WMN: t3_2xt2zu_t1_cp42wa9

[TITLE]

CMV: The Occupy Movement Was Stupid and Protesters Had No Idea What They Actually Wanted

[devin27]

I don't understand what people are protesting about when they get all riled up about the 1% vs. the 99% Disclaimer: I'm from Canada where I don't believe the issue of wealth disparity is as bad as the states, yet there was still a large occupy movement here. According to a recent survey, a significant majority of millionaires (in Canada anyway) are self made, and many are immigrants. ([Link](http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/13/most-canadian-millionaires-are-self-made-and-almost-half-are-immigrants-poll-shows/)) How did the Occupy movement plan to redistribute wealth? I don't think you can become part of the 1% unless you start your own business, or make it to the very senior levels of a large corporation. What were Occupy people suggesting? Should we tax business owners more? Higher corporate tax rates? IMO taxing small/medium businesses more is a terrible idea because [Small/Medium businesses create the vast majority of new jobs](http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/02806.html). This would act as a severe deterrent for people going out on their own. Corporations are always moving operations to tax havens where conditions are favourable so that doesn't seem like a plausible idea to improve average wealth either. Is the idea to improve average wealth or just for rich people to have less money? Basically my point is: if you want more money it's there to be made. You need to create something (product or service) that people are willing to pay you for. Technology is removing barriers from the little guy and start-up companies are routinely displacing well-established industries. Why should we reward someone with low ambition by redistributing a significant portion of someone else's wealth towards "levelling the playing field." I truly believe many of the barriers that used to exist in society (Family wealth, Societal class, Education investment) are being slowly but surely broken down. From my personal experience in the workforce, the only thing holding most people back from earning more is themselves. People who work hard and are relatively intelligent are rewarded. I'm not saying lets not have a safety net for those who are less fortunate (I'm a proponent of welfare and a decent minimum wage) but let's not punish ambition. We need those people to create the companies the 99% will work for (and in the case of Canada earn a pretty solid standard of living even for entry level jobs). **Note: OK maybe the title was a bit sensational, IMO the protesters had a vague notion of what they wanted, but no good/concrete ideas** Edit: Formatting and note _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[ThaddeusRoss]

[STA-CITE]>IMO the protesters had a vague notion of what they wanted, but no good/concrete ideas [END-CITE]You could apply the same criticism to a lot of aspects of democracy. I'd say a sizable chunk of voters don't have concrete actionable plans about what they want when they vote, they just know they want their interests heard and represented, somehow.

[devin27]

Oh absolutely, don't get me started on that. Personally I think there should be a test to determine you're actually up to speed on the issues or you're not allowed to vote. A sizeable chunk of voters are swayed by ridiculous attack ads and so concerned with the character or religious background of the politician they are voting for (as opposed to their policies). This is why campaigns cost so much money because it's all spent in swaying people through attack ads or kissing babies. Realistically in the internet age you should be able to publish all of your policies online and I can review them for myself, and maybe ask questions online and have them upvoted or downvoted and the most popular ones are answered. There's no need for your TV commercials slandering your opponent. Politics make me want to hurl....

[chaz345]

I won't say the movement as a whole had no idea what they wanted, but here in PDX, a large percentage of them had no clue what they were protesting. Common sense, to me, dictates that if you are passionate enough about something to protest, that you should probably be able to fairly clearly articulate your position. Not the case here, with a lot of protestors, Occupy or other ones.

[Kareem_Jordan]

With every movement, people will come in and try to make it all about themselves. Something people overlook is that wealth was already being redistributed; taxpayer money was used to help banks that fucked up, and was eventually used to pay bonuses to people responsible for the fuckups. Whether you're a liberal concerned for the poor or a conservative against taxes, or a libertarian against handouts, that's something you should be against.

[devin27]

I'm from Canada and our banks didn't need any bailouts... I think the biggest takeaway for me is that the Canadian occupy movement was the stupidest of all and we were just looking to fit in and join the party :)

[dsws2]

It's not that we had no concrete ideas. It's that we had many different ideas, and few if any that we all agreed on. One of the main issues was the lack of effective regulation of the financial sector. That's what led to the Great Recession and TARP, in the view of many, probably most, Occupy protesters. But regulating financial institutions is complicated and highly technical, so of course people had different ideas. And of course many of the ideas were utterly unworkable. But it was "how" that was problematic, not "what". If I remember right, Canada's financial institutions didn't collapse, or have to be bailed out. They were regulated to begin with, unlike those in New York and London.

[headless_bourgeoisie]

[STA-CITE]>Basically my point is: if you want more money it's there to be made. [END-CITE]It's not, though. When Occupy started unemployment was quite high. That means there simply weren't enough jobs to go around. Also, most of the jobs that were created after occupy were low paying jobs that aren't really going to help anyone anyway. It's pretty fucking hard to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you're living paycheck to paycheck. People who work at McDonalds usually have to work at another job because thr pay is so bad. How is someone working two jobs going to have time to go to school and better themselves?

[devin27]

I dunno what it's like in every different state but in Canada if you're working 40 hr a week on minimum wage you can support yourself. You probably can't support yourself and a family, but that's a choice you made to have a child when you weren't ready. Forty hours a week at mcds can pay the rent and bills and leave you time to study... You won't be living in luxury but short term pain for long term gain.

[mikdavi84]

Occupys original purpose was actually co-opted by groups who decided to use it as a platform for various social changes. Look at the ridiculous progressive stack system implemented: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs Or the "human mic" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S7YtfahaGc These were not present in the early protests, they were brought in by various SJWs to promote their own agendas. They eventually drowned out any comprehensive message due to the fact that the human mic makes for good news footage and the stack ensures that there is always an undercurrent of rivalry and animosity at meetings which guarantees that nothing gets done. The occupy movement BECAME stupid. The protesters wanted different things. There was a lack of cohesion present due to outside influences. So while you're not wrong, per se, your view is relatively narrow in context to what it could have been.

[devin27]

Fair point that it became stupid and didn't start that way. The highlight of stupidity for me came when people started donating food and items for shelter to mostly middle class kids who had actual homes to return to but chose not to. There's something wrong with that picture.

[mikdavi84]

Thats kind of stupid, but at the same time you can't really blame them for setting up camps and staying put. Thats part of protesting and while its inconvenient and annoying, its understandable. Dumb people exist in protests. The interesting parallels between the Tea Party and Occupy are that they were both co-opted by the dumbasses and turned from relatively apolitical organizations (who can really argue against things like "Taxed Enough Already" and "Hey maybe we should stop bailing these motherfuckers out and letting them influence the government so much?") into far-right and far-left jokes.

[lapone1]

I wish that Occupy would have been more like the Tea Party in that the Tea Party turned out the vote. We would be in a different place today had Occupy been more political.

[jumpup]

alright so you a portion of the protesters did know what they wanted but economic reforms are boring tv idiots with signs are not what you don't realize is the immense gap, no job exists that can pay what the 1% has, hell you can win the lottery and still only have a small portion of the 1 % you see money is power and with power comes responsibility, now the problem isn't that they have it its the way they use it,

[FockSmulder]

You're not exactly making it easy on readers.

[devin27]

Exactly, no job exists that can pay what the 1% has, except if you create your own company (or become a VP/CEO of a large multinational). Creating your own company is an option that is available to everyone, all you have to do is have an idea and tolerance for risk. Creating your own company provides a chance of becoming part of the 1%, but there's also a chance that it won't succeed.

[Scheals]

Creating a company is not only having an idea and tolerance for risk. You need capital for that. Poor people aren't able to create a company without very good circumstances.

[BMTH1995]

Eh, cue Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerburg...I could probably go on for a while, but most of the 1% didn't come from immensely rich families.

[BlackHumor]

Gates, Jobs and Zuckerberg were all from middle class or upper-middle class families, though. They weren't in the 1% but they did have enough money to have received a proper education, go to college, etc. Both Gates and Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard to start their companies, for example. Furthermore, even if you do create your own company you need to be intensely lucky to become wealthy because of it. A much more certain way to become wealthy is to inherit money, which is why [three members of the Walton family are all in the top ten richest people in the world](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family), and three others are also billionaires. But let me point out a different problem with your logic. Even if all of the 1% earned their wealth, so what? If wealth is accumulating in the hands of a few it still causes lots and lots of people at the bottom to suffer because of poverty no matter how the wealthy got their money. If all the new wealth in the economy is going to wealthy people it means that the poor people at the bottom are still suffering in exchange for people who didn't need that money getting it. If that wealth was instead spread out more evenly, the poor would suffer less in exchange for the wealthy not losing much actual value. If you earn $440k instead of $450k a year, that's not a huge difference in quality of life, but if you earn $10k instead of $0k, that's really big. That's the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on the street.

[BMTH1995]

Wealth is not a zero-sum system. There isn't a finite piece of pie, just make more pie. Of the 1% earned it, then yea they deserve it. If you want a free ride just because you were born then go live in Europe or some other failing socialist economy.

[BlackHumor]

In general, European economies are quite healthy, particularly the most socialist ones, like Sweden and Norway. Canada is also very similar to the US culturally except more socialist and it's doing fine. And I agree wealth is not zero-sum. I'm saying that as wealth comes into the system it tends to go to the wealthy when it would do more good going to the poor.

[devin27]

True but Canada the system is largely the same except our healthcare is free and University is subsidized heavily by taxes. Our corporate tax rate is actually lower, but our personal tax rate is higher. Also Norway is an interesting example mostly because they accumulated a lot of wealth from natural gas reserves but instead of spending like drunken sailors the government tucked the money away for a rainy day. They also have a relatively homogeneous society that is predominantly ethnically Norwegian.

[FightForDemocracyNow]

Okay two of the three you mentioned were Harvard students. Zuckerman and gates went to private high schools and came from well off families. All three of them have exceptional intelligence that 99% of the population don't possess. You chose really bad examples.

[BMTH1995]

[STA-CITE]>Okay two of the three you mentioned were Harvard students. Zuckerman and gates went to private high schools and came from well off families. All three of them have exceptional intelligence that 99% of the population don't possess. You chose really bad examples. [END-CITE]Harvard is free if you can't afford it. Well off and rich are two different things. And now we need to say that it's not fair some people are more intelligent? Give me a break.

[FightForDemocracyNow]

The difference between well off and poor is a much bigger difference than the difference between well off and rich, when it comes to social mobility.

[devin27]

[STA-CITE]> And now we need to say that it's not fair some people are more intelligent? Give me a break. [END-CITE]*Slow clap, raises glass*

[FightForDemocracyNow]

You were suggesting that it's very possible to make it to success from nothing, and used 3 individuals that had been very endowed from the start of their life as examples. I'm not saying it's not fair, just that most people don't have the ability to do what those individuals accomplished. Even if Harvard was free for everyone, I'd argue that those that come from well to do families are more likely to end up attending. Without a stable supportive family it's very easy to lose track of academics and be distracted by a number of things (malnutirion, domestic violence, getting a job out of nessesety, lack of parental mentorship) Now I'm not saying at all that poor parents won't do as good of a job of raising a kid as well off parents as that definitly not true in many situations. However, I still think the odds are greatly stacked in the favor a student from a well off family than a poor family to reach that kind of success. And please, stop misconstruing peoples statements.

[devin27]

[STA-CITE]> I'd argue that those that come from well to do families are more likely to end up attending. [END-CITE]Nobody is debating this point, and I am in complete agreement. The odds are stacked against you as a poor person and you have obstacles people from well-to-do families don't encounter. BUT the obstacles are lower than they have been at any point in history as far as I can tell. Also, there are many other factors at play besides being born in a poorer environment. People who are taller tend to make more on average. There's racial issues at play, language issues, cultural issues, different personality types (introvert vs. extrovert). Life's not fair, it never will be. You play with the cards you are dealt and try to make the best of it. You can either whine about the system and hope some corrupt politicians will do something about it, or learn how the system works and carve out the life for yourself you want.

[Ds14]

You articulated that very well. I think the fact that it's significantly harder for some people to achieve things they *need*, much less, things they *want* is pretty fucked up. But that's how it's always been- it's even that way with animals and in a weird sense, chemical reactions and physical reactions with no thought processes. I'm aware of all this I'm against complete socialism, but in a country like the US I think it'd be nice to support social programs that keep the bottom floor high enough that it's not completely awful while evening the playing field for those who show an initiative (e.g., health insurance discounts for fat people who lose x pounds a year, some sort of subsidized housing in better neighborhoods for households in shitty neighborhoods whose children make x GPA, etc)

[devin27]

Exactly! Trust fund kids are more likely to piss their money away since they've never had to work to get what they wanted. That wealth will likely only last a couple generations until they piss it away. Why would someone work to become a billionaire if they already had 100 million from dad/mom?

[devin27]

Depending on the company you might be able to start it without raising capital. Anybody can become a consultant with very little capital. Anybody can create an app and if you start to get a large user base you'll be able to raise capital fairly easy. I'm not saying this capital barrier doesn't exist, because it does. In Canada anyway, there are measures in place to reduce this barrier (Small business grants, government R&D funding support, tax credits, etc.) I don't know what more we would want the government to do?

[FightForDemocracyNow]

No not "everyone" can do make an app or become a consultant. Many don't have the intelligence, the free time, or the freedom to take those risks.

[devin27]

Life isn't fair not everyone is born with intelligence, there should be a safety net for those less fortunate but the smartest people can better figure out how to manipulate their surroundings to achieve their goals. As for free time everyone makes choices with their time, you have the freedom to spend it however you want.

[FightForDemocracyNow]

No a huge amount of people have NO free time. They have to take care of parents, siblings, children, debt...

[devin27]

Which is why there should be a safety net for people who have no way out and tragic circumstances, but no employer is going to pay these people if they have no marketable skills. They should have their basic needs provided for (food, shelter, transportation, etc.) but you can't expect to live in luxury if you have to be a full time caretaker.

[natha105]

1% is only about 400K a year. Absolutely achievable for doctors and lawyers who work their assess off. Really though having wealth is about wanting wealth and being financially literate. The typical person doesn't want wealth they want what wealth can purchase. Thats why if you give the typical person a winning lottery ticket they will have lost it all within a few years. Your typical person wants a yacht, and lobster dinners at five star restaurants and a diamond encrusted bentley. I know a lot of people who make 100K a year (without being smart, lucky, or born rich) who are also great savers and have built up a legitimate fortune by the time they retire. Sure if you want to be a 100 millionaire or a billionaire you are out of luck as a typical person, but real riches are accessable to anyone so long as they arn't just doing it so they can spend it all on an orgy of luxury goods.

[devin27]

Exactly, I'm at an entry level position after graduating from University and I can basically afford ANYTHING I want. I can't have everything I wan't all at the same time, but anything is within my grasp if I saved for it. Personally, I'm really into travel and I can afford to literally go anywhere in the world. I can't spend the whole year travelling the world, but I can easily save enough for an epic vacation per year, along with some smaller side trips. If instead of travelling I wanted a porsche, I could save up and buy one in a couple years (or they would probably be more than happy to extend me credit lol) but this does not interest me at all.

[FightForDemocracyNow]

The thing is that in the past wages went further. As the value of the dollar has decreased wages for most haven't kept pase(while growth in executive pay has been far outpacing those at the bottom). On the other hand inflation benifits assett holders(the rich). The federal reserve has kept interest rates near zero, giving member banks almost free capitol to invest and giving them all the liquidity they need. (Basically free money printed out of thin air by the fed). So the banks are making huge profit. As the banks grow larger they gain even more power over the political system. Also in the crash of 08 some major financial institutional collapsed or combined with one another, furthering the centralization of power. So those at the top are getting exponentially richer(and more politically powerful) while those at the bottom are falling further behind.

[devin27]

Not going to argue with the power issue, your political system is messed up.... How is the campaign 8 months and how are corporations allowed to donate so much money?! It shouldn't take 8 billion dollars to run for president, and a two party system is just ludicrous. See if that was the message behind occupy I could for sure get behind that. Our political system is not without its problems but any time I'm feeling down about our politicians I just take a look down south and realize its not so bad.

[tattlestation]

The Occupy movement was obviously very decentralized. You criticize them for having no clear solutions; different sects had different solutions to their uniting plank of wealth inequality. It's like the Tea Party, the only belief that unites 100% of that movement is that they are Taxed Enough Already. The Occupy movement wanted lower wealth inequality. It's not stupid to believe lower wealth inequality is a good idea. You mentioned that you need to create something to get ahead; [STA-CITE]> You need to create something (product or service) that people are willing to pay you for. [END-CITE]Well, [productivity is at an all time high](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png/450px-Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png). Workers are creating more wealth than ever before. During the 50s and 60s, a period associated with great affluence, work compensation rewarded productivity. Ever since the late 70s however, when neoliberal policies grew to dominate, compensation has stagnated, except for the top 5-1%. Wealth inequality is not an absolute or ethical issue. When the difference amounts to buying a house for your family, affording a brand new car, or just being able to put food on the table without working 70 hours a week, versus an executive's ability to add another row of Rolexes to his watch box, I think it's evident that something needs to be done.

[tropical_chancer]

[STA-CITE]> Basically my point is: if you want more money it's there to be made. [END-CITE]Maybe you should've paid more attention to the Occupy Movement because part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there *isn't* money to be made for the average or poor citizen. When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. This is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy). You're basically arguing for the bootstraps mentality; that all you have to do is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps' and success and riches will await you. But this have been proven to be a false ideal over and over again. Since we're sharing personal experiences; I've worked in many places in my life, and the hardest working people I ever saw was the women who cleaned the hotel rooms I worked at. These were women who showed up at work at 6:30 in the morning to get ready to clean hot hotel rooms all morning and afternoon. It was physically demanding (and sometimes degrading) work, and they worked their asses off in hot hotel always and laundry rooms. Pushed around huge heavy carts. And then had to make sure their rooms looked "perfect" and always be friendly and polite with sometimes rude guests. Now, I also used to work at a financial management company. Most of the top people at this place made $100,000's, yet they were some of the laziest people I've ever seen. One (who made close to $900,000) would sit at his desk for half the day stalking people on Facebook and reading about football. I never saw any actual "hard work" from any of them. They all just clicked away on the computer all day moving other people's money from account to account so it looked like they were making them money. What was the biggest difference between the hotel housekeepers? It certainly wasn't how "hard" they worked, it was their backgrounds and the opportunities they had in life. Virtually all the housekeepers were Black women from poor/working class backgrounds who lived in a poor part of the city. The partners at the wealth management company all come from solidly middle to upper class backgrounds. They all went to elite colleges (back in 60's-80's when it was rarer to go to college). The guy who I mentioned earlier had a father who owned a bank and gave him a job there when he graduated college. The ironic thing about your argument is that for your "bootstraps" argument to even remotely work there needs to be more wealth equality. Wealth inequality breeds social immobility. When people are having trouble funding their basic needs or stuck working 40 hours a week in a low paying job just to get by, they aren't going to be thinking about inventing the "next big thing." A few might do it, but the vast majority will not. In truth things like family wealth, class mobility, and educational investment are falling, or at least stubbornly not rising. We need money to flow through the economy and not into the personal coffers of a small group of people. Money is opportunity, so when it take it away from poor/working class people and give it to people who already have way more than they actually need there is going to be this huge imbalance we're seeing today.

[HealthcareEconomist3]

[STA-CITE]> Maybe you should've paid more attention to the Occupy Movement because part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen. When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. This is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy). [END-CITE]In one paragraph you have suitably described both why OWS and the population in general should be ignored when it comes to economics and why its terrifying that they actually have the ability to vote for people who support the same positions they do. [STA-CITE]> there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen [END-CITE]This is called the zero-sum fallacy. Wealth & income are not zero-sum, there is not a fixed amount of income or wealth in the world with people getting pieces of the pie but rather the amount of income/wealth at any point in time is a function of how much income/wealth all actors have. You can devolve this by considering the amount of wealth and income today is a great deal higher then it has been in the past, how would this be the case with zero-sum? [STA-CITE]> This is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy). [END-CITE]Money in banks is not hoarded. What do you think happens with money that is deposited?

[tropical_chancer]

When companies can increase their profits by paying their employees less, that's one actor (the employee) getting less while the other actor (owner, shareholder, etc) gets more. If a company makes 1 billion dollars in revenue in year and can get away with paying their employees $400 million (instead of $500 million, $600 million etc.) that's one actor getting more, while another gets less. Wal-Mart is a prime example of this; pay employees as little as we can so we can increase profits (which largely benefit already rich people) Not to mention the relatively low tax burden that many companies enjoy means that they get more while the government gets less. And like I said in my post, I used to work at a wealth management company, so I know *exactly* what happens to rich people's unneeded money.

[dsws2]

[STA-CITE]> This is called the zero-sum fallacy. [END-CITE]No it isn't. It doesn't even remotely resemble it. Zero-sum means that for someone to gain, someone else has to lose.

[chaz345]

[STA-CITE]>Zero-sum means that for someone to gain, someone else has to lose [END-CITE]And in this case, it's a zero sum argument because they said that because the wealthy are gaining more, there's nothing left for the others to make.

[dsws2]

Except that that bears no resemblance to their actual statement, i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs. Poor people make a little more money if they work hard than if they don't, and rich people make a lot more money if poor people work hard than if they don't. That's not zero-sum, but it is unjust.

[chaz345]

[STA-CITE]> i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs. [END-CITE]The actual statement was that because one person holds a lucrative job that means that someone else can't. Or because one person makes lots of money, there's less for someone else to earn. That's a zero sum argument plain and simple. From the original comment being responded to: [STA-CITE]>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is *less* wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]I added the less in italics because it's clear that the original author inadvertantly left it out. But that's a zero sum argument in almost it's purest form.

[dsws2]

[STA-CITE]> From the original comment being responded to: > >>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is less wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]As I said below, one out of three. The statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen" can just as readily be interpreted as saying that the main problem with wealth inequality isn't the inequality per se, but the lack of lucrative jobs for most people. You don't have to believe in a complete zero-sum economy to recognize that some aspects of the economy are rivalrous. Of course, it's not just jobs. Given the stock of real wealth that exists at any moment, it really is zero-sum that whatever someone owns, everyone else doesn't. And people make lots of money by already owning stuff, not only by directly receiving interest and dividends but also by having collateral to borrow when they want to start a business, and by being able to make speculative financial investments if they have any information that's of value to the financial markets. You can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy.

[chaz345]

[STA-CITE]> The statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen" [END-CITE]That statement by itself I would agree means what you say it does. But in context with the one I quoted, really seems more to be zero sum thinking. That every dollar that a rich person has is less that's available for other people. [STA-CITE]>You can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy. [END-CITE]But that income that comes from already owning stuff has zero negative impact on anyone else's ability to make money. In fact, given that we're talking about investments, it actually helps in that it's providing capital for businesses to expand or start.

[HealthcareEconomist3]

[STA-CITE]> because part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen [END-CITE]This is zero-sum. [STA-CITE]> When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]Thats zero-sum. [STA-CITE]> This is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy). [END-CITE]This is also zero-sum.

[dsws2]

Ok, this one actually is, sort of. [STA-CITE]>When you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else. [END-CITE]Still, one out of three ain't good.

[tropical_chancer]

When companies can increase their profits by paying their employees less, that's one actor (the employee) getting less while the other actor (owner, shareholder, etc) gets more. If a company makes 1 billion dollars in revenue in year and can get away with paying their employees $400 million (instead of $500 million, $600 million etc.) that's one actor getting more, while another gets less. Wal-Mart is a prime example of this; pay employees as little as we can so we can increase profits (which largely benefit already rich people) Not to mention the relatively low tax burden that many companies enjoy means that they get more while the government gets less. And like I said in my post, I used to work at a wealth management company, so I know *exactly* what happens to rich people's unneeded money.

[HealthcareEconomist3]

[STA-CITE]> When companies can increase their profits by paying their employees less, that's one actor (the employee) getting less while the other actor (owner, shareholder, etc) gets more. [END-CITE]That's not zero-sum. How is it that you think wages are established, companies just pick a number or is it set by the S/D of skills? Also wages are downwards nominally rigid so this doesn't happen. [STA-CITE]> If a company makes 1 billion dollars in revenue in year and can get away with paying their employees $400 million (instead of $500 million, $600 million etc.) that's one actor getting more, while another gets less. [END-CITE]No its not, the value of that labor was $400m not $500m. If I try to sell a car which I was hoping to get $5k for but the best offer I receive is $4k does that mean I have lost $1k? [STA-CITE]> Not to mention the relatively low tax burden that many companies enjoy means that they get more while the government gets less. [END-CITE]The tax incidence of corporate taxes is predominantly on labor and distortionary and compliance costs are in excess of revenue. [STA-CITE]> And like I said in my post, I used to work at a wealth management company, so I know exactly what happens to rich people's unneeded money. [END-CITE]Making coffee, doing something with their computers or something similar I'm sure. Would you like to play credentials at 10 paces? I will win.

[tropical_chancer]

So if I try to buy a car (whose BB value is $5K) from you and you ask $5k for it, and I actually have $5K but I try to get it from you for $4K, haven't you lost out on some of the value of the car? What if I offer you $3K and you're selling the car because you have no job and need to pay rent next month and I'm the only person to have shown interest in the car? Then what do you do? One of the biggest fallacies of today is how people act like economics is some kind of "hard" infallible science. Don't play dumb and act like wages these days in the US are set by the "market." Companies have been on a downward spiral in wages for decades now. Companies like Wal-Mart try to get away with paying as little as they can to their lowly employees because they can and because it increases their profits. Less money for their employees, more money for them! Part of what OWS wanted to do was add that human element to economic thinking. That there are real people's lives behind all that Keynesian bullshit. People know that the system we have now not working for many people.

[chaz345]

[STA-CITE]> but I try to get it from you for $4K, haven't you lost out on some of the value of the car? [END-CITE]No because the actual value is whatever someone is willing to pay. The BB "value" is theoretical, what you are offered is the only real value though.

[HealthcareEconomist3]

[STA-CITE]> So if I try to buy a car (whose BB value is $5K) from you and you ask $5k for it, and I actually have $5K but I try to get it from you for $4K, haven't you lost out on some of the value of the car? What if I offer you $3K and you're selling the car because you have no job and need to pay rent next month and I'm the only person to have shown interest in the car? [END-CITE]In a hypothetical monopsony (which realistically would not occur, there will always be more then a single buyer in the auto market) then the market price for the car is whatever you agree, there are no other sales to baseline. [STA-CITE]> One of the biggest fallacies of today is how people act like economics is some kind of "hard" infallible science. [END-CITE]Its a hard science, its as infallible as the other hard sciences. On the issue of s/d and money not being zero-sum you are disputing two parts that are unequivocally not wrong though. [STA-CITE]> Don't play dumb and act like wages these days in the US are set by the "market." [END-CITE]uh, why does a physician earn more then a dish washer? [STA-CITE]> Part of what OWS wanted to do was add that human element to economic thinking. That there are real people's lives behind all that Keynesian bullshit. People know that the system we have now not working for many people. [END-CITE]You have no idea what the system is or how it works. There are indeed many problems, OWS did not discuss any of the problems nor proposed any solutions.

[devin27]

What makes you, as a group of employees entitled to 500 million of that 1 billion instead of 400 million?? This is what I hate about collective bargaining, it's basically WE WANT MORE OF THE PIE. In your example, if you are an individual salesperson who brings in 1 million of that 1 billion dollar pie, you can demand probably up to ~700k from your company. Looking at groups of employees as a collective is a useless exercise. ~25% of the employees I have worked with in my career weren't worth the electricity used to power their computers to their company. If as an individual employee you either a) bring in a bunch of money through sales or marketing or b) save the company a bunch of money through process improvements or technological advancements, you can earn a significant portion of said bunch of money. It is in the company's best interest to pay you the money, or you will save/make money for another corporation. If, on the other hand you provide little no value, why should they pay you more money? Because they have lots?? Edit: Grammar

[tropical_chancer]

[STA-CITE]> What makes you, as a group of employees entitled to 500 million of that 1 billion instead of 400 million?? [END-CITE]Because you (as a group of employees) created that 1 billion dollars. Aren't you entitled to what you help create? Without the employees, there would be no 1 billion dollars; there would be zero dollars. People want more of the pie because they're the ones the toiled away to make the pie. Wal-mart would go out of business pretty quick without it's hourly employees. Shelves wouldn't get stocked, people couldn't check out, the bathrooms wouldn't be cleaned, etc. In wage labour, you're basically getting stiffed for your hard work. Wage labour actually dissuades people from hard work because no matter how hard they work, the the full fruits of a wage labourer's hard work will go to someone else (and not themselves). In my example what is the incentive for the employees to work harder if no matter how much they work they'll only get $400 million. Why try to create $1.1 billion when I'll still be getting $400 million?

[Palidane7]

And where do you think Walmart would be without the Waltons, huh? Who do you think is more integral to Walmart's continued existence, the CEO, or the guy who stocks the shelves? Protip: The guy who gets paid more, because he is worth more. Basic economics.

[devin27]

lol! Without the Waltons Wal-Mart would have unionised ages ago and every day low prices would become "pay extra for our stuff because we need you to contribute to our union executives salaries, legal defence for our terrible employees who have been fired, and covering the generous sick leave of our employees."

[devin27]

You're ignoring a few things: 1. Shareholders assume all the risk of default. If the company goes bankrupt, the employees lose nothing (except jobs) shareholders lose all of their investment. 2. Employees may not have been able to accomplish what they did without investment by the shareholders. This is why companies go public, for a large cash investment in exchange for ownership of the firm. 3. Some of that 1 billion will be paid out in the form of dividends in exchange for the risk they take. Otherwise, why would you risk your money on such an investment? Another part of that 1 billion will be plowed back into the firm in the form of retained earnings to finance future projects (see: create new jobs either directly or indirectly). This is much cheaper than borrowing from a bank, or from issuing new shares. It's basically free investment in the future of the company. The employees won't have jobs for long if the company doesn't invest in its future. 4. In regards to your last point, it doesn't make sense if you look at it from an individual point of view. From my personal experience, if you work diligently there is incentive in the form of promotions, and building your network which will help you earn further promotions. It's not as simple as: "If I work super hard I'll get more money TODAY." But if you work really hard you increase your odds of a promotion and leave a positive impression on managers and co-workers, who will look to you some day down the road when they are looking to fill a position. 5. If you, as a corporation are really stiffing your employees who TRULY are the sole reason for your 1 billion dollar fortune, they will go to a competitor who would gladly pay 500 million to earn said 1 billion. This process will continue until the employees earn a fair wage. The only thing preventing this is if groups of companies get together and collude, which does happen in practice - especially in industries with few competitors, but that is a separate issue. 6. The problem with your wal-mart analogy is it's not true. The problem in those types of positions is that there is literally zero requirements for the job in terms of previous experience, anyone can do it. Wal-mart probably gets more applications for these positions than they know what to do with. If an employee quits, their spot is easily filled by someone else who is willing to do the same job for the same pay.

[devin27]

[STA-CITE]> When people are having trouble funding their basic needs or stuck working 40 hours a week in a low paying job just to get by, they aren't going to be thinking about inventing the "next big thing." A few might do it, but the vast majority will not. [END-CITE]My point is they CAN do it. Yes, you are disadvantaged if you come from a lower class environment. BUT it is possible to overcome this barrier, in fact it is very possible. Knowledge is free to anyone who wants to look for it on the internet. You can get a degree online without leaving your home, working at your own pace. Is the system perfect? No.... but this is literally the best time to be alive if you are poor because there is a clear path out. It's harder than it is for middle class/wealthy people no doubt, but when was anyone under the impression that life was fair? I'm not sure it will get much better in the future either given the exponential population growth and dwindling resources of the planet. People need to stop making excuses and go out and grab the life they want...

[FightForDemocracyNow]

population growth is not exponential, its predicted to cap off around 12 trillion. And our resources will not dwindle we have basically unlimited energy from the sun that can be captured by ever more efficient solar panels. As the efficency of energy technology increases desalination will be feasible and clean water will not be a concern. Whatever minerals we run out of can be mined from asteroids.

[devin27]

I sincerely hope you are right I have little faith that we can break our dependence on fossil fuels any time soon, not for lack of technological advancement but collective will to change.

[tropical_chancer]

What exactly is the "clear path out?" And what exactly "can they do?" (become rich?)

[devin27]

Educate yourself. Learn to code or learn another valuable skill. Identify markets that are being under-served. Create a product/service to serve said market and market it. OR if you'd prefer less risk, take out a student loan or save up for a few years and go to community college/college/learn a trade. Build your network, volunteer in organizations in your desired industry to build connections. Basically, you either need to A) Create a product/service that people are willing to pay you for (it provides them more value than cost.) or B) Learn a skill that will create more value for a company than it will cost. Demonstrate this value by networking or taking an unpaid internship.

[tropical_chancer]

This sounds a lot like another CMV from a couple weeks ago where someone argued that just educating yourself and doing freelance work will help so poverty, so I'll post some of my response to him here: 1. Not everyone will be able to develop those skills. To develop those computer skills you mentioned you already need to be familiar and comfortable with using a computer. Do you really think someone will be able to go from barely being able to check their email to learning a programming language from "just a few hours a week?" There already needs to be a knowledge base for many of these skills that some minimum wage workers will just not have. I used to teach computer classes through a community program and many of students were working minimum wage jobs, and we would literally spend hours just learning how to so simple things on a computer like checking email or using a word processing program. 2. Self-teachings materials are often expensive, how is a person working minimum wage going to afford them? You mention "just spending several hours a week in the library," but libraries aren't open 24/7. Are the library hours convenient to someone's work schedule? Some libraries put limits on how long patrons can use computers and require people to schedule computer time. And many library computers aren't in good working order. When I had to use my local library for internet access, I was only allowed one hour at a time and the computer was so slow/buggy it made doing anything slow and unpleasant. 3. Employers/clients often don't value "self-taught." If you needed something translated in Chinese who would you trust more, a guy who says he "taught himself Chinese" or a guy with a BA Chinese from UC Berkeley? 4. Just because you've taught yourself something doesn't mean you'll be particularly good at it. 5. This could potentially flood the market with "self-taught" freelancers. This would lead to a reduction of wages, as more and more people compete for the jobs that are available. Are there really enough freelance jobs for the millions of people making minimum wage or slightly higher? I think not. The last one is important, I don't think you realize the huge number of poor/working class people. There is in no way the market for 100,00's (or millions in the case of the US) of people to be creating new "products/services." There also has to be consumers for those services and products, which just isn't the case. You're also not factoring in things like discrimination, or access to things like networking or unpaid internships. There are large societal barriers to overcome. Class divisions are firmly entrenched and exist purposefully. Is a 50 year old poor female Jamaican immigrant going to fit in at a computer networking conference? I don't think so. Do you think some companies might pass her over because they think she might not be a good "culture fit" for a company that is made up of mostly white/Asian young to middle aged men? Or what about a homeless man? Do you think companies are going to rushing to give him a job because he says he has taught himself coding. I used to live in the SF Bay Area and saw a few iterations of the "teach poor/homeless to code" mindset, and they were massively unsuccessful. There were just too many barriers to actually making the people learning how to code viable employees. It wasn't just about "learning how to code," that was the easy part. It was also about being sure these people had places to sleep for the night, making sure their health issues were being attended to, finding companies that would hire these people, etc. So in sum, your formula just isn't reasonable for the 100,000's of poor and working class people. The issue isn't just skills or education, it's societal barriers that limit poor and working class people's opportunities. It not just skills and education, but many other things as well.

[devin27]

Responses: 1. Not everyone will be able to develop skills, true. Life's not fair, it never will be. Intelligent / Ambitious people have an inherent advantage over others. I didn't say it would take "a few hours a week." It. Takes. Hard. Work. It takes sacrificing other things in life that everyone else gets to enjoy. My point is not that it's easy to overcome poverty and that anyone can do it. My point is that it is possible for anyone of average / above average intelligence who is willing to put in the work, which is a pretty amazing thing when you think about it. Has there been a time in history where it has been this possible? 2. If you know where to look (which involves educating yourself on where to look) self-teaching materials are free. 3. You're right they don't on paper, which is where networking comes into play. For example if you have learned to code, there are plenty of meetups where you can meet with other developers to learn about new topics, etc. The idea is that someone will eventually see your talent and take a chance on you. Most of the job market is not publicly advertised (except for lateral moves) the 'Hidden' job market is where a lot of the good paying jobs are. 4. If you're not good at something why should I pay you for it? Again I'll qualify this by saying there SHOULD be a safety net and I'm a proponent of welfare. 5. So what you're saying is we shouldn't "flood the market" with people who are poor to protect those who are rich and already have high wages? Does this not contradict everything you've been arguing about? Wouldn't that be one way to reduce inequality? Or you just want to take from the super rich not the just kind of rich/middle class? So it's okay to take from billionaires because screw them but if anyone wants to take my money as a middle class person to redistribute it that's appalling... Homeless issue: Lot's of issues going on there including mental health issues and drug addiction, not going to touch that one. Racism/Discrimination: Is very prevalent and fair point, but if that is the issue why are we not talking about that instead of trying to take money from rich people? Also these issues don't permeate only amongst the "elite" but more relevantly among low level managers who make these types of hiring decisions (see: average, middle-class people).

[headless_bourgeoisie]

[STA-CITE]>Knowledge is free to anyone who wants to look for it on the internet. [END-CITE]Wow. You're joking, right?

[devin27]

You're joking right? I can find a copy of almost any textbook for free online. Code academy offers free courses in programming. Programming doesn't discriminate, you can code or you can't. The amount of free knowledge is staggering...

[headless_bourgeoisie]

Are internet connections free in Canada or something?

[devin27]

They are in Starbucks or Tim Horton's lol... And you can buy a used laptop for $100

[tr3morz]

I sounds like you know exactly what OWS was for and you just don't agree with the message. Your CMV should be on wealth distribution.

[devin27]

If you read through the comments I already gave a delta to someone who said "the protests were about bringing prominence to the issue, rather than identifying specific solutions." That's the best answer I've heard yet, also I didn't know they were focused on the TARP at the beginning.

[Jope-Ga]

I was at the Chicago protest. It was about the Tarp bailouts and how tax payers shouldn't be paying for corporate mistakes on Wall Street. [Maybe you didn't realize that the US government gave over 400 billion to private companies so they wouldn't go bankrupt....](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program). It later had a lot of smaller movements that added to it. The mainstream press took advantage of this and kept saying no one knew what it was about. All you had to do was open up a web browser and open the web pages dedicated to each major protest location and it had all the information you needed about the protests. This included protest times, meeting notes, and financial information as the protests were pretty well organized and [some of them made enough money to do more than stand in the streets outside of banking institutions](http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/11/09/occupy-oakland-protesters-deposit-funds-at-wells-fargo-after-bank-attacks/). After a long drawn out protest and a cold winter the protest broke up and a lot of people moved on. The occupy groups that wanted to keep protesting moved into more specific areas to continue working on issues of social inequality and more. [Occupy Sandy](http://occupysandy.net/) is a good example of what one Occupy group did after the main protests were over.

[devin27]

Makes sense, though I'm from Canada and our banks were completely fine during the crisis and required no bailouts. Legitimate question: what would have happened to customers deposits if the banks in the U.S. hadn't been bailed out? I know in Canada we have the CDIC (Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation) which insures deposits of up to 100k. Is there something similar in the U.S. or would all of those banks customers lose money?

[Jope-Ga]

We have something called the [FDIC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation). After the banking crisis there were some changes made to it and the new limit is now $250k. Prior to 2008 it was $100k like Canada.

[FightForDemocracyNow]

Our deposits are also insured by the fdic. But according to the press, if the bailouts didn't happen it would have created a domino effect where all the financial institutions would havr gone bankrupt. So everyones stock portfolio would have Been wiped out almost completly. The previous poster said the congress did a 400 billion bailout, that's inaccurate tarp was 700 billion and the Fed(federal reserve) did over 4 trillion in loans(quantitive easing), printed out of thin air and paid for by the wage earners by the tax of inflation.

[Jope-Ga]

[STA-CITE]> if the bailouts didn't happen it would have created a domino effect where all the financial institutions would havr gone bankrupt [END-CITE]The problem I have with this statement is that those same institutions sold toxic assets in the form of [mortgage backed securities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security) and they broke them up in a way so they could maximize profit off of people who bought houses with no income. These same institutions knew there was only a short term gain and didn't care about the outcome for the investors buying them. The USA should of did what [Iceland did and throw these swindlers in jail for playing games with our financial system](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_financial_crisis). Instead they took billions of dollars from the tax payers, gave nothing back in return, and spent a lot of the money on paying huge salaries to their CEO's. They made money generating toxic assets then they profited from the failure of those assets. This entire scenario was theft pure and simple and there's no reason we should accept some BS answer about how everything will go to hell if we don't give in and send them more money.

[devin27]

Quantitative easing worked though no? I've read articles saying your unemployment is at like near record lows? Have these policies not worked in recovering from the financial crisis? Other countries seem to be taking a page out of the feds book with the quantitative easing.

[mizz_kittay]

Obviously the OWS protesters knew exactly what they wanted and made that perfectly clear to you, which is why you were able to list out the things they wanted and express your disdain for those things. Your entire post here addresses income disparity so you're absolutely aware that that's what the OWS protesters were upset about. The body of your post negates your headline. You DO know what they wanted.

[devin27]

Sorry, maybe I should change the title to that I know VAGUELY what they wanted. What they lacked IMO (and what I'm trying to find out here) is what they specifically had in mind. Whenever I've asked anyone to elaborate further they don't have a legitimate argument to make, except that rich people are too rich and that's wrong.

[man2010]

I can't speak for what they were promoting in Canada as some of it was undoubtedly different than the U.S., but in the U.S. they were advocating for things like more affordable higher education, standardized healthcare, better protection from predatory loan practices by major banks, higher corporate taxes on big businesses, fewer tax loopholes/subsidies for big businesses, etc. The movement itself wasn't terribly organized which is why different cities had different things that they were pushing for and why the movement ultimately fell apart, but the movement itself did have some ideas. Also, the Occupy Movement brought a ton of attention to the increasing wealth gap between the rich and everyone else which is still a major topic of discussion today. So while the movement itself may not have successfully pushed through any specific policies, it did contribute to the amount of attention that income inequality now receives.

[devin27]

Yeah I definitely think you guys have crazy healthcare and education costs and that needs to be addressed. Healthcare is free here and University is expensive but nowhere near as expensive as the U.S.

[man2010]

Sure, but the point is that these were a few of the ideas that were presented by the Occupy Movement in the U.S. to address the overall issue of income inequality. I'm not all too familiar with the Occupy Movement in Canada, but the overall message from the movement was that income inequality is something that needs to be addressed, and even though the movement itself didn't push any specific national policies through to address this, it did bring this issue to the forefront of national politics. They wanted inequality to be addressed, so the fact that it is still a major issue is an accomplishment by the Occupy Movement.

[devin27]

Definitely, I gave a delta to someone who already brought up this point about just bringing prominence to the issue. While I still disagree with the overall premise of the movement, understanding that protests aren't always intended to accomplish anything specific but to bring them to light is a key takeaway for me from this CMV.

[mizz_kittay]

Because the system of inequality is caused by hundreds are factors spread throughout our society - from taxes to education to job opportunities to investment opportunities to corporate tax breaks to campaign donations to super PACS..... there is no one solution that could possibly solve all of these things in one fell swoop. And a massive group of protesting citizens isn't the right group to come up with actual tangible solutions anyway - that's what our elected officials are for. The act of protesting merely tells your elected officials what you want them to focus on. It tells them that we're not okay with the status quo.

[bgaesop]

[STA-CITE]>there is no one solution that could possibly solve all of these things in one fell swoop. [END-CITE]Guaranteed Basic Income? That's what I was calling for when I was with OWS

[devin27]

∆ for you! I had never considered protesting in that light (that you're not suggesting specific ideas but expressing discontent with the status quo, and asking politicians to deal with it)! While I still disagree with the overall premise of the protests that actually makes a lot of sense and will help me put in context other protests.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mizz_kittay. [^mizz_kittay's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/mizz_kittay) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)