Odd color placement. It almost looks like the money is on fire...

Advertising a profession by drawing attention to monetary compensation is now considered classist? If that's the standard I'd be hard pressed to think of incentives that wouldn't be.

I can't think of anything wrong with poorer folks becoming soldiers as opposed to, say, sociologists, as long as they're not compelled. People's options are limited by all sorts of things - inherent ability, health, current economic circumstances, education level... It's fortunate that economic status is one that can change during one's lifetime. The military is an important institution I think it's unfair to look down on it just because there's an economic discrepancy in the people who choose to join.

I'm going to to with this being more of a 'Photoshop Fail' than a class issue. I mean, if that's the case, then one could argue that the people going into the National Guard in order to pay for university are elitist compared to the people who enlist in the 'real military' just out of the patriotism of serving their country (i.e., these people don't have an 'ulterior elitist motive' of a university education that drives their service).

(Please note: I am using the term 'real military' - as opposed to the National Guard - as a sarcastic realization that some people don't consider National Guard service as real military service.)

The sons of the elite made their mark by taking commissions into the officer corps. As for the doughboys, the grunts, the foot sloggers...cash as an incentive for enlistment goes back a long, long time--even farther than the "King's Shilling" of three centuries ago.

And let's not even talk about the Press Gang, a jolly old tradition in which armed men simply round up anyone they can find and give them the choice of military service or being hanged.

But...to the matter at hand. A country must have a military, or else be Iceland. But Iceland's pretty much got that territory covered already. How is that military to be staffed? Inducements to patirotism and service are very good, but have been found to be inadequate in general. Chances for rape, loot and pillage have been crowd-pleasers historically, but are frowned upon in this enlightened age. We come down to money and impressment.

I am not, in general, in favor of impressment. You can call it "national service" if you like, but that doesn't take the sting out of it. I think it's a pretty horrifying thing for the State to compell young men (and women, I suppose, in this enlightened age) to put on a uniform, take up arms, and kill or die--or both--under the orders of people who can shoot them for arguing. At least a volunteer volunteered for that line of work.

I am aware of the spectrum of arguments to the effect that powerful old people will be less eager to commit an army to battle that includes their conscripted sons and daughters, but I consider this concept little better than hostage taking. When the entire polis presumes to command the lives and safety of a fraction thereof, we are drifting too close to a concept of democracy wherein fifty one percent of the population can vote to gouge out the eyes of the remaining forty nine percent for fun.

So--money. It is, unavoidably, a more powerful incentive to people who lack it than to people who have it already. We therefore recruit the disadvantaged to fight wars for the rest of us. I won't pretend this isn't a bit sordid. But I do think it is less sordid than impressment, and we should also consider the good that our arrangement does in the world. Instead of a playground for second sons of the nobility, our military has been the basis for the education and advancement of millions of disadvantaged people in this country. They have learned skills in the military, acquired valuable experience for the rest of their lives, and, in many cases, paid for a college education that might otherwise have been out of reach.

I think, on the whole and considering this fallen world we live in, we have a reasonably good arrangement. But of course we do well to confront and examine it from time to time.

Um, I also saw the word Money as in "that's money"? Anyone? Anyone?

All over New Hampshire there are signs proclaiming "we're hiring! NH Air Guard" as if they're the only place hiring.

Oh, wait...I think they are the only place hiring right now.

i live in los angeles. the last neighborhood i lived in before hollywood was a working class/lower class predominantly latino neighborhood. army recruiters put flyers up on telephone poles that not only speak of the great income one could earn from joining the army, but claiming that the army will (or can - i don't recall the exact word used) help with "immigration status". is that even allowed? i don't mean someone who isn't a u.s. citizen joining the army, i know that's allowed - but i didn't realize the army could do anything to help with someone's "immigration status". it disgusted me, too, every time i saw those flyers. they sure know how to manipulate based upon the area where they're trying to recruit, huh?

In many ways, the military can be a profession like any other, especially the National Guard. Why would the employer not advertise the salary benefits to perspective employees?

Keep in mind that the minority of people serving in the military serve in the combat arms.