Should chareidim be forced to go to the army?

[Expert Flyer]

That math is wrong. You'd be taking $50k out if the guy was being paid $50,000 and not working . Since the $50k remains in the hands of the employer, the only thing missing is the increased expense to hire someone of similar productivity.

I should have added that I did not write this myself 

[good sam]

I should have added that I did not write this myself 

You didn't have to 

[henche]

That math is wrong. You'd be taking $50k out if the guy was being paid $50,000 and not working . Since the $50k remains in the hands of the employer, the only thing missing is the increased expense to hire someone of similar productivity.

I'm guessing the (poorly explained) theory is this:

When the govt pays money to someone, it doesn't (directly) reduce productivity or social utility. It just moves money from one hand to another (or one person's hand to another's). So if govt pays a soldier 50k, it costs zero in social utility.

But when govt forces a person to stop productive activity and instead be a soldier, net social utility is decreased by whatever he would have produced. So if it's a 50k producer, it is lowered by 50k; if a 100k producer, it is lowered by 100k.

So society should want the lowest producers to be in the army. (Hence they want the chareidim...)

Of course, though, this only values production of money. If you value other things also, the calculations change. But economists don't like to value other things because it doesn't lead to easy clear answers.

[Expert Flyer]

I'm guessing the (poorly explained) theory is this:

When the govt pays money to someone, it doesn't (directly) reduce productivity or social utility. It just moves money from one hand to another (or one person's hand to another's). So if govt pays a soldier 50k, it costs zero in social utility.

But when govt forces a person to stop productive activity and instead be a soldier, net social utility is decreased by whatever he would have produced. So if it's a 50k producer, it is lowered by 50k; if a 100k producer, it is lowered by 100k.

So society should want the lowest producers to be in the army. (Hence they want the chareidim...)

Of course, though, this only values production of money. If you value other things also, the calculations change. But economists don't like to value other things because it doesn't lead to easy clear answers.

+1

[Chaikel]

That
Notably Ehud Barak

And the Minister of Defense. I wonder if he has an inkling about what might be necessary to run his army

[Super Speed]

While I disagree that the draft is there to destroy Thora, I's side with the chareidim as I oppose a mandatory draft

The whole point of the Army is to bring about a new Judaism, more then it is there for protection. So yes even if a guy isn't learning but he is Chareidi he should be exempt.

[Moshe123]

Someone is forgetting about the "Kur Hituch"....

[Expert Flyer]

The whole point of the Army is to bring about a new Judaism, more then it is there for protection. So yes even if a guy isn't learning but he is Chareidi he should be exempt.

There should be no exemptions. Sounds similar to  state subsidies.
Just abolish the draft.

[PlatinumGuy]

When the govt pays money to someone, it doesn't (directly) reduce productivity or social utility. It just moves money from one hand to another (or one person's hand to another's). So if govt pays a soldier 50k, it costs zero in social utility.

But when govt forces a person to stop productive activity and instead be a soldier, net social utility is decreased by whatever he would have produced. So if it's a 50k producer, it is lowered by 50k; if a 100k producer, it is lowered by 100k.

You're premise is that a soldier in the army only contributes to social utility if he is paid for it. Yet the production is the same regardless of the payment.

If 101 people live in a country with average salaries of $50,000 and government taxes 100 people $500 each in order to fund a $50k salary for the 1 soldier, net social utility (including the soldier) is $5,000,000. If the government doesn't tax anyone, but instead drafts the 1 soldier without a salary, net social utility is $5,050,000.

If you don't count the soldiers labor towards social utility, then it would 4,950,000 and 5,000,000 respectively.

What you seem to be saying is that anything that generates a salary is considered social utility here, yet in truth anything that should earn a salary is economic production. According to your theory the solution would be to give the guy a salary and then tax it away from him. Then we'd definitely be ahead with the draft.

[henche]

You're premise is that a soldier in the army only contributes to social utility if he is paid for it. Yet the production is the same regardless of the payment.

If 101 people live in a country with average salaries of $50,000 and government taxes 100 people $500 each in order to fund a $50k salary for the 1 soldier, net social utility (including the soldier) is $5,000,000. If the government doesn't tax anyone, but instead drafts the 1 soldier without a salary, net social utility is $5,050,000.

If you don't count the soldiers labor towards social utility, then it would 4,950,000 and 5,000,000 respectively.

What you seem to be saying is that anything that generates a salary is considered social utility here, yet in truth anything that should earn a salary is economic production. According to your theory the solution would be to give the guy a salary and then tax it away from him. Then we'd definitely be ahead with the draft.

I'm not sure I follow.

Things add social utility when they produce stuff that people like.
Things subtract from social utility when they produce stuff that people don't like.
Moving money from one person to another is net zero. (except that people don't like it, but economists don't care about that part)

[PlatinumGuy]

Moving money from one person to another is net zero. (except that people don't like it, but economists don't care about that part)

It subtracts from the utility of the people who earned, just like if you'd burn the money

[MoGro17]

Clearly, the easiest solution would be to do away with the draft and create a professional army. Drones, robots, etc are the future of war anyway so you don't need cannon fodder anymore. One highly-trained soldier with a joystick and a $1k drone can do more damage than a whole platoon of bloodthirsty marines. This way, only those that want to be in the military will actually be in the military.
Instead, Israel should have mandated community service and compel people to find a job. Any (real) job. This solves the issue of znus in the army.
As for those that want to sit and learn until the day they die, go for it. Provided you actually do it EVERY day. There will be an audit system and a testing system to see if you are keeping up the hard work or not. The Israeli government has shown a willingness to work with Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivah in the past so I see no reason why this can't work out.

Just a thought 

[PlatinumGuy]

$1k drone

Shows just how much you know

[MoGro17]

Shows just how much you know

The point, good sir, is that even a bottom-rung drone can be devastating with some training.
While most governments overpay for drones, I am well aware that a $1k drone doesn't make that much sense. I'm tired not clueless.

[PlatinumGuy]

It seems to me that the current status quo is that people who want an exemption end up getting it pretty easily

[ariIs]

When soldiers are drafted, the monetary cost remains the same as when they are paid enough to convince them to volunteer, but the cost is hidden. For example, suppose you have someone who is making $50,000 in his private job. In order to convince him to voluntarily enlist, you must pay him at least $50,000 as a soldier. So there is an obvious, explicit monetary cost of $50,000 to convince him to volunteer. If you draft him, you don't have to pay him any money, so it appears like you're saving the expense. But in reality, the same expense is incurred, because the economy is losing a job which produced $50,000 for society. This is an opportunity cost; even if you don't pay him, society is still losing the value of his productivity, which is equal to how much you would have paid him. (Again, we are ignoring psychological costs for now.) So either way, the same cost of $50,000 is incurred whether you draft someone or pay him enough to convince him to voluntarily enlist. But if you draft him, that cost is hidden and unseen.

Ok, so what you're advocating is that only poor people, or people who want to go into underpaid professions should go to the army, while rich people with good educations should not?
Why don't we also institute a payment system where rich parents can pay into the system (hey, more govt revenue!) to have their kids not be drafted!
Only the poor should die for their country.
Yep, that seems really fair to me.

[henche]

It subtracts from the utility of the people who earned, just like if you'd burn the money

I see our miscommunication.

Net social utility is determined by adding up everyone's social utility (and then multiplying by a factor designed to recognize the value of decreasing marginal value of money).  The philosophers who call themselves economists like to think that is a good basis for public policy.

So redistribution is net zero.

[aygart]

Ok, so what you're advocating is that only poor people, or people who want to go into underpaid professions should go to the army, while rich people with good educations should not?
Why don't we also institute a payment system where rich parents can pay into the system (hey, more govt revenue!) to have their kids not be drafted!
Only the poor should die for their country.
Yep, that seems really fair to me.

That is not what is happening in the USA

[Ergel]

That is not what is happening in the USA

Did you forget #sarcasm?

[MoGro17]

It seems to me that the current status quo is that people who want an exemption end up getting it pretty easily

Correct. That needs to change. I'm all for learning Torah. ALL FOR IT and I will continue to support it. Provided it is done correctly and provided that there is no bitul. Too many guys are just hanging around in yeshiva because there is no where else to be. In America, when it's private pay, enjoy and have a nice day. In Isreal, where the government and the rest of us BUMZ in America are paying for it, there needs to be accountability.
Hence my point about the audit and testing systems. I haven't hashed out the details, but I'm sure there is a way to keep the yeshiva system honest.