The military has historically been a collection of the United States least fortunate

It is often considered a societal goal that the burden of serving in the armed forces does not disproportionally fall on a few social groups (for example, Cooper 1977, CBO 2007, Wright 2012). The Democratic Leadership Council (1988) argued the United States “cannot ask the poor and under-privileged alone to defend us while our more fortunate sons and daughters take a free ride, forging ahead with their education and careers.” The Department of Defense (1997) points out that: “Imbalances in socioeconomic representation in the military have often been a controversial social and political issue. In debate over the establishment of the volunteer force, opponents argued that it would lead to a military composed of those from poor and minority backgrounds, forced to turn to the military as an employer of last resort.” Concerns about population representativeness and shared sacrifice were already important during the American Revolution and the Civil War. Discussing compulsory service, Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having written “The question will then amount to this; whether it be just in a community, that the richer part should compel the poor to fight for them and their properties” (Warner and Asch 2001). A popular saying since the Civil War has been the phrase “It is a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.” (Moore 1924).