Why I take the "occupy" thing seriously

[Conan The Librarian]

I think we should take the occupy protests and riots seriously. It's a symptom of disaffection. Sure, the people who are doing the protesting are generally too unaware to understand what the national problems are, but they are smart enough to realize that there are problems and they are hitting the streets to do something about it. Nevermind that they seem to have the root cause of the problem exactly wrong. Wall Street hasn't changed its culture since it began to exist as a financial center. What has changed is regulation and government interference in markets. It's a trend toward micro-management. It's also a trend away from intelligent regulation. Basically, Wall Street gets most of the regulations they want passed, and the law makers are too stupid to resist.
 
So in many ways, occupy is very much the same as the tea party movement: Poeple are upset.

[blind ear]

The quickest way to bring the current political situation to a head would be to allow the economy to crash. the bankers and politicians won't allow that as long as they can buy it off. The other route is in the upcomeing election. If the Republicans don't offer a real conservative candidate, which they seem to not wish to, The option is to re-elect Obama and force things to get so bad as to cause social turmoil. ear

[magooch]

The least conservative of those who are presently running for President among the Republican hopefulls is a thousand times more conservative than the punk that presently sits in the office, so I don't know what you mean when you say the Republicans don't seem to want to offer a conservative.  And besides all of that, it isn't the party that offers anything; it is up to individuals who want to take a shot at it.
 
I think we already have sufficient social turmoil.  What we really need is a new regime in D.C.

[jlwilliams]

  Occupy should be taken seriously.  You don't have to read much history or many police/corroner's reports to see that those who underestimate what others are capable of do so at their own perril.  These people are angry.  They can be and might be just enough to tip the apple cart and bring us all to a place where we will wish we were back at the point we now think is unfair.
 
  Writing these people off because the privelaged students with the bitch list about not being able to get work with their $80k theater arts degree are the ones you see on the news is a fool's error.

[magooch]

So, are we supposed to give these protesters whatever it is that they want?  I don't think so.  What they need is a good dose of reality.  If we had a real president, or governor, or even a mayor who still had a pair, they would tell them to grow up and quit expecting to have life handed to them.

[Conan The Librarian]

No, they need to fight for what they want, just like the blacks did in the civil rights movement. It got ugly then, but America is better for it as a result.
 
Same thing here. In a lot of ways these people are more purely patriotic than the tea partiers in that they don't mind rioting, civil disobedience, and being persistent. Meanwhile the tea partiers quietly hope for change and wring their hands in their little enclaves. The occupiers are saying a lot of the things that tea partiers are saying, just differently. I don't see how anyone can be sympathetic to the tea party and not be sympathetic to the occupiers.
 
It's a lot like the riots that eventually ended the viet nam war. By the time the rioting started, the country had pretty much had it with the way the war was conducted. It had, by then, become a war for war's sake rather than a firewall against communism. It took idealistic mobs to crystalize the national sentiment.
 
 

[Buckskin]

I completely disagree.  They should be ignored. If you look at the actual numbers of protesters and not how the media is displaying them, you would see that most of them are there for the party/fight, not the agenda.  They are a waste of energy to even acknowledge them.  They have no ideas, no leadership, no nothing... They are the waste of spacer's who bought into the hope and change crap sold to them by ZerObama and are mad because they didn't get enough of a handout.  So let them pout and whine, they will go away eventually just like a bug.

[45-70.gov]

they have  not  occupied  MY property  yet!!


too bad  those   whos property they have  occupied


are  too  stupid  or timid  to deal with  them


should they attempt   to stop  me from ''watering my grass''
i would  see that  as an  attack  and an  atempt to kill or seriously injure me

[BUGEYE]

No, they need to fight for what they want, just like the blacks did in the civil rights movement. It got ugly then, but America is better for it as a result.
 
Same thing here. In a lot of ways these people are more purely patriotic than the tea partiers in that they don't mind rioting, civil disobedience, and being persistent. Meanwhile the tea partiers quietly hope for change and wring their hands in their little enclaves. The occupiers are saying a lot of the things that tea partiers are saying, just differently. I don't see how anyone can be sympathetic to the tea party and not be sympathetic to the occupiers.
 
It's a lot like the riots that eventually ended the viet nam war. By the time the rioting started, the country had pretty much had it with the way the war was conducted. It had, by then, become a war for war's sake rather than a firewall against communism. It took idealistic mobs to crystalize the national sentiment.

Tea party= smaller government, less spending.
occupiers= bigger government, debt forgiveness, spread the wealth, communism etc.

no comparison.......

[Conan The Librarian]

I think those are just symptoms based on point of view. The tea partiers pay the bills are older and have life experience and responsibilities. The occupyers are mostly kids who never had any financial responsibility. Now the kids are finding that they lack opportunities and they blame the banks and the government. They've never had jobs and don't know what working for a living entails, so it seems natural that they would look to paternalistic solutions.
 
The tea partiers aren't that different in that they lack opportunities or see declining opportunities or predict low opportunities for their kids, and they see obstacles related to government regulation and the favoring of big businesses.
 
I'm personally inclined to the tea party, but I think I could have a good conversation with an occupyer, even though we may disagree on many points.

[Old Fart]

This will probably blow a few sock off but here goes. 
 
They kind of remind me of some of the Hippie Factions. 

[BUGEYE]

This will probably blow a few sock off but here goes. 
 
They kind of remind me of some of the Hippie Factions. 

all the ows is BS.  the news media lately in Ga. has interviewed bunches of plant owners and other business types and there are plenty of jobs.  you just have to be willing to work hard.
punks today want their philosophy degree and a cushy job and huge starting salary.
we can't all be philosophers, somebody has to be the cowboy.

************** TRADE SCHOOL ***********************

[Shu]

I was reading an article, one of the protestors under age 25 was whining about a starting job at
9$ an hour and thought it was unfair. 9$ an hour may not be a great wage but it is an entry level position and it's a job. I don't see what the gripe was, of course if you want to start at $100k a year I guess that is a problem.

[oneoldsap]

      Every educational institution in the country is under liberal control . We need to get prayer back into the schools !  Teach citizenship , American history , and real world values . How about teaching the building trades in high school ? I know some do but all should . There are so few young people entering the trades that in one more generation they will all be gone . What are all these computer geeks going to do when they are living in caves again ? What happens when the entire infrastructure of this country collapses due to lack of maintainence ? There is no money available or the skilled labor to perform the work needed to keep the roads open , the trains running , the planes flying ! We are in a bad place and we all contributed , mostly through apathy .  So I guess the first battle should be taking back the schools . Once that's done we can replant the seeds of common sence , values and morality , with some work ethics thrown in to bind things back together . The zenith of our society was the WWII period when we were all in the same harness and working towards a common goal . We will probably never see that kind of unity again , but it's a noble goal none the less .  I taught my son how to work by making him want to , because that's how lifes rewards are attained honestly . My son is a Millionaire at 34 years old , from hard work and inate intelligence . His only degree is from the school of life with a masters in hard knocks !

[flmason]

I was reading an article, one of the protestors under age 25 was whining about a starting job at
9$ an hour and thought it was unfIf air. 9$ an hour may not be a great wage but it is an entry level position and it's a job. I don't see what the gripe was, of course if you want to start at $100k a year I guess that is a problem.

OK, so $9/hr is what $18,000 a year?  What sort of home can you live in, in the USA on that? Where exactly.

This is the problem. If US workers are going to have to compete dollar for dollar against the world labor market, the cost of living here has to come down, or we have to start accepting subsistence level slums as a common occurance. Not that we don't have those now in some places.

 Back in the early 80's when I was young, had my first job at a major employer of any merit, I lived in an area where home prices were generally out of reach. At that time it seemed, home prices rose faster than inflation, and salaries rose slower than inflation. So I wanted to know, "How do you ever catch up, in order to purchase a home?"

Of course we've just seen what happens when the inflation treadmill reverses... or at least the ability to cash out unrealized gains... no money flowing from the bottom up... collapse.

I don't know who's right or wrong, or what the solution is, but this kind of thing has been going on for generations. I find it hard to believe we can't find a solution to making economic life stabile and plannable. Heck, we've split atoms, been to the moon, mapped the genome, sent some junk over to poke around on Mars... What? We can't find a way to allocate resources that makes for a good life everywhere on this one little planet? Sounds like bunk to me.

[DDZ]

I was reading an article, one of the protestors under age 25 was whining about a starting job at
9$ an hour and thought it was unfIf air. 9$ an hour may not be a great wage but it is an entry level position and it's a job. I don't see what the gripe was, of course if you want to start at $100k a year I guess that is a problem.

OK, so $9/hr is what $18,000 a year?  What sort of home can you live in, in the USA on that? Where exactly.

Well I'm sure they could get by on that if they had to. Where are they living with no job? Of coarse they would have to eliminate all the goodies that people think they can't live without. Like a shiny new car, cell phone, computer with internet service, cable service with a big screen tv, etc... People in other countries get by on much less. Not that I'm complaining, but I started a job out of high school making 2.50/hr and got married while making that wage. I was also very happy to have that job. This was 35 years ago, but it was a low income job at that time. People can live on low income. Its just that many think they have to have everything to do so. 
I guess its so much easer to not take a $9 per hour job, go join a local OWS crowd, and bitch about not having a job.

[flmason]

I was reading an article, one of the protestors under age 25 was whining about a starting job at
9$ an hour and thought it was unfIf air. 9$ an hour may not be a great wage but it is an entry level position and it's a job. I don't see what the gripe was, of course if you want to start at $100k a year I guess that is a problem.

OK, so $9/hr is what $18,000 a year?  What sort of home can you live in, in the USA on that? Where exactly.

Well I'm sure they could get by on that if they had to. Where are they living with no job? Of coarse they would have to eliminate all the goodies that people think they can't live without. Like a shiny new car, cell phone, computer with internet service, cable service with a big screen tv, etc... People in other countries get by on much less. Not that I'm complaining, but I started a job out of high school making 2.50/hr and got married while making that wage. I was also very happy to have that job. This was 35 years ago, but it was a low income job at that time. People can live on low income. Its just that many think they have to have everything to do so. 
I guess its so much easer to not take a $9 per hour job, go join a local OWS crowd, and bitch about not having a job.

Well, I see you're missing my point. I'm not particularly on the Occupy or the Tea Bag side. Sure, if all you can get is a $9 job, take it. In the past I made as much as $55/hr. Earlier this year I applied for a $9.75 job. Legitimate work is legitimate work. This isn't about snobbery. It's about equity.

My point is, what in the world kind of standard of living can one really have in the USA anywhere safe for that?

Back when minimum was $2.50/hr. the housing cost to income relationship wasn't so obtuse. (I think my first minimum wage job was around $1.55/hr myself.)  Homes went from being a one income proposition to a two income proposition, so we essentially mortgaged the lives of the ladies away in the interim.

My point is, there's got to be a better way to manage things than a constant treadmill to try and keep up.

Well, I see you're missing my point. I'm not particularly on the Occupy or the Tea Bag side. Sure, if all you can get is a $9 job, take it. In the past I made as much as $55/hr. Earlier this year I applied for a $9.75 job. Legitimate work is legitimate work. This isn't about snobbery. It's about equity.

My point is, what in the world kind of standard of living can one really have in the USA anywhere safe for that?

Back when minimum was $2.50/hr. the housing cost to income relationship wasn't so obtuse. (I think my first minimum wage job was around $1.55/hr myself.)  Homes went from being a one income proposition to a two income proposition, so we essentially mortgaged the lives of the ladies away in the interim.

My point is, there's got to be a better way to manage things than a constant treadmill to try and keep up.
 
 'tween us I spent 12 years on top of a full time job getting a degree to try to jump the class gap. So if you're trying to call me lazy... you try loosing sleep for a decade. Of course that was decades ago. I was younger.
 
 Since then I've seen the continual gutting of our own economic system. NAFTA, GATT, downsizing, offshoring, etc. If I had to mark the day it really accelerated, it was Oct. 19, 1987.  I can still recall the headcount reduction plans being floated in Nov. of the same year.
 
 If I had kids, I'd tell them to get the highest level degree that lets them be an independant professional. E.g. say, Medicine. You can hang your own shingle, or work for "Big Med".
 
 For decades the bar has been being pushed upwards, or perhaps the carrot moved out.
 
 Seems to me life should be about more than being a mouse in a wheel, running until dead, shouldn't it?

Perhaps especially, when the same guys that tanked the economy, still got bailouts and bonuses. And *that's* where any arguments about "personal responsibilty" and "toughing it out" etc. really fall apart.

Do a little research on what the pipeline is into a place like Goldman (Hint: Harvard, Yale, NYU MBA) or CEO-ship (Hint #2: McKinsey or Boston Consulting... that hire from... yup Harvard, Yale, NYU, MBA's...LOL!)... it's very much an insider's club, no? And they are essentially playing poker with everyone else's life.

Now, if you could actually "go off grid" and homestead like in the Westward Expansion or some such, then you might have something, but you can't There's nowhere in the US I'm aware of you can do that today. You'd have to buy the land in the first place, LOL!

[BUGEYE]

trade school costs a fraction of college and their graduates usually end up making very good wages.
all it takes is personal responsibility.
as I grew up, it never occured to me that someone owed me a living.

[flmason]

trade school costs a fraction of college and their graduates usually end up making very good wages.
all it takes is personal responsibility.
as I grew up, it never occured to me that someone owed me a living.

What trades would you say are doing well these days?

[BUGEYE]

trade school costs a fraction of college and their graduates usually end up making very good wages.
all it takes is personal responsibility.
as I grew up, it never occured to me that someone owed me a living.

What trades would you say are doing well these days?

since I have to pay for everything I need done, plumbers are right up there at the top and the local plumbing shops are always looking for journeymen and helpers.
the budweiser plant needs pipefitters, electricians, mechanics etc.
all the big truck shops are begging for diesel mechanics and trailer mechanics.
truck lines need drivers... there's a small town near me that have help wanted on their fast food marquees.  if I were able to work, I'd be employed tomorrow.
also, many of our problems began when we wanted that bigger house, that fancier car, that bigger boat. I have a friend with a bass boat that has more electronics than a WWII destroyer.
back in 93 Delta was talking about furloughs, so I asked my wife if we really needed 2400 sq.ft. for the three of us.  we bought a small house and started banking money instead of giving it to the finance company.
IT'S ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY......

[magooch]

  As I took a walk today, I decided to listen to what is described as a “progressive” talk radio station. The host was commenting on the doings of the local “occupy movement” and attempting to define what it is all about. After a lengthy disjointed monologue on events that have occurred locally and around the country, he summed it up by stating that the movement's intention is to erect a new paradigm and empathic society in which sharing is valued above all else. It sounded to me like he was tying a pretty little bow around communism and I don't think he had any idea what he had just said.


To add clarity to his synopsis, the host made a very specific statement. He said, “Obviously if a relative few have billions of dollars, then there can't be enough for the masses. Now this is where I would normally posit that it makes no difference how much Joe Blow has, it has no affect on me at all. But then I thought about it; it really does have a profound affect on me and that is that maybe Joe Blow will hire me and might even pay me well if I do a good job for him. That's pretty much how things work in my world. I probably won't make it in the new world, because I have no intention of sharing anything with the occupiers.

[BUGEYE]

magooch, you're right of course.
one thing I agree about with the occupiers/oinkers is sharing.  each Christmas we find 2 families to feed and if they have kids we see to it that santa comes.  that's sharing.

but if someone tries to take it from me, I'm ready to fight.  sharing is great but should be voluntary.

[mcwoodduck]

I completely disagree.  They should be ignored. If you look at the actual numbers of protesters and not how the media is displaying them, you would see that most of them are there for the party/fight, not the agenda.  They are a waste of energy to even acknowledge them.  They have no ideas, no leadership, no nothing... They are the waste of spacer's who bought into the hope and change crap sold to them by ZerObama and are mad because they didn't get enough of a handout.  So let them pout and whine, they will go away eventually just like a bug.

You're right we need to ignore them and the thrill of being ther for 90% of them will disappear and so will the crowds.
Unfortunatly we have a media that has an adgenda and is skewing the reporting of these events.
We also have wishy washy elected officials, I find it strange that they will put up with these people, if you look at history the OWS idiots would be the first to put these ellected officials against a wall to catch bullets.
The other 10% are malcontents, communists, anarchists, and I think people sent by Sorros to start up this whole movement and lead them into the violence and turn as many as they can into supporters to start their revolution and tunr the US into a tin pot dictatorship.
 
Listening to the people there, they have parts of the mantra down.  But there are many factions that all have their causes, some with out causes. 
 
 

[flmason]

trade school costs a fraction of college and their graduates usually end up making very good wages.
all it takes is personal responsibility.
as I grew up, it never occured to me that someone owed me a living.

What trades would you say are doing well these days?

since I have to pay for everything I need done, plumbers are right up there at the top and the local plumbing shops are always looking for journeymen and helpers.
the budweiser plant needs pipefitters, electricians, mechanics etc.
all the big truck shops are begging for diesel mechanics and trailer mechanics.
truck lines need drivers... there's a small town near me that have help wanted on their fast food marquees.  if I were able to work, I'd be employed tomorrow.
also, many of our problems began when we wanted that bigger house, that fancier car, that bigger boat. I have a friend with a bass boat that has more electronics than a WWII destroyer.
back in 93 Delta was talking about furloughs, so I asked my wife if we really needed 2400 sq.ft. for the three of us.  we bought a small house and started banking money instead of giving it to the finance company.
IT'S ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY......

I agree it's about personal responsibility. But that's not *all* there is to it. We live in a world where economics is some sort of spaghetti ball, with aspects of gaming going.  For the most part you can't just declare yourself and indepenant being, stake out some property and build a life. At best we're like a sailboat. We can set our rudder and mainsail, but if the conditions get to extreme, you might sink anyway.

I personally have never owned a TV in my adult life, and have no really fancy toys. (Have owned musical instruments instead, generally, but low end stuff.) During the home price runups of the bubble, I didn't by a home... kept asking myself... "how would I ever pay that mortgage?" Yet, I still found myself on the curb post burst. The ripples of the consumer class no longer being able to spend borrowed money fanned throughout.

It's quite possible to be reasonably resonsible and still get slammed by the overarching conditions. If but because most of us work for someone else.

Somewhere along the line, right around the time of Henry Ford, the percentage of people who owned thier own survival and those who work for others began to flip-flop. Now we are largely a nation of at-will workers. As a result we're a bit more influenced by the impacts of other decision makers.

So be it Tea Baggers or Occupy folks or some other perspective, it think there's fair reason to at least question the underpinnings of how things are being run.

Seems to me the goal should be stability and predictibility in things economic. Moving targets suck. But of course without volitility, the poker game in the trading pits can't really take place... but that's a long discussion.

As to the original topic. In all reality I think the Occupy folks are trying to re-live the 60's or something.

In all reality there's process in place if you really have that many people that want change... petition to get a bill on the agenda for the changes you want, form a voting block, heck raise money to lobby. Unfortunatelyt those aren't as fun as reliving protests they saw on TV in some documentary.

[magooch]

The "occupiers" like to make a point about 1% (bad) and 99% (them)--well they need to do the math.  They probably at best represent about .001% and the folks who hold them in disdain are probably the 99%.  Or so it seems to me.

[BUGEYE]

the occupiers WILL get what they want.  they are united. they are not chicken.  and they are backed by the media and big money.
kiss freedom goodby.

[mcwoodduck]

the occupiers WILL get what they want.  they are united. they are not chicken.  and they are backed by the media and big money.
kiss freedom goodby.

No the OWS goobers will NOT get what they want.  They do not have a single demand, if you ask 10 people in the crowd why they are there you will get 12 different answers.  The idea that the top 1% is evil and we should destroy them is a problem when people like Michael Moore show up in support of them and he is one of the 1%.  It is a publicity stunt that actually shows how fractional the left is and what racists, communists, and ancharists they really are.
If you follow their logic and we get rid of the wealth of the top 1% who can afford to buy the stuff, the top 2% that would now be the top 1%, and so on and so on untill  you are the top 1% and of course we need to destroy you.  And once we are all even and only the government has anything and the priviligded party people are the ruling class like the Soviet Union that we all see failed as a workers utopia.  At what point will we have no economy?
After all Capitalism is based on people taking a risk, innovating, and creating
 

[BUGEYE]

mcwoodduck, I agree that they are confused on most points, but the people backing them are using them as pawns to destroy freedom and capitalism and the media and the bankrollers of the movement know exactly what they want.  why else would the democrats be backing them?
the liberals are out to eliminate any conservative opposition.
and they will succeed.

[Old Fart]

I can't help but wonder where we would be if we didn't have the top 1%?
Granted most are probably pretty greedy, but it's that same greed that drives them to be successful.
They tend to be the ones who employ most of us.
 

[jimster]

the occupiers WILL get what they want.  they are united. they are not chicken.  and they are backed by the media and big money.
kiss freedom goodby.

I disagree, they will not get what they want.. ever.  What is it they want?  Money? There is no such thing as wealth redistribution.  Yes the government will confiscate all they can but nobody will see a dime of it, the government will use it to grow themselves, that's just the way it is all over the world, that IS what governments do.  They have their own business going.  I went through this during the Carter years as a young man, there were no jobs, interest rates were through the roof....I worked hard at anything I could find, and found two lousy jobs paid enough so I could save something.  Where would I be now if I just protested in a tent getting arrested for stuff?  So hey, nobody said life was fair or easy all the time, nor was it that way when the first people came here. You get nowhere partying all night and sleeping till noon, and don't try to tell me most of those occupiers don't do that...I KNOW they do. 
 

I can't help but wonder where we would be if we didn't have the top 1%?

At triple the unemployment at least...I think the one percent hire lots of people for lots of things, they spend a lot of time writing out checks.
Bill Gates is not going to write a check to any of those occupiers either...unless they can get hired for something he needs.  Best they figure that out real quick...cause hard work or the lotto or inheritance is the only way your going to make money.  I found working hard paid my way, and was more predictable.
The government does not "create" jobs in the private sector, ever...it can't be done and never will be done.  All other jobs are paid for through the private sector. We have grown government and shrunk the private sector...not too bright.  They can grow itself, and fast.
And the occupiers are nothing like the Tea Party...not one bit.  The Tea Party people I met in this area didn't want a darn thing from the government except for them to shrink and go away. These people WANT SOMETHING from government...and that is very stupid as that's how we got in this mess. Government meddling and corruption.   
As far as taking the occupy thing seriously....yes I do and it would get real serious for them if they come into this area and affect private properties...I too might consider them a danger to myself or my wife or my property....in which case Michigan law kicks in real fast around here.  I guess that probably won't happen, which is good...but sooner or later the cities they are causing troube in will deal with them...and that IS coming, and it won't be pretty.  Any fool can see you can't let people of any kind ruin a city and stop people from day to day business.