Ibrahim Gsibat P.5

War on Labor? Unemployment Rates and U.S Wars

            Historically, the United States is often very busy, militarily speaking. Since its inception, the U.S has been involved in many conflicts. From the very beginning, the colonists that composed what would later be called the "Great Migration" from Britain had to fight for their lives in the untamed wilderness of the New World. Later, those same colonists had to fight in a grueling and bitter revolutionary war for their freedom and right to self-rule. In more modern times, the U.S has been very involved in overseas affairs. At times it seems as if there isn’t a single international armed conflict that the U.S isn’t involved in. These wars are often the subject of intense debate and protest, and during election years they usually take center stage. Republicans and Democrats both have their stances on the assorted conflicts the U.S is involved in, but what the conversation usually revolves around is death toll. The first and foremost factor people consider when discussing war is the casualty rate, the death toll. People are most interested in how many soldiers died, and under what circumstance they died.

But another very important factor that is left largely ignored is the state of the U.S economy during these times. Contrary to the average opinion, war does not always have an adverse effect on the national economy. In fact, I believe that war stimulates the national economy through two main factors: young men are shipped overseas, leaving plenty of job openings to be taken by others; and war purchases also stimulate the manufacturing sector. But how can this linkbe explored? Because the total number of soldiers shipped out is a good indicator of how large scale the war is/was, and because national unemployment rates are a good indicator of the state of the economy, I will be using these two factors to determine whether wars strengthen or hurt the national economy. I will also take into consideration the size of the war itself, and the parties involved. In this study, the five major wars over the past fifty years will be the ones used.

In order of appearance: Gulf War, Iraq War, Vietnam War, Afghanistan War, World War II

In the above graph, the total number of troops deployed during a given war is matched with the national unemployment rate of the 3^rd year of the war (by which time things will have been in full swing). By looking at this graph, no discernible patterns can be spotted. There is a V trend, with a depression in the center and plateaus on the sides. This displays no correlation, as what we were hoping for was an upward trend, with a positive correlation between the number of soldiers deployed, and the unemployment rate.

But all hope is not yet lost. By taking into account only the most recent wars (Iraq, Afghanistan), we might be able to glean a pattern from this yet. Here is the revised graph:

With this graph, a trend is definitely present. There is a positive correlation between the number of soldiers deployed and the unemployment rate at the time. This graph is telling us that the more soldiers shipped overseas, the greater the unemployment rate. So, in essence, war has an adverse effect on the national economy, or in other words, it hurts us. This could be due to a number of factors, but I think it has something to do with speculation and the stock market. The general public and stockholders begin to feel jittery about the instability brought about during wartime, and so they leave the stock market or invest in safer commodities, such as gold. This pessimistic attitude hurts the economy, thus having a negative effect on unemployment rates. That is a whole other essay, the main point is, my original hypothesis has been disproven (so far).

But if there's one thing I've learned in my math class this year, it is to arrive at a satisfactory and acceptable conclusion, one must have the mathematical evidence to back it up.

So the next task will be to find the standard deviation:

(7.3+5.4+5+6.2+6.6)/5 = 6.1 ßthe mean

7.3-6.1=1.2^2= 1.44

5.4-6.1=-.7^2 = .49

5-6.1= -1.1^2= 1.21

6.2-6.1=.1^2= .01

6.6-6.1=.5^2= .25

1.44+.49+1.21+.01+.25= 3.4

3.4/4=.85 ßthe variance

Sqrt of .85= .921 ßthe standard deviation

Now we know that the standard deviation of the Unemployment rates in all of the major wars the U.S has been involved in is .921. This value is fairly low, so it tells us that the data points tend to be very close to the mean, which assures their usability.

Another use for the standard deviation is calculating the margin of error: .921(2) = 1.842

I have found that my initial hypothesis was wrong, and that war does not have a positive effect on the national economy. Instead, I have (tentatively) found that war has an adverse effect on the national economy, my benchmark being that it increased unemployment during the wartime years. Of course, there are limitations to a study as large scale and ambitious as this. The economy of any nation is extremely hard to measure, but the U.S possesses one of the most complex in the world. Entire careers are built around trying to measure and predict the economy, such as hedge fund managers and investment analysts. Admittedly, my data is very broad and not very concise. Not to mention the fact that these wars span over 50 years, and the economy changed massively during that time, so using one standard method of measure without making conditional adjustments isn't going to provide exact results, albeit doing so would have required the writing of a book, not an essay. If I were to do my project differently, I would assemble a crack team of elite researchers and mathematicians, from universities such as MIT and Stanford, and have them assist me in accurately and precisely determining the effect wars have on the economy. I'd also need a few economists, and I'd have to pry the legendary Gillian Oberbeck from NASA to assist. With adequate time and funding, we could come out with a definitive answer.