Measuring Military Make-Up
By Denise Best | Related entries in In The News, MilitarySo, how many folks remember their statistics lessons? I know that can be a rather horrible flashback!
Here’s a good reminder though of the importance of those stat basics, such as the importance of sampling size and distribution, as in this case when analyzing and drawing conclusions on military recruiting.
Numbers aren’t just facts. They can be interpreted in many ways, even if they come from the same or similar sources.
Ann Scott Tyson, a respected military reporter just back from Iraq, wrote in a front-page story Nov. 4 that “newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed rural areas where youths’ need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.”
The story said that more than 44 percent of military recruits come from rural areas, most from the South and West. “Many . . . are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income.”
The story, which was largely based on Pentagon data, included some analysis done by the National Priorities Project (NPP), a liberal-leaning think tank that questions the war in Iraq. The NPP also used Pentagon, census and Zip code data. A different analysis, released by the conservative Heritage Foundation a few days later, was reported by other media outlets.
As has been discussed over the past few weeks, particular interpretation can be influenced by political leaning. So, all that statistical “stuff” that you thought you’d never use does become quite relevant, especially in the final analysis.
All said the story and NPP analysis lacked context because they did not report trends over the past several years and did not look at “nationally representative data” or the entire recruit population. A statement from Gilroy and Maxfield said that “incomes and socioeconomic status of recruits’ families closely mirror the U.S. population. These findings are contrary to those” in Tyson’s article.
Kane agreed that a higher proportion of recruits come from rural areas and the South, which is historically true. “But the key word is proportion. The data in the Post article are accurate, but the inferences are not,” he said. “The percentage of recruits coming from poorer areas has declined every year since 2001 and the percentage coming from richer areas has increased.”
So, apart from standard deviation, what conclusions do you draw from the data, as well as the respective inferences?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 27th, 2005 and is filed under In The News, Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 27th, 2005 at 11:59 am
I think most people that join the military do so out of a sense of duty or honor; because they feel a certain sense of pride in their country. A feeling that cannot be comprehended by most members of the far left. I’m sure there are some that join for socio-economic reasons, but they are a definite minority.
December 27th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
What conclusions do you draw from the data? You imply a lot but you fail to take a position on the issue. Is the NPP study flawed? If so, why is it flawed?
December 27th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Blue Neponset,
My thoughts …
- As stated in the article, there needs to be a larger sampling size of the recruit population before conclusions can be drawn.
- Interpretation, and implication, can often be iin the eye of the beholder.
- Extensive data gathering, along with application of complete statistical analysis, can offer more of a balance view upon which to draw (meaningful) conclusions.
My gut tells me that the more representative picture a military recruit is the description that ford offers … that of someone joining out of a sense of duty or honor.
I wanted to get perspectives though since I would probably be challenged on how I’m basing my conclusions.
So, Blue …
What conclusions do you draw from the data and the topic?
December 27th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
This is from NPP’s NPP’s webpage:
Nearly two-thirds of all recruits (64%) were from counties with median household incomes below the US median. About one-third were from counties with a higher median household income. All of the top 20 counties had a median household income below the national median household income.
This is from NPP’s response to the Heritige Foundation:
Dr. Kane contests NPP’s finding that ‘military recruiters enlist lower and middle income youth,’ and suggests that we have based this finding on an analysis of the top 20 counties with the highest recruitment rates. However, this is not the case. The finding of low and middle income neighborhoods as recruitment grounds came from an analysis of all the data that NPP obtained from the armed forces.
My conclusion:
Just like any other decision people decide to join the military based on many factors; some of those factors have to do with economics and some of them don’t. The NPP study is evidence that economic factors may be playing a large part in military enlistment.
December 27th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Well, just eyeballing the chart of income distribution representation of the recruits, it looks like neither really well off nor really poor people join the army in numbers equal to their share of the population. I’m not really surprised by the right hand tail off (if your household income is over 75000 per year, you’re giving up a hell of a lot to join army, for one thing). I am a little surprised that there’s an underrepresentation of poor people, though. The article ignores the underrepresentation of poor people, but does mention the underrepresentation of the rich.
Also, perhaps I’m being Pollyannish, but it’s a pretty broad distribution (full width at half max looks like about 80,000). Financial considerations aren’t the determining factor for a lot of these recruits (ooh, ooh, false consciousness!!). Eh, feh.
“Now, some people would look at this glass, and say it’s half empty. Some people would say it’s half full. I’m pegging you as a glass half empty kind of guy, am I right?” - Gus
December 27th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
PS I would tend to agree with Ford, except that I would change “cannot be comprehended” to “isn’t fully shared”, or “isn’t seen as a reason to join the army”. Most leftists consider themselves more patriotic than people who are conventionally patriotic. Whether they are correct is not an issue which tends to be discussed calmly or with much consideration for truth.
December 27th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
You are right Seb. I thought a little on how to word that, and decided that “cannot be comprehended” summed up how I felt about the far left.
I don’t think they really comprehend it at all. Just like I can’t comprehend some of the things they believe (or far right extremists, for that matter).
December 28th, 2005 at 9:05 am
In response to Seb’s statement, ” I am a little surprised that there’s an underrepresentation of poor people, though” , the reason very poor people are underrepresented in the military is due in part to to fact that you have to have a high school diploma or equivalent to enlist (unless they’ve changed that since I was in the military). There are other factors that can impact recruitment among the very poor as well as any other socio-economic group, including: drug screening, criminal record, and behavior problems. It’s actually not that hard to get kicked out of the military if you do enlist; our military wants the best and the brightest of our youth, not troublemakers.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
In response to ford 4×4’s original comment and all those commenting on that original comment :) -
I was in the Navy and I can say from firsthand experience that an overwhelming number of people I met were from lower income households and joined because of economic reasons. I did however meet a small population of those who joined purely out of pride in their nation and sense of duty. There was also a fair number of people who joined for a combination of both. However, in a branch like the Army or Marines, you’re more likely to find people who joined for patriotic reasons. I experienced that first hand, but it is also common sense. Why would someone joining the military enlist in the branch they are most likely to get shot with unless they have at least a minimal sense of patriotism? In order to get good information, we need get data from each individual branch and then compare.