Forum Post: The rich aren't taking OWS seriously—this needs to change
Posted 11 years ago on Aug. 19, 2012, 3:30 p.m. EST by Misaki
(893)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://nymag.com/news/business/themoney/jeff-greene-2012-8/
I don't want to copy the whole thing because some people might take that 'copyright' thing seriously... but this is the important part:
“Do you see this?” Greene asked the audience, pointing to a slide that showed the widening income gap. The crowd, whose members had paid the $6,000 entry fee to get investing tips, not guilt trips, made restless noises. Then there was a smattering of impressed applause, followed by uneasy laughter. Greene blinked, surprised. “People look at Occupy Wall Street as, This is just a little kind of a disorganized joke,” he said, raising his voice.
We can fix the economy. It just means working less, not more.
"The rich aren't taking OWS seriously—this needs to change"
GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!! and see what happens Dimwits!!
If it didn't matter, there would be no CU, and they would not be spending untold $$Billions$$!! Voting Matters!!
Get People REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
Spread the word!!!
In the OWS news letter, they gave "Voting" a wink and a nod!!
The "No Voting" imposters are TROLLS!!!
Get People REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
Like the art-work BD. {:-])
Until you start seriously doing something to the 1% that actually hurts them economically or otherwise, they will not take you seriously.
WRONG‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼‼
Until WE start seriously doing something to the 1% that actually hurts them economically or otherwise, they will not take US seriously.
http://corporationsarenotpeople.webuda.com
Totally agree. ' like your website.
Someone downrated this, by reflex maybe... some rich people are doing by donating to charities but it's not very effective. Others make speeches about how the middle class are the job creators, not the poor. But most of them are just as clueless about how to fix the situation as anyone else.
"If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down." I always wonder about how stupid one has to be to believe that, but then again too many people are. If I could point to one instigator to this economic mess of ours, I'd have to point to Milton Freedman.
Them billionaires on your first link are doing a good thing.
56% of people say that higher taxes and spending would lead to more growth.
But only 42% want the government to actually do that. Anyway, "working less" is how to take advantage of the tension in the situation, which unlike government spending has the potential to actually fix the problem instead of just creating new ones.
Interesting is that in some countries like Sweden for instance working overtime is considered cheating.
Unfortunately that is not the mentality here in the U.S. where working ridiculous hours is honored. As one's performance drops off after so many hours, working over in many cases doesn't even benefit employers.
I work on average a little over thirty five hours a week by the way, and I get by just fine.
A nice illustration of this: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2009/07/27/on_work_and_time_in_science/
Then you have Singapore, where 9 in 10 workers report working beyond the nominal requirements for their job... http://sg.news.yahoo.com/9-in-10-employees-working-overtime--survey.html
But a lot of it is expectations set by the people at the very top, the 1%. This petition is meant to change that: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/783/697/872/tell-the-1-how-they-can-help-the-economy/
That's because what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The US should probably collect more taxes, I sure as hell don't want to pay anymore though.
That's what most people say :P... only about 2% of people say they think they're not paying enough taxes.
I am surprised it is that high haha.
That is a big problem though, not just with taxes but with a lot of other aspects of life.
It has mostly worked pretty well. The evidence is that any remaining problems are because people, including or especially the experts, make incorrect assumptions about why those problems exist and how to fix them.
I think most people would agree that if we can create private-sector jobs, a smaller government would make the US better than socialist countries in Europe.
OWS cannot rely on the ballot box alone. Americans live in a representative democracy which means that after the election is over the politicians rule directly. If you want real progress you must engage in participatory democracy. Go to city council meetings. Contact your representatives. Don't sit at home and watch TV and complain that the politicians ignore you after you vote. OWS can't lobby politicians with money and ask for handouts like big business.
You can't expect pirates to give you a share of the booty. You got to strike where it counts: in the courts.
public or government ?
The one's who have control of the land. Land provides the basic human needs of food, water, and shelter. One has to ask: by what right or principle does one deny access to resources that no man created?
See the link at the end of the original post. Skilled workers generally have a lot more control of their working conditions. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/05/life_is_good_for_skilled_workers.html
This is why debates about work-life balance among the "elite" hardly even mention compensation, or whether they would be 'allowed' to work less... since they're the ones making the rules! Most of the time at least since an essay which caused a recent debate was written by someone who worked for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and while they might have technically been able to work less in their government job they felt it would have been somewhat unfair to other people.
If the 150 million workers in the US went on strike, the "pirates" would not be making much money.
Ummm, if 150 millions workers went on strike, the rich would just sit back, build up their private army, and let you work it out as all the infrastructure crumbled. Because who controls the private property?
Who determines the property taxes on private property?
Property taxes are decided locally, at the county, city, burrogh or township level by the people who live in those communities. Property taxes are usualy based on local needs, such as schools, local roads, local services, police, etc. why do you ask? Do you understand how land and property assessment works in the USA?
It seemed like dreamingforward didn't understand that if people wanted to, we could raise property taxes by 1000% and redistribute the proceeds via social programs, or exceptions/exemptions for low-income land owners, etc.
But that would never happen. Usually, it is the property owners who are the ones who decide local taxes along with other residents of the community. This is especially true in smaller towns, townships, etc. this will always be a local issue and rightly so. There is no exemption on property taxes where I live. There is only the property assessment ( land and structure) and the rate.
Revolution happens. It is usually averted by the threat of revolution... but obviously not always. What's funny is I came across this article recently: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/attention-marxists-labors-share-national-income-drops-lowest-history
June 03, 2011: "...the country also has the groundwork in place for another neo-Marxist revolution: just take this chart, add some slogans, mix, and simmer. And who will be the natural enemy? Why only look at the great October revolution in Russia for ideas. History always rhymes."
I looked at the article and chart. Yes, there is a 30 yr trend, but there are other factors such as loss of mfg jobs, outsourcing and a continued high unemployment rate that are impacting this data. But we are discussing property taxes at the local level. To state "revolution happens" is not applicable to local level decisions regarding property taxes. In my township, voters are property owners. There is no tolerance for unjustified tax increases regarding property. We tax according to need for expense (projected) . We borrow (bonds) to build schools and infrastructure. Local level political process is probably the closest you get to direct democracy type process but without 100% participation. A comment on the article: i have one major disagreement with the author: the "great October revolution" could hardly be labeled great with the millions of deaths that occurred during the process. Nothing good came from that event and the approximately 80 yrs that it lasted before it crumbled into the historical dustbin.
The situation you describe is different from the one in this reply thread's first post: "You can't expect pirates to give you a share of the booty."
I guess the best way to describe it is that the middle class currently sides with the rich to oppress the poor. A study which found the correlation between socioeconomic group preferences and political results shows this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG
For anyone interested in fixing unemployment, sign this: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/783/697/872/tell-the-1-how-they-can-help-the-economy/
I hate to have to agree. Occupy came onto the scene like gang busters and because the 99% got interested the one percent got concerned. Maybe the protests at the GOP convention and then the dems can bring back relevancy. i'd like to see Occupy get interested in countering the voter disenfranchisement going on but I guess the elections that are already passed in Russia are more important....
For what it’s worth, I’m not rich and I don’t take OWS very seriously either. I think before you worry about changing the rich folks opinion of OWS you should concentrate of gaining support from the masses. I know some people really believe the “we are the 99%” slogan, but it’s not even close to being true. Just a marketing slogan, and becoming a tiresome one at that.
So, I suggest for OWS to be taken more seriously it must focus on a few specific issues that the masses can relate to. Stop trying to be all things to all people. It will never work. OWS needs to be seen as a movement of the ordinary working man and women, not a bunch of Marxist anarchists breaking store windows. The public can’t relate to that. Learn from the Tea Party. Put on a suit, put some nice looking person get on the dreaded news talk shows. Hopefully more people will pay attention.
"I think before you worry about changing the rich folks opinion of OWS you should concentrate of gaining support from the masses. " Truer words have never been said. the whole slant of this post is skewed and you put your finger right on it. thanks. What OWS needs is leadership, people who take responsibility for the actions of the group can explain them well to the 99 percent and can defend them articulately in debate and on the media. That's where suits could come in.
I know the italian's ruled europe through the classical ages
Matt, nothing has changed since I last commented. Nothing much ever to say and nothing on topic. Is there a reason for this type of off topic response? And the above statement regarding Italy is incorrect. The Vatican had the influence, Italy was not even a nation, but rather city states.
demand elections be national and state holidays
The elections are not important. Most people who would vote for Romney just want someone who isn't Obama. But even if Romney is elected, nothing will change because the Republicans are not about to commit political suicide by slashing the deficit to bring the country into recession.
I guess god told you what Romney and Ryan and a tea party congress are going to do - they're going to be rational. Yeah, okay it doesn't matter if the blacks, old people, poor people and students are barred from voting rights in a few states. You're right. Continue on your trek to irrelevancy. Oh, and for sure, let's free pussy riot.
Too lazy to read the links? From the last one: "ROMNEY: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course." From the first one:
Q12b Would you say that your vote is more FOR Barack Obama or more AGAINST Mitt Romney?
Results shown among Obama voters
More for Barack Obama .........................................72
More against Mitt Romney ......................................22
Q12c Would you say that your vote is more FOR Mitt Romney or more AGAINST Barack Obama?
Results shown among Romney voters
More for Mitt Romney .............................................35
More against Barack Obama ..................................58
Bad Romney and Ryan! Misleading people into voting for them by not being Obama, how dare they!
People WILL blame the President for a bad economy, even if in normal cases the President has little influence on it. He is supposed to find solutions that work, like the one linked in the OP, and if he doesn't by definition he is a failure.
But keep blaming for the Republican party for high unemployment, and oh while you're at it blame them for the deficit and inflation too.
Once in office you are going to have a tea party dominated House of representatives and a Republican majority Senate. Not being polite, bound by rules or shy the Republicans will damn well make sure the Democrats can't filibuster. Norquist has said that what the conservatives need is a Republican president who can use a pen to sign legislation because he sees the House of Representatives in the drivers seat regarding fiscal policy. Plus you should no more take a quote from Mitt Romney and project that into the future than trust a palm reader.
[Removed]
Well said. The rich don't worry because they have both parties in their pocket.
Proof, for anyone who doubts this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Senate_Income_Votes.SVG
(Poor people are mostly independent, not Democrat: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157607/half-americans-poverty-politically-independent.aspx)
They do That is way they going extreme right
the rich hope we keep taking their money seriously
AND th e rich keep taking our money
It looks to me that there police and goverment repressive organazations take it very seriously.I bet they have every post I have made.ETC.ETC
true
So why no replies to that thread ;_; or if not replies, then sharing it or something.
That thread doesn't collect all the evidence that there ARE some skilled workers who would enjoy working less, but since it was designed to be shared on Facebook or something people wouldn't read the links anyway. For example this article got a lot of Facebook likes (over 6000): http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/new-livelihoods/less-work-more-living
facebook's from harvard
True, and the rich can be bought.
[Removed]
Best post of the day.
[Removed]
"If, say, the top 20% of income worked half as much, this would instantly eliminate our unemployment problems and give employees enough bargaining power to raise wages for the 150 million workers in the United States by 10%."
“This group is key because the top 5 percent of income earners accounts for about one-third of spending, and the top 20 percent accounts for close to 60 percent of spending,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics. “That was key to why we suffered such a bad recession — their spending fell very sharply.”
What incentive is there for the top 20% to work less so they can have less? What if the 20% prefer working in order to have the life style they desire? The 20% are in positions that give them plenty of benefits, including vacation time. And another thing: if all of these people work only half the time, and the people who take their place work half the time, there is no gain in dollars to the economy, each part time group has less to spend. And the company would take a loss due to benefits cost for two vs one. How would this improve bargaining power of the others?
Fortunately, there are people in the top 20% who want to work less:
If all those part-time people are still making over $50k per year (reasonable for the top 20%, according to this $100k/year is at the 81% mark) I don't think they would mind having less to spend in their copious amounts of free time.
And they would be contributing to a higher share of income going to labor... which indirectly helps to create more jobs. (This is easier than talking about spending decisions, with people buying luxury goods and profits going to the rich, leaving circulation.)
Just reduce benefits proportionally. People can make up the difference with their pre-tax earnings if they want.
Do you think people would take jobs like this one if there was other, better work available?
Read the articles, Ok, agree there are some who want work life balance (though some of these are extreme examples) but as you state, having less to spend, then is that not less circulation? (especially with less benefits). It does not add up. Are you stating that having 100k one has less disposable income than two people with 50k each? (assuming same fixed expenses). The other issue that is not addressed is the efficiency of labor. Two people performing / sharing the same work can impact productivity. People are different. Personalities are different. Interactions would be different. Who makes decisions? Who becomes responsible. Yes, there are some tasks that would not be impacted, but the job tasks at the 20% level are not conducive for sharing. (note: not ignoring the other comments, but it gets into too many sub parts to keep commenting on everything)
The US Consumer Expenditure Survey is a good example. The top quintile takes in about $150k per year (it seems to leave out the extremely rich), while spending about $90k.
The lowest quintile spends (~$20k?) more than it takes in, which maybe is due to unemployment or retired people.
So you would really want just rich people to work less (poor people have static costs like rent, so lower income is more likely to cut into the volume of consumption and not just brand-name goods). But it's up to the individual.
There is a nice example of how even CEOs can share some of their workload: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Recovering_from_information_overload_2735
If they can do it, other people can too! It's just a matter of wanting to... and feeling it's socially acceptable which again is what this petition is about.
[Removed]
When you have 1 million people applying for just 50k McDonald's job openings in a single day, people will take a job even if it doesn't give bonuses (because the original workers are still getting those bonuses).
In one story, someone who was recruiting for a job with frequent travel and having to climb high towers (risky) got 60 job applicants... about 24 of those were not immediately rejected, maybe half of them passed the interview, half of those were willing to take a $25 aptitude test which they had to pay for... leaving about 6 candidates eligible for the job, with only 2 of those agreeing to meet to possibly sign paperwork several months after the process started. Compared to all that, people just want a living wage that doesn't require them to move.
People go to jobs, jobs do not go to people. Moving sometimes is required.
China disagrees
Explain since we are discussing local (in country) vs outsourcing.
There is a lack of jobs for the entire US. No single region has a surplus of jobs (except maybe sparsely populated regions like Wisconsin or something).
China would actually probably like more jobs too... and most EU countries would as well... the point being that a problem does exist, and you can't say workers' preferences to avoid moving is the cause of unemployment.
[Removed]
Those people would be the top 0.01%.
If the top 5% are responsible for a third of consumer spending, and the next 15% take it up to 60%, that means the 5~20% segment spend maybe 25% of the total, or 160% of the average. Meanwhile, the bottom 80% is responsible for 40% of the total, or 50% of the average. (Of course this is unequal too.)
That means that the 5~20% segment are spending at three times the rate of the bottom 80%. They could certainly afford to work less and have the same standard of living as most other people, but they are not at the "private yacht" level of wealth.
The best way to improve the standard of living of people in poor countries is to give them jobs. This is partly based on connecting them to the global transport network but also means making that "comparative advantage" thing you learn about in basic economics actually work.
From the thread:
"This would end up helping workers in low-wage countries around the world while harming countries that sell luxury goods to the rich, but this is a feature, not a bug."
What is wrong with working harder than average to have a better than average standard of living for your family? Should we really strive to be average?
Average should not be a bad thing - it should be a good thing - to be average in a healthy society/world.
Average is not a bad thing. It is, by definition, average. That wasn't my question.
My question was what is wrong with wanting to be better than average? Do you tell your kids to strive for C's? There is nothing wrong with C's if that is what they are capable of but shouldn't you at least try for the A? Should a family not spend a week at a beach house because every family can't?
Not everyone can get A's... except people in this generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/high-school-graduation-speaker-tells-students-not-special-145709954.html
If rich people spent more weeks at their beach houses instead of working, we would have a lot more people with jobs.
Aspirations should be for a good life - a good life for all - means a good life for the individual the family the town the society the world. What can be better then that?
People will never be 100% equal simply because there is too much variability in intelligence, work ethic, personality, physical strength, and even just dumb luck.
Who said anything about having an equal situation?
But No One should have a miserable situation.
Agreed. But I don't think people worker harder to have a better standard living for their family are necessarily pushing others down.
OK.
William Hayward "Mookie" Wilson is an American former professional baseball player. He played all or part of twelve seasons in Major League Baseball for the New York Mets and Toronto Blue Jays, primarily
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (16377) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 minutes ago
Question.
Do you have low self esteem?
Mook - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
mook
noun ˈmük\
Definition of MOOK
slang
: a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] 1 points by Mooks (1644) 1 minute ago
Haha no it is in reference to Mookie Wilson. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
one of the most incredible moments in baseball history, from scully's incredible call to knight crossing the plate with his hands on his head in disbelief.
Yep, that's him. My man. I never met him though, he may be a fool for all I know. He was fast as hell though, probably still is. That ball he hit through Buckner's legs sold for over $400,000 at auction earlier this year. Now that is fucked up.
Question.
Do you have low self esteem?
Mook - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
mook
noun \ˈmük\
Definition of MOOK
slang
: a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible person
Haha no it is in reference to Mookie Wilson.
If everyone "works harder than average", then we end up with unemployment and people on welfare or in prisons. Both of which someone ends up paying for.
So people who want more money should be able to find work (including unemployed looking for even minimum-wage work); people who feel they have enough money shouldn't feel obligated to keep working full-time.
Once again though, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Good luck trying to convince people to give someone else their hours, even if they can afford to take a 10% cut in pay. And honestly, I like going to work.
Another recent comment has a list of examples of rich people wanting to work less: #comment-811446
Also, Most workers willing to take a pay cut, poll says
Those are people who say they would take a pay cut as opposed to losing their job entirely.
Again though, what it all comes down to is personal choice and freedom. If you want to work less, then work less. If you want to work more, then work more. This is something that should be determined by a family and their financial needs and time needs.
And just because someone works less does not mean that someone else will work more. I work as a dentist and if I work 10 hours a week less you can't just give those 10 hours to someone who is unemployed. Rather it is 15 people a week who aren't getting dental work done, and they are most likely to be poor people suffering because they have the hardest time getting dental work done.
Reasons why people who might want to work less aren't doing so:
Which is where this petition comes in, to counter both of those reasons:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/783/697/872/tell-the-1-how-they-can-help-the-economy/
I don't know about dentists but it would be easy to train more doctors if existing doctors worked less (I think either 1/3, or 2/3 of doctors suffer from "burnout") simply by increasing the number of medical residency slots, which the US government controls.
And it's not like there aren't thousands of skilled professionals who would like to work in the US as doctors/dentists/whatever. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012102915021526447.html
[Removed]
[Removed]
Correct...we are NOT taking you assholes seriously
[Removed]