A Follow-up

I read this letter yesterday and pretty much agree with it. I would add to the part where he talks about the formation of unions back in the day to demand better treatment and add that corporations have basically figured out a work-around. I actually think that some unions have gotten out of hand and are making more demands than their workers deserve, but the basic idea of unions is important - because laborers have been mistreated in the past. But in the end companies have just worked around the issue by taking their workforce abroad, where they don't have to pay as much and instead can go back to the days of inadequate compensation for labor - just in another country.

I went to Occupy LA on Thursday night. A friend wanted to spend his birthday down there checking it out and asked friends to join. When I showed up, my friend said I looked overdressed (I had come straight from work). I said that perhaps they needed some better dressed people around so that they weren't just viewed as lazy hippies... So we got a tour of their little community of tents. Saw their general assembly meeting with the human microphone (echoing each statement the speaker makes instead of using actual amplification), the food tent, medical tent, library tent, meditation tent, information tent, etc. There are two shower tents and apparently a media tent where they have a generator so that people can use computers and charge phones. It's pretty interesting. I'm still iffy about some of it because the idea is that they will "occupy" until their demands are met, but there are no demands yet. They say they're still working on the specific demands, but they work through consensus, and the movement is really diverse, so that seems tough. I feel like they need to think basic to make it something that we can all agree on. Like the guy in the letter says - being a liberal may mean you want even more, but you can at least agree on the basics. For being so diverse, though, the whole place felt really peaceful and full of community and support. I'm still in favor of the movement because I'm in favor of anything that makes us talk and think. I just hope that people will really respond with true contemplation instead of jumping to conclusions based on perceptions of who the protesters are and skepticism because of a lack of specific goals.

Occupy Politics

Warning about the political nature of this post. It is also very long and rambly. Very rambly. Please read with an open mind and try to avoid preconceived notions about the Occupy Wall Street movement...

I first heard about Occupy Wall Street maybe a month ago. I had no idea what it was about. It was portrayed to me by media outlets as a group of hippies and/or artists who were angry about corporate greed. The timing of the movement coincided with Obama's proposal to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which seemed to connect the movement with the "f- you, rich people" idea. I wasn't sure what I thought. I mean, I've always been in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts, and I am definitely in favor of getting rid of loopholes that allow people to pay a smaller percentage of their pay (Warren Buffett's op-ed piece really illustrates why I feel this way). But I couldn't really figure out what the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) thing was all about. What did they want? No one really knew. And being the skeptic that I am, I wasn't totally buying it. I mean, look at the people protesting - the people in power aren't going to take them seriously because they will just dismiss them as lazy hippies looking for handouts. And that's pretty much what's been happening in conservative circles.

But I couldn't just dismiss the idea completely because I think it stems from a good place. It seemed to be misconstrued, though, and part of that was based in the lack of specific demands. Anyone can write whatever they want on a sign and stand in protest, and some of those signs aren't so good. The counter-movement of the 99%ers (call themselves the 53%) illustrates the lack of understanding of what the OWS movement really is. They appear to view the protesters as unemployed people who don't pay taxes and are asking for everyone else to support them. (The 53% number comes from the percentage of Americans who pay income tax. Since they place themselves opposite the 99% movement, it appears that they view the others as the 47% who don't pay income tax...which is just simply not true. The people who don't pay income tax are often elderly and disabled people on social security and poverty-stricken individuals who don't make enough to pay taxes. These are not the majority of those protesting across the country.) Signs of the OWS protesters that make comments about wanting debt forgiveness are hurting the movement because it's an easy target to counter. You got yourself into debt, and now you're asking for someone else to get you out of it. That's easy to dismiss. So the 53%ers talk about how they live within their means and don't ask for handouts, so they're somehow better. This post on Forbes.com illustrates how some of the 53%ers really could benefit from a better understanding of the 99% movement, as their interests are actually more in line than they realize.

I guess I see it as this. Back in the day, there was an "American dream." If you were smart enough and worked hard enough, you would prosper. But that's just not really true anymore. Companies hire in at the top level from other top levels. People get jobs via networking and nepotism. You can have an awesome idea, but it won't get you anywhere because big corporations are too big to compete against - and they probably won't listen to you about your idea unless you have a connection that lets your idea be heard. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but it's rare. You can't just start a small business on the street corner anymore and ensure that it can grow because a big chain store will probably come in and offer what you can't (cheaper prices because of mass production/distribution and probably outsourced manufacturing). You can't be sure that your investments will be worth anything in the future either, so good luck during retirement. We're turning into a caste system - with a few exceptions, you will remain in whatever socioeconomic situation you were born into. That may seem fine for those of us born into the middle and upper classes. But that's not what our country is supposedly about. We're supposed to recognize that because you cannot control your birthright, you should be able to elevate your status with intellect and hard work.

Two of the reasons for our current situation are lack of quality education and job outsourcing. I read an article by Jeffrey Sachs in TIME the other day. He points out how these two are connected, "The Republicans fail to understand that businesses are investing abroad not because of taxes, but because higher wages in the U.S. are not sufficiently matched by higher skills, as they are in, say Germany or Sweden. We are, to put it bluntly, simply uncompetitive in many industrial sectors. The truth is that it will take more spending - not in the form of haphazard stimulus but in smart long-term public investments in education, infrastructure and human capital - to get us out of our present mess."

But corporations are not letting change occur because the status quo does not negatively impact them. CEOs are taking home even more money than before. They can afford quality education for their own children, so why invest (via taxes/government spending) on the education of others. In theory, it would benefit them to live in a more educated society, and it would benefit their companies to be able to hire educated Americans. But why bother if they can do the same thing by paying lower wages in another country?

So this brings us to another plight of the OWS movement - the fact that the richest 1% are the ones who control politics. They pay for the campaigns, which means that the votes in congress cater to their desires. The rest of us don't matter - and we end up having to vote between almost equally bad options. Our votes could make a difference if there were ever a choice who DIDN'T just listen to the richest of their constituents. But we don't get that option. Obama was the closest we've had, with his rejection of donations from lobbyists, but that's not 100% true. Some believe that the top 1% deserve what they have - they deserve low taxes - because they earned their money and do not rely as much on the government. If they are not taking advantage of government spending, then why should they contribute to it? But did they all really earn it on their own? How many were born into it and thus side-stepped into their positions? How many "earned" it, but through the benefit of a system that allowed them to prosper? A system that is broken now. Elizabeth Warren recently addressed this issue and got slammed for her comments, but I think she addressed the issue of upward mobility and how, without government programming, that possibility is gone.

With the government pampering big corporations and the rich, the idea is that their money will trickle down in the form of job creation, but that just isn't happening because of outsourcing. And we can't solve the problem of outsourcing unless we have a more educated and skilled work force to justify higher wages. And to do that, we need government to step in and do something because the corporations won't.

Now, having all these rambling thoughts in my head (did they read as disorganized and haphazard? cause they were...) made me realize why the OWS movement comes across as so unfocused. There are so many things wrong, how can it be organized? And for a while, I kept wondering how a protest was really going to make a difference. But here's how - it simply raises awareness. It starts the conversations. I still believe that the wrenches thrown about debt forgiveness actually hurt the cause, but it still gets us talking. In fact, it wasn't until someone on Facebook started bashing the movement (because of the debt comments) that I realized how much I DID agree with it (which I realized because of my defensive reaction to the criticism). I wish it were more focused, but perhaps it is simply the motivator to start the conversation.

I know one positive outcome is the push to move money out of big banks and into smaller local banks and credit unions. The movement coincided nicely with Bank of America's announcement to charge for debit card use, and it coincided nicely with a letter from my own bank stating that they will give me a "choice" (you know, positive spin to make it seem like I have options) between keeping a balance of $6,000 in my accounts or pay $15/month in fees. I realize that if I do not have a higher balance, they cannot lend the money out and earn interest, but charging me for being poor doesn't really seem like a very good practice. And so I will be moving my money. Sure, they would do better if they had more of my money, but the result of their practice is that they will have even less. This can be capitalism at work - with the general public "voting" with our business. At least in banking, I have another option. With other types of goods and services, we don't have good options. And that's when capitalism fails. When 100% of the options are only looking out for themselves, shipping jobs overseas, and not investing in our society's future, how can we use our business to regulate the practice? We can't. This is why we need government regulation. But even the government's not ours... So we do what we can. And for the rest, we protest. Cause our voice feels like all the power we have.