Occupy Wall Street

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=6040.msg228465#msg228465 date=1319645962]
[quote author=k0ala link=topic=6040.msg228460#msg228460 date=1319642614]
[quote author=spm201 link=topic=6040.msg228424#msg228424 date=1319604669]
Can someone help me understand the movement better? To me this sounds like people complaining because other people are richer than them but I feel like it sounds that way because I'm missing something. Politicians corrupt = definitely yes, but what beef specifically do they have against the 1%?

You like graphs? I like graphs. Here's some graphs explaining how fucked we are.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall...1-10/?op=1[/quote]
[/quote]

1% of the country controls 40% of the wealth.
so what? Wealth is not a finite pie. The 1% are not taking any money away from you.

I said "control". Wow, I didn't say they were taking money from me. I don't know where you got that.

Big media is owned by the biggest companies, so it's a big problem getting the word out.
Sony owns CBS, Disney owns ABC, GE owns NBC. Fox News started out as a channel to get "The GOP point of view" in a newslike setting.
you'd be more successful getting your word out to the local affiliates who have much more leeway on what they broadcast

so they're just under the control of LOCAL fat cats because they have a smaller overhead budget and more beholden to continued local advertising which could be withheld if the businesses don't like the local channel anymore

Michael Bloomberg was worth over $10 billion BEFORE he ran for mayor of New York.
and despite the R next to his name he's a huge liberal.

I don't know what that word means. It sounds like you're telling me I should be cheering him on because you say he's on my side.

Every time the student loan ceilings go up, universities raise their fees and tuitions by exactly that amount.
I'm with you on this. It's artificial demand that was created. If you eliminate government student loans, tuition rates would plummet due to the drastically reduced demand.

No, then universities would go back to being something that only rich people could afford, everyone else gets to suffer a lifetime of bluecollar jobs.
Government assistance to help regular people study at universities was put in place for a reason.

fuck the police commin straight from the underground.
...
Buy a gun so the only thing dispatch has to send is a hearse

What is this chest beating shit from you? I don't think cops are the enemy; I think it's pretty sick how all of a sudden walking on a sidewalk can be declared illegal and then the beatings start. But that what it's like to be homeless/minority/anything cops don't like, there are a lot of white people just now realizing that cops are assholes with guns.
[/quote]

some of my answers were a little more tongue in cheek than others obviously.

As far as higher education is concerned, it's a bubble caused by easy credit. Just like the housing bubble. Government getting involved to help "poor" people has made it damn near unaffordable for anybody.

[Versus]

hey what's up guys, 1% here. keep sending your uninsured children to underfunded schools on crumbling roads while you watch fox news at home from 9-5. please continue being complacent while i become proportionally ever richer than the average person. thanks!

[Bonesinger]

hey what's up guys, 1% here. keep sending your uninsured children to underfunded schools on crumbling roads while you watch fox news at home from 9-5. please continue being complacent while i become proportionally ever richer than the average person. thanks!

Hey James, buy me Battle Field 3. peace

[cbre88x]

[quote author=versus link=topic=6040.msg228487#msg228487 date=1319657006]
hey what's up guys, 1% here. keep sending your uninsured children to underfunded schools on crumbling roads while you watch fox news at home from 9-5. please continue being complacent while i become proportionally ever richer than the average person. thanks!

Hey James, buy me Battle Field 3. peace
[/quote]

[backfire]

[quote author=Bonesinger link=topic=6040.msg228489#msg228489 date=1319658895]
[quote author=versus link=topic=6040.msg228487#msg228487 date=1319657006]
hey what's up guys, 1% here. keep sending your uninsured children to underfunded schools on crumbling roads while you watch fox news at home from 9-5. please continue being complacent while i become proportionally ever richer than the average person. thanks!

Hey James, buy me Battle Field 3. peace
[/quote]
[/quote]

[rumsfald]

Can someone help me understand the movement better? To me this sounds like people complaining because other people are richer than them but I feel like it sounds that way because I'm missing something. Politicians corrupt = definitely yes, but what beef specifically do they have against the 1%?

Firstly, if you want to conceptualize the #OWS movement in terms of pro/con policy positions, there is no-one to help you understand the movement better, because it isn't about that. A film-studies major you might have noticed the second reply in this thread was not a joke and not sarcastic. Some people are mad-as-hell about the status quo and want to change it. Unlike the Tea Party, #OWS has not been co-opted by astroturf. Yet.

For a more high-minded overview, I suggest some of the writings that Douglass Rushkoff has made on the movement. I don't suggest that you follow any mainstream-media TV coverage (or most web coverage outside of op-eds) as #ows is a post-news phenomenon. For example, most news reports from last night's altercation in Oakland took a typical He-Said/She-Said format in the vein of: protestors said this is what happened but the police said they were attacked, didn't use flashbangs (they did), didn't use rubber bullets (they did), etc. When everyone with a cellphone is a firsthand reporter, you have a multitude of viewpoints on an event, not just those published by big companies with deadlines and a competing interest in attracting viewers.

[quote author=k0ala link=topic=6040.msg228460#msg228460 date=1319642614]
1% of the country controls 40% of the wealth.

so what? Wealth is not a finite pie. The 1% are not taking any money away from you.[/quote]

Actually, I am of the opinion that the 1% have taken money. Let's revisit my post from earlier in the thread.

Discuss the interactive effects of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act on the Glass–Steagall Act, how the free market responded, and how that relates to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted during the Great Depression in order to better regulate the banks. It was pretty fucking great legislation, too, as not only did it help re-install faith in the banks (via FDIC, that little sticker you used to see on the windows of old-school banks) and played a role to lift my awesome-ass country the USA out of the Great Depression, it also established fair and STABLE financial rules that helped underpin the financial success of the USA for 50 some years.

But, starting in 1980 (thanks Reagan), they started removing some of the teeth from Glass-Steagall. And started allowing banks to merge. Then, the big whopper came with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act (thanks republican congressmen who sponsored the bill and Clinton who signed it). To quote wiki, "the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits." In common language, that separation helped prevent CONFLICT of INTEREST.

Before GLB, mortage companies, insurance companies, and stock-brokerage companies all had to be separate. After GLB, a mega-bank (hi, Citigroup, hi, Bank of America) could use the funds paid to them for banking or mortgages to fund stock bets. Or BETTER, create stock-bets about which loans would and would-not default. CREDIT DEFAULT SWAPS, YAY!

Wait, your question was how "they" "them bankers" took money from "us." Hmm, let's see


(source: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/1...one-elses/)

So, while we have supposedly been in a depression since the first term of GWB, the salaries of bankers has continued to climb, yet everyone else stays stable.

So, fine. Bankers are smart guys, hur hur, they deserve to make more money than poor old me. I will grant you that ONCE.

But it was only three short years ago when the bubble crashed that the banks (AIG, hello there, Lehman Brothers, too big to what?) came crawling to Washington for help. And they got 700 BILLION in bailout money. Now they have our money TWICE, still pay their CEOs enormous salaries (for context, St. Jobs only made $1 in salary, and he made products people actually LIKE), and now want to create new fees for the old and established service of using your debit card.

Still, I am of the opinion that people can vote with their feet, and take their money out of Bank of America or other crappy bank and put their savings in more customer friendly institutions. And on November 5th, a lot of people are encouraging people to vote with their wallet just like that. I like that, very free-market, very democratic. What's the problem now?

The problem lies in the troublesome case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which states, to quote the wiki: "a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions." So now, those with the money have more power to make the rules than ever before, and as history shows will use that power to shape the rules in their favor.

TLR - Wall Street bankers (hi citibank+travellers insurace merger) paid off politicians in 1999 to roll-back a 50 year old banking regulation, used that money during the 2000s to get way richer when everyone else tred water, caused the housing bubble, burst it, and now can use that excess bankroll (plus the TARP funds) to exert unlimited influence in elections. Common, bright people, with no other recourse within the system, take to the streets to exercise their freedom to assemble.

Bonus, you might not remember, but Phil Gramm, one of the legislators that caused all of this mess, in 2008 said we "had become a nation of whiners" in a "mental recession."
This is one long mental recession.

[Badgerman of DOOM]

I'd also like to note wealth is, in fact, a finite pie at any one point in time.

[Vlambo]

I plan to go as the 1% for Halloween.

[Vandamguy]

wall of awesome

+1.
thanks for taking the time to write that up Rummerstein (clever jew joke)

[ZargonX]

I plan to go as the 1% for Halloween.

I was thinking the same because, well, monocles.

[Dtrain323i]

Giant Wall o text

Ok, you go over a lot here so I'll respond to it as best I can. I'll start with the points that I agree with you on.

The Bailouts:

But it was only three short years ago when the bubble crashed that the banks (AIG, hello there, Lehman Brothers, too big to what?) came crawling to Washington for help. And they got 700 BILLION in bailout money. Now they have our money TWICE, still pay their CEOs enormous salaries (for context, St. Jobs only made $1 in salary, and he made products people actually LIKE), and now want to create new fees for the old and established service of using your debit card.

The bailouts (TARP etc.) should have never happened. In a true capitalist society, GM/Chrysler/AIG/Lehman/Fannie/Freddie/Goldman/etc. should have failed and either restructured through bankruptcy or gone under entirely with their remains being bought up by others. Much like what happens when any other business goes under. I lay the blame entirely at the feet of Congress for that. I blame George W Bush for signing it originally and I blame Barack Obama for continuing it.

Still, I am of the opinion that people can vote with their feet, and take their money out of Bank of America or other crappy bank and put their savings in more customer friendly institutions. And on November 5th, a lot of people are encouraging people to vote with their wallet just like that. I like that, very free-market, very democratic. What's the problem now?

I love the Bank Transfer Day idea. I've been thinking about switching to a credit union myself as a matter of fact. This movement combined with the debit card fees are just the excuses I need. It's a very free market answer to discontent with the big banks.


Now lets move to the points I don't entirely agree on. Starting with Glass Steagall

The Glass-Steagall Act was enacted during the Great Depression in order to better regulate the banks. It was pretty fucking great legislation, too, as not only did it help re-install faith in the banks (via FDIC, that little sticker you used to see on the windows of old-school banks) and played a role to lift my awesome-ass country the USA out of the Great Depression, it also established fair and STABLE financial rules that helped underpin the financial success of the USA for 50 some years.

Glass Steagall did not do anything to ensure our financial success in the 20th century. It was the fact that the United States was essentially the only game in town when it came to manufacturing after World War 2 that was the true driver of our success. Europe was a crater, Russia was enjoying their time as a Stalinist dictatorship, and China was enjoying their own internal struggles.

Then in the early 90's we signed this wonderful little treaty known as NAFTA was signed. This made it very easy for US manufacturers to use cheaper labor in Mexico to produce their products since there was no longer a tariff to import those products. This also had the effect of completely fucking over Mexican farmers since it was cheaper to buy American corn vs. Mexican corn.

Now why did all that happen? Well it's all supply and demand. Once NAFTA was signed, the labor market wasn't just confined to the US, it encompassed the US, Mexico, and Canada. The supply of labor rises, and the price of labor (wages) falls.

This leads me into the graph on salaries. I don't find that graph to be particularly helpful since it's comparing the securities industry, a single traditionally lucrative industry, to every other industry available. It's comparing a stock broker in one of the worlds main financial centers to a cab driver or a school teacher. The demand for financial jobs is higher in NYC thus their wages are much higher. I'm willing to bet a stock broker here in Omaha, Nebraska doesn't make as much as a similar job in NYC.


Next you assert that there is only a finite pie of wealth:

Actually, I am of the opinion that the 1% have taken money. Let's revisit my post from earlier in the thread.

I'll give you an analogy that to show that wealth can be created.

Lets say you happen across a village of 500 farmers. These 500 farmers produce 5000 bushels of corn per year. Now you come up with an invention (it can be GM seeds, a new farming implement or process) that will double their harvest every year. So instead of 5000 bushels of corn, they're producing 10000 bushels of corn for the same amount of labor on the same amount of land. Your price for this invention is a 5% stake in what they make.

You have effectively created wealth, you're richer for coming up with your idea and now the farmers are richer since they are producing more. This gets even easier with our system of fiat currency since wealth is quite literally created out of thin air every day via the stock market.



As far as Citizens United and corporate personhood in general is concerned, it's a double edged sword. If you take that concept away you're going to run into many unintended consequences. Namely liability issues. If a corporation does not exist as a legal entity just like a person then there is nobody to sue when that corporation does something wrong. That is the whole point of an LLC, the corporate "person" takes on the liability vs. the owner. If you take that protection away then you'll see a lot of business owners essentially take their ball and go home since the personal risk will become too great.

[k0ala]

We're not here to topple capitalism, but to save it from the cronies.

[Dtrain323i]

We're not here to topple capitalism, but to save it from the bronies.

I kid I kid.

I support capitalism, I oppose crony capitalism.

[ZargonX]

Lets say you happen across a village of 500 farmers. These 500 farmers produce 5000 bushels of corn per year. Now you come up with an invention (it can be GM seeds, a new farming implement or process) that will double their harvest every year. So instead of 5000 bushels of corn, they're producing 10000 bushels of corn for the same amount of labor on the same amount of land. Your price for this invention is a 5% stake in what they make.

You have effectively created wealth, you're richer for coming up with your idea and now the farmers are richer since they are producing more. This gets even easier with our system of fiat currency since wealth is quite literally created out of thin air every day via the stock market.

Your example ignores the free market, though; just because you can generate 10000 bushels instead of 5000 bushels doesn't mean you can sell them all. If anything, you might actually decrease the value of your corn because you flood the market. And if you do, while you might make more on volume, you might be putting another, smaller village out of business. In that case, you haven't generated wealth, you have simply transfered a larger piece of the pie to yourself at the cost of someone else.

[Surf314]

Next you assert that there is only a finite pie of wealth:

Actually, I am of the opinion that the 1% have taken money. Let's revisit my post from earlier in the thread.

I'll give you an analogy that to show that wealth can be created.

Lets say you happen across a village of 500 farmers. These 500 farmers produce 5000 bushels of corn per year. Now you come up with an invention (it can be GM seeds, a new farming implement or process) that will double their harvest every year. So instead of 5000 bushels of corn, they're producing 10000 bushels of corn for the same amount of labor on the same amount of land. Your price for this invention is a 5% stake in what they make.

You have effectively created wealth, you're richer for coming up with your idea and now the farmers are richer since they are producing more. This gets even easier with our system of fiat currency since wealth is quite literally created out of thin air every day via the stock market.



As far as Citizens United and corporate personhood in general is concerned, it's a double edged sword. If you take that concept away you're going to run into many unintended consequences. Namely liability issues. If a corporation does not exist as a legal entity just like a person then there is nobody to sue when that corporation does something wrong. That is the whole point of an LLC, the corporate "person" takes on the liability vs. the owner. If you take that protection away then you'll see a lot of business owners essentially take their ball and go home since the personal risk will become too great.

Sorry but the numbers do not support any of this line of argument and I'm tired of hearing it.

People at the top have been earning consistently more while most US wages are stagnant:


I ask you what added value are these CEOs bringing to deserve this gigantic growth in salary? Before you answer that I'd like to remind you of Enron, WorldCom, Oracle, etc.

Again average hourly wages haven't really increased when adjusted for inflation:


Your idea that we are so great at allowing hard working poor people to become rich also doesn't stand up to the facts because social mobility as at an all time low:


And here is I think the most telling graph, most american workers are not being compensated much for increases in their productivity:


So taking into account that fact and the fact that the new patent laws give patents to the first to file now and your example does not seem likely to turn out the way you think it will. Reagan proposed this trickle down theory that is still touted by most die hard Republicans and is the basis behind your arguments, but I have yet to see any evidence in support of it. If there is any correlation between tax cuts and unemployment it is a negative one.

But if you don't want numbers try common sense. Money makes money better than any "idea" or industriousness of the individual. Some will get lucky, but these are considered by most to be outliers or black swan events. So if you have money you can easily make money. Money also buys political influence. With this influence you can make it easier for you to make money. So wealth tends to flow up to the top, not to the bottom. No matter how skilled or smart you are you can't fight that trend, you can pretend like you can join the top as soon as you reach "x" life goals, but without the contacts and financial backing most kids born to wealthy parents have you are unlikely to get there.

The other trend I will point out is that at a certain level, the ability of the average rich and influential person to make the big windfall gains that come with the big name recognition and accolades they have come to crave decreases over time. Take Enron for example, they had some ground-breaking and industry changing ideas. But after they got all the value out of them they had to keep coming up with new and better ideas. They ended up with some pretty dumb ones because of this (trading weather). So the temptation to do things society frowns on starts creeping in. Enron created artificial energy shortages in California and routed power out of the state to sell it back to them at a substantial premium. They also used accounting tricks to hide losses and report gains that were never realized. Magnetar found a way to create risky securities that they could bet against and "make more out of a flop than a hit" (like The Producers). Oracle officers and directors got accused of insider trading and they were able to sweep it under the rug with charitable contributions and other things. They kept playing up the value of their company, and unloading their own stock, while knowing that they were going to come way under their quarterly forecast. I can make a much bigger list if you want.

tl;dr - It's not about envy or any other petty thing you want to pin on it. It's about a real fear that the trends of wealth flowing to the top, wealth gains caused by increased productivity and technology flowing to the top, power flowing to the top, and the tendency for those at the top to not be geniuses that increase the welfare and standard of living for all Americans, but to instead be egocentric and possibly psychopathic individuals that will be just as likely to cheat money out of the system with incredibly dangerous and devastating schemes as they are to actually go out and find and market products and services everyone will want and enjoy.

[Surf314]

I forgot to point out that there is also strong evidence for a two-tiered justice system where the poor get harsh penalties for even petty crimes while the wealthy mostly get away with whatever crimes they have committed:
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/14/justice_10/singleton/

[Dtrain323i]

[quote author=Dtrain323i link=topic=6040.msg228586#msg228586 date=1319725167]
Next you assert that there is only a finite pie of wealth:

Actually, I am of the opinion that the 1% have taken money. Let's revisit my post from earlier in the thread.

I'll give you an analogy that to show that wealth can be created.

Lets say you happen across a village of 500 farmers. These 500 farmers produce 5000 bushels of corn per year. Now you come up with an invention (it can be GM seeds, a new farming implement or process) that will double their harvest every year. So instead of 5000 bushels of corn, they're producing 10000 bushels of corn for the same amount of labor on the same amount of land. Your price for this invention is a 5% stake in what they make.

You have effectively created wealth, you're richer for coming up with your idea and now the farmers are richer since they are producing more. This gets even easier with our system of fiat currency since wealth is quite literally created out of thin air every day via the stock market.



As far as Citizens United and corporate personhood in general is concerned, it's a double edged sword. If you take that concept away you're going to run into many unintended consequences. Namely liability issues. If a corporation does not exist as a legal entity just like a person then there is nobody to sue when that corporation does something wrong. That is the whole point of an LLC, the corporate "person" takes on the liability vs. the owner. If you take that protection away then you'll see a lot of business owners essentially take their ball and go home since the personal risk will become too great.

Sorry but the numbers do not support any of this line of argument and I'm tired of hearing it.

People at the top have been earning consistently more while most US wages are stagnant:


I ask you what added value are these CEOs bringing to deserve this gigantic growth in salary? Before you answer that I'd like to remind you of Enron, WorldCom, Oracle, etc.

Again average hourly wages haven't really increased when adjusted for inflation:


Your idea that we are so great at allowing hard working poor people to become rich also doesn't stand up to the facts because social mobility as at an all time low:


And here is I think the most telling graph, most american workers are not being compensated much for increases in their productivity:


So taking into account that fact and the fact that the new patent laws give patents to the first to file now and your example does not seem likely to turn out the way you think it will. Reagan proposed this trickle down theory that is still touted by most die hard Republicans and is the basis behind your arguments, but I have yet to see any evidence in support of it. If there is any correlation between tax cuts and unemployment it is a negative one.

But if you don't want numbers try common sense. Money makes money better than any "idea" or industriousness of the individual. Some will get lucky, but these are considered by most to be outliers or black swan events. So if you have money you can easily make money. Money also buys political influence. With this influence you can make it easier for you to make money. So wealth tends to flow up to the top, not to the bottom. No matter how skilled or smart you are you can't fight that trend, you can pretend like you can join the top as soon as you reach "x" life goals, but without the contacts and financial backing most kids born to wealthy parents have you are unlikely to get there.

The other trend I will point out is that at a certain level, the ability of the average rich and influential person to make the big windfall gains that come with the big name recognition and accolades they have come to crave decreases over time. Take Enron for example, they had some ground-breaking and industry changing ideas. But after they got all the value out of them they had to keep coming up with new and better ideas. They ended up with some pretty dumb ones because of this (trading weather). So the temptation to do things society frowns on starts creeping in. Enron created artificial energy shortages in California and routed power out of the state to sell it back to them at a substantial premium. They also used accounting tricks to hide losses and report gains that were never realized. Magnetar found a way to create risky securities that they could bet against and "make more out of a flop than a hit" (like The Producers). Oracle officers and directors got accused of insider trading and they were able to sweep it under the rug with charitable contributions and other things. They kept playing up the value of their company, and unloading their own stock, while knowing that they were going to come way under their quarterly forecast. I can make a much bigger list if you want.

tl;dr - It's not about envy or any other petty thing you want to pin on it. It's about a real fear that the trends of wealth flowing to the top, wealth gains caused by increased productivity and technology flowing to the top, power flowing to the top, and the tendency for those at the top to not be geniuses that increase the welfare and standard of living for all Americans, but to instead be egocentric and possibly psychopathic individuals that will be just as likely to cheat money out of the system with incredibly dangerous and devastating schemes as they are to actually go out and find and market products and services everyone will want and enjoy.
[/quote]


ok so the graphs show that CEOs make more than laborers. Great, now show me how that stops you from making money? Just because a CEO makes X, does not mean you're now only going to make Y-X.


And yes, many people do make money through investments. And yes, donations to politicians can, rightly or wrongly, influence a politicians decision on a subject. So whats stopping people from donating to a politician themselves? Why not buy some stocks or bonds?

Here's a better idea, get yourself and some like minded people together, form a PAC (gasp! an evil corporation!) and do some fundraising and then donate larger amounts to that politician.

When I lived in Illinois I had my state rep and state senator's cell phone numbers in my contact list. I went to fundraisers, I became a precinct committeeman and went door to door handing out campaign literature.

The major complaint in OWS seems to be that the government is using its power to help corporations over the people. Well when you complain about government abusing it's power, the answer isn't to give it more power.


As far as social mobility is concerned well I've seen it happen first hand. My father in law grew up in rural Iowa in a town of 400 people. Not exactly a prosperous upbringing. He went to Iowa State where he got his bachelors in Industrial Engineering all while raising his infant daughter (aka my wife). He's busted his ass and moved his family all over the country working for different companies in various roles. He's went from a peon at Quaker Oats up through the ranks and now he works for ConAgra Foods. He is 2 steps down the corporate ladder from the CEO and when you add up his stock portfolio, his properties, and his salary. He's worth around 3 million dollars. Is his situation typical? I have no idea. But it certainly shows that it's possible.

[If-I-Die-Its-Lag]

Can't find the source, but I think we can all agree on this

Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th
amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months
& 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in
1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to
the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the
land...all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of
twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.

*Congressional Reform Act of 2011*

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take
three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is
time.

[Surf314]

As far as social mobility is concerned well I've seen it happen first hand. My father in law grew up in rural Iowa in a town of 400 people. Not exactly a prosperous upbringing. He went to Iowa State where he got his bachelors in Industrial Engineering all while raising his infant daughter (aka my wife). He's busted his ass and moved his family all over the country working for different companies in various roles. He's went from a peon at Quaker Oats up through the ranks and now he works for ConAgra Foods. He is 2 steps down the corporate ladder from the CEO and when you add up his stock portfolio, his properties, and his salary. He's worth around 3 million dollars. Is his situation typical? I have no idea. But it certainly shows that it's possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Also you are making a straw man if you think I'm trying to say corporations are evil. I actually support lowering the corporate tax to be more competitive worldwide. I also think that tax deductions and loopholes should be removed and that industries need smart regulation to survive.

What I'm trying to say is that power and wealth flows up, not down. If we are talking about wealth gain who is more likely to be able to accumulate wealth, those that have to spend most of their income each year or those that have massive surplus income year over year? I'm not faulting people for having, I'm faulting them for not being productive. If you really look at the wealth and income gains of the top 1% and the changes of those gains year to year what percentage would you attribute to changes in value added to the economy? What about the changes in productivity, education, and usefulness of the average american versus the changes in their salary? We had a general council from a major company speak to our class and he said two stiking things to me. #1 was that while he didn't think OWS was going to get anywhere he thought they had a legitimate reason to be pissed off. #2 was that a surprising number of company managers (CEOs, directors, etc.) were not very good at their jobs.

So here is my argument as simplified as I can make it, so please do not reinterpret it to be something else. I am pissed, I feel legitimately, because we have reached a tipping point where most of the wealthiest class of this country are not adding value or earning their wealth. They have their wealth either because their parents had wealth or because they have found loopholes and other ways to cheat money out of the system without adding a corresponding amount of value to the economy. This has a good chance of killing capitalism because the system depends on adding value and taking away profits. I believe in capitalism but not in free markets because of the tendency for this exact thing to happen over time without any sort of regulation or system of checking and balancing (I also think that a lot of regulation is counter-productive or manipulated by the wealthy, but in spite of that I still think we are better off with regulatory system in place). Because of this I believe that people in the rest of the wealth classes (99%) are being under-compensated for the value they are adding and are repeatedly saddled with the losses in value created by those in the rich and powerful class. I do not think they have much hope of improving their level of wealth without some luck or being in the right fields (computer/technology seems to be the easiest).

And for the record, my family is probably near the top 1% if not there. My family also came from humble beginnings and has a policy of not giving their children anything they didn't earn. For that reason I try not to let anyone know that my family has means so I can make my own way without relying on their wealth (which wouldn't be available to me anyways).

Edit: also my graphs showed a lot more than the fact that CEOs make more than laborers, they showed large gains in compensation for CEOs compared to laborers over time. If you can point me to what they are doing better to deserve these increases or what they are doing better than the CEOs of other countries that don't have nearly the same income disparity then maybe I'd agree with you.

[Versus]

nice chainmail, lag