Occupy Wall Street

[gah]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|

[runawayjimbo]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|

Of course you were trying to be a dick about it. I don't give a shit, but don't kid yourself into thinking you said that for my benefit.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the second part of your comment to mean that the elected officials can't work for the people because they've been bought off by the corrupt corporations (as you say in the first part). Maybe I should have said "most of the blame," but does that really make a difference?

I don't post here to try to change anyone's mind. I have a different take than most around here on economic issues and I'm just putting that forth; what you do with it is up to you. If you want to freak out about it because you disagree, that's fine. If you want to engage me in a discussion about why I believe these things or challenge me as to how I could possibly believe that, I'm happy to have that conversation (as I often do with people like twatts and slslbs and Voodoobrew). But seeing as you don't know shit about me outside of a couple months posting on a message board, I don't know how you could assume anything about my reality and whether it does or doesn't resemble the world "the rest of us live in" where everyone thinks like you.

[phuzzyfish12]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.

I didn't. I seriously think you might have reading comprehension issues. I'm not even trying to be a dick about that. Did you read the sentence where I asked why we can't have elected officials that work for the people? By that I mean that they're to blame as well. I'll try and write in shorter sentences with less confusion for you.

::deletes the rest of my rant on why while you're well read, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in::

Now, how the fuck do you turn ignore on? In 3+ years of being on here, I've never had to use it before.  :|

Of course you were trying to be a dick about it. I don't give a shit, but don't kid yourself into thinking you said that for my benefit.

Sorry if I misinterpreted the second part of your comment to mean that the elected officials can't work for the people because they've been bought off by the corrupt corporations (as you say in the first part). Maybe I should have said "most of the blame," but does that really make a difference?

I don't post here to try to change anyone's mind. I have a different take than most around here on economic issues and I'm just putting that forth; what you do with it is up to you. If you want to freak out about it because you disagree, that's fine. If you want to engage me in a discussion about why I believe these things or challenge me as to how I could possibly believe that, I'm happy to have that conversation (as I often do with people like twatts and slslbs and Voodoobrew). But seeing as you don't know shit about me outside of a couple months posting on a message board, I don't know how you could assume anything about my reality and whether it does or doesn't resemble the world "the rest of us live in" where everyone thinks like you.

In all fairness RJB, GAH's comment wasn't directed to a post of yours. You are the one that quoted it and had to make a dick comment first. I don't GAH in real life, but from what I know of him on the boards he's a pretty cool guy and I've never known him to try and provoke anyone.

So why don't you enlighten us on who you are? Not trying to be a bitch at all, but maybe if we knew who you were we could understand where you are coming from, because I for one agree 100% with GAH, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in.

[nab]

I have had some real life experience with GAH and can attest to his nature as a stand up guy and a real decent human being.


That said, I believe that personal attacks serve little use in a political forum. 

I've disagreed with many on this board for various reasons, but I can't think of a single regular member of this forum that I don't consider to be a thoughtful and reasonable person.


Let's keep the context of the political forum in check and attack ideas and not personalities.  We're dealing with hard realities discussing matters in this forum and attacking each other does little to enlighten anyone.   

[rowjimmy]

http://boingboing.net/2011/11/17/interview-with-the-occupy-wall.html



Also:

[runawayjimbo]

In all fairness RJB, GAH's comment wasn't directed to a post of yours. You are the one that quoted it and had to make a dick comment first. I don't GAH in real life, but from what I know of him on the boards he's a pretty cool guy and I've never known him to try and provoke anyone.

So why don't you enlighten us on who you are? Not trying to be a bitch at all, but maybe if we knew who you were we could understand where you are coming from, because I for one agree 100% with GAH, you're seriously disconnected from the reality that the rest of us live in.

I wasn't questioning GAH's character, I was asking him to clarify his position. I didn't intend it to come off as anything other than that and I certainly wasn't intentionally trying to make a dick comment as you seem to think I did. Nothing I post is done maliciously or condescending; I may be a bit sarcastic at times, but I am generally doing that to make the discussion less heated, not more.

I am interested in discussing complicated issues with people who, for the most part, don't have the same viewpoint as me. I enjoy that. It gives me insight into other people's opinions and it enhances my own views as I try to articulate my position in a way that may or may not resonate with people on the other side. Mattstick and I, for example, had a discussion earlier in this thread where we both presented our opposing thoughts on OWS pretty passionately but completely rational. We probably still disagreed at the end of the conversation and while I can't speak for him I know I benefited from that interaction as I had a new found understanding and respect for his arguments. In my mind, that's what this forum should be about.

I don't see the need to lay out my life story to explain where I'm coming from. I've posted numerous times about how I went from vehemently supporting Obama through donations and volunteering during the 2008 campaign to becoming more and more disillusioned during his term. It's probably that disappointment that has made me lose faith in politicians so I've turned to free market principles as the only way to get us out of this morass. I respect people's right to make their own decisions because I don't think anyone else has a right to dictate how another should live their life as long as they are not infringing on others' rights. I'd be happy to engage in a legitimate discussion on the merits of that philosophy, but not if you insist on telling me how detached from reality I am.

I like this debate. I enjoy a healthy discussion between people of opposing views. If you want to ignore me or continue to think I'm an idiot for believing what I do, I respect that. But, like nab said, challenging my ideas and defending yours is far more productive than getting entrenched on your own side.

I really don't take myself that seriously. You shouldn't either.  :wink:

[shoreline99]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45355495

Is Occupy Wall Street Over? Many New Yorkers Hope So

The Occupy Wall Street movement marked its two-month anniversary on Thursday with a day of protests capped by a march of tens of thousands across the Brooklyn Bridge.

This morning at Zuccotti Park, where the movement has been based since Sept. 17, there are fewer than two dozen protesters.

Did Occupy Wall Street just go out with a bang?

Certainly many New Yorkers would welcome the ending of the movement. In the past two weeks, I’ve noticed a definite turn against the OWS movement among my fellow New Yorkers. They’ve gone from being a fascinating new development to an annoyance to many.

“Oh. Good. So it’s over?” one New Yorker in her mid-thirties said to me on Tuesday, the morning after the police cleared out the tents from the park.

It wasn’t over then. But today it might be.

It was always going to be a challenge to maintain the occupation through New York’s harsh winter. Yesterday saw an impressive turnout despite frigid temperatures and on-and-off-again freezing rain.

But today it looks like a lot of Occupiers have decided that two months is enough.

It’s likely that the movement can still organize big rallies on occasion. Last night’s march of thousands across the Brooklyn Bridge was impressive. But from the look of things in the park late last night and this morning, Occupy Wall Street now lacks the manpower to continue to occupy Zuccotti Park in any significant way overnight.

“Look. This was never about sleeping in a park. It was about calling attention to injustice,” one protester wrote to me over text messaging this morning.

Another protester texted to say that he felt last night’s march was actually a “missed opportunity.”

“We were basically marching about our right to protest. It’s become a movement about being a movement about being a movement. We are the meta-99 percent,” he said.

This might not be the end of Occupy Wall Street. But it is definitely transforming from a neo-shanty-town into something else. And no one really knows what that will become.

[rowjimmy]

CNBC's reporting has been wildly flawed on this one.

There were over 32k people there by last night per NYPD reports. This isn't going away overnight.

[shoreline99]

Morning after 'Day of Action'
Zuccotti Park empty - a few OWS protesters but mostly sanitation with a sprinkling of TV media. A few NYPD.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC

Didn't say the movement was going away.

And there certainly were not 32,000 protestors there. No more than 5k by most reports, if there were that many.

[gah]

Morning after 'Day of Action'
Zuccotti Park empty - a few OWS protesters but mostly sanitation with a sprinkling of TV media. A few NYPD.

http://live.nydailynews.com/Event/Showdown_at_Zuccotti_Park_The_NYPDs_raid_on_Occupy_Wall_Street_NYC

Didn't say the movement was going away.

And there certainly were not 32,000 protestors there. No more than 5k by most reports, if there were that many.

I just read 5-10K, but does it really matter about the #? Would x amount define success and less than that failure?

But you're right, the movement isn't going away.

[rowjimmy]

NYPD scanner said est. 32,000k in the Brooklyn Bridge area. at ~7pm yesterday.


Estimates of 10k in Foley Square last evening ~5pm.

Either way, CNBC blows.

[sls.stormyrider]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

the ticket for most people to get ahead is a college education.
look at what has happened to the price of that
If I was transplanted in time from when I went to college to now, I'm not sure I could have payed for school. Or - couldn't have repayed the loans.

as far as opening up a business, try getting a loan these days.

[UncleEbinezer]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?

the ticket for most people to get ahead is a college education.
look at what has happened to the price of that
If I was transplanted in time from when I went to college to now, I'm not sure I could have payed for school. Or - couldn't have repayed the loans.

as far as opening up a business, try getting a loan these days.

College is expensive.  I paid my way and then had some of my grad school paid for.  I'd argue that the same financial challenges existed then as they do now.  I'd have to review some statistics on what expenses in comparison to salaries, etc. but I would think they are somewhat relative.  College is available at a reasonable rate for everyone.  Yeah, maybe not everyone will have the money to go away for 4 years, but local colleges do exist. 

I think the opportunities do exist.

[rowjimmy]

Might wanna check some numbers, eb.
(source: http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)

A good rule of thumb is that tuition rates will increase at about twice the general inflation rate. During any 17-year period from 1958 to 2001, the average annual tuition inflation rate was between 6% and 9%, ranging from 1.2 times general inflation to 2.1 times general inflation. On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.

Year	College Inflation	General Inflation	Rate Ratio
1958-1996	7.24%	4.49%	1.61
1977-1986	9.85%	6.72%	1.47
1987-1996	6.68%	3.67%	1.82
1958-2001	6.98%	4.30%	1.62
1979-2001	7.37%	3.96%	1.86
1992-2001	4.77%	2.37%	2.01
1985-2001	6.39%	3.18%	2.01
1958-2005	6.89%	4.15%	1.66
1989-2005	5.94%	2.99%	1.99

[UncleEbinezer]

Might wanna check some numbers, eb.
(source: http://www.finaid.org/savings/tuition-inflation.phtml)

A good rule of thumb is that tuition rates will increase at about twice the general inflation rate. During any 17-year period from 1958 to 2001, the average annual tuition inflation rate was between 6% and 9%, ranging from 1.2 times general inflation to 2.1 times general inflation. On average, tuition tends to increase about 8% per year. An 8% college inflation rate means that the cost of college doubles every nine years. For a baby born today, this means that college costs will be more than three times current rates when the child matriculates in college.

Year	College Inflation	General Inflation	Rate Ratio
1958-1996	7.24%	4.49%	1.61
1977-1986	9.85%	6.72%	1.47
1987-1996	6.68%	3.67%	1.82
1958-2001	6.98%	4.30%	1.62
1979-2001	7.37%	3.96%	1.86
1992-2001	4.77%	2.37%	2.01
1985-2001	6.39%	3.18%	2.01
1958-2005	6.89%	4.15%	1.66
1989-2005	5.94%	2.99%	1.99

Yeah, I stated I needed to check.  Thanks for the info.  Even with all of that being said, I kind of look at it as, I am sure it was tough in the 60'2 and 70's when my dad and his family were going through school and even with my dad's salary and when I was going to school.  Its still challenging.

I mean I can see the troubles you mention, but there is still that immeasurable factor of determination.  If you really want to make it happen you can.  That's partly why deferred student loans exist.  Even with the facts presented, I still kind of lean to the side of there are opportunities.  Its clearly not the easiest thing, but it can be done.