its actions, is a very interesting case of compulsory service.
I was just about to comment this, especially since their conflict with Iran.
yea, idk why they skipped it
I wonder if mandatory services make people more hawkish while voting because they were indoctrinated even further. Or if people would vote for more moderate parties because they are the ones who would end up fighting in a potential conflict.
@@chefnycOr it could be that they're surrounded by hostile forces?
No matter what you think about the legitimacy of Israel as a state this is more than enough reason to have compulsory conscriptions without an ulterior motive.
@chefnyc In my experience, servicemen and women are conservative when it comes to war, but they do answer the call to duty faster when required.
Why does this seem like an economics explained vid without the leaderboard to me?
It’s the same host
@@TBT0101 even then host or not the whole video centered around economics not geopolitics it fits WAY better in the other channel
It was prolly researched by context matters team, so thats why its on this channel @1isOneshot
And yet there is very little context. Here this is all economic on the wrong channel @Erty_
"With all that being said now it's time to see how well mandatory military conscription stacks up on the Economics Explained economic Leaderboard"
🤣
There are two big problems with comparing veteran with non-veteran households, at first blush: 1) Because the Armed Forces are over 80% male, so veteran households, by definition, have men in them. Not a lot of single mother veteran households, for example. 2) Armed Forces have recruitment standards. This means that people with severe handicaps are automatically excluded from your cohort. This also militates against conditions which are highly correlated with poverty.
And the people with limiting service is that in case of conventional war with a peer or neer peer is that high losses are inevitable and that means needing a large pool of recruits
Pretty weird video. China, Russia, Turkey and Israel also use conscription, these are among the largest militaries in the world but never mentioned in this video. And video never answered the question it asked: So is conscription a good idea or not?? Sorry but nobody cares if conscription damaging Syria's economy as country spent last decade in civil war. Its also pretty pointless to debate if DR Congo or Eritrea's economy is harmed by conscription or not, they are already failed states with failed economies even if they didn't have a standing army. Finally, some of your points were "ignorant" to say the least. Single most decisive factor in Russia's failures in Ukraine was the serious lack of manpower. And that was because Russia's laws prohibited use of conscripts outside of territory of Russia. Had Russia used its conscripts in day#1, they would have overwhelmed Ukraine like 3 to 1 in manpower, and Ukraine probably never would have saw any hope of resistance. Since Russia didn't, mobilised Ukraine outnumbered Russia like ~2.5 to 1 and made very successful counter offensives in the beginning, despite critically lacking in armor and airpower. When Russia also called partial mobilisation, troop ratio was like 1 to 1 and slowly shifting into Russia's favor every day; so does the movement of the front. All of this alone should have taken 5 minutes of this video. Because it proves a) yes manpower is still very, very important in modern battlefield. b) conscripts and mobilisations CAN provide serious manpower c) its difficult to legally and tactically utilize conscripts.
this video is actually pointless since right in beggining misses the fact that in war... numbers matter! people like to think that tech will replace people... its not the case... as a countrie gets destroyed... there goes the tech! we can look at ukraine with all the EU and USA support and see whats happening... even if suddently it gets all the equippement it needs... it will run out of people to use them.
Batuhancokmar i was going to disagree with you about a factor but then i realized i'm not educated enough to argue, so good day sir
You are completely wrong about Ukraine. Russia did not intend to overpower Ukraine because of family and cultural ties. Peace was already negotiated in February 2022 before Boris Johnson arrived and ended it. Ukraine had no successful counter offensive and no real victories. It has total control of Donbass and complete exhausted Ukrainian military. The only reason why the war continues because the West keeps sending mercenaries and equipment.
Thenks from saving 13 mins of my life instead of watching this video
@@RICARDORIC-hz4rnuntil we build cheap, autonomous robots, we cannot replace people with tech alone. Drones are a great start, but ground tech still runs into problems due to terrain in general.
I’m an Aussie and was conscripted back in 1967 and subsequently did a tour in Vietnam. Now whilst I have some issues as a result, I have always felt that it instilled a sense of self confidence and discipline in those that went through the program, inc myself. I have no regrets!
1967- what are you doing here old man? get your backpack ready maybe?
It's not ok for the government to discipline the population by force, and even if they do such a thing, it shouldn't be just for men!
@@user-gf1zs6dx9w You answered your own question…. He is old now and have free time, so what are you doing here maybe go get some dough and or go to school
6:54 What a stupid take, especially what comes to Sweden and Finland. We only need to consider the security situation at the Baltic Sea for a second or two before realizing that Finland and Sweden do not have any other realistic option than the conscription for their security concerns.
"Kasakka ottaa kaiken, mitkä lähtee irti". A Cossack will take everything that is loose.
-Sauli Niinistö, ex president of Finland
Apparently us Finns aren't in any realistic danger of being attacked. LOL.
This video had some weird takes.
@@fleshreap if the russians had this much trouble with poor, corrupt, dysfunctional Ukraine, how would they go against Finland or Sweden? countires that have been preparing since ww2. the western world loves your countries you would get so much support. my guess is that you wouldnt be catching finns every couple of weeks with 30-40 million in embezzled money from the ammo fund or foreign fighters finding out that half their pay has to go to their finnish officers. and now your in nato. although giving up your neutrality was a bad thing imo. i actually thought just a regional scandinavian/baltic alliance would have done the trick.
One acronym for you: N.A.T.O.. Geopolitical threats to Finlands interests in the Baltic are different than the nation being "in imidiate danger", which its not because of its N.A.T.O membership as of 2023.
ah yes because russia is a mighty military power who could surely do what they failed to do 80 years back whilst fighting a separate war
@@harrisontull8377Finnish and Swedish accession to NATO strengthened the alliance, even so the threat in the east is real and existential, which requires ability to fully mobilise the local societies. What a dumb take to say no threat anymore because a piece of paper exists that says article 5 might be triggered.
I have grown to realise that National Military Service is a net benefit to society.
It teaches some very valuable lessons:
Handling discomfort and hardship
Teamwork
Working for a common goal
Duty
Service
And very importantly in this social media age, it teaches kids that they are NOT the centre of the universe, and that their greatest achievements will most likely come from cooperation.
You think 2-3 years of military service will alleviate the 3000+ year old complaint of "kids these days"?
except it doesn't
+: pretty good deterrent.
+: very democratic, the soldiers are the people.
+: educational, large portions of population has basic first-aid, gun safety, out-doors skills.
+: more informed public opinion on military matters.
+: cheap for tax-payer, soldiers get payed very little.
-: soldiers get payed very little.
-: conscripts generally make worse soldiers.
-: limited ROI on training / cutting corners on training to save money.
-: opportunity cost, people could be doing something more useful.
-: students who do military service before attending university,
generally do worse academically than those who did not have a "gap year" (controversial)
is the last one true?
@@adamelouardmichy7691 it is an argument that gets used. not sure how factual or anectotal it is
Finland and Sweden just joined nato because they have a threat and historically have had the same threat for the long haul. They maintain mandatory military service because that threat has never gone away.
European vassal states have conscription so that American multi billionaires can have drug fueled sex parties.
Norway does not have mandatory conscription. We used to have it for men, but today they only takes about 1/3 of young people (of both genders). If you dont want to, you just say that you dont want to and they will not ask you to serve
Damn here in Sweden they are rapidly increasing how many they bring in each year, when I became 18 and was done with school at 19 they called around 1/3 of both genders as they wait until your done w school but as I said their goal seems to be around or close to 100% of men at least when women is much more voluntary. They don’t really give us a choice here if your a man while they do ask how much you wanna do it from 0 to 10 even if you pick 0 they can and will probably pick you and if you refuse then it’s a fat fine or serve time if sever enough. I have a couple of friends who didn’t wanna do it but didn’t have a choice but if you are willing to lie then you can quite easily say you used to be suicidal or have/ had stomach problems when talking to the mandatory psychiatrist and they will probably kick you out right away
But can economists predict the future??? I need to know!
Nobody can predict the future, least of all economists.😂
They cant. Thats why the economy is circling the drain
@@user-yv4gg7jb2f dude, it wasn't a serious question
0:25 technically Brazil has mandatory military service, it should be painted on that picture.
All men when they reach 18 years old have to apply, just do the paperwork. And then it comes the day when you "swear on the flag", when 90+% of candidates are dismissed, so it usually ends here for everyone. If one is actually interested in joining the army (or if he's unlucky enough), the candidate goes to some rounds of medical checks when they dismiss more people, and only then the few that remain are accepted into the military.
So it's kind of mandatory, but more of a rite of passage than actually military service.
That’s not military *service* tho
That's not military service.That's kind of like what the u s does where they make you sign up on a piece of paper for the draft
@@user-yh1nm1vy3i It is true that not everyone serves, but the main reason for that is lack of resources. Military enlisting is mandatory for brazillian males above 18 years old. People who are dismissed fall into the category of "excessive contingent", which is just a fancy way of saying "we either don't need more people or it's too expensive to maintain more active duty personel". In times of war, however, there wouldn't be a need for new legislation in order to mobilise the country. Also, if you enlist and you are selected to serve, it's not like you can deny it. That would be desertion. So for all effects and purposes, yes, there is mandatory military service in Brazil.
Rich countries that practice conscription are often neutral, or share a border with a geopolitical advisory. Finland, up until recently, is a good example. Their militaries are fundamentally defensive and are structured to oppose an invasion. However, it isn't practical for them to maintain a standing military with that capability. The purpose of conscription in these countries is primarily training. It provides them with a large pool of military-trained civilians who can be mobilized virtually overnight in a scenario when they wouldn't have months necessary to train them to the same standard from scratch.
Ukraine is a good example of this model being successful in practice. Regardless of the final outcome it was a crucial part of their ability to raise their forces in the first weeks.
The problem is that war has *_not changed in the slightest_* regarding what sort of military is better.
A professional army gets wrecked in the industrial era, so you must conscript the population to shore up that shortfall. Basically, a decent conscript army is miles ahead of a decent professional army, primarily because they can replace their losses while a professional army *_CAN'T._*
Most of the time spent in college is simply about “proving” youll perform obedience and busy work so potential employers can then justify hiring you. Most people remember little of what they learned in college, if they learned anything at all. Particularly in soft sciences, college doesnt “prepare” anyone in a way they couldnt have prepared on their own. So shifting people from college to the military would have negligible consequences economically IMO, and potentially a lot of benefits for young people and society in general.
I don't know man. I work in infrastructure and I routinely use knowledge from university and books.
I don't think an uneducated person could do my job unless they were a foreman with years of experience in my industry.
@@willofdodge1 That is perhaps because he mentioned "soft science" and because arch is still arch, but then you have other fields that either go through rapid development, that can be case of IT where plenty of lectures given 10 years ago are already bit outdated, and some were outdated a decade ago already, but some are not, yet how many programmers will use knowledge of processor's inner workings on daily basis or at least once a year? (And it they perhaps have to study the chip they will be using in their system)
It makes a big difference if the student is a competent or hardcore learner or not. If you are talking about an engineering student, it depends on what kind of engineering student you have in mind. An automotive engineer might make it through easily enough with little of what they may have learned in college because of their vast hands on work they must work on. A biomedical engineer however must know their anatomy, biology, physics, chemistry, bio materials, statics, theoretical, etc etc before they are going to tackle something like tissue engineering, implants, inventing or improving surgical practices, etc etc.
There must be a better layout for when someone wants to choose to become military and otherwise. Like, instead of the U.S. DoD overshadowing the National Guard units the recruiters could focus on promoting it as a bettering your nation by serving your nation kind of memo. Since National Guard deals with domestic emergencies, overseas combat missions, counterdrug efforts, reconstruction missions (taken from the Nat. Guard mission), etc from recovering places from gigantic national disasters to help setting up refugee or medical tents, it would be fitting to promote the National Guard as a conscientious custodian of the U.S.
College teaches critical thinking. Military service teaches blind obedience. I know which one I want more in people I interact with, and it's not the latter one.
In Israel our army trains future entrepreneurs in many cases: leadership, cyber security, engineering, programming, defense, etc. It becomes a hyper educational track. Weird it isn't mentioned one in the video
FREE PALESTINE
@@ChernoOfficial000 From face of the Earth
People like Cherno here are likely the primary reason why he didn't
In Israel every soldier is forced to take the poke and some of them are dropping dead.
Why? Cuz they dont accept getting their homes taken. Youre inhuman@@MissionControlTet
Some are needed like, for example, Israel. But countries Brazil that has a large population really dont need it
I think mandatory military service is a good idea for a small minority of countries. Basically those with a small active volunteer military (generally because of a small population but can be for other reasons) and a credible neighbouring threat to their sovereignty. In those cases you may need as many of your citizens as reservists as possible so you can basically mobilise your entire country at practically a moments notice to fight a defensive war. Somewhere like Finland, it makes sense, they check both boxes. South Korea does too to some extent.
Universal national service requirements make a great deal of sense, as long as they are not exclusively military, exclusively male, and don't make unnecessary and potentially controversial exceptions for special interest groups. Minimal defense-oriented training, along with other public service provision, and (hopefully benevolent) training in social responsibilities can be very valuable contributors to healthy societies. Public service and productivity are definitely _not_ mutually exclusive.
But that's too smart and beneficial to the individual and greater nation. Gotta remember we need the GDP line to go up and shareholders pockets to get deeper!!
Not if you're a volunteer Serviceman who has to deal with droves of unmotivated and incompetent slaves... errr.. I mean conscripts.
No thanks.
If you wanna give citizens training then do it. For free. When it's convenient for their schedules.
@randomsomeguy156 All of those benefits can be provided outside of military service.
@@tnatstrat7495 Not sure why you would assume someone in charge of trainees, or the trainees themselves, would be unpaid. Perhaps they are in some nations that I haven't heard of, but I don't advocate for that. And service is compulsory because it is a duty, and essential training, not a life choice. People would be trained young, when they are less likely to have scheduling conflicts. I'm sure it would be integrated with schooling. And if you are a "ServiceMaster" you are paid for your ability to motivate people, pretty much exclusively, so if you find that distasteful, you probably should choose another career path.
@@tnatstrat7495 As I said it shouldn't be exclusively military, although in a small nation under military threat, some minimal military training for all may be necessary. But there would be service options to benefit the community in civilian capacities. And I would hope that the work involved would be directed toward addressing neglected yet important issues. Unless your nation has no neglected issues, in which case you can give it a pass.
Good to see that you guys have caught on that the sense of familiarity on the voice over is what's making these videos successful, similar to how Simon Whistler is now narrating for multiple, relatively successful channels
I really dislike that guy tho
Simon Whistler is annoying, and has no character to his voice. He's the John Oliver of youtube
For a channel called “context matters” I was surprised Israel wasn’t mentioned. They have a 3 year conscription for men, while 2 years for women. I know they are trying to change that to make them equal, and would be interesting how that 1 year gap changes the workforce/economy
I was in the military and have thought about this for a while. I think civil service should be compulsory, but not necessarily military service. I met and became friends with people who gave me a different perspective outside the bubble I grew up in and it gave me a broader perspective about my country and the issues facing different groups of people. I think that having the option to join a civil service that works on infrastructure or a branch of the military for 2 years would be sufficient, and the incentive (at least in the US) should be free education for the length of service since our government already massively subsidizes higher education. If you want a full free education, you could extend to 4 years (or 5 if you want to do a masters program). I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this.
Agree, in richer countries, the psychological and social benefits are a healthy boost that outweighs (or drives into irrelevance) the brief removal from "productive economic output". In poorer countries I doubt it has the same effect, possibly even entrenching corrupt tribal and political power.
This is an important insight to promote. Many aspects of compulsory military service which are cited as positives could also be said about compulsory civil service.
As an American, I went through a phase of disagreeing with basically every major political decision about what to do with our military for a period of nearly 2 decades. It would have been difficult for me to ethically square my political opposition to the military's use with my forced direct participation in it. I think that really soured my outlook on compulsory service.
However, not all forms of service to one's nation is military in nature. I can see how requiring compulsory civil service would assist in nation-building efforts without forcing conscientious objectors and other persons of that like to participate actively and directly in a system whose use they oppose.
As an American who was in the military I support some sort mandatory service. I do believe there should an alternative for contentious objectors, though.
Maybe suburbs and schools should be designed to reduce bubbles.
Eg put public housing in the wealthy suburbs
Eg2 force children in private schools to do one random year in a public (government funded school)
Eg3 send kids in religious schools to spend at least 1 year in a school of a different religion and 1 year in a public school
Eg4 make a visa condition of where immigrants can live so that ethnicities are spread out
Etc…
That's how it works in Switzerland. You can either do military or some sort of public service where you help elderly people or maintain mountain roads etc.
Knowing people with completely different backgrounds actually is really something we find contributes a lot to social stability and one of the positives of this system.
I can't tell you if it's an optimal solution because it often feels like wasted time and it's a love hate relationship but it seems to work compartively well.
This feels like an Economics Explained video. Is this video not better suited to Economics Explained?
"Go full literary arts degree". LMFAO 😂
Depends on the country. If you have a small population and an aggressive neighbor, then "yes".
Otherwise, "no".
I just want to say Eritrea as the worst example of conscription being used in a bad way for the economy is truly tragic. I'm American and have grown up with lots of Eritreans (technically their Eritrean American kids), who have had to flee to the US because of Isaias's terrible regime. I'm currently in college majoring in econ and one of my econ professors this year is Eritrean, he even fought in the war for Eritrea's independence against the Derg (communist government of Ethiopia), he truly loves his country. He is also a brilliant economist (while a PoW in Ethiopia, he scored the highest anyone has ever scored in a nationwide test, I think in high school, despite his education at the time literally being fighting a war and being in prison), and in a more free Eritrea he would be such an incredible resource to the country. But instead he's in the US, teaching American students, with no ability to do much to help Eritrea and instead having to watch his beloved country be so incredibly mismanaged. Eritreans are incredible people, under a better government they could make such a great country, and it's so sad to me that instead they have a government which is often compared to North Korea, but in reality that comparison is pretty generous to Eritrea's government. I admittedly only know ones who have moved to the US, but I have never met a single Eritrean who does not despise Isaias Afweki, other than children who don't know about him.
Hi, I like listening to your videos guys. Much appreciated! Kind of surprised to hear Michael’s voice though. But since Michael’s voice is so charismatic I still enjoyed!
Great video, having the sources linked in the video itself or at least in the description would help your credibility a lot though
Discipline & purpose has huge improvement on people.
I’m surprised Israel isn’t mentioned once
its the middle east you can probably guess why they need it
@@ASlickNamedPimpback yea i know i live there
As a person living in Switzerland, I wanted to add that Switzerland is a very neutral nation. And by that I mean, they are ready for a war to always break out. Hundreds of bunkers just waiting to be in service again, and the majority of the nation trained in military.
This tradition is seen with national pride. And because we in relative peace, there is almost no danger.
But most of the time, Switzerland wants to be as much of a hassle to invade as possible in order to stop people from trying.
Conscription should be universal - for equality reasons.
As a young American man I’m not letting them draft me.
Why
@@Neutronism7 why fight for a dying empire that doesn't care about me?
I'd say conscription works well in Finland. Its 6 months - 1 year and like 1/5th get some sort of leadership training and some get to go into reserve officer school. Many CEOs and even politicians have gone to reserve officer school as where else can you get to lead 30 people at the age of 20. Many tasks in military also give good training for a future job. You can get trucking license, heavy machinery repair experience, first aid experience and so on. Also it forges connections as you get to meet people your age from all flocks of life and often see them in the future too.
Wow I have heard of South Korea's massive political gender divide, I had never considered that one possible explanatory factor could be that men are forced to serve in the military while women aren't. I wonder if the (presumably less extreme) effects that conscription has on society in other countries that employ it could have some tangible impact as well. Like maybe in societies that aren't so extreme for conscription-aged people, there might be some impact on the culture that conscription has whoch might actually be beneficial to the economy, helping to explain why a slightly disproportionate number of countries with conscription are rich
It does toughen up and discipline boys and molds them into men. The skills they learn will be valuable to them and their families for survival later in life. Unless an individual can't handle it and ends up useless or suicidal.
Economics Explained's voice?
As a retired college professor, I can say I saw a marked difference in academic performance between those who did some military or community service and those who came straight from high school. Years ago the college did a study on the net effect of those with service on academic performance as measured by students’ grade point average and graduation rates and found a statistical difference. This may also be a comment on the relatively poor job high schools are doing preparing students for the "real" world.
thank you!
It is immoral to use force on someone. And none the less to force someone to fight for wars they don’t willingly want to. Which would basically make them a slave
So no I wouldn’t say there is any perceivable amount of “good” here at all
Who is John galt?
econmics explained second channel?!?! how did i get you on recommend???!
well, subbed anyways
South Korea could conscript women too instead of complaining about not knowing how to level the playing field 🤷♀️
Or you know: making more uni spots, or military universities, better job markets...
Are people doing mandatory military service still civilians?
Are people who have finished mandatory military service (but technically still a countries reserve military conscripts) still civilians?
1: No
2: Yes, when not in uniform
Poor countries conscript because it’s a good way to maintain a force and some unity. Rich countries with good wealth distribution conscript because good paying jobs are plentiful and people are unlikely to choose service. Middling countries in terms of wealth distribution aren’t going to conscript because the military is an economically advantageous career for many people.
Hey I didn't have time to watch the video, but the answer is "NO".
Let's go full Starship Troopers.
I agree if I had any patriotism for country. I actually just finished reading the book yesterday and it actually seem like a pretty good system. The movie was communist propaganda.
Ww1 proved that conscription was very dangerous. It got so bad that many conscripts were poorly trained and thrown into the front lines with out adequate preparation.
Putin is driving green transmission in eu. What a visionary 😂.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH yeahh
I personally would not like to work with conscripts
And that's 'Putin-it' optimistically. The new dad in me smiles at this pun.
Congratulations on the baby!
I was subject to conscription when I joined the military, but opted to enlist to have my choice of which service I would join. My choice of the Air Force had less to do with my dislike of being in the infantry and more to do with my love of aviation and wanting to serve where I felt I fit best. Conscription at that time was not popular more due to an active war in Vietnam than not wanting to be part of the military, even though only about 25% of draftees were sent there. The rest were sent to other places like Germany, Japan, Korea or the numerous other places that had a military presence, or never even left the US mainland. Most of us that came out the other end were better for having served. It provided us with skills, discipline and a sense of teamwork that benefited most in life after our service. Military service is not for everyone and shear manpower is not a ideal solution to defense needs. Recent world events have caused many countries to rethink their stand on defense and military matters. Even powerful militaries like the US are stretched pretty thin and having trouble meeting recruitment goals for the "all volunteer" military. The country where I currently live, Spain, seems to be rethinking their abolition of conscription (around 2000) because they cannot staff their forces as needed. It is controversial and by some is seen as a partial answer to very high youth unemployment (for 18-30 year-olds, 28%). I don't know if it is a good idea, and judging by the confusion and differing statements, neither does the government. All I can say is that the way the world is going forward right now, having a weak military is not a good asset.
One note: Although I very much like your EE and Context Matters videos, this one seemed fairly weak, inconclusive, incomplete and missing having a point. This deserved more time and a more nuanced story.
"that is putin it optimistically" I see what you did there
As an Iranian conscript soldier it sucks and really inefficient don't try it
I would be more easily convinced that there is some other reason for the correlation. Especially a third factor like a wealthy nation is more likely to view universal militia service as a desirable defense strategy.
But if there is a direct connection I think it has to be that the military service instills values that lead the service member to have better outcomes in the future.
I would suggest not ONLY looking at economy. The politics and social factors of conscription are hugely important and very important. For one, you assure that your military is as democratic as possible, in a democracy everyone should have part in the defense of the Nation, as they do in the politics. There is a much lower chance of extremists infiltrating or making up most of the armed forces (especially right wing groups LOVE the military). Additionally one should also consider the societal benefits of putting everyone (also women) through the same experience. It binds together and strengthens community, it is a good way to integrate immigrants etc. THIS is the reason why some nordic countries and Switzerland maintain their conscription policy.
Love it economics explain vibes
You can have a Peace Corp for non violent service.
I would wager that military conscription in countries with low gdp usully leads to an abuse of said power as jobs after conscription would be things like guards that do notmactually add anything to the economy. This means that individuals or organazations that can afford it first meet this criteria.
A. Can afford to hire said indivdual meaning pay enough for there livlihood of the indivdual where the only thing given back is protection
B. Need that protection in the first place.
I think in America, obese youths would benefit from compulsory military service. I think it could have potential life-long benefits, improved life expectancy, decreased healthcare cost, increased productivity, on top of improved confidence, discipline, knowledge and skills.
A tax on unhealthy ingredients (eg white flour, white sugar) and unhealthy food items could have the same result.
Especially if combined with higher minimum payments (be it aged pension, unemployment benefits or minimum wage), do people can afford better food.
And then add a higher tax when someone works over x number of hours a week (so essentially force people to have time off to sleep and exercise).
Then make gyms and exercise equipment tax deductible up to a maximum redemption value.
Military service would not fix that, maybe it would help some people who are not in best shape but it would not fix the issue with the obesity, you would have to completely rethink and redesign whole PE since kindergarten, into something like the program the USA had in 60's and 70's. There is some old video about that program uploaded on the youtube.
Also weight is more about diet than exercise. Sure it helps but it’s not necessary.
Have you seen how fat a ton of former military guys get the second they get out? It would help a little but it’s not moving the needle
I am getting that conscription could be a good idea if there is close a threat outside the country that has the potential to break out into an all out war.
Is conscription really more expensive than a professional military??
It is certainly more expensive than having no military at all, but sadly we don't live in a world were that is an option. A professional army requires salaries that somewhat match the civilian job market while conscripts are usually paid a small amount of money for their service, if they are paid at all. Costs for equipment and materiel would be the same in both cases, if not higher for a conscript-based military since young men without training are more likely to break things than a professional soldier.
Sure, training and housing conscripts requires instructors and facilities but the same is true for professionals.
Conscripts militaries are usually larger than their non-conscript counterparts though, and therefore more expensive, but that doesn't make them inherently less cost effective
From the perspective of a Swiss guy going on 50, 15 years thereof as a reservist, 3 years active duty in the Balkan, today living in Canada:
+ conscription gives the military a mirror of society with preexisting skill sets, thus cheaper to train.
- conscription takes younger men out of the work force, thus some compensation from the government to employers raises the cost.
+ comradery, in the old days, military service was considered an asset.
- comradery, today, it's more of a nuisance, and international corporations, especially woke organizations, struggle with it, the absences for training, the mind set, the discipline, the top down approach etc
+ free training of life and survival skills
- you can get dirty, mama is not there to help you, you may die on the job.
+ gets under performers up to speed
- keeps them in the loop and lowers the overall score. Sadly, if you follow the discussion of Belgium e.g. who abandoned conscription to a large extent, it's often the bottom of the barrel that chooses the military.
+ Born and bred locally plus conscription is a strong motivation to defend your place.
- with mass migration this motivation is gone.
- with more and more specialized equipment, more training is required thus a tendency towards a smaller but full time pro army.
Many of these finer points are sadly missing in this video. Personally, I learned a lot, don't regret my service, but feel awkward in today's geopolitical environment. The old school type days are gone...
Look, if you like the military environment, fine, go with it! But many people are not suited for that harsh environment, and that includes a lot of young men. I hope you aren't a kind of conservative person who wants men to be tough, but even if you are such a person, you shouldn't be stupid enough to ask for the government to force your ideology on other people!
@@amirhosseinhosseinzadeh7627 It's not like that at all. First of all in Switzerland this is decided throug popular votes... We have a half direct democracy. Second you can do civil service and help elderly people etc. or just pay as well. There's also a psychological assessment as well. Also if anything the environment is more stupid than it is toxic...
People in military service generally get good benefits. I have a theory that government jobs tend to be military and lucrative. It's probably a combination of training, recommendations, and being put on the short list of applicants. Atleast, in here in the usa.
Thought: Countries that are efficient at managing their economies are also good at managing efficient conscription practises. And vice a versa.
Yes, it's a good idea. It can solves many issues in a society. It helps with community and creates a sense belonging. It forces people that's on completly different paths in society to cooperate in very difficult situations and therefor reduces polarization in society. It creates contacts that will aid people in finding a professional career. It creates readiness for people in the event of a national crisis. It takes people out of their comfort zone and challenges them to become open for new things. And most importantly it creates military deterrence. What needs to be gone is the entire penalizing system and the concept that only males gets called in for it. It's beneficial for everyone in society.
At no point were ethics brought up, surely that's part of the "context"? This was just an EE video put on the wrong channel.
Ethics are irrelevant in security
Many of the rich countries are rather small.
So the only way to get the number is subscription.
The other thing is in rich countries you have to pay
the soldier a lot because the salaries are high.
A benefit of mandatory military service is physical. Learning to eat right, exercise, and be fit and healthy is a new experience for many and has long-term societal benefits.
This also provides an opportunity for discipline, as in how to take care of oneself, that is lacking in many areas of the world. And from my point of view, this also provides recruits the ability to step away from so many eye hours in front of a video screen.
Honestly, I see so much benefit to mandatory service done right (emphasis there) that I think it should be thought of everywhere.
Don't really see any physical or learning to eat better kind of benefits with conscription in Finland at least.
@@fleshreapWhere did you serve? Most people I know easily added 200-300m to their cooper score. Not to mention all the marching with full kit.
If you're already an athlete the military wont make you that much more fit, unless you workout on free time, but for the average person it makes a huge difference.
@@cooly2165 just looked it up and according to the data they gather based on initial test vs test at the end of service, the avg cooper improvement is around 100m. Must say even that is slightly more than I expected it to be.
@@fleshreap I'd say the Finnish are already pretty fit on average. Now think of Americans... Then Mexicans, Hungarians, and more...(the 2nd and 3rd "chubbiest" countries according to my memory) Fitness is very good for youth!
Honestly this is most BS excuse for defending military service! The government has no right to forcely discipline people, especially if it is only being forced on men!
There is no way you said realistically Finland is in no immediate danger, they might be in NATO, but Putin is crazy enough to consider invading them.
makes sense for small countries, wasted on large countries. Taiwan, Finland, Israel makes sense
I don't understand why Switzerland has conscription.
One element of economic benefits is that the health of the male population is better.
In Singapore, men are still required to report for reservist service for 2 weeks a year. And they still have to maintain their fitness for the purpose of being combat ready. This goes on till the age of 40.
Can any country with non-mandatory military service claim the same benefit?
Some politicians were recentlu raising ideas about reintroducing some form of mandatory service in Poland and among it i noticed inyerestiny argument about using it to combat massive decline of healthy lifestyles among citizenry (fast foods and no exercise ) by maybe organizing some limited mandatory training on smaller timescales (note: polish politicians do not have habit of consulting specialists before policies are set to law)
Perhaps cooking classes and physical education in high school could help.
One issue is some healthier foods can be more expensive or take longer to prepare.
Taxes on unhealthy foods and unhealthy ingredients could level the pricing out.
Income tax thresholds could be used to discourage working too many hours.
@@JamielDeAbrew all are definitely great ideas but reforming education in Poland is probably gonna be way harder then delegating this issue tot he army (list of complaints about polish education remain unchanged from before WW2 so it feels kinda hopeless) and changed in taxation is also unlikely when what barest of bare minimums of how economy works are being scraped from curriculum and replaced with more catholic theology.
@@rafaszmuda669 interesting.
Thanks for your response!
@@JamielDeAbrew I would like to point out that countries in Central Europe still have significantly lower wages than countries in Western Europe and working "too many hours" is way how some people try to deal with lower hourly wage.
One problem with tax on unhealthy food is that for it to work it would have to be extreme to make a difference as people would first start switching brands for cheaper one and companies could start replacing taxed stuff for even worse that is not taxed.
The US Army doesn't want conscription. The other services wouldn't mind conscription so much because people looking to escape conscription join the other services. The Air Force and Navy get a better caliber of recruits, on the whole. I don't know if the Marines get better choices. But the Army doesn't want anything to do with conscription. I served in Iraq with volunteers who acted like conscripts. I can't imagine what trying to motivate conscripts in rifle companies in Vietnam must have been like. Heinlein might have had the right idea: service = franchise. No service, no vote. Classical Greece, the Roman Republic, and colonial America operated on a similar principle. The right to vote might mean more to voters if it has to be earned.
Rites of passage are extremely important 😊
I can tell how conscription work in Ukraine before war. It is basically free labor for government, or more likely a slavery, because it was so common when conscripts build something, or guard objects without any pay, and probably in best scenario only 10-15% study something connect to military.
Invites the Ministry of Defense to stand before a televised congressional/parliamentary session and list WHO they think they’ll be fighting in the next 5 years. Then vote for if there’d be conscription for next year - every year.
Also, change the conscription age to 22, so that every 18 years old gets a chance to vote at least once before he’s drafted.
I have a big issue with conscription. Its no different from slavery.
Conscription is also forced income for young people and more importantly...it's forced purpose.
The idea that young people are busy doing useful things is wrong.
The poorer countries with conscription have the potential, through outside assistance, to transition their politics to a dominant party system, the job training to civilian education, and the economy to one more akin to State-Capitalism. Liberalization might not be possible, but I would see such a shift as a positive shift.
You know, it’s scary that we see videos on this now. Maybe the government AND the service branches should get their shit together and maybe people would want to join. Cuz, you know, volunteer force and all that.
If I had not been drafted. I probably would only went to Canada and no other country. Because it is south of Detroit.
I figure that the reason extremely wealthy countries have conscription policies is because nobody would volunteer for it. That's probably also true for South Korea.
Other than Switzerland and Austria, what nations do you consider the general population (not merely the autocrats at the top while most of the population lives poor) both wealthier than South Korea, and has universal military service?
Most nations at or above South Korea in terms of wealth among the general population (i.e., nations where your hypothesis might apply) do NOT have enforced mandatory service, even if they have universal conscription laws on the books. They generally rely on volunteer forces. South Korea ranks 22nd in median GDP per capita (a more accurate view of how wealthy the general population is than a straight per capita GDP), below the US, UK, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc., all of whom don't actually have mandatory military service.
The "super wealthy" nations with eye popping per capita GDP who are wealthier than South Korea who have mandatory military service tend to be oil states, where the very top of the population is mind boggling wealthy, but the general population is actually poor. The one exception is Qatar (whose median per capita GDP is significantly higher than South Korea's) - but Qatar has a TINY population when you discount guest workers (who aren't conscripted) and no geographical depth to trade space for time to build and train an army.
Your idea that (in general) wealthy nations need to force universal military service vecause their populations wouldn't volunteer in adequate numbers isn't backed up by the data. Quite the opposite - wealthy nations can *afford* to make military service attractive enough to meet the needs the government forsees via volunteer service (entirely or primarily).
@@geodkyt I swore I heard him say that Lichtenstein had forced conscription, but it appears I misheard him. I did check online and it says both Denmark and Norway have policies, as well as many of the Nordic countries which I always figured were pretty wealthy, but you're right. I should probably have done deeper independent research before commenting.
France used to have some level of mandatory service, no more?
Portugal is considering reintroducing mandatory service
no
9:03 for companies like samsung *wink*
9:27 i DID GUESS IT WOOOO!
I think the draft was primarily a good thing. Service to our country breeds patriotism and an attitude of us instead of me.
The problem is that people with money or political connections were able to avoid service, witch isn't fair. College bound young people could defer, defer, defer. If those issues could be addressed, I would support a draft. Maybe a draft reserve would be a good option.
I think you approached this the wrong way around. You begin with a necessary army size for national security and figure out how to do it. The low income countries will choose conscription because they have very little revenue to pay even a pittance. The higher income countries will choose conscription because their citizens will have much better paying options outside of the military to staff an all-volunteer force. Even the United States has perennial controversies about soldiers and veterans benefits and living standards.
Generally conscription only works ( during "peacetime") if the militairy service also functions as an education. Finland,Switserland and Israel allow conscripts to apply either to education in the army or to follow an education next to their service and then also finish the education after their service.
places that charge for education would complain about that
This is an american thing...
The median gdp per capita in the world is 4000 USD
And 10k+ is the top 25%
Where the hell is the obvious example of Israel?
A country with three years compulsory service for man and woman and reserve until the age of 45 and even so, the 19th richest country per capita on earth.
Real point: there probably is some benefit from the social mixing, experience, and formal assessment (e.g. health, ability) from national service
Snippy point: as a uni lecturer embracing grumpy middle age, many Gen Z could do with being yelled at for a year.
Being yelled at doesn't do much. Being stern and good role model, now that might do something
@@randomsomeguy156 see, it's this chronically online hyper-sensitive "you're eating a bun in your profile, what about people who can't afford buns?" egotism and inability to detect irony or sarcasm that could do with being shouted out of you
@@getnohappysounds like someone isn’t used to their authority being challenged. Perhaps you could use some yelling too
This is a good idea now. However, the military service should be fair and have a clear focus like in Israel or Switzerland. Otherwise the people will not accept it.
Mandatory military service no. Mandatory civil service, military included, i .e. Options in what you do as all individuals may not be suited for certain tasks. I do think that having individual be required to give a portion of their time to their nation in whatever capacity they can does foster a common sense of purpose and gives everyone a “leg” in the ideals and running of their respective nation. In doing so, increasing a nation economic capability and overall national standards.
I think it is an important thing, because it fundamentally means that if a country goes to war it has to convince its public its a good idea to do so. Even in autocracies such as the USSR./Russia public opinion matters; mothers of Russia have done more to end Russia's wars than anyone else ever has.
Legitimizing a weak government is one externality on the less developed end of the spectrum. Investment in the Military-Industrial-Educational Complex is the externality on the more developed end of the spectrum. The handful of developed economies that have conscription have (I think) less overall investment in MIE.
Conscription might be perceived as necessary for collective survival, and one may even laud its economic benefits, but that still does not make it moral. We have laws against forced labor but make conscription an exception... permitting certain kinds of involuntary servitude while banning others. I think this is hypocrisy.
Necessity does not imply something is morally right. Just as canibalism is necessasy during severe famine where mothers have to eat their babies to survive, it doesn't make it moral. My take.