I’ve always thought of myself as a non-economist who thinks economically. But even right after the death of Milton Friedman — an economist who helped end the draft — I totally missed this angle to the story of Charles Rangel seeking to reinstate the draft.

From John Lott (a real economist):

“What he fails to understand is that while direct government expenditures will be lowered, you will be taking workers away from jobs where their value added to society is higher. You don’t want to draft a surgeon who can earn $250,000 a year…If you are worried that the size of the military is too small and you aren’t getting enough recruits, increase their pay.”

The late, great Friedman made a similar argument:

“[Friedman and others] noted that…the value of the output that society gives up when a worker is drafted can be approximated by the civilian wages that the draftee would have received if he had not been drafted. Under a volunteer army, individuals who elect to join the military have a lower opportunity cost of time and society gives up less output. This argument suggests that total output increases under an all-volunteer army since individuals will self-select into occupations in which they possess a comparative advantage.”

Another important part of Friedman’s argument was that a draft was fundamentally unfair; it worked by forcing people to fight for less pay than they were worth.

By the way, check out Lott’s blog. It’s been on fire the last week or two, and it’s inspired several of my own posts.

Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.