Conservatives: shut the fuck up about the movie "Stop Loss" (Boxed spoilers)

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Plan B]
I’ve tried to bring up this point a few times, always without success. I think that non-conservatives just don’t get it that we believe in conservative principles because we believe they are best for all people, especially poor people, who need help the most. For instance, lower capital gains taxes,… people invest in new industry,… lots of jobs created,… lots more opportunity for lower level workers. They really think we’re all just selfish pricks who don’t want to pay our fair share.
[/QUOTE]

Because there are no official figures on the total number of jobs that have gone overseas, the first task IMHO to get rid of that appearance would be to demand a serious investigation, somehow I only see that the current administration and supporters would prefer to remain in the dark.

Another problem is that it has been said that in the short run, an increase in off shoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages; problem is, I do not see a clear definition of how long is the “long run”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118005313993514160.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2007/05/it.html

62

Here are some links for the movie. I wish I’d put them in the OP.

TRAILER

TRAILER (theatrical)

Kimberly Pierce opened up a Comments section and a place for soldiers or other interested parties (wives, parents) to send videos. I’ve just now started to watch some of the videos. I’m sure there will be a lot more once the movie opens.

Sound Off (at the Stop Loss Web site)

63

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
(Kimberly Pierce is an alumni)
[/QUOTE]

[nitpick] The singular form of “alumni” is “alumnus”, or “alumna” in this case. /end nitpick]

64

Ooops. Tells you I’ve never been an alumna of anything.

65

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Which brings up another point about liberals - they don’t have a frickin’ clue about economics.

If automation is replacing everyone, and outsourcing is replacing everyone else, perhaps you could explain why the unemployment rate is 4.8%.
[/QUOTE]

Which would be a great argument if “people being employed” was the only thing that reduced unemployment. There’s also “people ceasing to look for work.” Who doesn’t have a frickin’ clue? :rolleyes:

66

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Which brings up another point about liberals - they don’t have a frickin’ clue about economics.

If automation is replacing everyone, and outsourcing is replacing everyone else, perhaps you could explain why the unemployment rate is 4.8%.
[/QUOTE]
I expected a bit more from you, Sam, especially in a post where you chide liberals for knowing nothing about economics.

First, i agree in principle that automation and outsourcing is not, on its face, a bad thing. Hell, even Karl Marx was a fan of labor-saving technology, arguing that it would eventually free up workers for more satisfying activities and reduce the amount of time people have to spend at labor (ah, the naivete of 19th-century political economy). And i have no problem with people in places like China or India or Mexico getting jobs, as long as the work they do is remunerated at a rate that allows them to live, and is done in humane conditions (ah, the naivete of 21st-century optimists).

But your jab about the unemployment rate is so simplistic that someone who had just taken his first class in Macro101 would be ashamed of it. As suggested by 11811, it completely elides all the people who are (conveniently) no longer categorized as unemployed because they’ve given up looking for work out of frustration or despair. It also doesn’t take account of chronic underemployment, people who can only get 10 or 20 hours a week, or who have to cobble together full-time pay from 4 different part-time jobs that offer no benefits and that require 4 hours of travel a day.

And, connected with this, you also completely ignore the fact that many of the currently employed are, unlike their counterparts of 40 or 50 years ago, working jobs with little or no possibility of advancement, poor wages (much lower in real terms that workers of the late 1960s), and zero job security.

Now, you might argue that this is merely an unfortunate side-effect of the shift to a global economy, and that in the end everyone will benefit from a liberalized system of trade and capital flows. Fair enough. Even if i disagree with that assessment, it’s not an unreasonable argument to make. But to simply ignore these very real problems of employment and economic hardship being faced by millions of Americans and Canadians as a result of automation and outsourcing, and simply point to the official unemployment figure, is so simplistic as to verge upon outright dishonesty, or a very poor understanding of economics.

67

This is a very lame argument about the unemployment rate not counting discouraged workers. If you believe that it’s the case that there is a huge, hidden unemployment rate, it’s your job to show it, and to show how it’s different than it was in the past.

There are several ways to measure the true unemployment rate. One is to survey businesses. Another is to survey households. A third is to do empirical measurement of things like unemployment claims, ‘help wanted’ signs, the rate at which new job postings are filled, etc.

Every one of these measures indicates that overall, unemployment is extremely low. Lower than the historical average. Of course there are areas of high unemployment, where a workforce is trapped geographically in a place where the jobs have gone away. But as an overall measure across the country, unemployment is just about as low as it gets.

I remember times of true high unemployment. I remember lineups at the job center. I remember when it would be front-page news if a company was opening up and creating 50 jobs, and 500 people would line up for hours to apply for them. I remember myself and all my friends goiing out daily to hunt for jobs - and not finding them. I don’t see anything like that today. Do you?

68

Completely missed the point. I’m starting to wonder if you do it on purpose.

I never argued that unemployment is high. To the extent that it matters, i agree with you that unemployment is low right now.

My main argument, the one you conveniently ignored, is that even an accurate measure of unemployment fails to adequately asses the type of work people have, how much of it they have, what it pays, and how secure it makes them—all factors that are affected by things like automation and outsourcing. If you think those things are irrelevant, i submit you either don’t know or don’t care about arriving at a picture of the economy that actually reflects people’s lived reality.

69

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I remember myself and all my friends goiing out daily to hunt for jobs - and not finding them. I don’t see anything like that today. Do you?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s me right now. Dozens of resumes sent out and many many interviews not producing anything, temp agencies telling me that things are very very slow, I’m seeing it every day in my own job search.

What any of this has to do with the upcoming movie Stop Loss I can’t fathom. Take it to the Pit. Er, another Pit thread. Or Great Debates.