Occupy Wall Street

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

My friends had a flyer for Occupy Phoenix last night. I think it's the 15th. We were arguing about what income level makes you the 1%.

It's not as high as I'm sure many protestors think. There are different numbers quoted, but the consensus seems to be in the mid to high $300,000 range ($350,000-$380,000) a year. So a household where you have two wage earners each earning $175,000-$190,000 a year will more or less get you in. Still an incredibly commendable salary, but far from "evil corporate tycoon" status.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I read that it's $353,000 and up.

That's all? It doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Where are the skills? I think we need a reality check in this country. The days of study whatever you want to study because the economy will make room for you and give you your dream job is over.
http://news.yahoo.com/many-u-manufac...211104184.html

Do you seriously not know skilled people who have lost jobs in this economy? Do you truly believe that everyone who is unemployed is just living in HPRL thinking that they are special snowflakes around whom the world revolves?

I'm not saying that there aren't some shiftless, spoiled people who are in this group because clearly, there are those people who are just pitiful. That being said, the majority of people that I have known that have lost jobs and who are struggling to find ANY job are experienced, middle-aged or older professionals that companies have let go.

There is thought in the corporate world that younger employees are simply cheaper to have on the books due to having to pay a lower salary and lower benefit costs. (It costs less to provide health insurance for a worker in his/her 20s than a worker in his/her 40s/50s.) This trend starts a chain reaction. Experienced employee loses his/her job, applies everywhere possible, loses out to younger employee in the hiring process at alternate job, and then gets even older as the job search lengthens. The companies then suffer because they lack bench strength from seasoned employees. There are things that come up in the work world that only time and experience can teach. (This would be why doctors have to intern in hospitals after graduating from medical school - theoretical knowledge only gets a person so far.)

The current economic situation is not so easily cut and dried as you purport with your comment about skills. I believe the broad spectrum of issues is why OWS is having such a difficult time getting its arms around what they're trying to accomplish. There is a wealth of skills and knowledge out there looking for work, not welfare.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Do you seriously not know skilled people who have lost jobs in this economy? Do you truly believe that everyone who is unemployed is just living in HPRL thinking that they are special snowflakes around whom the world revolves?

I don't think this is what PiKA is talking about. I also don't think he's talking about shiftless, spoiled people. There are a lot of skilled, educated, and experienced unemployed people.

But, 99% is a whooooooooooooole lot of people, so:

The average American is under-educated, under-skilled, under-experienced, and lives paycheck-to-paycheck by chance (and in many instances by choice). This is a result of many factors including America's education system; and correlated with social class, gender, and race and ethnicity.

When people talk about this 99%, they need to understand what the average person in that 99% has on her/his resume`. Those who are well skilled, well educated, and highly experienced are the minority of that 99%. This is why people need to be realistic about the types of jobs that this 99% expect to have access to in this global economy. I think that is what PiKA2001 is saying.

************
repetitve vent/

That also speaks to how this Occupy (Someone's) Street movement has way too much going on. There are tons of submovements within this movement. People are pretending that many of those within this 99% are not responsible for some of the conditions that people are complaining about (which can be linked to why anti-capitalists like Marx's working class revolt against the capitalists never happened). For instance, if people want to complain about gender and race discrimination in the workplace, the top 1% are not the only ones to blame for that. People want to say "we're marching around the nice houses of those who make more money than we do...but we're not mad at you all, we're mad at the owners of your companies." In that case...get the hell away from my neighborhood and stalk those owners of our companies.

I just see so much irony and hypocrisy in this 99% movement. As I told my colleague who gave me a flyer for our city's "occupy," I don't mind "occupying" something but I'm not going to silently pretend that this 99% has been a united front across race, gender, social class, and other demographics and dynamics. They may prefer I stay my ass at home that week. LOL.

/repetitve vent

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

When people talk about this 99%, they need to understand what the average person in that 99% has on her/his resume`. Those who are well skilled, well educated, and highly experienced are the minority of that 99%. This is why people need to be realistic about the types of jobs that this 99% expect to have access to in this global economy. I think that is what PiKA2001 is saying.

I agree completely. I think that's why there is a sense of "get real" frustration against many opponents of Occupy _____________ (Occupy Palo Alto just started yesterday, it's getting absurd). Silver spoon or not, to maintain a spot in the top 1% you need to have an incredible balance of experience, skills and education. Even those (athletes, celebrities, etc) who don't necessarily have the education part down clearly have some irreplaceable qualities they have worked for that adds value to their resume. So when the average member of the 99% asks, "Why not me?" the answer is pretty simple: "Because you can't do it and haven't earned it."

Now I think where the problem lies is that 99% of the population is an outrageously broad spectrum, and there is no one "reason" for the fact that they "can't do it and haven't earned it". Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they partied too hard in college (if they even made it that far), didn't take school seriously, refuse to think about long term goals, don't have the willpower or determination to develop a skill over a long period of time, are entitled, etc. Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they spent their adolescence supporting their struggling family, or because obstacle after obstacle was thrown at them due to whatever factor (poverty, race, physical disability, mental health problems, failing school system, language barriers). And then still there are those who are harder to define...those who had enough obstacles thrown at them to feel sympathy for, but still made choices that would drastically affect their ability to overcome them. Do you sympathize, chastise, or both?

There is a definite "one size fits all" viewpoint being used on either side of the issue...some denounce all those in the 99% as being stupid, lazy, unrealistic, etc. Some seem to be advocating that everybody in the 99% is a great person who just fell upon hard circumstances and therefore they have no responsibility for where they are now. The truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle. There is no "aggregate" reason for the inequality because it is going to differ so much from one person in the 99% to the next.

I think unemployed skilled people are the minority of the 99% as well. Their situations are beyond tragic, but I don't think their plight is really what these protests are about.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

I agree completely. I think that's why there is a sense of "get real" frustration against many opponents of Occupy _____________ (Occupy Palo Alto just started yesterday, it's getting absurd). Silver spoon or not, to maintain a spot in the top 1% you need to have an incredible balance of experience, skills and education. Even those (athletes, celebrities, etc) who don't necessarily have the education part down clearly have some irreplaceable qualities they have worked for that adds value to their resume. So when the average member of the 99% asks, "Why not me?" the answer is pretty simple: "Because you can't do it and haven't earned it."

Now I think where the problem lies is that 99% of the population is an outrageously broad spectrum, and there is no one "reason" for the fact that they "can't do it and haven't earned it". Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they partied too hard in college (if they even made it that far), didn't take school seriously, refuse to think about long term goals, don't have the willpower or determination to develop a skill over a long period of time, are entitled, etc. Some people don't have the skills necessary to get them to the top 1% because they spent their adolescence supporting their struggling family, or because obstacle after obstacle was thrown at them due to whatever factor (poverty, race, physical disability, mental health problems, failing school system, language barriers). And then still there are those who are harder to define...those who had enough obstacles thrown at them to feel sympathy for, but still made choices that would drastically affect their ability to overcome them. Do you sympathize, chastise, or both?

There is a definite "one size fits all" viewpoint being used on either side of the issue...some denounce all those in the 99% as being stupid, lazy, unrealistic, etc. Some seem to be advocating that everybody in the 99% is a great person who just fell upon hard circumstances and therefore they have no responsibility for where they are now. The truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle. There is no "aggregate" reason for the inequality because it is going to differ so much from one person in the 99% to the next.

I think unemployed skilled people are the minority of the 99% as well. Their situations are beyond tragic, but I don't think their plight is really what these protests are about.

I agree.

That is one reason why it is so difficult to make structural and institutional changes that will have individual-level impact. We know that discussing patterns and making generalized statements is never intended to apply to 100% of cases. Many people seem to understand that when discussing things that impact and/or are attributed to 99% of America but can't seem to grasp that when discussing the 1%.

[KSig RC]

The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?

With that said, I won't occupy shit - the only portion that carries weight with me is the notion of unequal/lack of opportunity in the United States. In fact, the best-rewarded "skills" appear to be "born rich" and "born white" (in that order), closely followed by "born male."

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?

So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".

[*winter*]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Where are the skills? I think we need a reality check in this country. The days of study whatever you want to study because the economy will make room for you and give you your dream job is over.
http://news.yahoo.com/many-u-manufac...211104184.html

Wait...is it just me, or did we already discuss this subject on this thread? I agree- people need to go where the money is, so to speak.


The point I was making is, just because an agency has "jobs" to offer does not mean there are jobs abounding everywhere. Around here, the temp agencies are just that- temps. 90% of the jobs are not permanent. Like now, you could get into any warehouse/shipping job around here for the holidays (provided you have experience) but as of 1/1/2012 you'll be laid off again.

There really aren't a ton of jobs, so today's HS and college students, and job-career changers need to keep this in mind, moreso than in the past. There are always lists of professions most in demand, that's where people need to be concentrating. If I got laid off tomorrow, I would be taking that route, personally. I'm not trying to spend 2 more years in school to get out and not have a job.

The rules have changed. I think people should be grateful that for most, the American Dream is still achievable. They days of absolutely living your dream, buying a house for several hundred thousand dollars, driving a brand-new car and getting granite countertops are over. Remember what it's all about- living a better life, a comfortable life, the lives our ancestors dreamed of when they struggled through world wars, depression, factory jobs, immigrat housing. I don't think the change in values is bad- it's time to get back to basics and off of this absurd idea that the next generation has to blow away the past one to the point that we're in Mc Mansions and ultra-giant SUVs.

I know that is not ALL of what it's about, and I still think that there aren't enough jobs...but thinking with that logic I can understand why the movement would annoy people or come across as whiny. You are inherently privledged in order to be so disenfranchised in the first plac: "Oh I went to college and now I can't get a job." Hm, in many cities over 50% of the students graduate from HIGH SCHOOL...The soldier who has been to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple times and now has severe PTSD and cannot function in a classroom setting because of his issues will not be able to attend college. It's all relative. Many of those protesting are, as my mom would say, "crying with a loaf of bread under their arm."

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".

The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...

You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.

However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.

Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?

You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...

You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.

However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.

Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?

You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.

What about the other 2999900 in the top 1% though?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

OK, this explains the disconnect - I wasn't saying those "top 50 or 100" lacked skills at all, or that they are there because something was 'given' to them. I said they all had broadly or roughly similar skill sets (which you acknowledge yourself), and that the list completely lacked other, important skill sets that are often found in the smartest individuals in the world (who generally make lots of money, but not the "FU money" of the titans of industry).

Anyway, you make my entire point for me - if the skills are comparable to Nobel winners (which I'd say that, in terms of uniqueness and ability, is largely correct), then there's something endemic to the system that doesn't allow Nobel winners onto the list. Many scientists have "irreplaceable skills" as well, and aren't in the 1% at all. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, so it's bad language.

Also, don't lay "capitalism" out as an argument - it's reductionist at best, since government interference in the marketplace is one of the key issues for both sides here (and I think both sides are wrong, for whatever that's worth).

My argument was in 2 parts, which you have needlessly conflated. I'm not claiming the top 50 Americans got there by heredity. I AM claiming a large number of the top 3,000,000 (1%) Americans had advantages to get where they are. Many worked hard, too - the "lazy millionaire heiress" is not my target here.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The average American is under-educated, under-skilled, under-experienced, and lives paycheck-to-paycheck by chance (and in many instances by choice). This is a result of many factors including America's education system; and correlated with social class, gender, and race and ethnicity.

What do you consider "under-educated and under-skilled?" I'm not being a smart-ass--I just wonder if I'm in some sort of bubble.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

What do you consider "under-educated and under-skilled?" I'm not being a smart-ass--I just wonder if I'm in some sort of bubble.

DP can correct me if I'm wrong, but national stats show that under 40% of Americans have a degree, and trade/vocational school entrance rates have stagnated or declined recently as well. The largest portion of the workforce is in unskilled/service/blue-collar jobs as well.

It's not a stretch to say the 50th percentile American has no degree or trade skills, and little to no job experience in a "skilled" profession (or anything other than unskilled/service jobs).