Word: fewer
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...found that those who graduated during a recession initially suffered significant earnings losses, around 10%, and it took eight to 10 years for that effect to fade. Why do they take such a big hit and for so long? In a recession, well-paying firms and industries hire fewer workers, so college graduates have to take jobs with less attractive firms. Graduates can recover by finding a new job at a better-paying firm, but that process can take a long time. Some workers never actually recover. Those who graduated from smaller, less prestigious schools or majored in the humanities...
...conflict with the other finding. Even though middle-aged men with good, stable jobs are an important part of the labor market, in terms of the entire population, they're not a dominating fraction. In a recession, everyone holds back on alcohol consumption, smoking and overeating. Also, there are fewer work and car accidents, and that could dominate the aggregate healthier effect...
...most powerful explanation seems to be that abstainers have fewer close friends than drinkers, even though they tend to participate more often in organized social activities. Abstainers seem to have a harder time making strong friendship bonds, perhaps because they don't have alcohol to lubricate their social interactions. After all, it's easier to reveal your worst fears and greatest hopes to a potential friend after a Negroni or two. (Read "Should You Drink with Your Kids...
...waste” is all-inclusive. If you use less of something after it becomes less convenient, you must have been using too much of it before. One example is Kirkland House, which has only a few dispensers in the entire dining hall and whose students, miraculously, use fewer napkins. The administration calls this phenomenon a decrease in waste. But students use fewer napkins because fewer napkins are available; we don’t know for certain that the change eliminated superfluous napkins...
...These flawed assumptions underlie the misguided argument that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Some voices have begun to advocate a much smaller mission in Afghanistan, fewer troops and a decapitation strategy aimed at militant leaders carried out by special forces and drone attacks. Superficially, this sounds reasonable. But it has a back-to-the-future flavor because it is more or less the exact same policy that the Bush Administration followed in the first years of the occupation: a light footprint of several thousand U.S. soldiers who were confined to counterterrorism missions. That approach helped foster the resurgence...