lol no he isn't, why do you act surprised. Rifle still thinks this is the 60's regarding our military personnel.
This article can help shed some light on it:
http://www.heritage.org/defense/rep...the-demographics-enlisted-troops-and-officers
Jarhead, let me help explain this to you. When judging intelligence of others, you are the complete opposite of somebody qualified to do that. Both of your links are examples of that, and I will explain why:
This first link claims that more than half of enlistees come from families in the top 40 percent of the income distribution. I'll give you a minute to process that . . .
Do you really think that more than half of enlistees come from families in the top 40 percent of income? Common sense and life experiences should immediately have you strongly doubting that. There is one major issue with your source on this: the military doesn't keep records of household income for enlistees. In other words, this is complete hogwash. What is this alternative fact based on? Your source used census statistics for areas of enlistees. Let me dumb that down for you:
I lived in the zip code of 20001 for many years. It was a very high rent, high-property value zip code. Neighbors in my condo included a U.S. senator, numerous attorneys, business owners/CEOs, and professional sports executives. I was paying as much to rent two parking spots per month than is the average apartment rent in Oklahoma City. Similar buildings in the zip code had the same income level of residents. Yet, the building next door was a government subsidized rent building. If you made over a certain income, you couldn't live there (nor would you want to). The residents were all on welfare. Due to legal restrictions, the building had to be used for those residents. There were numerous pockets of other poor people in the zip code.
Though the average household income ($110,000) is more than twice the national average, there are still thousands of poor in that zip code. So, assume 50 kids enlist in the military from that zip code. This "study," and I use that word loosely, would put enlistees from this zip code in the high-income category, yet in reality, there is no way in hell of knowing if any of them were the thousands of poor from that zip code.
Clearly, we can already discount this "study." But it gets better (not for you).
Take a look at their classifications of education. My argument is that the military is made up of more under-educated than educated. This "study" tries to counter that fact by making a claim citing enlistees with a high school education. In other words, this "study" (and by nature of you using it in an attempt to refute my comment, you) claims that a person with a high school diploma (or even a GED) counts as being "educated." Sorry, but in today's society, I consider somebody with just a high school diploma or GED as under-educated.
When there is such a huge disparity in what we each consider as "educated," there really isn't much of a discussion to be had. This "study" comically claims that those with simply a GED are considered educated in an attempt to prove my claim that the military has more under-educated than educated.
Ready to throw this "study" out yet and try a better argument?
Andy and Herdman, would either of you like to make excuses for this comically poor study, considering you both liked the link provided as support against my claim?
This one is just as good as the last one. This one claims that 93.6% of enlistees have at least a high school diploma. It claims that only 59.5% of the U.S. population has at least a high school diploma. Common sense and life experience (there is now a repeated history of you failing to put those things to use) should immediately make you skeptical of this claim. Clearly, even the biggest jarhead would know that more than 59.5% have at least high school diplomas. So, how could this "study" reach that conclusion? That's right; they counted all children under the age of 18 in it.
To be in the military, you have to be at least 18. So, they are using that threshold for one part of the comparison (93.6% having at least a high school diploma) yet including those under 18 years old in the other side of the comparison. See how illogical this is? A fair comparison would be comparing those in the military who have a high school diploma compared with the ADULTS (or those over a certain age, since there are quite a few kids who graduate from high school at age 19) in the general population with a diploma. Even then, it still does not do anything to counter my original point, because no logical person would claim that simply having a GED or high school diploma today would be considered as "educated."
So that we don't waste any more of my precious time, can you all actually use some critical thinking and logic when trying to refute my comments? Try actually reading and understanding these "studies" you refute.
My point, which is a fact, remains the same. The military is made up of more under-educated (which includes those with just a GED or high school diploma) than educated.
