Yes its a variation on the interview suit injustice problem
If you require job applicants to buy a $1K suit to wear to interviews, that's merely a weird tax if there's one applicant per job and therefore everyone ends up with a $100K job for their $1K investment and everyone who buys a suit is ridiculously happy and thinks everyone should be forced to buy a suit to be as happy as they are.
Of course if you have ten dudes buying ten $1K suits to interview for one job, thats net $9K of injustice, and the vast majority of people who buy an interview suit see it as a wasteful horrible racket designed to extract money from the very people who have the least opportunity in life to begin with, etc.
The army recruitment analogy is similar. The army needs 200K recruits, as long as more than 200K show up, its not a problem (for the army, anyway) if 350K show up one year or 375K the next year, only 200K are gonna make it anyway, so trying to make a relevant story about 350K vs 375K is going to be deaf ears.
If you require job applicants to buy a $1K suit to wear to interviews, that's merely a weird tax if there's one applicant per job and therefore everyone ends up with a $100K job for their $1K investment and everyone who buys a suit is ridiculously happy and thinks everyone should be forced to buy a suit to be as happy as they are.
Of course if you have ten dudes buying ten $1K suits to interview for one job, thats net $9K of injustice, and the vast majority of people who buy an interview suit see it as a wasteful horrible racket designed to extract money from the very people who have the least opportunity in life to begin with, etc.
The army recruitment analogy is similar. The army needs 200K recruits, as long as more than 200K show up, its not a problem (for the army, anyway) if 350K show up one year or 375K the next year, only 200K are gonna make it anyway, so trying to make a relevant story about 350K vs 375K is going to be deaf ears.