Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is What Happens When You Rip a Hole in the Safety Net
- So Your Groundwater's Poison and Your Tap Water's On Fire. Not to Worry: Fracking Chemicals Are Trade Secrets You Don't Need To Know About
- An Outpouring of Love and Support for Bradley Manning to Receive the Nobel Peace Prize
- Exxon Tar Sands Spill Continues to Devastate Arkansas Community
- The Treason of Intellectuals
Popular content
Today's Top News
Military Spending is the Weakest Job Creator
Even before the supercommittee’s demise, the defense industry and its Pentagon and congressional allies were making preemptive strikes on the next phase: the automatic cuts, half of them from defense, that are supposed to follow the supercommittee’s failure. And with national unemployment rates stuck near 9 percent, the effect of these cuts on jobs has loomed large in their sights.
The largest defense industry trade association, the Aerospace Industries Association, recently funded a study predicting $1 trillion in military cuts over 10 years would add 0.6 percent to the national unemployment rate. The Pentagon then funded its own study that conveniently rounded that prediction up to an even 1 percent.
The Aerospace Industries Association claims to be a top job creator, but independent studies show just the opposite. Photo by US Army Africa.
The glaring flaw in these studies is that they make claims about the effect on the economy as a whole as if these military cuts were being made in a vacuum.
The real world is a world of trade-offs. If you’re serious about examining the employment effect of these cuts in the military budget, you have to ask whether doing so would cost more or fewer jobs than doing something else with the money. New analysis by economists Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the University of Massachusetts provides the answer. Unlike the studies from AIA or the Pentagon, it is an independent analysis. It was funded by no industry or government agency — that is, no institution with a special interest in the outcome. Updating their previous studies from 2007 and 2009, Pollin and Garrett-Peltier compared the effects on jobs of spending an equivalent amount on the military, on clean energy, healthcare, education or simply returning the money to the private economy in the form of tax cuts. Among these options, military spending was the weakest job creator.
The number of jobs in each category has changed slightly compared to their earlier work — $1 billion doesn’t buy you as many jobs of any kind as it used to — but the overall conclusion is the same. Cutting military spending would cost fewer jobs than all these other options by a factor of between 50 percent and 140 percent.
The larger flaw in the effort to head off defense cuts with inflated jobs claims, of course, is that military spending is not supposed to be a jobs program. We ought to decide which military systems effectively defend our nation, then fully fund those programs and no others. Investing in our national military is like buying insurance. Since insurance purchases don’t do anything to improve their standard of living, families should only buy as much as they need to secure themselves from disaster. Likewise, societies need to buy as much military insurance as they need, but to spend more than that is to squander money that could go toward improving the productivity of the economy as a whole: with more efficient transportation systems, a better educated citizenry, and so on.
This is the point that retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) learned back in 1999 in a House Banking Committee hearing with then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Frank asked what factors were producing our then-strong economic performance. On Greenspan’s list: “The freeing up of resources previously employed to produce military products that was brought about by the end of the Cold War.” Are you saying, Frank asked, “that dollar for dollar, military products are there as insurance … and to the extent you could put those dollars into other areas, maybe education and job trainings, maybe into transportation … that is going to have a good economic effect?” Greenspan agreed.
One trillion dollars in military cuts over 10 years would bring us, in real terms, to the same level we spent in 2007. More than we spent during the Cold War. As much as the rest of the world put together. More than enough insurance.
Originally published in The Hill
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
33 Comments so far
Show All" … and to the extent you could put those dollars into other areas, maybe education and job trainings, maybe into transportation … that is going to have a good economic effect?” Greenspan agreed."
If Greenspan agreed it must be true. And I am not being sarcastic or ironic. Many like to think World War II got us out of the depression, and today all these wars will do the same. The fact they ignore is during WWII we hadn't privatized most of our military operations. Today it's a totally different story. Too much of the money spent on wars today is funnelled off to private contractors. This is another case that proves privatization just doesn't work. You have to hand it to those contractors they are working very hard to maximize their profits and limit their liability.
During WWII US industries' factories were in the US, so there were many more jobs in the US.
Today many US industries' factories are located abroad, thereby assuring that military spending will not mitigate the effects of an economic downturn like they did during WWII.
If I recall correctly, there was close government oversight of defence contractors in WWII, and severe penalties for profiteering.
Whether war profiteering was actually given close oversight during WWII, the idea that this article's argument is even being made strikes me as one of many symptoms of a truly sick society. War profiteering was once considered a great moral crime once upon a time, wasn't it? Oh wait, I remember people swooning over Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind, and how did he make his money?
Apologies, duplicate post.
Of course we should shift spending from the military to education, health, renewsable energy and sustainable policies that create jobs.
But I’m confused. If military spending is the weakest job creator, how come the two largest employers world-wide are military?
The world's 5 largest employers (from The Economist September 19, 2011)
US Defense Department 3.2 million employees
China Armed Forces 2.3 million
Wal-Mart 1.7 million
McDonalds 1.7 million
China Nat'l Petroleum 1.7 million
Says it all doesn't it Walmart and Mcdonalds and an oil company right up there with armies? The Clintons should be very proud.
Caroline. Just as eating at McDonalds is not the best way to maintain a nutritious diet, spending endless tax $s on the military does not insure a healthy economy. As the article points out, the job statistics do not include alternatives to military spending. One could have said the same thing about any militarized government. No doubt Hitler's Germany would be a good example of job creation.
Short answer, because no president, apart from JFK, stood up to that same military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. (And we know what happened to JFK.) The result has been a modern version of "Mars rules," or far too much of the nation's blood and treasure serving the Make War culture.
The thing is, with the military now a veritable Hydra, with extensions in every state, the ideal thing would be to use its manpower for CONSTRUCTIVE domestic enterprises, as opposed to those too often tied with campaigns of carnage and destruction abroad.
Here's what I need to know. What do they mean by growth creators--creating increasing numbers of jobs or maintaining jobs? For how long does a job have to filled before it's a "created job"? From what year to what did the Economist chart the numbers?
The natural corollary of "Military Spending is the Weakest Job Creator" is "Military Spending is the Biggest Profit Creator".
Military spending by the united criminal cabal insures nothing but continued conflict.
Disown them. Defund them by refusing their authority.
Worries of losing homes and such through tax resistance, rings hollow to these ears. You can either keep paying the shake down juice to the murderers now, or your children and all the children of the world pay later, maybe in perpetuity. Go ahead, rationalize your complicity.
Yesterday it was revealed that a $5,000,000,000 increase in military spending is in the works. Evidently, the Liar in Chief asked for more, but succumbed to the lower figure. "Jobs, whoo hoo, let's spend our days manufacturing death, destruction, and misery."
Televisions are available for free by the hundreds on craigslist. Apparently, new ones are being purchased by the good citizens and it costs money to dispose of the old.
Modern culture is the sickest the world has ever known.
well first off let's put some perspective on the situation about the military
the military is the enforcement wing of corporate amerika
just listen to smedley butler:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents"
all this bull about "the troops" that spew from the sheeple - we love them - we need them - etc
fact is we dump their remains in landfills
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/08/9290603-report-air-force-dumped-remains-of-274-troops-in-landfill
we crap on about freedom and democracy - which we no longer enjoy here in the good ship lollipop - but it is theft of resources the rule the day
its about the resources stupid as clinton might say
the oligarchs - quite obviously - don't care about schools, hospitals or roads
they have good ones that don't need repair
articles like this - and they are endless - are delusional and the writers of them refuse to connect the dots between theft of resources and use of military
when, i ask you, was the last time we invaded a country who exported broccoli
"the military is the enforcement wing of corporate amerika"
yes, and
"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry"
Frank Zappa
Merka has long been plagued by a glut of bogus information. Filtering out the garbage has become a "growath industry" in progressive Merka. We take our information seriously over here on the Far Left.
The US propaganda industry continues to grow each year and has never experienced a downturn.
This piece strikes me as exceedingly sick. We should be considering whether our obscenely bloated and murderous military is good for job creation? The argument here is that it is not--good news. But if it were, would that be a reason to maintain our military’s growth? See, it produces jobs . . .
Perhaps people need to rethink the value of work. More military, more jobs? More cops, more jobs? More Homeland Security, more jobs? More unnecessary medical procedures, more jobs? More kids labeled “learning disabled,” more jobs? More stupid crap to buy, more jobs? More advertising of stupid crap to buy, more jobs? More automobiles and less public transportation, more jobs? The list is endless.
We have failed to make sense of the industrial revolution, never mind the electronic one. What a stupid, senseless world.
Elizabeth H. What a stupid sensless article! I agree, an exceedingly sick article. Not worthy of a reply. In other words, if we could to revamp our military so that it can create more jobs, then everything would be hunky dorey.
Liz, One can't make sense out of insanity. The good citizens debate economic angles related to war, though war isn't exactly an accurate description. It's mass murder for profit, henchmen who wave flags.
The progression you've pointed out is directly attributable to a worldview that disowns the Divine Feminine. In other words, it's the end point of patriarchal culture. And since patriarchy rests upon the premise of hierarchy, it dovetails quite naturally into the capitalist systems so many rail against in these threads. Society has long ago lost its balance. The multitudes have been conditioned to only see value in what is manmade, and/or God the father. Because there's been no reciprocal appreciation (or respect) taught for the natural world, and all the wonders that are FREE, the chase for artificial stuff has left millions inwardly bankrupt.
Due to Mars rules values, investments in armaments have far exceeded those in support of creative expression. Too many fault human nature for these outcomes; or believe them to be inevitable. It is vitally important that the narratives that reinforce the patriarchal worldview be deconstructed, and a good place to start is by reading, "The Chalice & The Blade," By Riane Eisler.
There are other ways to model a society. Certainly Indigenous Tribes have sought to do so; as have cultures that pre-dated the modern era and the record of HIS-story that begins and thus far ends, with its chief hallmark: the pursuit of war.
Studies have already proven that most people value loving relationships more than financial wealth. Once a modicum of basic needs are met, without a massive advertising apparatus pushing Thneeds (as Dr. Seuss termed them), much of the consumer driven madness would come to a stunning halt. I happen to believe that outcome is inevitable, and that the Earth Changes only just now beginning, will play a significant role in transforming values. When basic survival is on the line, acquiring the latest electronic gadget becomes recognized for the farce it's always been.
The Great Mother knows best.
I agree with your post completely and feel sorry for some of the people doing these jobs. Your comment would get a high rating from me if there were a rating system for comments.
We have been living off our military expenditures forever. Our Left-Wing never had a problem with that, as long as Americans profited from that philosophy. Now that Americans stand to lose, our "Left Wing", as usual, distance themselves. What a crapola way to live and believe!
A distinction must be made between Left-wing and Liberals, the faux left, but yes.
The Headline should read: MILITARY SPENDING IS THE GREATEST PROFIT MAKER FOR THE 1%.
The Headline should read that Military Spending is the Greatest Profit Maker for 99% of our Congress, which profited from our Military Spending!
Congress just approved a non-partisan bill to fund the Pentagon another $662.000.000.000.00. Gosh darn, that took no time at all to get passed through Congress, I wonder why ? I thought we had gridlock because the two parties did not agree on anything! Oh I forgot, they are almost all corrupt, attorneys that support and work for their corporate masters, who pay them very well!
Paul: The blame all atttorneys meme is right up there with blaming teachers, or blaming unions, or blaming the poor. There are some very principled attorneys who work tirelessly on behalf of Just (and/or justice) issues; and it's always disturbing when anyone lumps EVERY individual into the same limited category. It's also highly disingenuous and possibly inflammatory.
Sioux Rose: I agree with you about generalizing, but not when it comes to Congress. I am not blaming ALL attorneys as there are no doubt some with principles ( and I personally know and have used some). But it is a no brainer that the congressional, majority are punic, to say the least! They sold out you and the American people a long,long time ago; otherwise they would not be there. Sorry, but that is not disingenuous, that is the truth; however I can see where some of the 9% that approve of Congress, might call it inflammatory.
I am sure you have heard the old joke: what is the difference between a Congressmen and a blood sucking leech? One is a bottom feeder!
Thanks for your reply Sioux Rose. Paul
That military expenditures employs the least amount of people per monetary unit and the worst return on investment has been a truism of statecraft since ancient times. Thus those who profit from war create powerful propaganda so as to keep enriching and empowering themselves is also a truism since ancient times.
a fading empire grasping at the last vestiges of exceptionalist illusion - jobs, any jobs to help quiet the restless. how much of our historically vaunted superpower status was due to military adventures, and how much due to rapatious energy policies and consumption (with all the complicity that implies)?
the sickness is not in looking at the military as a boon to economic prosperity
as sick as that is. it is in thinking that even some fantastical redistribution of the wealth will save us. that wealth was and continues to be stolen. one day in the not too distant future justice will be served.
Even if it were the number one job creator, it would still be despicable.
Could not agree more. The defense industry will try anything to stop the cuts to the weapon system that butter their bread.
I took a look at their lame attempt to use social media on my blog here: http://thecaptainsblognorthwest.blogspot.com/2011/12/defense-industry-attempts-social-media.html
don't let me spoil it for you, but just suggesting people use the #secondtonone hashtag doesn't cut it.
Military Spending is the Weakest Job Creator,,,,,,,
True, but 700 dollar hammers puts a lot of money in peoples pockets, bankers, military industrial complex, congressmen,Senators, just think what a trillion dollars a years can get those who skim off the top. Interest paid to bankers in China lending us the money to pay for the wars and the greased palms, and " We the people" get to go broke paying for it while we sit on our toilets and believe the constant fear mongering of this fake war on terror. Its empire building!!! In the middle east.Its all about oil, and 9/11 was an inside job.Meanwhile , they have hijacked our country, and want to throw us in FEMA camps without legal representation.
Its time to shit or get off the pot, its time to speak out.We having nothing to fear, but fear itself.