Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[Phatscotty]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

Then they are endo-symbiotic, not parasitic.

Some benefits the worker recieves from investment in their company? Well, investment to say, open up another branch will open all kinds of new positions and opportunities. It will need a few new bosses, even more managers, a few new jobs possibly transporting between the two branches. And the worker from the company, if they have earned it, should be first in line to get a promotion. Grab the next rung on the ladder buddy!

Where I think you are stuck is that wages do not depend on how profitable a company is, it depends on the value of the work being done and the competitive wages for similar jobs around the area. Walmart is a crappy example, because most of their profits have little to do with how the workers do their jobs, and a lot more to do with buying 90%(?) of their product from China. For example, a janitor mops the floor everynight, is content with his wage and benefits, does a good job and has job security so long as they continue to do a good job and don't call in to work all the time or show up drunk. If Walmart's profits double the next year, why should the janitor get more for doing the exact same job? Sure they can try to get a raise or added benefits, but they dont deserve it just because some other guy took a risk and built another walmart or because the purchasing manager got a major customer discount from a respectable supplier.

If the worker at Walmart does more work or works smarter or helps the company by going above and beyond their duties, then yes the worker will deserve more money IMhO. Success requires effort and recognition.

[Baron Von PWN]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

Then they are endo-symbiotic, not parasitic.

Some benefits the worker recieves from investment in their company? Well, investment to say, open up another branch will open all kinds of new positions and opportunities. It will need a few new bosses, even more managers, a few new jobs possibly transporting between the two branches. And the worker from the company, if they have earned it, should be first in line to get a promotion. Grab the next rung on the ladder buddy!

Where I think you are stuck is that wages do not depend on how profitable a company is, it depends on the value of the work being done and the competitive wages for similar jobs around the area. Walmart is a crappy example, because most of their profits have little to do with how the workers do their jobs, and a lot more to do with buying 90%(?) of their product from China. For example, a janitor mops the floor everynight, is content with his wage and benefits, does a good job and has job security so long as they continue to do a good job and don't call in to work all the time or show up drunk. If Walmart's profits double the next year, why should the janitor get more for doing the exact same job? Sure they can try to get a raise or added benefits, but they dont deserve it just because some other guy took a risk and built another walmart or because the purchasing manager got a major customer discount from a respectable supplier.

If the worker at Walmart does more work or works smarter or helps the company by going above and beyond their duties, then yes the worker will deserve more money IMhO. Success requires effort and recognition.

I will admit I agree with you here. I occasionally get in a bit of a tizzy and channel my inner Marxist teenager. However the point of my going off the deep end the last couple of pages have been to illustrate the type of grievances of the occupy protests. That is a general feeling that certain aspects of capitalism do not result in a fair deal for the little people. To a degree I agree with them. I feel late 20th and 21st century capitalism has done a poor job of sharing its benefits with those on the lowest rungs. You might say sharing those benefits wouldn't be all that capitalist, and maybe you would have a point. I think it would be a capitalism with a more human face though.

[Lootifer]

It's just a Freedom (free market capitalism) vs Equality of Opportunity (giving assistance to those who don't have the benefit of pre-existing wealth/power) BVP. One cannot truely have both.

I'm all for bigger consessions on Freedom such that we have better equality of opportunity.

[Phatscotty]

It's just a Freedom (free market capitalism) vs Equality of Opportunity (giving assistance to those who don't have the benefit of pre-existing wealth/power) BVP. One cannot truely have both.

I'm all for bigger consessions on Freedom such that we have better equality of opportunity.

Those are fightin words.

[Phatscotty]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

Then they are endo-symbiotic, not parasitic.

Some benefits the worker recieves from investment in their company? Well, investment to say, open up another branch will open all kinds of new positions and opportunities. It will need a few new bosses, even more managers, a few new jobs possibly transporting between the two branches. And the worker from the company, if they have earned it, should be first in line to get a promotion. Grab the next rung on the ladder buddy!

Where I think you are stuck is that wages do not depend on how profitable a company is, it depends on the value of the work being done and the competitive wages for similar jobs around the area. Walmart is a crappy example, because most of their profits have little to do with how the workers do their jobs, and a lot more to do with buying 90%(?) of their product from China. For example, a janitor mops the floor everynight, is content with his wage and benefits, does a good job and has job security so long as they continue to do a good job and don't call in to work all the time or show up drunk. If Walmart's profits double the next year, why should the janitor get more for doing the exact same job? Sure they can try to get a raise or added benefits, but they dont deserve it just because some other guy took a risk and built another walmart or because the purchasing manager got a major customer discount from a respectable supplier.

If the worker at Walmart does more work or works smarter or helps the company by going above and beyond their duties, then yes the worker will deserve more money IMhO. Success requires effort and recognition.

I will admit I agree with you here. I occasionally get in a bit of a tizzy and channel my inner Marxist teenager. However the point of my going off the deep end the last couple of pages have been to illustrate the type of grievances of the occupy protests. That is a general feeling that certain aspects of capitalism do not result in a fair deal for the little people. To a degree I agree with them. I feel late 20th and 21st century capitalism has done a poor job of sharing its benefits with those on the lowest rungs. You might say sharing those benefits wouldn't be all that capitalist, and maybe you would have a point. I think it would be a capitalism with a more human face though.

I like reading your posts a lot more than others as you are respectable (since our first encounter over why the Japanese didn't invade US lolz). It's no sweat we can work off each other and hopefully both have better understanding.

I understand about the little people. I am one. What I think more people should realize is that this system, even with all its faults, is still the best system for the little people to get bigger. Look at illegal immigrants who come here with nothing. Within one generation their American born children have a great opportunity to break that chain of poverty and have success and happiness, not to mention be in a position to help their parents home country become just a wee bit better through financial support for relatives as well as sharing their values.

The little people could go to school and get help financially to do it, if not completely free. The little people could work 2 jobs and save up their money and start a business or improve their skill sets. I work 3 jobs so I don't want to hear any crap about how tough it is. Time is money, and if people waste all their time, they are going to stay little people forever.

Sharing is a choice in a free country, not a demand. If sharing becomes a demand, I promise you there will immediately be less to share with anyone, at least until we make the law that nobody can leave America and we build the walls not to keep illegals out, but to keep citizens in!

[Lootifer]

I like reading your posts a lot more than others as you are respectable

Says the guy who is second only to Nightstrike in generalisations and single data point propaganda tactics...

[Baron Von PWN]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

Then they are endo-symbiotic, not parasitic.

Some benefits the worker recieves from investment in their company? Well, investment to say, open up another branch will open all kinds of new positions and opportunities. It will need a few new bosses, even more managers, a few new jobs possibly transporting between the two branches. And the worker from the company, if they have earned it, should be first in line to get a promotion. Grab the next rung on the ladder buddy!

Where I think you are stuck is that wages do not depend on how profitable a company is, it depends on the value of the work being done and the competitive wages for similar jobs around the area. Walmart is a crappy example, because most of their profits have little to do with how the workers do their jobs, and a lot more to do with buying 90%(?) of their product from China. For example, a janitor mops the floor everynight, is content with his wage and benefits, does a good job and has job security so long as they continue to do a good job and don't call in to work all the time or show up drunk. If Walmart's profits double the next year, why should the janitor get more for doing the exact same job? Sure they can try to get a raise or added benefits, but they dont deserve it just because some other guy took a risk and built another walmart or because the purchasing manager got a major customer discount from a respectable supplier.

If the worker at Walmart does more work or works smarter or helps the company by going above and beyond their duties, then yes the worker will deserve more money IMhO. Success requires effort and recognition.

I will admit I agree with you here. I occasionally get in a bit of a tizzy and channel my inner Marxist teenager. However the point of my going off the deep end the last couple of pages have been to illustrate the type of grievances of the occupy protests. That is a general feeling that certain aspects of capitalism do not result in a fair deal for the little people. To a degree I agree with them. I feel late 20th and 21st century capitalism has done a poor job of sharing its benefits with those on the lowest rungs. You might say sharing those benefits wouldn't be all that capitalist, and maybe you would have a point. I think it would be a capitalism with a more human face though.

I like reading your posts a lot more than others as you are respectable (since our first encounter over why the Japanese didn't invade US lolz). It's no sweat we can work off each other and hopefully both have better understanding.

I understand about the little people. I am one. What I think more people should realize is that this system, even with all its faults, is still the best system for the little people to get bigger. Look at illegal immigrants who come here with nothing. Within one generation their American born children have a great opportunity to break that chain of poverty and have success and happiness, not to mention be in a position to help their parents home country become just a wee bit better through financial support for relatives as well as sharing their values.

The little people could go to school and get help financially to do it, if not completely free. The little people could work 2 jobs and save up their money and start a business or improve their skill sets. I work 3 jobs so I don't want to hear any crap about how tough it is. Time is money, and if people waste all their time, they are going to stay little people forever.

Sharing is a choice in a free country, not a demand. If sharing becomes a demand, I promise you there will immediately be less to share with anyone, at least until we make the law that nobody can leave America and we build the walls not to keep illegals out, but to keep citizens in!

I like the bootstrap ideal, I really do. It just seems that sometimes there are people who are cutting those straps just as you pull them. For instance you have all the various "poverty tax" these aren't really taxes in the traditional sense of government taxes but rather are costs companies put onto you for being poor. Have less than 5k in your bank account? We'll charge you 5$ a month. Want to buy some stocks but have less than 20k in investments? That'll be 30$ per investment. Withdrew more money than you have in your checking account? massive surcharge. Then you get into the really nasty stuff like payday loans and so on.

Yes its possible to climb out but they sure don't make it easy.

[BigBallinStalin]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

1) The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

2) What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

1) The corporation and the shareholder do have a mutually beneficial exchange, but the parasite-host relationship isn't between those two. Your analogy equates employees as hosts, and corporations/shareholders as parasites.

Also, shareholders != aristocrats, unless you consider anyone at any income level who invests in company bonds or shares to be an "aristocrat." But that isn't the case because many people across different levels of income invest in shares and bonds. You're simply overstretching this analogy to make it work, which further convinces me that this analogy is rubbish.


2) Ok. The profits of a business aren't predominantly derived from its workers. Sure, any business needs workers in order to function, but that does not entitle the workers to a share of the profits. The profitability of a business largely depends on the decisions of the top-managers and/or shareholders, and indirectly from the debt-holders, who perceive that the company performs well enough to be able to repay the loan.

If a business models decides to split its profits to all of its workers at whatever proportion, then that's great, but it's extremely difficult to implement. It's easier for nearly all businesses of varying sizes to offer potential employees a contract for a set wage. The employee is not entitled to a share in the company's profits unless the contract has specified so. The employee, who should read his contract, should understand what benefits he is to reap.

You can bemoan the worker of $5 per hour, but that's roughly 5% of the workforce. Why not bemoan the workers making $15 or $25 or $30 an hour? You're romanticizing here in order to stuff your round analogy through a square hole. You're not being realistic.


Finally, this doesn't make the company a parasite. A parasite simply takes without giving anything. The worker agrees to a wage and provides the company his labor. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. The business offers not only a wage, but also work-experience, a social network, sometimes health insurance, job stability, etc. These vary, but the wage isn't the only benefit received. If a business is a parasite, then for your analogy to work, the business can't give anything because it's allegedly this evil parasite. But it does give plenty, so it can't be a parasite; therefore, your analogy doesn't hold. It's incorrect.

[Lootifer]

There's much worse barriers to entry (of wealth) than bank fees.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's much worse barriers to entry (of wealth) than bank fees.

Yeah, like minimum wage.

Collective wage bargaining is another.

"Yeah, I know we vary in performance, but we demand that you give us all the same wage. That way, we don't have to perform any harder than the next guy! This gives us the strong incentive to hardly perform since there's no threat to our losing our job--almost regardless of how poorly we perform! lololol!"

"Hey! Is that guy working at a lower wage in order to get employed?! FINNISH HIM, and/or COERCE HIM INTO JOINING THE UNION!"

[Lootifer]

There's much worse barriers to entry (of wealth) than bank fees.

Yeah, like minimum wage.

Collective wage bargaining is another.

"Yeah, I know we vary in performance, but we demand that you give us all the same wage. That way, we don't have to perform any harder than the next guy! This gives us the strong incentive to hardly perform since there's no threat to our losing our job--almost regardless of how poorly we perform! lololol!"

"Hey! Is that guy working at a lower wage in order to get employed?! FINNISH HIM, and/or COERCE HIM INTO JOINING THE UNION!"

I'm split on minimum wage. Yes I agree that in some cases it does provide a barrier to entry and it does deincentivise the average worker from improving performance.

However minimum wage is not all bad; it incentivises joining the workforce in the first place (cf illegal activities, illiegitimate work, or zero production). It gives employees some form of protection against exploitation. I'd also mention that it gives people a means to live off what they earn, but lets not go down this path because, yes yes, i know minimum wage results in prices going up, all cyclic, etc etc.

So: *sits on fence*

[Baron Von PWN]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

1) The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

2) What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

1) The corporation and the shareholder do have a mutually beneficial exchange, but the parasite-host relationship isn't between those two. Your analogy equates employees as hosts, and corporations/shareholders as parasites.

Also, shareholders != aristocrats, unless you consider anyone at any income level who invests in company bonds or shares to be an "aristocrat." But that isn't the case because many people across different levels of income invest in shares and bonds. You're simply overstretching this analogy to make it work, which further convinces me that this analogy is rubbish.


2) Ok. The profits of a business aren't predominantly derived from its workers. Sure, any business needs workers in order to function, but that does not entitle the workers to a share of the profits. The profitability of a business largely depends on the decisions of the top-managers and/or shareholders, and indirectly from the debt-holders, who perceive that the company performs well enough to be able to repay the loan.

If a business models decides to split its profits to all of its workers at whatever proportion, then that's great, but it's extremely difficult to implement. It's easier for nearly all businesses of varying sizes to offer potential employees a contract for a set wage. The employee is not entitled to a share in the company's profits unless the contract has specified so. The employee, who should read his contract, should understand what benefits he is to reap.

You can bemoan the worker of $5 per hour, but that's roughly 5% of the workforce. Why not bemoan the workers making $15 or $25 or $30 an hour? You're romanticizing here in order to stuff your round analogy through a square hole. You're not being realistic.


Finally, this doesn't make the company a parasite. A parasite simply takes without giving anything. The worker agrees to a wage and provides the company his labor. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. The business offers not only a wage, but also work-experience, a social network, sometimes health insurance, job stability, etc. These vary, but the wage isn't the only benefit received. If a business is a parasite, then for your analogy to work, the business can't give anything because it's allegedly this evil parasite. But it does give plenty, so it can't be a parasite; therefore, your analogy doesn't hold. It's incorrect.

I knew it was a weak analogy, but I made it anyways as people were asking what OWS gripes were. I thought the analogy was a decent way of summing those up.

[PLAYER57832]

If Walmart were really passing on benefits to employees, they would no now be increasing the numbers of part-tim employees while cutting back on fulltimers, would have offered reasonable health insurance, not the high premium outlandish copayment policies they now offer, And, above all would never have offered wages below what it takes to actually live to any but trainees.

When such a high percentage of employees can only work there because they get taxpayer subsidies, then it is not equity, not even true investment, it is shareholder skimming profits from tax payer.

[Night Strike]

If Walmart were really passing on benefits to employees, they would no now be increasing the numbers of part-tim employees while cutting back on fulltimers, would have offered reasonable health insurance, not the high premium outlandish copayment policies they now offer, And, above all would never have offered wages below what it takes to actually live to any but trainees.

When such a high percentage of employees can only work there because they get taxpayer subsidies, then it is not equity, not even true investment, it is shareholder skimming profits from tax payer.

Then cut those taxpayer subsidies and either Walmart will pay its workers more or will go out of business due to a lack of a workforce. That's how the free market works. It's the government that enables the exact actions that you deplore, yet you continue to want more government.

By the way, Walmart DOES pass on some profits to the regular employees. Some employees buy stocks (which will pay out dividends on profits), but any associate who has been there over 6 months (and worked a certain number of hours) gets a quarterly bonus based on the success of their individual store (where they directly contribute to the profit or loss of the overall company).

[PLAYER57832]

If Walmart were really passing on benefits to employees, they would no now be increasing the numbers of part-tim employees while cutting back on fulltimers, would have offered reasonable health insurance, not the high premium outlandish copayment policies they now offer, And, above all would never have offered wages below what it takes to actually live to any but trainees.

When such a high percentage of employees can only work there because they get taxpayer subsidies, then it is not equity, not even true investment, it is shareholder skimming profits from tax payer.

Then cut those taxpayer subsidies and either Walmart will pay its workers more or will go out of business due to a lack of a workforce. That's how the free market works. It's the government that enables the exact actions that you deplore, yet you continue to want more government.

I see, so your employer does not pay enough and your answer is to tell people they have to just starve? Because.. that IS what you are saying.

People don't really have the power to force companies to do more, not individually. They can, through unions, but unions have been gutted and curtailed. Walmart is notorious for union-busting.

Further, because Walmart gets away with paying so little for everything, they can offer products at prices lower than any other business. Lower than businesses who have to pay more of the true operating cost of doing their businesses, and wind up driving wages down in a community/industry instead of bringing them and the tax base up.

By the way, Walmart DOES pass on some profits to the regular employees. Some employees buy stocks (which will pay out dividends on profits), but any associate who has been there over 6 months (and worked a certain number of hours) gets a quarterly bonus based on the success of their individual store (where they directly contribute to the profit or loss of the overall company).

LOL, LOL... yes, they pay a few employees decently, but not anywhere near all and not nearly enough. Also, even those assessments of "success" are heavily weighted, which is why there are so often lawsuits regarding non payment of overtime, etc, etc. They put all the pressure on low-level managers to do more always, just like they put extreme pressure on suppliers to charge less. The managers wind up cutting corners like not paying hours, the suppliers wind up cutting quality and moving overseas. It is NOT a system built to truly benefit society, the employees, suppliers or anyone other than stockholders. Benefitting stockholders and owners is very, very different from encouraging and supporting production. Very often it has the exact opposite impact, which is why we are in the trouble we are in today.

[BigBallinStalin]

There's much worse barriers to entry (of wealth) than bank fees.

Yeah, like minimum wage.

Collective wage bargaining is another.

"Yeah, I know we vary in performance, but we demand that you give us all the same wage. That way, we don't have to perform any harder than the next guy! This gives us the strong incentive to hardly perform since there's no threat to our losing our job--almost regardless of how poorly we perform! lololol!"

"Hey! Is that guy working at a lower wage in order to get employed?! FINNISH HIM, and/or COERCE HIM INTO JOINING THE UNION!"

I'm split on minimum wage. Yes I agree that in some cases it does provide a barrier to entry and it does deincentivise the average worker from improving performance.

However minimum wage is not all bad; it incentivises joining the workforce in the first place (cf illegal activities, illiegitimate work, or zero production). It gives employees some form of protection against exploitation. I'd also mention that it gives people a means to live off what they earn, but lets not go down this path because, yes yes, i know minimum wage results in prices going up, all cyclic, etc etc.

So: *sits on fence*

Would you like to read some empirical research on the benefits and costs of minimum wage?

[Lootifer]

I've read some, feel free to link away though.

Always interested in sources.

[General Brock II]

If, while they did your job you slept outside on the street and risk bodily injury from cops for peacefully objecting to the status quo, I would possibly consider that a fair deal.

Dude, do you think I haven't slept in the cab of my truck in the middle of nowhere, before? Or in a tent? I'd go to an OWS camp and enjoy some free pizza, gladly. then I'd put up a sign that says, "Blast OWS, I'm here for the kicks". And spend the day getting some much needed sleep... Next day, I'd probably find the bloodied carcass of the OWS worker slumped in the yard.

I'm just not stupid enough to join a socialist movement that's recently been found to be causing mayhem. You say, "Risk bodily harm"? Why? If the people were protestors weren't obstructing productive avenues, streets and sidewalks or refusing to evacuate parks that they had been ordered out of, they wouldn't be "risking bodily harm" at all!

[Symmetry]

If, while they did your job you slept outside on the street and risk bodily injury from cops for peacefully objecting to the status quo, I would possibly consider that a fair deal.

Dude, do you think I haven't slept in the cab of my truck in the middle of nowhere, before? Or in a tent? I'd go to an OWS camp and enjoy some free pizza, gladly. then I'd put up a sign that says, "Blast OWS, I'm here for the kicks". And spend the day getting some much needed sleep... Next day, I'd probably find the bloodied carcass of the OWS worker slumped in the yard.

I'm just not stupid enough to join a socialist movement that's recently been found to be causing mayhem. You say, "Risk bodily harm"? Why? If the people were protestors weren't obstructing productive avenues, streets and sidewalks or refusing to evacuate parks that they had been ordered out of, they wouldn't be "risking bodily harm" at all!

How would you protest?

[PLAYER57832]

I like the bootstrap ideal, I really do. It just seems that sometimes there are people who are cutting those straps just as you pull them. For instance you have all the various "poverty tax" these aren't really taxes in the traditional sense of government taxes but rather are costs companies put onto you for being poor. Have less than 5k in your bank account? We'll charge you 5$ a month. Want to buy some stocks but have less than 20k in investments? That'll be 30$ per investment. Withdrew more money than you have in your checking account? massive surcharge. Then you get into the really nasty stuff like payday loans and so on.

Yes its possible to climb out but they sure don't make it easy.

The bootstrap model was about work. It is, now, getting harder and harder to pull oneself out of poverty through shear hard work. Mostly, you first need a college education. And, how is any but the most brilliant of students to even qualify when stuck in a piss poor school?

I wanted to go back to school over 10 years ago. I was accepted, it was all set.. but it would have cost me over $40,000. Of course, if I were single....

I have a degree, am of above average intelligence. I am also female and not part of the "boys club" or the "girls club". So... I am not anyone's first choice.

[Phatscotty]

If, while they did your job you slept outside on the street and risk bodily injury from cops for peacefully objecting to the status quo, I would possibly consider that a fair deal.

Dude, do you think I haven't slept in the cab of my truck in the middle of nowhere, before? Or in a tent? I'd go to an OWS camp and enjoy some free pizza, gladly. then I'd put up a sign that says, "Blast OWS, I'm here for the kicks". And spend the day getting some much needed sleep... Next day, I'd probably find the bloodied carcass of the OWS worker slumped in the yard.

I'm just not stupid enough to join a socialist movement that's recently been found to be causing mayhem. You say, "Risk bodily harm"? Why? If the people were protestors weren't obstructing productive avenues, streets and sidewalks or refusing to evacuate parks that they had been ordered out of, they wouldn't be "risking bodily harm" at all!

How would you protest?

Peacefully

[Phatscotty]

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.

Then they are endo-symbiotic, not parasitic.

Some benefits the worker recieves from investment in their company? Well, investment to say, open up another branch will open all kinds of new positions and opportunities. It will need a few new bosses, even more managers, a few new jobs possibly transporting between the two branches. And the worker from the company, if they have earned it, should be first in line to get a promotion. Grab the next rung on the ladder buddy!

Where I think you are stuck is that wages do not depend on how profitable a company is, it depends on the value of the work being done and the competitive wages for similar jobs around the area. Walmart is a crappy example, because most of their profits have little to do with how the workers do their jobs, and a lot more to do with buying 90%(?) of their product from China. For example, a janitor mops the floor everynight, is content with his wage and benefits, does a good job and has job security so long as they continue to do a good job and don't call in to work all the time or show up drunk. If Walmart's profits double the next year, why should the janitor get more for doing the exact same job? Sure they can try to get a raise or added benefits, but they dont deserve it just because some other guy took a risk and built another walmart or because the purchasing manager got a major customer discount from a respectable supplier.

If the worker at Walmart does more work or works smarter or helps the company by going above and beyond their duties, then yes the worker will deserve more money IMhO. Success requires effort and recognition.

I will admit I agree with you here. I occasionally get in a bit of a tizzy and channel my inner Marxist teenager. However the point of my going off the deep end the last couple of pages have been to illustrate the type of grievances of the occupy protests. That is a general feeling that certain aspects of capitalism do not result in a fair deal for the little people. To a degree I agree with them. I feel late 20th and 21st century capitalism has done a poor job of sharing its benefits with those on the lowest rungs. You might say sharing those benefits wouldn't be all that capitalist, and maybe you would have a point. I think it would be a capitalism with a more human face though.

I like reading your posts a lot more than others as you are respectable (since our first encounter over why the Japanese didn't invade US lolz). It's no sweat we can work off each other and hopefully both have better understanding.

I understand about the little people. I am one. What I think more people should realize is that this system, even with all its faults, is still the best system for the little people to get bigger. Look at illegal immigrants who come here with nothing. Within one generation their American born children have a great opportunity to break that chain of poverty and have success and happiness, not to mention be in a position to help their parents home country become just a wee bit better through financial support for relatives as well as sharing their values.

The little people could go to school and get help financially to do it, if not completely free. The little people could work 2 jobs and save up their money and start a business or improve their skill sets. I work 3 jobs so I don't want to hear any crap about how tough it is. Time is money, and if people waste all their time, they are going to stay little people forever.

Sharing is a choice in a free country, not a demand. If sharing becomes a demand, I promise you there will immediately be less to share with anyone, at least until we make the law that nobody can leave America and we build the walls not to keep illegals out, but to keep citizens in!

I like the bootstrap ideal, I really do. It just seems that sometimes there are people who are cutting those straps just as you pull them. For instance you have all the various "poverty tax" these aren't really taxes in the traditional sense of government taxes but rather are costs companies put onto you for being poor. Have less than 5k in your bank account? We'll charge you 5$ a month. Want to buy some stocks but have less than 20k in investments? That'll be 30$ per investment. Withdrew more money than you have in your checking account? massive surcharge. Then you get into the really nasty stuff like payday loans and so on.

Yes its possible to climb out but they sure don't make it easy.

Nobody said it's easy or guaranteed. I just want to add in that poverty tax something much more real, which is the inflation tax. The more we print, the harder it will be for everyone to afford basic necessities. Inflation is caused by a lot of things, but the value of the dollar is a major driver if not the main driver. The value of the dollar has been plummeting because of our deficits and debts. That's why I freak out when the government creates new trillion dollar entitlement programs, just as the economy start losing trillions in revenue. Either our government didnt know what was going to happen with the economy, or doesnt realize what kind of inflation will hit if we print all that money. Either way, we are all going to pay, and it won't be the rich who are most hurt by it.

Gasoline is probably the best example here, also food.

[stahrgazer]

With a decent dose of ethics and patriotism, capitalism works well.

When corporate or individual greed surpass ethics and patriotism, you have things that led up to the Declaration of Independence a bit over 200 years ago, or the beginning of an Occupy Wall Street movement, that started a couple months ago.

It used to be that "the top" made about no more than 10x as much as the bottom. Over time, that has switched. The top, with their power, have controlled things so that they now have 900x as much as the bottom. It's a bit askew, and no nation can survive like that. Eisenhower (Republican) recognized the problem in his era and had to institute a few more top-level taxes and social programs; Reagan (Republican) recognized the problem in his era, and had to backtrack on a few of his corporate tax and wealthy tax discounts he'd instituted.

In the past decade alone, the top 1% have gained 20x what they had before, while the bottom 99% has 1/10th of what they had going into the decade. While the "average" wage is the same or higher, that "average" just takes the number of people divided by the amount of wealth. The true figure, the "mean" income, has gone lower, almost to poverty level.

The difference is, the "mean income" is the amount at which 50% of the people make above, and 50% of the people make below. So that lowered mean income signifies that more than 50% of our population is now at or below poverty level. Meanwhile, corporate giants are sitting on trillions of dollars and "poor me-ing" that they cannot afford to employ some more of the 50% who are at or below poverty level.

Their reason? Not enough stuff being purchased. And why isn't enough stuff being purchased? Because now, 50% of the people are at or below poverty level and the mean income is decreasing, not increasing.

In other words, the top 1% are gathering up the wealth of an entire nation... money that used to be in the hands of the bottom 50% has gone straight to the top 1%.

Which is, of course, squeezing what used to be a "middle class" into a lower and lower positon on the economic ladder as well. In other words, as the rich get richer, the poor ARE getting poorer.

Yes, there's something protest-worthy in that. Thomas Jefferson and the like would agree, because they thought there was a problem when English nobility were allowed to do the same thing...

"When in the course of human events..."

I (Republican) may not be in the big apple, but in spirit, I'm also Occupying Wall Street.

You see, I'm a Republican in the traditional meaning of the word, not the elitist notions that have permeated and corrupted the party of Reagan since his tenure. (Sadly, I fully believe the current party of this name would not have elected Lincoln if there were a time warp... and Reagan would be a flaming left-wing to most of today's so-called conservatives!)

[Phatscotty]

Can you guys please explain in some detail exactly what poverty is like in the USA?

I am not in poverty, and I know people who are in poverty, and some of them live better than I do.

Now THAT is some bullshit!

[thegreekdog]

I support the ideas behind the OWS movement. I do not support the OWS movement, it's leaders, or the politicians associating themselves with the movement.

That being said, I have some issues with what stahrgazer has typed (just from a data perspective):

The difference is, the "mean income" is the amount at which 50% of the people make above, and 50% of the people make below. So that lowered mean income signifies that more than 50% of our population is now at or below poverty level.

What data have you seen indicating that 50% of our population is at or below the poverty level?

Which is, of course, squeezing what used to be a "middle class" into a lower and lower positon on the economic ladder as well. In other words, as the rich get richer, the poor ARE getting poorer.

What data have you seen indicating that the poor are getting poorer?

You see, I'm a Republican in the traditional meaning of the word, not the elitist notions that have permeated and corrupted the party of Reagan since his tenure. (Sadly, I fully believe the current party of this name would not have elected Lincoln if there were a time warp... and Reagan would be a flaming left-wing to most of today's so-called conservatives!)

This I absolutely agree with (except the Lincoln thing - Lincoln would work well in today's Republican party - he was a Republican statist after all).