Topic: Occupy Wall Street

[runawayjimbo]

I don't think a student loan and a toxic mortgage are the same. The prospects of a student (up until the current time) to increase income significantly is fairly good. Where this falls apart is what if someone drops out or flunks out - then who's going to pay.

I don't think think the loans are the same, but the reasons for the rapid increase in both housing and college tuition are exactly the same.

Now (and this may come as a surprise), I don't agree with OWS' economic message, but what is unacceptable to me is the militarization of the police that is playing out, especially in CA (I thought the West Coast was supposed to be the laid back one?).

The beating of students at Cal, the point blank pepper spray at UC Davis, and now this video from the general strike in Oakland. If one of OWS' outcomes is to raise people's awareness of how we now have an Army for what we used to call the Police, it will be a success to me.

[shoreline99]

Well, you have to realize that colleges and universities are corporations as well, but instead of a material good or product you get a degree out of them. They stand accountable to boards of trustees and are supposed to make a profit (they call it an 'endowment' instead of a cash balance). Even 75 years ago there were probably half the number of colleges out there that there are now. Not saying they need to die off and merge, but there is so much redundancy in the sprawl of every little college that the tuition needs to increase or they can't compete with the next one.

Plus, even with the increase in the number of colleges there are still high amounts of kids not getting in. That says two things: people are not able to meet the tuition requirements and colleges are still very selective.

The GI bill in the 1940's led to the idea that everyone should be entitled to a college education, but today a graduate degree is probably the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree just 20 years ago.

[rowjimmy]

An excellent article:
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/11/21/why-tuition-costs-are-rising/

[UncleEbinezer]

Phuzzy, I'd have to disagree that MBA's are saturating the market.  Out of all of my friends/peers only 2 of my other friends have them.  And as for other post graduate degrees, I would probably say another 3-5 more maybe, including spouse's.  And I am considering my extensive network of friends and colleagues.  Its a small percentage.  And as for at my company of about 250+, I think I might be the only one with an MBA. 

It still has incredible value is not saturating the marketplace.  And whether people want to pursue a degree that they want rather than what pays, is kind of a poor argument.  The fact of the matter is that the $ is and always will make the world go round.  You have to embrace that fact to some extent.  I'm not saying pursue the dollar above all else, but money is an important piece to life.  Period. 

I give some examples.  My brother got a Criminal Justice degree because he really enjoyed that.  He then graduated and realized that there are really not that nearly as many opportunities for Criminal Justice degrees in the world as originally expected.  He went back to school and is now pursuing a pretty good career path in technology.  One of my friends mentioned above, who has an MBA.  Pursued Religion and Spanish in undergrad.  He did well and enjoyed it.  He pursued an MBA and is now a project manager in technology.

I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 




And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."




jimbo, I also don't know that I would put college loans and mortgages in the same zip code.  I see your point, but think it is a bit of a stretch. 


And the loan forgiveness programs exist in the private sector as well.  Deloitte for example will wipe your debt clear after 2 years of working.  1 year is 50%.  My tuition reimbursement programs at 3 different companies has provided almost all of my graduate expenses AND everyone at these companies are eligible for it as well. 

[shoreline99]

I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 

Bingo. I wonder how many more art history/psychology/poly sci/english literature/medieval french majors the world needs. What to people really expect to do with those?

Undergrad education is the new high school, IMHO.

[rowjimmy]

70-year-old former poet laureate of the U.S. took a baton for the team @ Berkeley last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/at-occupy-berkeley-beat-poets-has-new-meaning.html

[goodabouthood]

Short article on the top 0.1% and the capital gains tax.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the  hands of a few, but we can't have both."  - Justice Louis Brandeis

http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

----

Also, the declaration from OWS:

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/

[nab]

Short article on the top 0.1% and the capital gains tax.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the  hands of a few, but we can't have both."  - Justice Louis Brandeis

http://news.yahoo.com/top-0-1-nation-earn-half-capital-gains-172647859.html

This makes sense. 

In order to cultivate participation in a political process, the people need to know that they are personally invested in both the wins and losses that incorporation and consent to govern make possible.


The Occupy movement has been instrumental in underscoring the wealth gap in the United States and keeping the issue in the news.  As far as this contributes to the democratic process, the introduction and incitement of an important issue, the movement has been very sucessful.


I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem. 

[goodabouthood]

And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 

Am I to take from this then that if one has drive and motivation, that you should automatically be successful? And if so, how would you define success? Also, is the opposite true then too, if an individual is struggling in today's economy it is because he/she lacks drive and motivation? I only ask because it sure sounds a lot like Cain saying, if you don't have a job, or you're not rich, blame yourself.

Your sentences there are similar to what some might believe in as the American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists? And how do you define it?

[UncleEbinezer]

I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

I think that is the real problem with this.  I tend to be in the middle (more right than left) and see this same thing.  I am interested to hear some options as well.  I am not so certain that there will ever be a fair way to do this. 

I'm kind of mixed on the capital gains stuff.  Part of my mixed emotions of that is because I feel like at some point in my life I will have a serious concern about that.  Right now its not an impact to me, but I think in time with investments, etc. I can see this being an issue. 

Just because it may not be impacting me today doesn't mean I should ignore it.  I think at varying times in our life we will be more concerned with certain elements of finance and politics and sometimes stuff is like toothpaste out of the tube.  Once its out, you can't really put it back.  I think that's why we have seen the capital gains go up and down over the years.  We've seen "loopholes" created and then become normal practice.

I'm not so sure there is a clear and perfect path to this.  The only path to righting this is probably a separate and unpopular path, which means, it probably won't change. 

Hypothetical question(s):

What if we reduced all politicians salaries to that closer to the 99%?  And capped their political campaigns to that of the 99%? 

Based on much of what I have been reading and seeing based on what has been posted here, is that the cutoff for the these thresholds are $150,000 and $400,000.  If your household income is over $150,000 you are the top 9% according to RJ's money map.  If you are over $400,000 you are in the 1%.

Senators make $174,000 per year.  The President makes $400,000.

The way I see it is, that will never change, so this argument of the 1%'s is also an attack on politicians and considering staying in power is part of politics, they will do whatever to keep it. 

[phil]

I just kind of feel like you can't go to college and just get a degree in whatever you want and then be upset that the job market for a given degree is not lucrative.  You gotta pay your bills and that means you gotta make a dollar.  Enjoying college is one thing, believe me I did my share of that, but pursuing a degree you enjoy with no regard for the financial value of it is a poor decision/argument. 

Bingo. I wonder how many more art history/psychology/poly sci/english literature/medieval french majors the world needs. What to people really expect to do with those?

Undergrad education is the new high school, IMHO.

I majored in psychology (under the assumption that i'd go to grad school) and then decided that more school right now would push me right off the deep end. I took the GRE just in case I plan to revisit the whole thing in a few years, but right about now I'm wishing I'd majored in finance or something slightly more useful than my B.S. in psych.

[goodabouthood]

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.

[phil]

... American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists?

you have to believe it still exists. If you don't believe in your ability to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" as it were, then you're allowing someone to tell you what dollar value your efforts are worth and there's no motivation to do anything to better one's situation.

for me at least, I feel like I wouldn't necessarily put forth much effort in my academic and professional endeavors if I felt like I was only going to make some prescribed dollar value that would cover my living expenses and not much above that for the rest of my life. If someone feels like busting their ass is going to open up new opportunities for them in the future then IMO they're more likely to bust their ass (whether those opportunities are the means/$ to live large and whatnot if that's your thing or the freedom to enjoy time with your family,etc if you're more down to earth)

[UncleEbinezer]

And as for level playing fields, I still think it exists.  The intangible factor of drive and motivation is what separates people. 

Am I to take from this then that if one has drive and motivation, that you should automatically be successful? And if so, how would you define success? Also, is the opposite true then too, if an individual is struggling in today's economy it is because he/she lacks drive and motivation? I only ask because it sure sounds a lot like Cain saying, if you don't have a job, or you're not rich, blame yourself.

Your sentences there are similar to what some might believe in as the American Dream? Are you stating that it still exists? And how do you define it?

I'm not stating that at all and please don't take that out of context.  That was with respect to education and funding for education.  My point was that people have equal access to funding and education.  I went to a private college for 1 year and basically smoked that down the bong tube.  I then went to community college (on my own dime) and ultimately at Old Dominion (on my own dime) and then allowed someone else (employers) to pay for my grad school.  My point being is I had to work my ass off to get where I am at, same as you and believe me I know that you have. 

My definition of success is really two fold.  Am I happy.  How you or anyone defines happiness is relative to your own perogative, but somewhere in almost everyone's happiness equation is money. 

In a situation for a small business owner where the economics are reducing potential revenues, that blows.  Motivation and drive can only take someone so far, but that is also part of the risk in owning the business.  I am not a small business owner and as such I have some more security from the economy, but I also do not get all of the other pleasures of owning a business. 

You know me better than to think that I believe "if you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself."  I really hope your comment was more for discussion's sake.  If not, I will return your Christmas present.   

I do think in many ways people do have a responsibility to themselves to try and fix it.  Some situations are not very easily fixable which is frustrating.

So yes, I still believe the American Dream exists.  Its not always easy, or seemingly evident, but it does exist.  I still plan on opening a brewery for "pennies on the dollar."

[nab]

I'm frustrated with the lack of suggestion as to what to do about the problem.  At no other time has the Democratic party had such an opprotunity to make a case for radical reform (a case that would have to be accepted by the majority of the public to be sucessfully implimented, imo) and yet no clear direction or proposals from the left have been offered (as far as I'm aware of).  The right, predictably, has used this opprotunity to belittle the movement, mostly through ad hominum attacks on the protesters themselves.  Part of the right's ability to do this is that no clear arguements as to what to do about the disparity are being offered.  It's hard to have a battle of ideas in an areana of generality.

Has the increased police brutality shown against the protesters made me more sympathetic to their movement?  You bet it has, but this sympathy is more general and arises from my concern over 1st ammendment abuse and overzealous use of authority.  I'm still wondering what the next step is going to be.  I want an argument presented with storng conviction as to what to do about the wealth gap in the United States.  I wish I had one, and maybe that is the problem, maybe no one knows what to do about the problem.

But is it the responsibility of the protesters to also present answers to the injustices that exist? While most can see and feel and experience the inequalities that they're arguing against, I seriously don't expect them to understand the inner workings of the laws that have made the system what it is. As I said before, asking the politicians to work for the people might be too much to ask at this point with the system as fucked as it is, but I see it as THEIR duty to find answers and make the changes. Is it not enough to say, hey, we see what you're doing and we think it's fucked up and while I don't know how to fix it, you do. So please do so. If nothing else, it should be a reminder that You, the politicians, are supposed to be representing Us, the people.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I was looking to the Democratic party to offer solutions.  Hell, I'd take them from the republican party.  I don't, however, expect any such solutions to materialize from either party, I was just mentioning that now would be the time to show some leadership to really represent the American people.  The underlying point ot my argument is that there have been no solutions offered becasue both parites profit from not fixing the system.  If faced with that sort of situation, how is it not appropriate to suggest that leadership and argument come from the movement?