politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that just discriminates against lower and middle class people more than anything.
It is work experience that has no meaningful value for a career (especially if EVERYONE has it) that mostly just serves to delay when people start college/trade school/whatever. Which hurts their ability to "hit the ground running" because they need to relearn what little they retained from high school but also impacts lifelong learning rather significantly. Whereas anyone who can pay off a doctor to say they have flat feet or some other non "yucky" issue will skip it.
And also? It is more or less worthless for the military. For anything short of cannon fodder, a year is nowhere near enough time to train someone to be useful. Even room clearing (e.g. Rangers) needs significantly more training to be less likely to shoot friendlies than foes. A lot of the problems in the Ukraine war (on both sides, honestly) can be traced to this. A soldier who can do more than "hold the line" needs significant training.
And while I think a return to having a strong emphasis on civil engineering and infrastructure as public service would be a great idea... without an education that is basically just hard physical labor. So now we have even more kids starting with debilitating injuries before they even begin their "real" career.
And your point, even Medics who have served in combat roles and saved lives on the front line can't even become civilian paramedics without four additional years of college after they're done in the military. This is all because nobody's figured out how to transfer the training that they received in the military over to the civilian world certifications
That is actually an interesting discussion for different reasons, but yeah. But less life threatening stuff (like being a mechanic) transfers a lot faster but also gets into the mess of "why is the army spending all this money to train people who are leaving in June?" and why contracts tend to be for multiple years (chatgpt says 8) with the option to stoploss people until the end of time.
But yeah. Between family and climbing/mountaineering buddies I have had a weirdly large number of conversations with paramedics and various rescue folk.
The big issue there, aside from liability, is that militaries tend to mostly be focused on catastrophic injuries and the idea that you just throw a tourniquet on someone and deal with it later. Cynically speaking, because they are already going to be injured enough from those gunshots that they aren't likely to ever return to active duty so it doesn't really matter if they lose a limb.
Whereas paramedics and people doing wilderness rescue ARE increasingly having to deal with catastrophic injuries from gunfire on the regular but are still trained to use tourniquets as a last resort. Because... if you apply a tourniquet correctly you are basically guaranteeing at least long term nerve damage if not losing the limb itself. Its why the idiots who keep tourniquets in their truck (because 'murica) often do more harm than good if they actually know how to use them.
But the good news is that the militaries of the world have increasingly discovered the magic that is hemostatic bandages (e.g. quick clot) with a lot of rank and file troops basically being taught to just shove that anywhere they see a wound and to jam it into the cavity of a gunshot. Yes, there can be complications, but it is about as safe as it gets and it has very comparable statistics to most situations where a tourniquet would be used with significantly less risk of long term injuries from the treatment.
Which is why it is increasingly suggested to pack a few of those in your wilderness first aid kit or even your "I live in America and have good odds of getting shot at the Kroger" kit in your car. Tourniquets are a last resort deal. Hemostatic gauze is a "yolo, just make sure you have gloves on when you pack it in there".
DISCLAIMER: I am obviously exaggerating a bit and please actually understand whatever medical supplies you keep with you or are likely to be exposed to (i.e. What your friends carry)
Federal service is very broad though. Just consider ask the different Federal Agencies and the roles they fill.
For example, when I was in college I had a 6 month internship with the National Park Service doing trail maintenance for a national park. It serves me no purpose as a resume item but I look back on that time extremely fondly even though it was the hardest physical labor I've ever done. It was incredibly physical work with really 10+ miles of hiking every work day. The NPS across the US has an huge budgetary backlog of trail maintenance going back decades.
That all is just an example but I'm sure the NPS could make great use of thousands of young workers to improve our parks. Similarly, I'm sure across the board the Federal Agencies would have a vast multitude of roles for this Federal service, including working for the DoD but in non military roles. Most of the agencies would have vast amounts of work that isn't covered by their budgets so it just doesn't get done.
Exactly this. There are lots and lots and lots of jobs throughout the federal government (and states if we include them) that would be great to have people get exposed to. It would also give people a very real sense that government is not some airy-fairy thing that is just there to be bureaucratic and "steal" your taxes...
That repeated:
If you think having a bunch of kids who are pissed they aren't hanging out with their friends or going to American Pie University or whatever and unleashing them on our parks is a good idea... you've never worked with teenagers.
If someone wants to serve (as in actually help people, not wear camo and expect a handshake from every person they ever see) then that should be supported. But you aren't getting any meaningful skilled work out of people in a year of mandatory service. All you are doing is exploiting cheap labor while providing even more ways for the rich to get richer.
Federal service at this level does not make rich people richer. Working for their corporations does and that's exactly what most people do when they finish school. Corporations even tend to layoff experienced workers and hire new graduates because they are cheaper. Federal service looks this benefits everyone that takes advantage of federal services the agencies provide.
Like I was trying to point out in my example, there is a vast amount of work that federal agencies need done that is not skilled labor. But there is value in exposing young people to a small section of how the federal government operates.
Okay, since it is clear you didn't actually read anything I wrote, I'll try one more time and paste exactly where I addressed that
Yes, being a brand new hire sucks and that means you are on the lowest part of the totem pole when it comes to layoffs.
So the people who graduated college one year early and began accumulating relevant work experience one year earlier? That can make a significant difference. Same with lifetime earnings.
Again, it is great you liked working in a national park. I have a friend who very much loves it too. That isn't something you draft kids into unless you want them to set forest fires during their smoke breaks or creep on visitors. And it takes a decent amount of training to get someone to the point where they can do anything more meaningful than trash pickup and schlepping supplies to a competent person. And when you know they are going to be gone at the end of the year?
But "I maintained trails for a year" is, at best, character building. And when every single candidate whose parents didn't buy their way out of it have something similar? It is worthless from a career perspective. Which, again, is how the rich get richer.
Again, if someone wants to take a year off and make the world a better place? There should e a LOT of benefits to doing that. But in a draft format? At best that is someone misunderstanding what they read in a history book.
Other examples might include environmental work or working with kids. It could all be not only team building but helping people develop an appreciation for their society and help work together to keep it running. It could help people see different perspectives by working together with people they wouldn’t normally interact with. For example, IF you spend a summer cleaning litter from local parks, maybe you’ll be less likely to litter
Peace Corp and WPA were both successes, but a portfolio of similar service opportunities is more likely to include something for everyone
Nobody is saying that service is bad.
But having untrained kids straight out of high school interacting with small children? That is a great path to abuse. And is why basically any summer camp will watch the new staff like a hawk and only give them any degree of autonomy in year two or even four of volunteering.
And the idea of "make everyone work retail to learn to not be an asshole to retail workers" is fundamentally flawed. It is not like working retail or picking up trash is a romanticized job in media. If you somehow don't know it is a shit job then you already lack any empathy and doing a shit job for a year isn't going to help with that.
And, again, you are missing a key point: People join the Peace Corps as volunteers. Not as a mandatory year of service where the options are to dig ditches or join the military. THAT is the key here. What is being proposed is a mandatory year of service and I keep pointing out how that is of very limited use to anyone and is mostly just "physical labor".
I hear your concerns.