4 ms·

Not pointed out in the article, but perhaps in the study(?) - the United States has been engaged in an active war for the past 15 years that likely contributes

Not pointed out in the article, but perhaps in the study(?) - the United States has been engaged in an active war for the past 15 years that likely contributes to an increased number of those taking painkillers for injuries or having some sort of psychological disorder. In my mind I liken it to shellshock and after-effects felt in societies post WWI / WWII. I don't have specifics on the number of wounded / in treatment but it is likely not an insignificant contributor to such an increase.

bandrami 10y ago
There are two crucial differences between the wars of the past decade and a half and WWII/Vietnam, though: 1. The number of veterans is very small 2. Veterans are overwhelmingly from the richer half of the population About 0.5% of the cohort currently between the ages of 20 and 40 had any military service (compare to 12% of the WWII cohort and 6% of the Vietnam cohort), and only about half of that population saw service in Iraq or Afghanistan (e.g. I was active duty for almost all of the Iraq war and never went to theater, nor did almost anybody in my battalion). Furthermore (and this has been troubling the Pentagon for a while), the enlistment/commissioning standards the military has make it very difficult for poor Americans to serve. The poorest 20% of Americans are the least likely to serve, followed by the next-poorest. In fact it's nearly a perfect correlation except that the richest 20% are slightly less likely to serve than the second quintile. This yields a recruit and officer candidate pool that is both richer and whiter than the nation as a whole. (On the other hand, richer whiter servicemembers have abysmal retention rates, so that the standing force is browner and poorer than the nation as a whole because most of the middle class white people leave after one tour).
- sailfast 10y ago
  These arguments make sense, but the duration of the wars was completely different, as were the number of people returned injured (read: mortality stats have greatly improved). Scale is different, but so are the wars. Probably end up with something in the middle? The latest I've got is that in 2013 over 2.6 Million Americans had been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. (That number is obviously higher now).[1] The impact percentage-wise to those returning veterans with either TBI, PTSD, etc is relatively high: http://www.research.va.gov/topics/oef-oif.cfm http://www.research.va.gov/topics/oef-oif.cfm No data in those articles about labor force contributions and any impacts there - that would be an interesting area to get more data to see how much the wars have contributed to the laborforce issues identified in the article. [1]: http://www.ibtimes.com/va-stops-releasing-data-injured-vets-total-reaches-grim-milestone-exclusive-1449584 http://www.ibtimes.com/va-stops-releasing-data-injured-vets-...
- sparrish 10y ago
  I think you missed one other important difference. Unlike WWII/Vietnam, recent wars are being fought by volunteers (those who, knowing the risks, willing signed up to fight), not working men forced to be soldiers as in the drafts.
rubidium 10y ago
I was curious about this too. Age 25-54 men in US: 52.3 million. Currently 11.4% are out of workforce, compared to 8.5% in 2000. 2013 statistics: "As of last September, more than 1.6 million military members who’d been deployed in what’s classified as the global war on terror – in Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily – had transitioned to veteran status, VA records show. Of those, about 1 million were from active-duty service and about 675,000 from Reserve or guard deployments. And of those, about 670,000 veterans have been awarded disability status connected to their military service. Another 100,000 have their initial claims pending, according to a November VA analysis." (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24746680.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/articl...) So let's generously round up and say 0.8 million due to military service (majority are men). At most 1.5% of the rise could be attributed to military action. (obviously asking the question: why did the previous wars see so little effect on removal from workforce compared to the present ones?). However, the major rises in removal from workforce seem correlated with the economic depressions. The biggest question is: why are men getting knocked out entirely? Painkillers, military service, and economic recessions have all been around many times since the 1950's. They aren't the reason. My hunch is the loss of valuing community and family in US culture. With no reason/motivation to work, no one depending on them, men just drop out.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  >My hunch is the loss of valuing community and family in US culture. With no reason/motivation to work, no one depending on them, men just drop out. I think there's a lot to this. Notice also that the divorce rate is high, and worse, the rate of people staying single is rising a lot too: many people just aren't bothering to get married any more. I'm back in the dating pool, and I'm finding a LOT of urban women these days who are in their 30s and even 40s and never got married, and after trying to date some of them it's my opinion that for most of them, they're college-educated and their professions and girlfriends have kept them busy all this time (plus lots of foreign travel it seems), and they just don't feel like they need a relationship, and I'm guessing when they get horny they just go to a neighborhood bar and pick up someone. Anyway, after dating some of them it seems to me they're all stuck holding out for Mr. Perfect, and want someone who looks and dresses like a GQ model, can run a marathon, drives a BMW, and lives right across the street from them downtown. It's so bad that many of these women are finally realizing they want to experience motherhood and are getting IVF to do it, without bothering to have a husband first. I met one woman on Tinder who was a little over 40, and told me in the very first phone conversation how she had already tried one round of IVF! WTF? Notice also that women are going to college much more than men now (60% vs 40%), and women with any brains at all are going to college and moving into the cities. Men who aren't college educated don't do the same, so now we're having parts of the country with severe imbalances between single men and women. There's a ridiculous number of single women in NYC, for instance.

bandrami 10y ago

There are two crucial differences between the wars of the past decade and a half and WWII/Vietnam, though: 1. The number of veterans is very small 2. Veterans are overwhelmingly from the richer half of the population About 0.5% of the cohort currently between the ages of 20 and 40 had any military service (compare to 12% of the WWII cohort and 6% of the Vietnam cohort), and only about half of that population saw service in Iraq or Afghanistan (e.g. I was active duty for almost all of the Iraq war and never went to theater, nor did almost anybody in my battalion). Furthermore (and this has been troubling the Pentagon for a while), the enlistment/commissioning standards the military has make it very difficult for poor Americans to serve. The poorest 20% of Americans are the least likely to serve, followed by the next-poorest. In fact it's nearly a perfect correlation except that the richest 20% are slightly less likely to serve than the second quintile. This yields a recruit and officer candidate pool that is both richer and whiter than the nation as a whole. (On the other hand, richer whiter servicemembers have abysmal retention rates, so that the standing force is browner and poorer than the nation as a whole because most of the middle class white people leave after one tour).

sailfast 10y ago
These arguments make sense, but the duration of the wars was completely different, as were the number of people returned injured (read: mortality stats have greatly improved). Scale is different, but so are the wars. Probably end up with something in the middle? The latest I've got is that in 2013 over 2.6 Million Americans had been deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq. (That number is obviously higher now).[1] The impact percentage-wise to those returning veterans with either TBI, PTSD, etc is relatively high: http://www.research.va.gov/topics/oef-oif.cfm http://www.research.va.gov/topics/oef-oif.cfm No data in those articles about labor force contributions and any impacts there - that would be an interesting area to get more data to see how much the wars have contributed to the laborforce issues identified in the article. [1]: http://www.ibtimes.com/va-stops-releasing-data-injured-vets-total-reaches-grim-milestone-exclusive-1449584 http://www.ibtimes.com/va-stops-releasing-data-injured-vets-...
sparrish 10y ago
I think you missed one other important difference. Unlike WWII/Vietnam, recent wars are being fought by volunteers (those who, knowing the risks, willing signed up to fight), not working men forced to be soldiers as in the drafts.

rubidium 10y ago

I was curious about this too. Age 25-54 men in US: 52.3 million. Currently 11.4% are out of workforce, compared to 8.5% in 2000. 2013 statistics: "As of last September, more than 1.6 million military members who’d been deployed in what’s classified as the global war on terror – in Iraq and Afghanistan, primarily – had transitioned to veteran status, VA records show. Of those, about 1 million were from active-duty service and about 675,000 from Reserve or guard deployments. And of those, about 670,000 veterans have been awarded disability status connected to their military service. Another 100,000 have their initial claims pending, according to a November VA analysis." (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24746680.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/articl...) So let's generously round up and say 0.8 million due to military service (majority are men). At most 1.5% of the rise could be attributed to military action. (obviously asking the question: why did the previous wars see so little effect on removal from workforce compared to the present ones?). However, the major rises in removal from workforce seem correlated with the economic depressions. The biggest question is: why are men getting knocked out entirely? Painkillers, military service, and economic recessions have all been around many times since the 1950's. They aren't the reason. My hunch is the loss of valuing community and family in US culture. With no reason/motivation to work, no one depending on them, men just drop out.

Grishnakh 10y ago
>My hunch is the loss of valuing community and family in US culture. With no reason/motivation to work, no one depending on them, men just drop out. I think there's a lot to this. Notice also that the divorce rate is high, and worse, the rate of people staying single is rising a lot too: many people just aren't bothering to get married any more. I'm back in the dating pool, and I'm finding a LOT of urban women these days who are in their 30s and even 40s and never got married, and after trying to date some of them it's my opinion that for most of them, they're college-educated and their professions and girlfriends have kept them busy all this time (plus lots of foreign travel it seems), and they just don't feel like they need a relationship, and I'm guessing when they get horny they just go to a neighborhood bar and pick up someone. Anyway, after dating some of them it seems to me they're all stuck holding out for Mr. Perfect, and want someone who looks and dresses like a GQ model, can run a marathon, drives a BMW, and lives right across the street from them downtown. It's so bad that many of these women are finally realizing they want to experience motherhood and are getting IVF to do it, without bothering to have a husband first. I met one woman on Tinder who was a little over 40, and told me in the very first phone conversation how she had already tried one round of IVF! WTF? Notice also that women are going to college much more than men now (60% vs 40%), and women with any brains at all are going to college and moving into the cities. Men who aren't college educated don't do the same, so now we're having parts of the country with severe imbalances between single men and women. There's a ridiculous number of single women in NYC, for instance.