← Future of Freedom
Future of Freedom
Mackenzie Eaglen & John G. Ferrari: How Should Military Recruiting Efforts Be Improved?
00:35:37
On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with different viewpoints about how to improve military recruitment efforts. First on the show is Mackenzie Eaglen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Later we hear from John G. Ferrari, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can find Mackenzie on X, formerly Twitter, at @MEaglen and AEI at @AEI.
Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:00]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Foreign.
- [00:08]
Scott Bertram
Welcome to Future of Freedom. I'm your host, Scott Bertram. Future of Freedom is a production of America's Talking Network. You can check out all of our great podcasts@americastalking.com to support great podcasts like this one, please donate by clicking the link in the show description. We bring you interviews today from different sides of the debates over how how to improve military recruiting efforts. In a little bit, we'll be joined by John G. Ferrari, non Resident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. AEI.org first we talk to Mackenzie Eaglen, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can find her also on Xeaglen. E A G L E N Mackenzie, thanks for joining us.
- [00:56]
Mackenzie Eaglen
My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
- [00:57]
Scott Bertram
Speaking about the issue of recruiting for our nation's military, he wrote a piece at aei. The Secret to Fixing the Army's Recruiting Troubles will reveal the secret in a moment. Why should we be concerned about a problem like this? I mean, there's the obvious answer about we need Americans in our nation's military, army, navy, elsewhere. Why should we be concerned about the numbers perhaps dwindling when it comes to recruiting?
- [01:21]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Well, we should be concerned partly because the military just kind of across the board is the smallest in many cases that it's been since World War II. And the challenges confronting the armed forces. This is not a world at peace, right? There are simmering crises and raging wars all over the place and we count on the armed forces to deal with messy problems over there to prevent them from coming here. And, and I would argue it's a military under strain because of all of the competing challenges and the growing workload. So when people aren't interested or are not qualified to sign up and join, it puts further strain on those who are in uniform. And of course, none of us want that either.
- [02:05]
Scott Bertram
How long has this been an issue? Where do we see maybe this drop off in numbers for our nation's military?
- [02:13]
Mackenzie Eaglen
So different outcomes for different services as well as different components. Active Guard and Reserve, they all sort of have different numbers, but the trend lines are generally negative. And it wasn't just Covid and the pandemic, although those were not the causes of the military's recruiting challenges, but they were an accelerate. And so really if you look at the numbers the, the services started to experience some started to see challenges in recruiting, really, particularly in 2015. And well, it kind of started in early aughts. But 2015 is the year things started to go south and red flags increasingly were coming up every single year. And like I said in Covid accelerated that not just the pandemic and lockdown and the challenges for recruiting in that kind of an environment, but also in the numbers involuntarily released because of the vaccine mandate for the armed forces and a variety of other reasons. And they're very slowly recovering partly on their own, but also partly as a result of reducing their goals for how many and who is allowed to join. And that's not an ideal situation either.
- [03:30]
Scott Bertram
If we paint with a broad brush. Mackenzie the generation that is now 16, 17, 18 year olds who might be thinking about considering military service, it's a generation that is interested in service nonprofits. Why perhaps are they not interested in the particular service that comes with being a member of our nation's military?
- [03:54]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Yes, great point. And so one of the reasons I wrote that blog and you'll see I talked about your great point and I had just visited UT Austin and the University of Georgia kind of back to back by coincidence. I don't do tons of college visits, but I was speaking at both campuses and as a personal, you know, knowing what I know in Washington and what you know ringing the alarm bells on recruiting, I asked students after the official events about, you know, are you interested? And, and as I noted in the article, you know, it ranged from uninterested to outright hostility to the armed forces. And there is not a single reason for this. Although the data shows a general drop off in Americans trust in the armed forces. And historically in the last 25 years it had been one of the last remaining institutions that had high levels of confidence by the American public. Whereas for example, other institutions like Congress, the media organization, organized religion, big banks, everybody else had fallen off a cliff. The armed forces was sort of the last bastion of confidence. And then what we saw is in the last five years or so those numbers have they're not quite crisis level, but the percentage drop in such a short period of time I'd argue is pretty significant. Why are Americans confidence failing in the armed forces? Like I said, I think there's not a single reason, but there is a confluence of differing reasons ranging from really bad headlines based on terrible things that have happened in the armed forces to all. But really on the recruiting side, I would say it's lack of exposure to anyone currently working in the US Military. As the military shrinks and gets smaller, partly because of the recruiting challenges, there's fewer and fewer people who are a touch point to a future recruit. And and as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told me at aei, General Brown, you can't be what you can't see. And if you're not exposed to someone who loves their job, why would you ever even consider it? It's just not going to make your radar.
- [06:09]
Scott Bertram
So how do we introduce this idea or put members of the military closer to potential recruits? How do we introduce them to what's possible?
- [06:20]
Mackenzie Eaglen
That's a great question. There are definitely tangible, actionable items, steps policymakers could take today. And so some of those range from opening. I wrote a different article in the last year or two about opening up military bases and places, installations where troops actually work. Because, you know, these. And it kind of. It broke their website. They had to publish my article, prompted so much reader response that they had to publish a reader response section on the website. Just my article. Military bases as well as defense communities, places where people support war fighters, military manufacturing and technology and service companies, places where those are headquarters as well are also terrific places of exposure to those in uniform. But military bases often have cool museums. They have great golf courses and bowling alleys and pools and things like that. They have dog trails and things that unique things that. Not the dog trails, but the museums and other things like that. Historical artifacts and sites that if exposed to people would be interested in learning more. But really, I think the fastest bang for the buck is to expand the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps program. Jrotc. That is a high school. That is a public high school leadership course where students can voluntarily elect to join. And you wear a uniform. You do learn military values, but you learn mostly civic responsibilities. Just what are the responsibilities of any good and earnest United States citizen? Everything from paying taxes to respect for the flag. That has shown the numbers just don't lie. Those who join Junior RITC or who are even exposed to it tend to be interested in serving in the military at much higher rates than others.
- [08:29]
Scott Bertram
That was an interesting part of this piece at AEI MacKenzie, which is it's not just affecting those who end up joining Junior the Junior ROTC program, but even having the exposure, having the program in a school makes people much more likely to be recruited by someone later on, right?
- [08:49]
Mackenzie Eaglen
It really is remarkable. I was struck by that as well. But then again, back to General Brown, who is the senior most ranking member of the United States military today. He and I talked a lot about this in a public event at aei. It's also archived on our website. And he is a living embodiment of that exact statistic. He was not himself enrolled in Junior ROTC in his own high school, but it was there and he talked about it. So, yes, just being exposed to those who wear uniform and curiosity about that. But then those who are actually enrolled again here, the numbers are pretty overwhelming that these students have higher GPAs, they graduate at higher rates, and they show up for school more often and then again, of course, more likely to actually be interested and sign up later. The problem is not the great data, but the lack of numbers of programs. Only about 5% of public high schools have a Junior ROTC program. And this is, you know, it's pretty relative to the rest of the defense budget. It's a very small amount of money for outsized payback.
- [10:01]
Scott Bertram
Is money the biggest hurdle to getting these programs inside high schools across the country?
- [10:07]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Some of it is, no, it's really not. You know, there's def, you know, and Congress has. Is interested in this leadership of the defense committees. They have expressed interest. Members like Mike Waltz of Florida have introduced legislation to expand junior rotc. Some of it is based on the requirements of establishing a program. So for example, I believe 100 cadets is like the baseline interest, but in smaller schools and more rural areas, that might be too high. In other cases, it's. It's staffing at the leadership level, the professor of military science, who's going to be that person. If you want them to be current or former military, that's more challenging than if you can put somebody else in the job of your civilian, say, and train them to do that. So it's a variety of things, but it's on the. It's registering for Congress and they're very interested in its expansions. And it's, you know, it's underway right now. But these things, of course, take time, several years until we see permanent, additional JROTC units stood up.
- [11:12]
Scott Bertram
When we look at ways to attract more to the army and the armed forces, is it something as simple as paying them more? Is the pay for our military members, especially those just starting out, commensurate with what they might see elsewhere in the market?
- [11:29]
Mackenzie Eaglen
So that's a great question. So the secretary of the army has testified to Congress saying, you know, for the most part, internal. For example, army survey data shows that soldiers believe they're relatively competitively well paid, relative. Everything's relative right now, she says, but once they join, they compare their paycheck and their housing and then say, I can do better. The combination of the two, the low pay and the questionable housing in many cases is really then causes those who enlisted to question that choice and probably tell their friends not to join. So Pay is definitely an issue. Pay as well as the quality of infrastructure and the quality of life. The operations tempo for those in uniform is remarkably high for not being in direct combat or named military operations currently. I think all three of those are contributing to it. I believe the total compensation package for those in uniform is pretty, pretty healthy. But most of what we pay those in uniform is deferred compensation. It's not their pay stub, it's not direct cash. That is the part that needs dramatic improvement. We need service members see their pay stub and think I'm underpaid. And that would be inaccurate. That would be accurate total compensation. They typically are paid more than their civilian counterparts, but Congress could do a lot more to bump up the bottom line on cash salaries. That would certainly go a long way. And I would tell you in D.C. this is a major debate underway in the defense bills moving through Congress right now for the next fiscal year. The House has proposed something like a 15 or 20% base pay raise for the most junior enlisted and the Senate has not proposed something that high. So this is of great interest to Congress and they agree what, what I would argue this means is they agree troops need more cash and direct compensation to make this a better bargain, to boost recruiting numbers.
- [13:38]
Scott Bertram
Generally, when we look at young people in the military and our armed services, are they happy with their choice? Is there a need to perhaps highlight those who have been made this choice and convince, help have them convince others to make a similar choice?
- [13:55]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Yeah, absolutely. I, I would argue there's no better salesperson than someone who loves their job. And, but what you see again looking at the data are the number of influencers who are recommending military service, from parents to religious to coaches, is declining. And part of that is generational. The military is increasingly a family business. And what you're seeing is that the latest generation of current service members are not recommending their offspring or their relatives join the military. So that to me is, is a red flag for the future. You know that, that recruiting challenges are not a one off, it's not a one year problem. This is going to be a multi decade challenge and more could be done to ensure current service members are happier. And like I said, you know, earlier or I alluded to, recruiting and retention are inextricably linked. If you can't recruit enough people to take on the new tasks, those who are in uniform have to take on the extra burden and you know, they're always being told to do more with less, well then they're not going to stick around either or recommend service. So you can kind of see like where a death spiral gets underway for the armed forces. And so ensuring that those who are currently in uniform are happy is also extremely important to the future of recruiting.
- [15:19]
Scott Bertram
One final question for Mackenzie Eagle and I wonder if in your conversations you notice a stronger anti military or at least anti war sentiment among Those among those 18, 19 year olds or is that always sort of baked into cake? There's always a certain percentage that will have that, that sort of point of view. When looking at military service, I see.
- [15:44]
Mackenzie Eaglen
A couple of, you know, I do see some challenges ahead. But I'll also talk currently I see protest culture creeping into the military. I see cancel culture creeping in. But in current data if you look at the numbers, it's not, you know, previously the challenges in recruiting were there's so few American youth eligible to serve, right. You know, for drug use or obesity or not ready or can't pass the tests to get in. Now it's a combination of ineligibility and disinterest. So depending on what study you're looking at or which survey, there are some internal to the Department of Defense and some external. It's anywhere from 1 to 9% of American youths that are qualified are interested in joining. That's not great. And so that's part of the challenge. I think some of that is just lack of awareness, but other just again, not being exposed to those in uniform or being inspired or being aware of the leadership, the financial stability. I mean there's no better road to the middle class, frankly than the United States military for a lot of Americans. But there is a creeping and growing outright hostility towards service in the armed forces and the growth in other kinds of service as being superior. And this is something that's going to be in the inbox of military leaders, like I said, for at least the next 10 years to turn that around because joining the armed forces should be continue to be a noble cause and something celebrated as opposed to the opposite.
- [17:28]
Scott Bertram
Mackenzie Eaglen is senior fellow at the American Enterprise institute. A e I.org you also can find her at X eaglen E A G L E N Mackenzie, thank you so much for joining us here on Future of Freedom.
- [17:42]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Thank you.
- [17:44]
Scott Bertram
Now to hear another side of the argument about how to improve military recruiting efforts, we talk with John G. Ferrari, non resident Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
- [17:54]
John Ferrari
John, thanks so much for joining us.
- [17:56]
Well, thank you for having me on.
- [17:57]
This morning talking today about the challenges that the nation's military has currently in in recruiting New members of the military. Give us an idea as we start about the scope of the problem and are things getting worse?
- [18:14]
So the scope of the problem is very large. Right. All the services. Right. The army is down 10% in the number of people that it needs from a few years ago. So it's about 450,000 versus about 490,000. And that means that since the army hasn't taken any units offline, Right. That means that everybody is doing more work with fewer people. And for combat formations, that's not a good thing when you go into battle. The Navy has similar problems. It's having trouble manning its ships. And the Air Force, interesting enough, is having trouble putting pilots into its planes to answer the question, is it getting worse? There's a small glimmer of hope in the near term driven by demographics, but that's just like the small ray of light before it gets really bad in about two or three years.
- [19:11]
There are a number of different ideas about how to address the problem, and we might get to a few other ones toward the tail end of our conversation.
- [19:19]
Mackenzie Eaglen
But.
- [19:19]
John Ferrari
But you have suggested perhaps something as obvious as increasing pay for our military members. For people who are starting out, what does pay look like? How does that compare to other options they might have in the economy?
- [19:35]
Well, so you bring up a good point about pay. And it's basic economics. And sometimes people like to talk about service as a virtue. Right. We want people to serve, but. But it's driven really by the labor market, is driven by economics. And what's driving the labor market right now in the United States is a dearth of 18 year olds. So if you go back to 20 2008, the great financial crisis, the response in America was people stop having kids. And so what happens is in 2026, we go from having 9 million 18 year olds in the country down to about 8 million. 15% drop. Demographically, there was a bit of a blip in births and number of children in 2005, 6 and 7. So the labor market right now for 18 year olds, those who are entering, is going to loosen up a little bit for a couple of years before really coming down. And the military is in competition with police departments, colleges, McDonald's, all those entry level jobs, and there's going to be 15% fewer people right now. Military wages, especially at the lower end of the pay scale for the junior enlisted, really haven't changed much since the 1980s in thinking that they're journeymen. They come in, they serve, and then we give them pay raises after so they're making roughly 13, $14 an hour. But as the paper we wrote pointed out is you can flip hamburgers at McDonald's now and it's a mandatory minimum wage of $20 an hour. So there's an economic imbalance in the competition for 18 to 24 year old people to serve in the different sectors of the economy.
- [21:33]
Historically, has the discrepancy in pay between, say, starting out in the military and starting out at McDonald's or a similar, you know, starting point in the economy been roughly the same? I guess what I'm asking is in decades ago, were relying on more of a service based reason for young people to enlist in the military or are we still dealing with these sort of economic issues even 40, 50 years ago?
- [22:01]
So if you go back to the late 60s and early 70s, we stole labor from the labor market through the draft. That's what the draft is. You steal the labor, right. And you compel people to serve under the threat of law at minimum wage at low wages, and then you entice them to stay. Well, the Gates commission in the mid-70s said, hey, we need to go to an all volunteer force. This is not a good model. But they really didn't adjust pay rate. And so by 1979, you had what was called the hollow force, right? The army was in complete and utter disarray. And then the Reagan administration came in for, right, the tail end of the Carter administration. The Reagan administration, they gave, you know, 20, 30% pay raises over a number of years to bring the pay rates of the military really into equilibrium with the prevailing wages to compete in the labor market over the periods of the 90s and the aughts, right. And even into the, with the war on terror in 2000, you know, 2000, 2010, there was low inflation, right. So wages in the military kind of kept pace with inflation. Wages in the general population did that. Then, you know, you get into 2015, there was a lot of progressive movements to increase minimum wages. You start seeing the $15 minimum wage. Now you see 20. You also had 20% inflation rate. You started seeing pays go up. But the other factors that really the military always said, well, we give free health care, so that's a great benefit. It's not part of pay. But with the Affordable care Act in 2010, right. It's if you're making, you know, 30, $40,000 a year, it's very inexpensive to get family health care. And so you wouldn't exactly join the military. The value of that benefit to the military has gone Down. And the same thing with education. Right. If you remember the commercial Join the Army, right. You can get an education. Right. The GI Bill. Well now there's lots of financial aid, it's gone up. So between health care, wage inflation and minimum wages and college being paid for in the civilian world. Right. There's, it's the, it's all of those things that have eroded the economic advantage of joining the military.
- [24:27]
You admit in this piece at Military Times and also it can be found@aei.org that comparing civilian pay, comparing military pay is an inexact science. There were a few reasons you just laid out. What are some of the intricacies perhaps we should be aware of when we look to compare civilian pay and military pay?
- [24:47]
Mackenzie Eaglen
Yeah.
- [24:47]
John Ferrari
So one of them is there's some tax advantages in the military. So in many states, states when you serve in the military, they won't tax your pay. But at the lower level where tax rates are perhaps low, that rate has, that has eroded. There is the service mentality which is like I'm going to serve my nation. Right. So how do you quantify that? And then there's also the military does to its credit give you at a very, very young age a lot of experience and a lot of authority. And so you, in essence, you grow up very fast in the military, which perhaps flipping burgers won't do. You get root tasks to do, however, comma, right. Those are potentially offset by the fact that you have to uproot your life. You have to move across the country, right. If you have family, they've got to move. And so there's offsetting, right. There's advantages and disadvantages and it's hard to quantify what that is.
- [25:54]
Talking with John Ferrari, he is non resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. AEI.org We've talked a bit about sort of opening pay or beginning pay for those who enter the military. Is there that carrot available that says if you stay for X number of years there begins to be a, a significant economic benefit to being in our nation's military?
- [26:20]
Well, there is and we see that in retention rates. So what we see in the observed behavior of those who are in the military is that those who actually come in are now staying at a higher rate. Like they value those benefits, they value the service, they value what the military does. However, comma, right. It's very difficult to sell that to 18 to 22 year old kids whose discount rate is perhaps very different. Right. They're looking for today. It's hard to make the Case to them that hey, five years down the road this will be very beneficial to you. That's not really how this generation thinks. And to be fair, I'm not sure like when we were young, we were looking out that far either. Right. So I don't want to pin it on a generation. It's just like when you're 18 year old, right. You're looking at what's in my pocket today.
- [27:14]
What kind of an increase in pay for those beginning in our military do you think would have a tangible difference in our nation's recruitment rates for those military services?
- [27:27]
Yeah, well, so in our paper that we wrote, you know, we said that the difference for like a 19 year old kid is about 18%. Right. So you're looking at a pay raise somewhere between 10 and 20%. What's interesting is the House of Representatives in their FY20 fiscal year 25 budget that they proposed, they, they proposed a 19% pay raise that the Senate has countered with about a 5% pay raise. So it'll be interesting in the next, you know, this probably won't be resolved until after the election, but I think we have something between a 5 and a 19% pay raise that the Congress of the United States has put on the table and they will negotiate something.
- [28:15]
Perhaps in between question that always arises when we talk about spending more, which this is of course spending more on, on, on, on labor costs essentially for the nation's militaries. Where does the money come from? Because we're not exactly awash in cash in Washington these days. Is there a good answer to that question or is it simply that this is so important that it needs to be found somewhere?
- [28:39]
Yeah. So I think, you know, there's an old saying that says the only thing more expensive than preparing for war is fighting a war and the only thing more expensive than fighting a war is losing a war. I think we have to think about it like there's a war in Europe, there's a war in the Middle East, China is very aggressive towards Taiwan. And, and we saw the economic devastation on 9, 11 when we got caught on unprepared. Right. So, so there is. Right, that in the economics we say there is no such thing as a free lunch. So national security, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. And so I think we have to be very cautious. Right. We talk about that when we talk about the Constitution of the United States and the role of the federal government. One of the only things that says that the federal government actually is mandated to do is Provide to the common defense. Right. It's spelled out there in the Constitution. And so when we talk about, right. The competition for resources within the federal budget, which is many trillions of dollars now. Right. The question is in the enumerated task of providing for the common defense. Right. Is it getting its fair share? And right now it's at one of its lowest shares in history. Like we only provide just over 3% of our GDP towards the common defense. In the past it's been up to 5, 6, 7 and during war is up to 10 or 12. So it is a matter of prioritization. And much like we talk about those 18 year old kids wanting money today versus money in the future for society, we have to decide when we want to pay the national defense bill. We can pay it now and deter the war. We can pay it later when we fight the war or God forbid we lose the war. Right. Imagine if we lost Taiwan to the Chinese. What would that do to the semiconductor industry? And we saw during COVID like the economy nearly shut down. We had to shut down auto plants when we didn't have access to the, to the semiconductors. Well, okay, are you willing to pay that bill? And then all of a sudden, right. These pay raises and the money from the military, it doesn't look expensive when you consider shutting down large sectors of the economy.
- [30:57]
John, There are others who perhaps look at this problem and say, well a bigger issue is perhaps we don't value service the way we used to in this country. Or perhaps the military is too woke these days. And young men who might be thinking and women who might be thinking about joining the military look and say that's not the sort of thing I want to be exposed to. How much of a factor are those particular aspects?
- [31:27]
So on the first one of valuing service, I think there's a bit of rose colored glasses as we look back and say, well you know, when I was young we valued service and Right. This generation doesn't. Right. That's every generation says that about the current generation. Right. So I'm not sure that's really what plays in. And on the, the wolf part. Right. I'm not sure 18 year old kids are sitting around making that determination and what they would even figure out doing the research that the military is woke or not because, because you hear both ends, the military is woke and so people won't come in or it's, you know, an all boys network. Right. Filled with extremists. Right. I, I really don't think there's no documented evidence that that's the case. But what we do know from basic economics is supply and demand. The supply of 18 to 24 year olds is going down dramatically. The competition for them, they have many more alternatives, right? So if you want to say in the past people joined the military right, at a service, maybe it was because they had fewer alternatives this generation, right. They have a lot of alternatives that pay very, very well and will provide them a nice lifestyle going, going forward. So, so I think we set aside the economics at our own peril.
- [32:48]
Final question for John Ferrari from the American Enterprise Institute. AEI.org Looking forward, if we continue not to hit these recruiting targets, do we run the risk of getting closer to a reinstatement of the draft or at least closer to the idea that's been floated in a few places, which is mandatory service, mandatory one year service, mandatory two year service for young men and young women to the country. Do those ideas become more realistic the farther we get from hitting these recruitment goals?
- [33:24]
I don't think so. Because of the politics, right. So if you're asking so. So in order to reinstitute the draft or mandatory service, the Congress would have to pass laws to do it. And so Congress would be faced with a decision. They could either a raise the wages and the benefits to compete in the labor market or they can go to the American people and say we're going to force your children to serve in the military. Right. I don't know like if you polled that one in a congressional election, right. How that would poll. But I'm pretty certain that Congress will use the fiscal lever before they reach into families and mandate conscription. Now having said that, right. Then there's the hey, there's a war like a real war. That's different, right? That you know, World War II, right. Was, was a very different scenario, right? Look at what's in Ukraine or Israel. An existential threat. Very different. Right? But barring an existential threat, right. I'm not sure there is not a political will or consensus to do that when they can just compete better in the labor market.
- [34:38]
John Ferrari is a non resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can find more@aei.org John, thanks so much for joining us here on Future of Freedom.
- [34:50]
Thank you very much.
- [34:51]
Scott Bertram
We thank both of our guests for joining us today. Mackenzie Eaglen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute on X Eaglen E A G L E N and John G. Ferrari, non resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for additional episodes of the Future of Freedom podcast and other fine podcasts from America's Talking network. Check out americastalking.com or anywhere you find your audio. Thank you for listening to Future of Freedom, presented by America's Talking Network.