OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

Vanguard

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Vanguard wrote: »

You should probably head down to Union Square before you start posting about how it's disrupting any of those things. It's set up directly across from Whole Foods in front of the statue. The Farmer's Market usually wraps around the opposite side of the park.

This morning there maybe 50 people, a banner, and a pile of cardboard signs. One guy had a bucket drum. No tents.

But hey, don't let these facts get in the way of your interpretation of OWS!

If it is 50 people, they are not occupying it. That is less disruptive than the line for the circuit city when the PS3 launched. If the numbers swell and the barricades go up, I don't see how that won't disrupt the green market. Its a perfectly fine place to meet and protest (although it seems a little random, since there are no financial firms there).

Yeah, I mean, it's not like this place has a history of protest or anything.

The park has historically been the start or the end point for many political demonstrations. In April 1861, soon after the fall of Fort Sumter, it was the site of a patriotic rally of perhaps a quarter of a million people that is thought to have been the largest public gathering in North America up to that time. In the summer of 1864 the north side of the square was the site of a "Sanitary Fair".

Union Square is, and was, a frequent gathering point for radicals of all stripes to make speeches or demonstrate. In 1865 the recently formed Irish republican Fenian Brotherhood came out publicly and rented Dr. John Moffat's brownstone rowhouse at 32 East 17th Street, next to the Everett House hotel facing the north side of the square, for the capitol of the government-in-exile they declared.[15][16] On September 5, 1882, in the first Labor Day celebration, a crowd of at least 10,000 workers paraded up Broadway and filed past the reviewing stand at Union Square. Although the park was known for its union rallies and for the large 1861 gathering in support of Union troops, it was actually named for its location at the "union" of Bloomingdale Road (now Broadway) and Eastern Post Road (now extinct) decades before these gatherings.[17] On March 28, 1908, an anarchist set off a bomb in Union Square which only killed himself and another man.[18]

Union Square was named a National Historic Landmark in 1997, primarily to honor it as the site of the first Labor Day parade.[3][19][20]

In the days and weeks following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Union Square became a primary public gathering point for mourners. People created spontaneous candle and photograph memorials in the park and vigils were held to honor the victims. This was a natural role for the Square as Lower Manhattan below 14th Street, which forms Union Square's southern border, briefly became a "frozen zone," with no non-emergency vehicles allowed and pedestrians sometimes stopped and asked why they were venturing south by police and national guardsmen. In fact, for the first few days following the attacks, only those who could prove residency below 14th Street could pass. The Square's tradition as a meeting place in times of upheaval was also a factor.

Deebaser

I think you'd be harder pressed to find a public space in NYC that wasn't a site of major protests in the past 150 years.

Numbers in the several dozens is cool and enough to attract local attention and have teach ins. Hell, swell up and have teach ins at other locations and protests in front of Goldman Sachs erryday...

...then go home and come back in the morning. No one's going to tolerate another tent city and the message is actually a lot bigger than the supposed first amendment right to camp.

spacekungfuman

Vanguard wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Vanguard wrote: »

You should probably head down to Union Square before you start posting about how it's disrupting any of those things. It's set up directly across from Whole Foods in front of the statue. The Farmer's Market usually wraps around the opposite side of the park.

This morning there maybe 50 people, a banner, and a pile of cardboard signs. One guy had a bucket drum. No tents.

But hey, don't let these facts get in the way of your interpretation of OWS!

If it is 50 people, they are not occupying it. That is less disruptive than the line for the circuit city when the PS3 launched. If the numbers swell and the barricades go up, I don't see how that won't disrupt the green market. Its a perfectly fine place to meet and protest (although it seems a little random, since there are no financial firms there).

Yeah, I mean, it's not like this place has a history of protest or anything.

The park has historically been the start or the end point for many political demonstrations. In April 1861, soon after the fall of Fort Sumter, it was the site of a patriotic rally of perhaps a quarter of a million people that is thought to have been the largest public gathering in North America up to that time. In the summer of 1864 the north side of the square was the site of a "Sanitary Fair".

Union Square is, and was, a frequent gathering point for radicals of all stripes to make speeches or demonstrate. In 1865 the recently formed Irish republican Fenian Brotherhood came out publicly and rented Dr. John Moffat's brownstone rowhouse at 32 East 17th Street, next to the Everett House hotel facing the north side of the square, for the capitol of the government-in-exile they declared.[15][16] On September 5, 1882, in the first Labor Day celebration, a crowd of at least 10,000 workers paraded up Broadway and filed past the reviewing stand at Union Square. Although the park was known for its union rallies and for the large 1861 gathering in support of Union troops, it was actually named for its location at the "union" of Bloomingdale Road (now Broadway) and Eastern Post Road (now extinct) decades before these gatherings.[17] On March 28, 1908, an anarchist set off a bomb in Union Square which only killed himself and another man.[18]

Union Square was named a National Historic Landmark in 1997, primarily to honor it as the site of the first Labor Day parade.[3][19][20]

In the days and weeks following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Union Square became a primary public gathering point for mourners. People created spontaneous candle and photograph memorials in the park and vigils were held to honor the victims. This was a natural role for the Square as Lower Manhattan below 14th Street, which forms Union Square's southern border, briefly became a "frozen zone," with no non-emergency vehicles allowed and pedestrians sometimes stopped and asked why they were venturing south by police and national guardsmen. In fact, for the first few days following the attacks, only those who could prove residency below 14th Street could pass. The Square's tradition as a meeting place in times of upheaval was also a factor.

So the people who paid huge amounts of money to rent out stores or apartments there in modern times received a discount due to the risk that once every hundred years someone blows themself up? Union square is a very high rent mixed use residential/commercial area, and I don't see why OWS has to disrupt their lives by have huge unending protests. 50 people every day is fine. 5k people once in a while is fine too. But a tent city is not.

Vanguard

As I said, there were no tents. So I'm not sure what point you're making because the thing you're decrying is not happening, SKFM.

Dee, that looks like what's happening, mostly. People have a few benches set up and they're talking to passers by. The numbers swell as the day pick up, but thin out by nightfall.

spacekungfuman

Vanguard wrote: »

As I said, there were no tents. So I'm not sure what point you're making because the thing you're decrying is not happening, SKFM.

Dee, that looks like what's happening, mostly. People have a few benches set up and they're talking to passers by. The numbers swell as the day pick up, but thin out by nightfall.

Sometimes I honestly feel like you try to read my posts in the worst light possible. I said small scale protests are fine, and that the problem would be if we ended up with a mess like the previous protest with a camp, barricades, hundreds of police, etc.

Vanguard

Maybe you should think them through a little more then? I'm not twisting your words. At all.

TraceofToxin

Vanguard wrote: »

Maybe you should think them through a little more then? I'm not twisting your words. At all.

You really are though. He's clearly saying that if it turns into something massive it's a problem, but in it's current situation it's not.

Vanguard

TraceofToxin wrote: »

Vanguard wrote: »

Maybe you should think them through a little more then? I'm not twisting your words. At all.

You really are though. He's clearly saying that if it turns into something massive it's a problem, but in it's current situation it's not.

Actually, that's not what he said.

spacekungfuman wrote: »

So the people who paid huge amounts of money to rent out stores or apartments there in modern times received a discount due to the risk that once every hundred years someone blows themself up? Union square is a very high rent mixed use residential/commercial area, and I don't see why OWS has to disrupt their lives by have huge unending protests. 50 people every day is fine. 5k people once in a while is fine too. But a tent city is not.

They are having neither huge protests nor building tent cities. So how are they disrupting them? There is no "if" attached to that statement.

CanadianWolverine

Barricades and hundreds of police (and they way they conducted themselves in many cases) are not the fault of peaceful protestors in this case to the best of my knowledge.

You continue to sound like a fanatical republican SKFM in your posts despite who you say you voted for. Disappointing, I keep hoping you will come around and see how you are being self destructive.

TraceofToxin

Oh yeah. On my way through Union Square this morning some occupiers were setting up and the cops already had the park roped off and some news vans sat in waiting. I imagine shit is going to go nuts any day now.

Sounds like a whole lot more than 50 people are due soon.

50 people every day is fine. 5k people once in a while is fine too. But a tent city is not.

Selective reading much? The last line of the paragraph he clarifies what he's discussing.

I know SKFM sometimes does a really poor job articulating things, but I think this time you really were making it out to be something it wasn't.

Vanguard

Nope. As I said prior, if he doesn't want to be misinterpreted he should take a moment to make sure his post clearly expresses his intended idea.

There is no indication we will see Zucotti resurrected in Union Square as the size of the crowds in Zucotti post-eviction have rarely cracked a few hundred outside of demonstrations.

Sticks

A better question is why do you choose to interpret his statements in an unreasonable manner when there is a perfectly reasonable position that can be inferred from the same words? I certainly don't have any problem with the sentiment "I hope it doesn't get to tent city levels." I think the camping detracted from the message among a whole group of people (namely individuals like my parents) who would otherwise be sympathetic.

Vanguard

Because there's more than one way to interpret his post?

There's nothing wrong with that sentiment at all. In his original post, however, it was not as clear as it could have been.

shryke

Sticks wrote: »

A better question is why do you choose to interpret his statements in an unreasonable manner when there is a perfectly reasonable position that can be inferred from the same words? I certainly don't have any problem with the sentiment "I hope it doesn't get to tent city levels." I think the camping detracted from the message among a whole group of people (namely individuals like my parents) who would otherwise be sympathetic.

Because he's got enough memory space to remember how certain posters have posted in these various OWS threads.

Sticks

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

shryke

Sticks wrote: »

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

spacekungfuman

shryke wrote: »

Sticks wrote: »

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

Is that really what you see me as having done? I have certainly posted criticisms of OWS, but I have also posted what I see as honest advice for conveying their messages to the other side. I'm just interested in exploring as many sides of an issue as we can here, which is why I started an antidrug thread and then ended it talking about viable strategies for pushing towards legalization and acceptance. More importantly, I'm the guy who may disagree with you at the start, but will actually change his mind based on the discussion that starts from this disagreement (I did this in the patriotism, IP and drug threads, just to name a few). Dismissing people based on the fact that you disagree repeatedly is unproductive at best, and can often be counter productive.

I always try to argue in good faith, and to engage with people I disagree with, even if they become hostile towards me. I don't really see the point in doing anything else. It's just a message board, its not worth getting angry at a stranger over, imo.

Sticks

shryke wrote: »

Sticks wrote: »

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

Hey man, thanks for the digs against my memory. I've obviously been an active participant in this thread all along and/or should have studied it religiously before jumping in and should know all about that spaceman guy and how he is. Don't worry though. I'll probably forget it in a few seconds anyway as I make the turn to swim to the other side of my bowl.

Is it seriously such a radical position to take that given two options X and Y, with X being factually untrue, that you just assume he meant Y?

Sir Landshark

Goldfish have a memory span of at least 3 months, which is longer than SKFM has been posting in this thread.

Sticks

Cool? I still wouldn't know that because I've been following this thread for days and not months. I'm sure he wasn't playing on the popular misconception that goldfish have a memory span measured in minutes either...

Vanguard

I guess 100 people slept in the park last night, which made the NYPD close Union Square for the first time in...ever?

http://gothamist.com/2012/03/21/nypd_evicts_occupy_wall_street_from.php#photo-1

dispatch.o

Sir Landshark wrote: »

Goldfish have a memory span of at least 3 months, which is longer than SKFM has been posting in this thread.

Chipmunks in Siberia have a memory span of 2 days, which is why although they always bury food stores for winter months, they have to just randomly dig around until they find a stash.

So with spring coming around, it looks like students here at the college are ... occupying Vanderbilt.

It's just goofy, I think the entire thing has derailed at this point. Which is unfortunate but was inevitable.

Vanguard

dispatch.o wrote: »

Sir Landshark wrote: »

Goldfish have a memory span of at least 3 months, which is longer than SKFM has been posting in this thread.

Chipmunks in Siberia have a memory span of 2 days, which is why although they always bury food stores for winter months, they have to just randomly dig around until they find a stash.

So with spring coming around, it looks like students here at the college are ... occupying Vanderbilt.

It's just goofy, I think the entire thing has derailed at this point. Which is unfortunate but was inevitable.

Why has it derailed? I'm not disputing that the momentum they had last year has been lost, but I wouldn't discount everything just yet.

dispatch.o

Vanguard wrote: »

dispatch.o wrote: »

Sir Landshark wrote: »

Goldfish have a memory span of at least 3 months, which is longer than SKFM has been posting in this thread.

Chipmunks in Siberia have a memory span of 2 days, which is why although they always bury food stores for winter months, they have to just randomly dig around until they find a stash.

So with spring coming around, it looks like students here at the college are ... occupying Vanderbilt.

It's just goofy, I think the entire thing has derailed at this point. Which is unfortunate but was inevitable.

Why has it derailed? I'm not disputing that the momentum they had last year has been lost, but I wouldn't discount everything just yet.

It has slowly been disfigured by stoners and hippy joiners, I don't believe nationally we will see the same OWS again. New York may be another story, but bongos and people who smell like pot all of the time who will protest as long as they can hacky sack and go get blazed in the van once in a while wont get you much support. They recently deconstructed the tent city in downtown Nashville and let me tell you, it was fucking disgusting and I am glad to see it gone. Occupy had the problem of being so piss their pants excited to get anyone to join up and camp out, a lot of people who should not have been allowed to foster a community in the camp, were allowed to make everyone look bad.(locally, I can't speak for NYC)

This is more or less my joking but true opinion on the joiners.
http://comedians.jokes.com/patton-oswalt/videos/patton-oswalt---man-without-a-country

Man, Patton Oswalt is hilarious, I did not mean to derail but I enjoy his comedy.

Vanguard

Maybe that's the story locally, but I'm skeptical. It plays a little too close to the narrative that OWS is composed of potheads old and new alike. I absolutely think we will more political demonstrations that are high in attendance very soon. As it stands, they have another strike planned for May 1.

There were more protesters in Union Square this morning, maybe 75-100. There were also a whole lot of cops, maybe one for every two protesters, maybe more.

Deebaser

And they were vastly outnumbered by teenybopper fans of young adult books.

http://gothamist.com/2012/03/21/occupy_hunger_games_the_other_thing.php#photo-1

Being make-believe homeless is a pretty lazy form of activism. I wish these hammers would stop picking fights and start actively and intelligently engaging people.

Vanguard

I agree. I think the people in Union Square are of a very different ilk than the ones who were in Zuccotti. I think most people who were involved in the old OWS have moved on to bigger and better things that we'll see unfold in the late spring, early summer.

I guess there's a march tonight beginning in Union Square at 6PM. That's where I catch the train, and about the time I'll be getting off work. I'm curious to see what happens.

maximumzero

This made me shake my head...



I mean, this reporter is for a local Fox affiliate, not the actual "Fox News Channel". Let him do his damn job in peace.

I acknowledge and respect your cause and movement OWS folks, but you won't be convincing anybody of your message via harassment.

spacekungfuman

To me, it seems like the camps served their purpose by increasing awareness of the movement, but a new round of camps won't have the same effect, since everyone knows what OWS is now. I think now is the time to capitalize on that awareness with new and varied tactics like large scale (temporary) rallies and demonstrations, along with continued engagement with the process. I think the report on Dodd-Frank was the most credible thing OWS was involved in, and would love to see more issues based work like that, instead of loose gatherings which are not clearly conveying a specific message.

Deebaser

I can't load that video, but whatever happened to that kid in the civil war cap that utterly DESTROYED the Fox News producer trying to do his "LOL, hippies" jaywalking bit?

Sir Landshark

Sticks wrote: »

Cool? I still wouldn't know that because I've been following this thread for days and not months. I'm sure he wasn't playing on the popular misconception that goldfish have a memory span measured in minutes either...

It was a silly observation, nothing more.

Vanguard

He still writes for the Daily Kos and seems pretty active.

Vanguard

Deebaser wrote: »

I can't load that video, but whatever happened to that kid in the civil war cap that utterly DESTROYED the Fox News producer trying to do his "LOL, hippies" jaywalking bit?

Jesse LaGreca? He still writes for the Daily Kos and is active, though mostly on the social media side from what I can tell.

Shadowfire

AJE has done a documentary on the roots of the Occupy movement. Watching it now, but like many things I've watched produced by AJE, it seems quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4VLYGfGDZg&feature=plcp&context=C4dba5c8VDvjVQa1PpcFNqbMk5abYYIpdPC7XQHAhFoD8SvKr71HM%3D

spacekungfuman

Things are already getting ugly.

In all, six protesters were taken into custody after the hours-long face-off on a range of charges, including resisting arrest, disorderly conduct and obstructing governmental administration, according to a spokesman for the New York Police Department.

“They were blocking pedestrian traffic,” said the spokesman, who could not provide an estimate of the crowd’s size. “They were given a lawful order to disperse and when they subsequently refused, they were arrested.” The spokesman asked that his name not be used.

The police sweep prevented about 200 Occupy Wall Street protesters from sleeping in the park. Officers also seized books and other materials.

Commanders said that the books and other items were “unattended property” and could not remain on the sidewalk. Protesters claimed that the books were their property.

After a few moments of shouting back and forth, dozens of officers plunged into the crowd from two directions, shoving protesters and causing some to stumble backward and fall. Officers threw two people to the ground, including a woman who lay on her back for several minutes before an ambulance arrived to attend to her.

As protesters tried to help the injured woman, officers placed an additional line of metal barricades on a sidewalk south of the park.

A moment later, a protester darted forward and kicked a section, sending the linked barricades skidding a short distance toward the police. Dozens of police officers then rushed forward once again, pushing the barricades into the crowd, and forcing the protesters backward 40 feet or more.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/police-and-protesters-clash-at-union-square-park/?partner=rss&emc=rss

At this rate, it may really just be a matter or time before someone winds up dead, and I'm really scared of what might happen then. It isn't in anyone's best interest for NYC to become another Oakland.

Kipling217

spacekungfuman wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Sticks wrote: »

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

Is that really what you see me as having done? I have certainly posted criticisms of OWS, but I have also posted what I see as honest advice for conveying their messages to the other side. I'm just interested in exploring as many sides of an issue as we can here, which is why I started an antidrug thread and then ended it talking about viable strategies for pushing towards legalization and acceptance. More importantly, I'm the guy who may disagree with you at the start, but will actually change his mind based on the discussion that starts from this disagreement (I did this in the patriotism, IP and drug threads, just to name a few). Dismissing people based on the fact that you disagree repeatedly is unproductive at best, and can often be counter productive.

I always try to argue in good faith, and to engage with people I disagree with, even if they become hostile towards me. I don't really see the point in doing anything else. It's just a message board, its not worth getting angry at a stranger over, imo.

Bull Fucking Shit.

There hasn't been a single post of yours that hasn't interpreting OWS in the worst possible light. Always judging their actions in the worst way. You did it in the last page.

Your best "Honest" advice could be summed up like this: "Protests are bad, because they inconvenience people. Therefore OWS shouldn't protest at all. No matter how bad things get or how much Wall Street screws us over". And that's your best advice.

You have been nothing but a silly goose from the moment you started posting.

Like your last post. NYC turning into Oakland? Its not in OWS interest to have the police go nuts with teargas and riot clubs, assaulting peaceful citizens? No Shit Sherlock.

spacekungfuman

Kipling217 wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

shryke wrote: »

Sticks wrote: »

So... once a goose always a goose?

It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

Is that really what you see me as having done? I have certainly posted criticisms of OWS, but I have also posted what I see as honest advice for conveying their messages to the other side. I'm just interested in exploring as many sides of an issue as we can here, which is why I started an antidrug thread and then ended it talking about viable strategies for pushing towards legalization and acceptance. More importantly, I'm the guy who may disagree with you at the start, but will actually change his mind based on the discussion that starts from this disagreement (I did this in the patriotism, IP and drug threads, just to name a few). Dismissing people based on the fact that you disagree repeatedly is unproductive at best, and can often be counter productive.

I always try to argue in good faith, and to engage with people I disagree with, even if they become hostile towards me. I don't really see the point in doing anything else. It's just a message board, its not worth getting angry at a stranger over, imo.

Bull Fucking Shit.

There hasn't been a single post of yours that hasn't interpreting OWS in the worst possible light. Always judging their actions in the worst way. You did it in the last page.

Your best "Honest" advice could be summed up like this: "Protests are bad, because they inconvenience people. Therefore OWS shouldn't protest at all. No matter how bad things get or how much Wall Street screws us over". And that's your best advice.

You have been nothing but a silly goose from the moment you started posting.

Like your last post. NYC turning into Oakland? Its not in OWS interest to have the police go nuts with teargas and riot clubs, assaulting peaceful citizens? No Shit Sherlock.

spacekungfuman wrote: »

JihadJesus wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

I hope you realize that I was not calling the public "mediocre." I was saying that if you strictly oppose inequality (which is not a position that anyone here seems to be taking) then you end up having to restrict the positive outliers.

There's a difference between 'excessive income inequality has negative effects on economic growth and a huge number of social issues' and 'there should be no income inequality'. One of occupy's biggest problems was not making this clear, although I think the only real goal there was to make the fact that there even IS income innequality a widely known thing.

Understood and agreed. The message from the start should have been excessive income inequality resulting from unfair practices.

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Hacksaw wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Hacksaw wrote: »

Deebaser wrote: »

Someone that understands that unless you're financially independent, you're not going to be in a good spot if your compensation drops 30%. There are usually responsibilities that you can't shirk on a dime, or would put you in an even worse spot if you do.

If you can't be financially independent on $140k a year, you have problems far beyond anything I can imagine.

Most people don't have fixed wants, regardless of income. When you make $700k, you probably don't want to live in a a house you could afford on $150k, for example. If you are happy with the smaller house and cheaper lifestyle, you probably would not take the higher paying (and typically higher hours) job in the first place.

I'm not going to feel sorry for somebody who has champagne tastes on an champagne budget that isn't expressly stable. If you make $700k a year, live like a $700k a year person, and then get busted down to $300k a year and have to make some "readjustments", I'm willing to bet the $700k those "readjustments" are going to be far less painful than the austerity measures someone like me is going to have to employ when they go from making 21k a year to 13k a year.

EDIT: And FYI, "wants" are fucking luxuries, not necessities. I "want" a nice car. I "want" a big house. I "want" a new computer with bleeding-edge hardware. I need food. I need clothing. I need shelter. The next time I hear a rich guy whine about how he can't get what he "wants," I'm going to introduce him to my friend currently being crushed under mountains of student loan and medical debt who actually doesn't get all his basic needs met on a day to day basis, like a warm meal and a bed to sleep on.

If you use that guy as your example, people will just write it off because the situation is so dire they will assume it must be a fringe case. To make someone understand the issue, I think you need a different example. One thing that always hits home for me is the plight of my chauffeurs. When I get a talkative driver, they often explain how they are responsible for buying their town cars or other luxury cars, and how they have to be replaced every 3 to 4 years because of company policies. These guys work long hours (10-14 hour shifts) get stuck with big expenses, and are tied to the same economic cycle as me (if things are slow, people never stay late and never call them). This all adds up to a perception that despite being hard workers who are motivated and want to move up in the world (a lot of them are immigrants) institutional factors keep them from really making it. Add in the fact that they are of direct relevance to people like me (they are literally how we get home to our families late at night) and the story becomes very relevant an sympathetic. Like the outline for realistic executive compensation reform in the exec comp thread (which I think OWS should literally adopt as a list of demands if they are serious about the issue) you can take this view from the "bad guy" or leave it, but I think that this is the kind of messaging that can work.

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Feral wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Pi-r8 wrote: »

Im comfortable asserting that if you're in the top 1% of either income or wealth then you're rich. I just don't think there are many people that have high wrealth without high income, and I don't think there's any need for OWS to alter their rhetoric to separate the two.

I think that's interesting, because there are a lot more high income people than there are high wealth people, and if OWS was more focused on wealth disparity than income disparity, you might get more sympathy from members of your hated 99%.

Uhhhhh... I'm gonna go ahead and say that there are exactly as many high income people as there are high wealth people. I'm pretty confident in that assertion.

If you're looking at simple percentiles, then yes clearly there are exactly as many people with wealth in the 99th percentile as there are people with income in the 99th percentile, because that's what "percentile" means.

But that's not really a good way of looking at it.

How much income do you have to make to be in the 1%? $250k-$500k/yr depending on what estimates you're looking at.
How much wealth? About $19m.

Think about that for a minute. If you're in the top 1% of income ($500k/yr), and you're putting away 80% of your income into savings every single year ($400k/yr), and if 100% of your savings was untaxed, it would take you 48 years to break into the top 1% of net worth.

It's entirely possible for somebody who was born poor, got into a good college, and got a decent professional position to end up in (or close to) the 1% of income just from their salary.

It takes a bolt of financial lightning to make it to the 1% of net worth.

Everyone has acknowledged what a great post this was, but it seems like noone is really taking the implications seriously. The bolded statement shows why OWS should change its message, imo. There are lots of people who are in the top 1% of wage earners who have no more of a shot at being in the top 1% of wealth holders than someone in the 99% of wager earners, and they may very well identify with a lot of what OWS is saying, since it is the top 1% by wealth that are by and large buying congressmen, and that reaped the benefits of the mortgage backed securities fiasco. Pitting the $350k-500k (or even $200k) wage earners against the 99% seems counterproductive to me, just like pitting the top of the 99% against the bottom is counterproductive. OWS's grievances are directed at the wealthy, and I can't see what good can come of also protesting against the people who make a good living but can never be in the top 1% by wealth. To me, it seems better to try and recruit this group as allies and backers, instead of attacking them even though they are not responsible for (and cannot change) the problems OWS is focused on.

Thanatos

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Everyone has acknowledged what a great post this was, but it seems like noone is really taking the implications seriously. The bolded statement shows why OWS should change its message, imo. There are lots of people who are in the top 1% of wage earners who have no more of a shot at being in the top 1% of wealth holders than someone in the 99% of wager earners, and they may very well identify with a lot of what OWS is saying, since it is the top 1% by wealth that are by and large buying congressmen, and that reaped the benefits of the mortgage backed securities fiasco. Pitting the $350k-500k (or even $200k) wage earners against the 99% seems counterproductive to me, just like pitting the top of the 99% against the bottom is counterproductive. OWS's grievances are directed at the wealthy, and I can't see what good can come of also protesting against the people who make a good living but can never be in the top 1% by wealth. To me, it seems better to try and recruit this group as allies and backers, instead of attacking them even though they are not responsible for (and cannot change) the problems OWS is focused on.

Who, exactly, is going after the top 1% of wage earners?

tyrannus

medicare for individuals making $200,000 or couples making $250,000, I guess

Sticks

No one who is thinking very hard about it, but the message did leak out. Part of the problem with not having a clear and concise message last fall I suppose. I know at least one person who falls into that category that felt lumped in with the 1% by wealth.