Occupy Wall Street
 

http://occupywallst.org/

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/10/07/...s-with-police/

Is there already a thread about this?

This has been so undercovered in the national media.

I don't know what I think of it quite yet. What say you, GCers?

It's been on the news a lot in Dallas, as one of the demonstrations was in the city (along with Houston and Austin).

I haven't looked into it much, though. I will probably end up doing it now that it's posted on GC :o

For Drolefille and knight_shadow, corporate zombies:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...096000,00.html

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...mb-300x225.jpg

(There is nothing more frightening than angry (majority) white people at Woodstock 2011)

LOL @ bolded. Not sure what national media you read/watch but I CAN'T seem get away from coverage of this.

But speaking of undercovered stories, how bout that Eric Holder and his lying to Congress about his knowledge of Operation Fast & Furious....

That depends on what national media you read/watch/listen to.

As for Eric Holder, I can see why I haven't heard of this relatively recent story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_16...-10391695.html

(Booooooring. LOL.)

Talk news radio/NPR and CNN.com but to get back on topic-

I'm not quite sure what these occupy Wall St. folks are trying to accomplish other than to express frustration on how they view the country's (world's for that matter) financial system. What is the goal? For the Fortune 500 companies like Apple to surrender billions in cash to the people...?? That's what I kind of get out of it.

I agree with the inspiration for it all, but hope it will not destruct into the freak show the tea party is (not that it wasn't that from the start)

:) Yes, it is a sidelink to sidestories on CNN.com. If I went based on what talk news radio and NPR discuss, there would be a lot more topics on the general public's radar. I listen to NPR everyday and when I raise topics to people based on NPR topics, people are almost always like "huh?"

A lot of people are not quite sure what's up with this which is probably one reason why the American media is treating this as a side story. If we downplay this, whatever the heck it is (LOL), these angry people will shut up and go away. (When we think about it, many of the people who fuel the mainstream news media are the same people who fuel the sources of American capitalism, etc.)

Until there's a police fight and people get hurt while Occupying Wall Street. Then the media will make it late breaking news. And that's what some of these news sources did.

I read some of the comments on the website (that isn't officially the Occupy Wall Street website??).

Some people were going on and on about the two party system and how they should form a party. Someone was like "let's not move too fast." I agree. Whatever this is about regarding labor unions, anti-Wall Street, anti-politicians...talking about starting a political party makes them close to become that which they despise.

This. I thought I was just naive or not understanding their point/goals, but apparently not. I get they they don't like the way things are (not many people do), but they don't seem to have any better ideas.

I live in Kansas and we have been having local 'Occupy_____' protest here all week. Its on my local media but nothing happens here so what else would the news media cover.

@ PiKA and AlphaFrog

That's why I call this Woodstuck 2011. It is a massive revolt, outcry, protest, and for a number of reasons. They are angry at corporate giants and (insert who and what else).

http://readersupportednews.org/news-...e-horns#nypd28

******

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7383837n

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1..._n_999853.html

There was a demonstration yesterday a couple of blocks from my office. It will be interesting to see what develops regarding a platform for this group.

The Talker and his new gf are very into this and are part of the planning group for Occupy Detroit. From what I've read on the Occupy Detroit Facebook page, they are the Tea Party's liberal counterpart. They are protesting the "Rich get richer, poor get poorer" trend and are angry that the politicians aren't listening to the bottom 99%, just the top 1% and meeting corporate interests, not the interests of the people. That's the gist of the posts I'm reading anyway.

Occupy Detroit is scheduled for 10/21.

In that case, this is the same old anti-capitalism and political-economic inequality stuff.

The problem is that the 99% are not unified for a common cause. Sure, people (majority white people) are Occupying Someone's Street now but there are divides that happened before they chose to occupy and there are divides that will be maintained after they finish occupying. People perpetuate these divides everyday, the white working class has been instrumental in maintaining racial and gender exclusion in the workplace. So...now...people want to pretend that is not the case and act as though the 99% are united under a common cause and with an equal voice? Bullfeces.

Yes, and the places where they protest are also the employers of a lot of the 99%. So, if you disrupt their business, it hurts the little guy even more. The CEO isn't going to be affected.

If any movement is asking the 99% to unite on any issue...it's doomed. One thing people in the US can't do is agree. Point fingers, that's all ANYONE does. Even the "good" pols are at it- it's not my fault, it's that guy across the aisle with the (insert opposite party here.)

If the left tries to respond by regulating the financial sector, or imposing taxes on millionares, the right will refute it by saying it's "Big Government" and it stops jobs from being created. And we'll be at the same stand-still we've been at...well, for about 3 years now.

I guess I'm just a cynic, but I honestly don't think the investment/financial world will change tomorrow. The only way to "change" the industry is for people to become financially independent, and stop using the loan services, credit cards, high-interest mortgages, etc. But I'm the kind of person who thinks protests don't accomplish much except for tying up traffic. (Not that I don't admire people who try...or that I don't think someone should listen. It's just that no one ever does, and everyone just eventually has to roll up their little signs and go home.)

I agree with the previous posts about the 99% not being able to unite, but it is mind boggling to consider what could be accomplished if we could unite as a nation.

If the OWS people can bring attention to the issues of continued corporate overseas outsourcing of jobs when unemployment and underemployment of Americans continue to be problems, then more power to them.

The unemployment thing hits close to home right now.

I listen to NPR everyday, too, Dr. Phil...bring on more of those topics. I find them interesting. The OWS movement seems rudderless, but if it survives will likely be co-opted by a leader or group of leaders who will have an agenda. If nothing else, I'm glad to see the financial sector come back under the microscope after escaping from the mortgage backed securities fiasco essentially unscathed. Let 'em feel the heat for awhile.

Yeah...but this country has been outsourcing jobs for 30 years now. I think everyone knows about it ;) The question is, do the people who are profiting from it care? Are they even capable of caring? I honestly don't think so.

All it's done is give the people who already make stupid, ignorant comments a target at which to direct their next stupid, ignorant comment. More of the same- why don't you have a job? You must be lazy. You could be job-searcing right now instead of protesting. (Guess they never heard of iPhones and multi-tasking?) They need to shower, no wonder no one will hire them. And on and on.

The problem in this country is that we've lost our f***ing compassion. People are so busy judging each other and worrying that $5 more dollars a month might come out of their check for taxes that they can't see the forest for the trees. The American Dream is GOING AWAY- that's right, GOING AWAY. Our schools suck, our college graduates can't get jobs, people who are doing all the right things can't succeed. And when they dare to stand up and point this out, they get mocked. I guess as long as the American Dream isn't going away for YOUR kid, it's okay. Just don't count on much, with the economy and Karma!

I honestly haven't seen much coverage of the events because every time I try to watch something, I have to listen to some self-righteous a-hole berating these people, when they aren't slackers...there just aren't any jobs!!!

What I Occupy Wall Street?
 

This explains it for me. The major parties must be frustrated that the two "splinter groups" are starting to thrive outside their nomenclature.

In reading more on Occupy Wall Street, I have so many thoughts on this that build off of *winter* and AGDee's posts, so here goes:

"The rich get richer, the poor get poorer" hasn't been a concern of the majority until it started hitting the doorsteps of those who comprise the economic minority of the population and power majority (read: working class and middle class whites). Link that to "the rich get richer, the poor get (insert negative social outcomes)." These dynamics persist for years until it begins to impact those whose socioeconomic conditions matter. Then it becomes a problem that we should all stop what we're doing and concentrate on. Sorry to break it to "you" (general) but some people have always been working to improve these conditions, long before you thought this stuff mattered.

Being overlydramatic from all perspectives (there are more than two perspectives) tends to do nothing more than make people panic and lose their brains along the way. Humans, not just Americans, tend not to do well when there is exaggerated hype and panic. People get irrational and that breeds negative outcomes. The best way to see human behavior is to see what humans do when they think shit has hit the fan and it's every woman/man for her/himself. The lack of compassion that people cite has always existed (throughout history and throughout the world) when people quickly weight their options and their resources. If uniting under a common cause has the greatest benefit then people will temporarily ignore their personal opinions and intolerance of others so they can unite under a common cause.

Occupy Wall Street is not automatically logical and effective just because it seems more in-your-face and overt in terms of allowing people to express their anger and frustration. The results, if any, remain to be seen...just like every formal protest. More importantly, there are all types of ways to protest and not all of them require a staged protest. The best way to get change to happen is to prove that this isn't just a fad sparked by temporary anger. And it isn't just a kickass time to post stuff on facebook.

/longwinded

To follow up on the outsourcing, clearly, we're all aware of it. The mass migration of desk-type jobs has been a phenomenon of the past decade or so. I guess what I should have said is that I'd like to see some action taken on that knowledge in light of the current employment situation and economy. Perhaps increase corporate taxes on outsourced jobs and have the revenue be directed toward programs for the unemployed. I don't have the answer, but I know that the current situation is not working.

I know several people who are unemployed or underemployed currently who would jump at the chance for a call center job and be quite grateful for it. I know even more people who would be happy to speak to someone who isn't just reading off a script when they call a company to ask for help. Personally, I'd be thrilled to have my support personnel at work at a desk close by where I could explain issues that arise rather than try to communicate via email to people on the other side of the world who don't understand the business that I am in and are primarily paid to be button pushers and not to use their brains and learn the business.

To your point regarding compassion, I don't disagree with you, but I don't know that this has changed so dramatically. There have always been compassionate people in the world, and there have always been assholes. It just seems like the assholes are winning right now.

Exactly @ the bolded

"Compassion" and "asshole" will always be subjective. You can be the most compassionate person in the world until it comes to something that you feel strongly about with no compromise and no empathy. That can be interpreted by others as being an asshole. I truly believe that every conscious and fully functional human has at least ONE THING that they are an asshole about. That includes humans who are unable (for any reason) to put their thoughts into words and actions.

Whose Side Are You On: The Moral Clarity of Occupy Wall Street

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...py-wall-street

Rick, Brian Terry was good friends with a lot of people I know. The truth is coming out little by little.

UGH where is this going to be? If they disrupt my commute and my friend's wedding, I will run them down.

I think, honestly, there just aren't enough jobs. And we're unloading the ones we hav left. I'm not sure what the outcome is, or how to change it...do we line our streets with factories so we can make things again? Could we afford to make things again with the cost of health insurance and wages? It's almost too late to turn back the clock in some ways.

I think the movement of industries overseas began many of the problems we have in our country today. Look at cities- they were dealt the death blow by the outsourcing, and haven't recovered. I don't think it's a coincidence that after the availability of work for the average joe dried up that gangs and drug dealing became rampant. When people knew that if they finished high school, there were options available for them, we didn't have the level of problems we do nowadays.

So, instead of learning that we're accomplishing nothing by stripping away people's chance to work, we continue at it, and now it's hitting the college grads and professionals. Which chips further away at the American Dream- you do what you're "supposed" to do (althewhile accumulating large debts, for the average college student) and when you graduate, it's not even worth it.

The interesting thing about the college/American Dream argument is that I think it's becoming clear to many that a college education (in general) is no longer an automatic key to success...instead in seems like it is now certain majors at certain colleges OR a master's that will guarantee success. College degrees are just so saturated amongst the population that it seems like just about everybody has one (although I know that's not the case), so I think to be really impressive both the school and the major now need to be impressive, not just the degree in and of itself.

I graduated from a school currently in the top 25 according to US News, and those of my pledge brothers/friends who graduated with majors that have practical applications (business, engineering mostly) are all successfully employed in great jobs (despite the market). Those that had majors that have less practical application (liberal arts types mostly) are really, really struggling despite their top 25 degree...one struggled for so long that he is currently coaching high school sports as his only source of income. My major began as history and I eventually switched it to business, and although I probably would have enjoyed my classes in the history major more, I am infinitely glad I switched...I was lucky enough to get more or less my dream job out of college, and I know I would be incredibly hard pressed to find adequate employment had my major been history.

It's to the point that somebody I know who is just beginning college was told by their parents that they would only be paying for their education if they have a practical major...this person is free to double major with a more liberal arts degree if they choose, but they have to have a major with immediate practical application. I can't say I blame them. I'm not agreeing with the state of things, I just think that for those beginning college the question of major practicality should be heavily thought about.

The thing that does bug me about these protests (and as we've discussed there is not really a cohesive message amongst the protestors and supporters, so this is a message that is admittedly not shared by all) is that there seems to be an underlying current of "the 1% was fed with a silver spoon, etc." While my family could only be called upper middle class, I went to school with several incredibly wealthy kids that were easily in that "1%". So many of them completely blew it, and so many of them that are doing an average job with their careers are not progressing despite their connection with the "1%". The ones who are wildly successful worked their asses off and made huge sacrifices for their careers. Sure, they had connections that others didn't that helped them, but they still worked damn hard for their current success. Many other people also had those connections and were not able to work hard and/or smart enough to utilize them correctly. To act like the majority of those with power and wealth were just handed it is fundamentally and reprehensibly incorrect. Like I said, not all protestors share this opinion and it's not a central message of these protests, but it seems to be an underlying current amongst some and I just do not agree with it.

I agree with part of this. I think that practical use of your major is important. Where you get that degree...not so much. If you have a desirable skill set, it doesn't matter where you got those skills. For example, my brother went to the biggest nothing school in the state of Louisiana, a directional school, just like me, and majored in computer science. They didn't even have a computer engineering major. He got an interview with Google in college but didn't get the job. He worked in Mississippi for 5 or 6 years for a nationally known computer company improving his resume. He starts a new job as a Facebook engineer in November. Silicon Valley looks for talent everywhere. It doesn't matter where you go to school in medicine. If you are looking at academics, where you go makes a difference, but making it in the local workforce is a whole different story.

I agree, esp with the bolded. It's time for all of us in this country to start making repsonsible financial decisions. And a college degree isn't always one of them, unfortunately. If I do become a teacher, I want to instill that in the students' heads- don't just "go to college" but really think about what it is you want to do, and find a way to do it without incurring a ridiculous amount of debt you'll have little chance of paying off in under 30 years!

I agree. I was on the East Coast this year and a very distant acquaintance of ours (best friend of a cousin) was telling me she was going to a school that is not known for being an academic powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination, and on top of that she was planning to major in a field that is far from immediately applicable after graduation. She was also taking out massive loans to do this. You almost have to wonder if she would be better off going to community college for two years or even going to a trade school. This is not a knock on universities that are not highly regarded or on "non-practical" majors, but rather a knock on the tuition balloons for higher education that, even at Ivy League institutions, are not necessarily going to add enough to your desirability as an employee to repay themselves in a practical amount of time. She is going to incur a lot of debt paying for a university and a major that will teach her a lot and give her a fine education, but essentially just barely give her even a miniscule edge in the job hunt.

You're absolutely correct and I probably should have specified. There are some careers or career path where the school (as well as the degree) really does matter which is why I say that it's not just having a degree overall that matters anymore. For example, top investment banking firms are realistically only scouting certain level schools. But I think in many cases, like your brother's, you can be wildly successful out of college no matter what the school if you can prove you have a very specific set of skills you've acquired. I think that not only do the more "practical" majors (business, economics, hard sciences, engineering) produce more specifically transferable skills than liberal arts majors, but also the skills gained from liberal arts majors are harder to quantify or explain efficiently in a short period like an interview or a resume.

Also I should have distinguished between immediate, "straight out of college and got my dream job" success vs. a path like your brother's. I think certain jobs or fields are only really open to candidates from "top universities" directly out of graduation, but if you work your way up and strengthen your resume anything is obtainable. It does mean though that you have to work harder and smarter than those with a Princeton degree to get there, which I think is where some of the resentment towards the "1%" is coming from in the first place...although I still stand by that the majority of those in the 1% still earned it even though they were lucky enough to have those connections.

Agreed.

They are meeting at the park across from the train station and I know they intend to target the Federal Reserve building. The Facebook page says now that they are voting on all of this at an organizational meeting on Monday and will post more then. Just check out that page when you can. It's just Occupy Detroit and it's an open FB page.

There ARE enough jobs. They just pay lower than a certain person's unemployment does. I work at a staffing company. There are jobs constantly being put out there but people are either not qualified, won't take it because of the pay, or get the job and it doesn't work out for whatever reason.

The "not qualified" is a biggie though. When Quicken Loans had that job fair to fill 500 positions in Detroit, 2500 people showed up. That's not indicative of their being "enough jobs". They were all jobs that required higher education too: finance and IT focused types of jobs. My ex has had a lot more interviews over the past month. *keeping fingers crossed*

And really, not many jobs pay less than unemployment. The max unemployment rate in Michigan comes to about $9 an hour. And there are lots of 99ers out there (exhausted all unemployment benefits) who would take that, but can't get it. My ex has been told outright at places like Walmart that they aren't going to hire an MBA to be a cashier because they know he'd leave as soon as he got something in his field.

Since being unemployed, he has gotten his boiler operator license and his CPA. Now he's working on a Masters in Information Systems, hoping that gets him something. Some companies are saying outright that they will only hire people who are already employed. This is a crazy economy.

So you know more than the economists who have enumerated the number of jobs lost and the paucity of jobs created that cannot decrease the unemployment percentage projecting that the rate will remain high for several more years at this rate. I guess it's all just the fault of the workers.

This. My husband has run into this same attitude.

Also this. Because everyone who is unemployed must automatically be lazy and a horrible employee, right? No one has ever lost a job through no fault of his/her own, right?

:rolleyes:

It can be asinine to take a job that pays lower than your unemployment does. Working such a job makes it more difficult to pursue a career in a person's chosen field because of the time required to actually be present at the job. Generally speaking, jobs paying less than unemployment are minimum wage type jobs. (There's nothing wrong with a minimum wage job, but they are typically not the jobs people have pursued qualifications to get.)

Taking a job that pays less than unemployment makes it even that much more challenging to keep a roof over one's head and food on the table. Do people exist for which unemployment is a pay raise? Perhaps, but I would imagine them to be the exception rather than the rule.

That is why people have more than one resume`/c.v. You market yourself based on the positions.

Why would someone give Walmart a resume` with an MBA on it for a cashier position? Save the MBA for a Walmart corporate position that requires that education level, experience, and has a much higher salary.