Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Think tank: The cost of war that comes after the fighting stops; the 55% recession; and mobility in America

1) For economists find evidence of a direct connection between civilian casualties at the hands of American forces and insurgent recruitment in Afghanistan.

2) An Urban Institute report suggests that being born poor means, for most people, staying poor.

3) Developed nations and developing nations do not compete in high-tech exports as much as people think.

4) Pew finds that about 55 percent of Americans have lost a job or seen a reduction in pay or hours during this recession.

5) CUNY economist Ryan Edwards found that one-third to one-half of the total cost of a war comes after the fighting has stopped. The main drivers here are medical and veteran's benefits.

By Ezra Klein  |  July 6, 2010; 10:19 AM ET
Categories:  Think Tank  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is it cheaper to just let the planet heat?
Next: CEO pay in Japan


as to point 4 I'd be interested to see what percentage of those 55% are in the private sector and which are in the public sector.

Posted by: visionbrkr | July 6, 2010 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Many of the Pew study numbers are startling. But it would be helpful to have some baseline numbers for comparison.

For example, when the study shows that 32% of respondents are either unemployed now or have suffered a period of unemployment during the past three years, what percentage of the work force experiences some period of unemployment over a period of three years when the rate is at 5% rather than 10%?

The numbers in the study on wage cuts, reduced hours, and joblessness certainly comprise a depressing portrait of the broader effects of the recession upon the American workforce.

Posted by: Patrick_M | July 6, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"2) An Urban Institute report suggests that being born poor means, for most people, staying poor."

I would also suggest that being born rich means, for most people, staying rich.

Posted by: nomadwolf | July 6, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Based on the Urban Institute's work, cutting the birth rate among the poor is apparently the best means of curbing poverty.

While I'm certain they'd never come right out and directly advocate mass sterilization of welfare recipients, the idea they're resurrecting has in the past been used by the Progressive Movement as the logical basis of certain "medical" programs. Theodore Roosevelt embraced the concept (see, for example, ).

Posted by: rmgregory | July 6, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company