Ask Slashdot: How Do You View the Wall Street Protests?

__roo writes "The New York Times reports that the Occupy Wall Street movement has inspired hundreds of Facebook pages, Twitter posts, and Meetup events, and that 'blog posts and photographs from all over the country are popping up on the WeArethe99Percent blog on Tumblr from people who see themselves as victims of not just a sagging economy but also economic injustice.' What do Slashdotters think? Do you relate to the 99% stories? Do they make you angry — either at the system, or at the protesters? If it's at the protesters, is it rational or a just-world effect?"

Comments

The 1% are insulated

[Mindragon]

Even if you're screaming right outside their door, they're just going to call the cops and crank up the volume on the TV. I don't seriously believe that the Occupy campaign are going to do that much to change what is going on. The 1% already control everything. Everything that you buy, everything that you watch and everything that you do is controlled completely by this 1% group. Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days. Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[causality]

Even if you're screaming right outside their door, they're just going to call the cops and crank up the volume on the TV. I don't seriously believe that the Occupy campaign are going to do that much to change what is going on. The 1% already control everything. Everything that you buy, everything that you watch and everything that you do is controlled completely by this 1% group. Just about the only way I can think of to wrest power away from these folks is if the 99% were to stop buying everything for more than 90 days. Once the corporations see their income statements go to zilch then you would see real change.

It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.

The real aristocracy does everything by proxy, by funding, by corporations, and by front organizations. The single most effective thing they ever did was to replace real state-issued money with bank-issued monetized debt. That's how you grab a nation by the balls without ever using physical force.

I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing. Unfortunately, they are likely to be useful idiots, pawns on someone's great chessboard. That's generally the problem when you have blind, stupid, unfocused rage that lacks understanding and a strong sense of constructive purpose. That's why (in terms of Establishment priorities) it's okay to give them so much media attention. It's little more than a way to get the "troublemakers" to identify themselves and be arrested or otherwised put through the system.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[operagost]

98% of us wish that the 1% who are claiming to be the 99% would stop pretending they're speaking for us.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[elrous0]

The French Revolution was more about one group of powerful thugs overthrowing another group of powerful thugs (some have made the same case about the American Revolution too). It was only CLOAKED as a grass-roots revolution. REAL grass-roots revolutions are very rare.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[RevGregory]

...and thank you for pointing out why the protesters should be in front of the White House, the Capitol, and choking off K Street. The behavior of companies is not the pressing problem, it is the government reinforcing those behaviors and making them viable and repeatable that causes the serious harm.

.

Quis Custodiet, ipsos custodes.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[Dunbal]

Yes it turned out very well. For Napoleon. Who said "There are those who cause revolutions and those who profit by them".

Re:The 1% are insulated

[PopeRatzo]

The behavior of companies is not the pressing problem, it is the government reinforcing those behaviors and making them viable and repeatable that causes the serious harm.

Isn't that sort of adding an additional layer of complexity? You're saying "we shouldn't blame the corporations for engaging illegal and destructive behavior because its the government's fault for not stopping them".

So, if an arsonist sets fire to your house, we shouldn't prosecute him, but rather we should punish the fire department and police for not stopping him?

Give me one reason why we should NOT hold corporations accountable for their actions.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me one reason why we should NOT hold corporations accountable for their actions.

In many cases their objectionable actions are legal; corporations are ostensibly bound to the letter of the law but an amoral legal entity has understandable difficulties grasping the spirit (much less following it).

Re:The 1% are insulated

[SteveFoerster]

Unless you were an Iroquois. Then your towns were burned to the ground by George Washington's troops because your people supported the British. And plenty of Canadians trace their ancestry to American loyalists who fled their homes to avoid potentially fatal persecution.

All that said, yes, it was still a lot better than France.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[dkleinsc]

That's how you grab a nation by the balls without ever using physical force.

Sure you do, if the powerless ever get too uppity: Kent State is the most extreme example in the US, but there are plenty of more recent examples. You don't get involved yourself, of course, but you get your pals in government to organize riot police protection whenever you're having a major gathering that might attract the attention of the rabble. And here's the best part: You can use your control of government to convince the police to buy all sorts of weapons from the corporations you control, so that you're effectively using the protester's own tax money to fund beating them.

And in the Third World countries they care about, they don't bother with the niceties of limiting themselves to non-lethal force. Sometimes they use the US military for that, sometimes the poor nation's own military and police, sometimes private security forces, but the effect is always the same. It's not all that uncommon, for instance, for sweatshop workers who dare to talk about organizing to be killed by private companies.

I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing.

Well, for starters, they had the sense to target Wall Street rather than Washington DC and government. That suggests that they're seeing through at least one of the illusions put forward by the real power brokers.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[pixelpusher220]

Countries are not in existence for corporations. They are in existence for their *citizens*. Corporations *should* get short shrift in the law making process.

There should not be *any* voice in government for corporations until they can have the exact penalties enacted against them that individuals can. If a corporation is convicted of fraud, they can't do business for 3-5 years...until the CEO gets out of jail himself.

The fact that any corporate money is allowed in politics is nothing but pure bribery.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[PopeRatzo]

Here here! I have a FT job, 2 businesses (1 Consulting, and 1 SaaS), and work my tail off (not to mention 2 young children). I have a small house, an '04 Corolla, and it's a challenge to make ends meet but I don't begrudge this "1%" too much as I've (as anyone does) got a shot at getting a slice of the pie.

I'm not a cheerleader or over-zealous optimist either. I think there are problems with corporate ethics and don't get me started on too big to fail, etc. But at least I'm taking something to market, making an effort.

So your solution is for the 200million+ American workers to all start their own businesses? THAT'S your solution? Really? "You don't like that patent trolls are gonna sue you into the ground if you bring something to market? Well, you just get your own patents and SUE THEM BACK!"

Do you really believe that being a "consultant" is the same as "bringing something to market"? Come on. "Consultant" is just an invention of big business which allows them to underpay workers and not give them any benefits. I get a kick out of people who think that "consultant" is some sort of elevated status when in fact it's just a sign on your head that you have been bent over a desk and well and truly fucked.

have a FT job, 2 businesses (1 Consulting, and 1 SaaS), and work my tail off (not to mention 2 young children).

So you believe that the fact that you have to do all that just to survive, while probably seldom seeing your wife and kids and having extra pressure on your family life and needing to work until you drop just to make ends meet is a good thing?

That's about as ridiculous a notion as this new talking point going around "conservative" media that the solution to our economic woes is to have everyone work longer and retire later. Think about this: Forty years of a computer revolution with everything being automated and the productivity levels of workers going up 200-300% and corporate profits at all time record levels and you still have to work harder and longer. Don't you see anything at all wrong with this picture? You're being asked to give up another decade of your life to work even though you're more productive than your grandparents were. And why? Because the corporations you work for have decided that they don't want to give you pensions any more, that you shouldn't have benefits and you need to put in more hours, more work, more productivity so the shareholders profits can keep accelerating. Think about that. The solution to the equation of wealth, for some reason, is that you should work harder for less even though you're a lot more productive.

But...but...if the workers have less, that means that they'll have less to spend on the products and services the corporations sell! What now? Well, we'll give you a credit card! And then another. And then another that you can use to transfer your balance so it seems like you're not doing so badly. And when there's just no room left on the cards there's that pittance you've got in equity on that house you've been paying on for 15 years, so you should just borrow against that. Yeah, that's the ticket, that's how we'll keep it all going. And when all the equity's been scraped from the houses and the foreclosures are at record levels, then what?

Well, that's where we're at today. There is a global economic downturn because every last shred of accumulated wealth has been scraped from the majority of people who are seen as nothing but lambs to the slaughter for corporations and there's even an economic downturn in China. So every drop of work, every drop of wealth has been had we find ourselves where we are today.

The world did not just become less valuable. There is not suddenly a shortage of money all over the world. The entire world economic downturn can be seen as what happens when all the wealth gets siphoned off by small percentage of people.

I retired back on 2006 on my 50

Re:The 1% are insulated

[Squiddie]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the 1% just because they have wealth. People have a problem with them wielding disproportional political power and using that power to siphon off more wealth and enacting public policy that only benefits them. Regulation and Taxation are only ways to regulate industry to certain people from benefiting from the overall failure of the market or even their individual companies. Taking big money out of politics is a better first step to diminishing their power. I don't like government regulating public life, but industry is to be regulated.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[Culture20]

set up a corporation, The corp bills as a contracting firm and then pays them minimum wadge. The Corporation buys there house, car, boat, land, etc, etc. Most of it is expended off the corporate taxes. There wadge goes to pay for things they want. I am told that when all is said and down they make a killing at it.

And they're stupid. The point of an LLC is to prevent things like losing your house et al when someone sues the company. If the house is owned by the company (not the person), then isn't it fair game? Pay yourself a good salary and use that to buy the stuff you want to keep for yourself. Everything else can be LLC owned.

Re:The 1% are insulated

[Nadaka]

I am not asking for ever-increasing control of the economy. I am asking for some social justice, some equity, some defense for the common man against the abuse of those in power. What I want is a well regulated capitalist economy where the government is of the people and for the people. That isn't communism, it isn't fascism, and it isn't a Laissez-faire anarchy or feudal plutocracy that libertarian ideals inevitably lead to. It is capitalist with a stabilizing influence of socialism where you are never punished for getting rich, nor are you punished for being poor or middle class.

The problem isn't the currency

[MrEricSir]

The problem is a financial system built on making enormous amounts of money without contributing to society.

What is the goal?

[bigjarom]

These protests lack a specific and/or measurable goal. It's really difficult to reach a goal that you haven't set. I agree with most of the rhetoric being brandied about, but the lack of focus could be a deal breaker for the occupy movement.

Re:What is the goal?

[luckymutt]

It seems like all they are really doing is venting because times are shitty right now for most people, and the top earners are better insulated for such times (yes, they have what you may call an unfair advantage to get there, yes.)
Most of them seem to be protesting against Wall Street, investors, and capitalism in general, however it was the *anti-capitalism* actions of the TARP bailout that a lot of them are citing.

They really should be focusing on protesting Congress and the White House. The people on Wall Street are there to make as much money as they can. They don't mince words about it. If congress gives them a break that is not fair to the 99%, you really can't expect them to not accept it.
Our Country's leaders are the ones who need to be protested on this issue for directly allowing the top 1% to have additional tax breaks, bail-outs, 0% interest loans on federal monies that they turn around and charge 28% on, etc., etc., etc.

For example: by setting up shop (even on paper) in Ireland, the Bahamas or where ever else, US companies can get out of paying federal tax. Legally.
Not so with an individual. As an American citizen, if I go live and work in Ireland, or anywhere else, without ANY ties to the US at all, I still am required to pay US Federal income tax on the money I earn(in addition to that countries taxes.)
Are you really going to blame GE for, essentially, following the rules?
Protest Washington...you won't get any better results, but at least you'll be barking up the right tree.

It's the left version of the Tea Party

[0xdeadbeef]

Populist rage of the disaffected, only these are unemployed college grads instead of moderately racist suburbanites. And while this group lacks coherent talking points, at least they are angry at the right people.

Re:It's the left version of the Tea Party

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Populist rage of the disaffected, only these are unemployed college grads instead of moderately racist suburbanites. And while this group lacks coherent talking points, at least they are angry at the right people.

Really? Then why aren't the protesting their University for putting them tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for a degree that isn't worth a tenth of that? You know, the universities sitting on multi-billion dollar endowments yet are raising tuition many times the rate of inflation? In an age where information is vastly cheaper and easier to acquire, they are making it much harder and more expensive.

The fact they are blaming Wall St, which has absolutely nothing to do with their degrees' cost, shows their university did not provide them with the necessary critical thinking skills to make it in the world.

Re:It's the left version of the Tea Party

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

They have cogent talking points, tax equity for individuals and corporations. One person, one vote ( minimize the power of money from the top to influence elections and elected officials). There message is simple and close to the message of the original Tea Party which came out against Wall Street before the Koch brothers and Fox took over that group and steered them to be anti-government instead of anti-wall street.

Re:It's the left version of the Tea Party

[edi_guy]

It's interesting to me that Biden says there are similarities between the Tea Party and the Wall St movement, but gets shouted down or mocked by both. Take that a the core principle of the Tea Party is that government has gotten too big, is too wasteful & corrupt and is essentially bankrupting the country you would get a lot of agreement from the public. Take that a core principle of the Wall St movement is that corporations are too big, too powerful & corrupt, and are selling out this country, then that too would probably get a lot of agreement from the public. But still no effort or interest to join together to effect REAL change And of course the fact that the media invariably 'simplifies' the characterizations of one group to be racist rednecks, and the other group to be dirty hippies so that the true 'Middle' type folks won't feel comfortable supporting one or the other and certainly not both. Critical thinking on both sides of the political spectrum would help, but experience has shown that is harder to find in America today than a domestic coding job...

Re:It's the left version of the Tea Party

[dkleinsc]

The three aspects of Occupy Wall St that are like the Tea Party are:
1. It's without question a populist movement.
2. It's emphasizing peaceful protest as a way of getting what you want.
3. It's not coming from either major party's political apparatus.

That's about where the similarities end. Some of the more significant differences:
1. Police have generally been favorable to or at least tolerant of Tea Party protests. They have been hostile and violent towards Occupy Wall St.
2. As of yet, there have been no indications that Occupy Wall St will turn into "elect Democrats" in a way that the Tea Party turned into "elect Republicans". There are also indications that attempts to turn it into an effort to elect Democrats would likely end in failure.
3. There are no wealthy donors and no major corporations giving money to Occupy Wall St, in the way that the Tea Party was financially supported by News Corp.

Re:It's the left version of the Tea Party

[L4t3r4lu5]

You have quoted the Daily Mail. Any argument or point you made is automatically discarded out of hand for being biased, factually inaccurate, or simply fabricated entirely. They are a peddler of inflammatory right-wing bias and malign disinformation.

I put more stock in the journalistic integrity of News Corp over the Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Re:Sick of it...

[GameboyRMH]

About time the losing side in the class war started fighting back, I say...

Re:The protesters need to refocus their anger.

[gcnaddict]

Funny as it sounds: Bernie Madoff is sitting in jail right now for ripping off the rich, and they all got their money back. None of the people who wrote loans to everyday people knowing these people would default ended up going to jail. None of the people who inflated credit ratings on subprime financial vehicles are getting punished. This is where the protests should focus on, not just "greed," whatever that is.

Re:Completely valid

[AnonGCB]

The problem isn't wealth distribution, it's the fact that the government can regulate the industry and just print money and give it to the corporations. With a central point of failure (the federal government) it's easy for business to become corrupt.

Treat the source, not the symptom. Get the federal government back to doing the (very) few things that it is mandated to by the constitution.

As for Obama, he didn't really remember much of his campaign platform after he was elected last time, I don't see why it'd be different this time.

Bitterness

[SirGarlon]

I see a lot of bitterness on Slashdot about the U.S. political system: the sentiment that all the politicians are bought by moneyed interests and are at best indifferent, at worst actively hostile, to the needs of the person in the street or the country as a whole. I see the "Occupy<Location>" protests as expressing the same sentiment.

At this point I think it's more important to build consensus about the need for action, than to determine a specific course of action.

Re:Bitterness

[Stradivarius]

To determine a course of action, first we need to diagnose the problem. My take is this:

1. Both parties in Congress have become largely unresponsive, over the past decade at least, to the will of the people.

2. They have become less responsive because they have gerrymandered district lines to an insane level. The popularity of Congress has been hovering around a mere 20% for years, yet the last 3 elections (2006, 2008, 2010), heralded as huge sweeps, saw roughly 85% of incumbents keep their seats. The voters are no longer picking their politicians, the politicians are picking their voters.

3. Because of this dilution in voter power, the power of moneyed interests has increased (certainly in relative terms, maybe in absolute terms too). We see both parties increasingly enmeshed in cronyism, in which they attempt to give subsidies to allies while levying taxes or regulations against opponents. Even after the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression, on a bipartisan basis Congress proved unable or unwilling to tackle Too Big To Fail. If that's not a sign that Congress has freed itself from the will of the voters, I don't know what is.

Doing something about gerrymandering would seem to be a step in the right direction. An example would be to put responsibility for district lines into a nonpartisan commission's hands, perhaps aided by algorithms to help maximize competitiveness. That has the advantage of being something that folks from across the political spectrum could get behind.

An additional response to Congressional misdeeds is to stop allowing Congress to meddle in as much as it does, thus limiting the damage. But that has several downsides: 1) the left in the US seems reluctant to constrain the power of Congress, and 2) the right in the US, despite its rhetoric, has been extremely ineffective in electing members who actually would limit Congress, perhaps because 3) there is currently very little incentive for Congress to constrain itself.

Clueless

[bigmattana]

I think this photo pretty well sums it up.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/10/down-with-evil-corporations-photo.html

Unequivocal support

[Hatta]

These people are the best chance we've had to turn around a country that's been headed in the wrong direction for at least the past 30 years. We live in a country where Goldman Sachs can commit thousands of acts of felony perjury, and not one person stands trial. They create fraudulent financial instruments, and pay back a small portion of their ill gotten gains as "fines" (bribes). Yet if I were to write a bad check to cover some groceries, I'd be going straight to jail. There's no way to describe this but tyranny.

Barack Obama, the greatest hope in a generation, is either unable or unwilling to do anything about this. If he's unwilling we have a severe political problem. He was elected to bring us change he refuses to deliver, and we have no way to hold him accountable.

On the other hand, if he's unable, we have a much more serious problem. That means democracy is well and truly dead in this country. The corporations have a complete stranglehold on our government. Unfortunately, this is more likely to be the truth.

Re:perspective

[sjames]

So, you're saying that unless they are the one person on earth living in the worst possible conditions without actually dieing, they should cheerfully accept their regular ass-raping and just be thrilled that they're not that guy? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Many ways; here's one

[istartedi]

I see it (hopefully) within the context of similar protests that have occured throughout US history.

For example, the Pullman Strike. That, and other labor unrest during the later part of the "robber barron" era lead to things we now take for granted such as minimum wage and the 40 hour week.

There were also grass roots leftist movements during the Great Depression.

When you read these histories, some of the things said by actors on both sides are eerily similar.

The hope is that these actions will reform and perfect our republic; but not destroy it. "Revolution" is a word that gets tossed around a lot; but I think there are very few people who want a true revolution (which I would define as a new constitutional convention that unseats all currently elected officials in one fell swoop and replaces them with something else).

The US has been flexible over its history, and that's a strength. We don't need a revolution because it's built into the Constitution in the form of elections and even the ability to ammend the Constitution itself. For example, some have proposed an ammendment that would overturn Citizens United and strip corporations of personhood. I'm not arguing for or against such an ammendment. I'm just citing it as an example of how change can occur within the framework of the Constitution without destroying the nation.

In other words, we have the rights of speech and assembly, and they are being used. I just hope they don't get abused and destroyed.

Re:Sick of it...

[NeutronCowboy]

The simple fact that you're mentioning a class war makes me think you have little useful to say. What's going on right now has nothing to do with class warfare, and all to do with people being sick of bailing out private institutions when their bets failed.

Re:The protesters need to refocus their anger.

[RightSaidFred99]

What exact crime is it to give someone a loan? Please, who exactly do we arrest and for what? In fact, if they had been as tight as a duck's ass about handing out loans people would be whining that the American dream is dead because "normal people" can't afford a house.

If you're going to throw some banker in jail for loaning $300k to someone for a house, make sure you throw the asshole who thought he could afford a $300k house so he could keep up with his neighbors.

That's my big issue with them

[Sycraft-fu]

I want to know two things:

1) What are your problems? Not some random vague laundry list like "Wall street is bad," or "The rich suck." A short, specific, list of the things you believe are big enough problems that they warrant protesting over.

2) What shall we do about them? Just whining that there are problems is not useful. Propose solutions. Real, workable, solutions. Understand what the tradeoffs for those solutions are (all actions have cost) and be ok with that.

If you can't identify what it is your goals are and how you might go about achieving them, then I can't really support you because I don't know what I'd be supporting. Also I don't think there is much chance of success.

If you look at the successful stuff along these lines. Like, say, the civil rights movement they had precisely what I was talking about. They could clearly define the problem (that minorities were not treated the same as whites) and the solution (require the same treatment under the law) they desired. There was a goal being worked towards. It was something people could rally behind, and did.

So these people need to figure out what they want and how it should be done, and be able to state that in a cohesive fashion. Until then, I can't be supportive because I won't support something unless I understand what it is I'm supporting.

Re:That's my big issue with them

[gilgongo]

What are your problems?

Banking should be a service to industry that facilitates socially useful capital and equity, not be an industry in its own right. The social good derived from (say) derivatives shorting is vanishingly close to zero.

1) What shall we do about them?

(I think this has been articulated rather clearly by the movement to anyone wishing to ask). Re-introduce the Glass-Steagall Act, impose a transaction tax (eg 0.01%) on every trade of any kind performed on the stock markets, and re-balance shareholders' interests against equity build using suitable regulatory legislation.

So - what say you?

Revolution is easy - No Debt.

[devleopard]

I can't speak to the "entire" 99%. However, there's a large number who fall in this category: Middle class, busting their ass, struggling with credit cards, student loans, car payments, mortgages. Just making it. They're angry at the right people - but they have the wrong idea. The middle class are more than happy to keep signing up for credit - this is how the rich have become the new Monarchy. You don't kill that power with signs and cries to the government: you do it by choosing to stop giving them all your keys to personal power.

Teach your children: Debt is bad. Go to college on grants and scholarship, bust your ass working to pay for the rest. (Make 70% of a Harvard salary, but with $100,000+ less debt) (You'll have to teach your kids to get past the fantasy they've been sold that college is foremost about the social experience - work your ass off, study your ass off, and if you have any left over time, that's for socializing)

No credit cards. If you don't have the cash (yes, I mean debit card, silly) to buy the latest iPhone/clothes/Christmas present, then plan better. Or accept that you simply can't afford it.

No car loans. No car leases. First car will be garbage. Pay yourself what you'd pay in a car payment - every 3-5 years you'll have a pretty nice car and no debt ever. New cars - never. Horrible loss of value. Always buy something 2-5 years old.

Mortgage: This is the hard one. Most people can't save up $150,000-$300,000. Actually they can.. but let's assume you need to rely on the bank. Never get into a house with less than 20% down. Then attack that mortgage. Don't pay the minimum and keep the rest so you can have the latest shiny beepy and your kids can have the latest plastic happy. Live crazy cheap for 7 years - most people can pay off their house in this time. If you start off early, and have a decent job (and aren't strangling yourself with debt), it's possible to save up and just write a check.

Obviously all this is a bit insane, but let's stop believing the lies: we have to go to the best school, the only safe car is a new car, that credit card payments are a way of life. Your best tools aren't your picket signs and your Tumblog: it's your income. Take it back, and make it the force behind changing your life.

For those already in the hole, there are some sacrifices to be made, but it's possible.

An average person, 100% debt free by age 35, will be a multi-millionnaire by the time they are 70 (assuming they aren't a total idiot about how they spend their $ after debt).

Re:Completely valid

[Just Another Perl Ha]

Sorry... no.

Sad as it may seem, the federal government (as screwed up as it is) is the only body that could possibly keep these fuckers in check. Your proposal would make the federal government weaker which would in turn make the Wall St. asshats stronger which in turn screws us all.

Instead of drowning the federal government in a bathtub (ala Grover Norquist), I suggest we take our government back from the greedy pigs and use that power to set things straight.

Simply getting rid of the sheep dogs because they've sold out to the wolves is not the way to go. If you leave the sheep to fend for themselves, we'll all end up as wolf poop.

What we need is new sheep dogs.

The whole concept of 1%/wealth is ... irrelevant

[johnlcallaway]

Just doing a little math and public numbers .. assuming the US has a population of about 310M, then 3.1M people would be 1% (since I don't know if it's adults or adults and kids, they are using the 1% nomenclature for, let's just start someplace.)

According to Wikipedia, the total net worth in the US is $55T. That means that if 1% of the population (3.1M) have 90% of wealth, then they have about $50T or about 16M/person, and the rest of us (the 99%) have $17K per person. Now .,, this is WEALTH, not income. This is stuff people own. (I'll ignore the fact for now that the US has about 25% of the worlds wealth, even though we only have less than 10% of the population. Because if the protestors stopped to consider that, they might realize the hypocrisy and greed of what they are talking about.)

I'm 51 and my wife and I are above this 10% number (that is $17K * 2 or $34K in assets) when I take into account the equity in my home ($0), the vehicles we own, misc. stuff in the house, and our IRAs.

Thirty years ago, I was waaayyy below this number, like at ZERO wealth. Imagine that, as a young man just starting out I didn't have jack shit. Probably didn't even hit the 10% number until I was almost 40.

So .. all of you kids out there who don't own crap .. get over it. Get a job, start building income, and someday you will own part of that 10%. Probably not until you are in your 30s or later. But I started out as an office clerk, worked decent jobs, took advantage of opportunity, and now make close to $100K/year without going to college.

And don't tell me that opportunity doesn't exist today. My 24 year old daughter and her husband were able to save up the 20% down for a house living at home with their parents while doing this thing called 'working' and 'saving'. She started as a dog bather at Pet Smart at 18, took advantage of their free dog grooming training, and now makes a decent income as an independent dog groomer. These two are married and own a home with a mortgage cheaper than a new car payment, and don't quite have $34K in the bank together, but they are getting close. Oh .. they also both go to school full time, she works and he gets a stipend as a grad student. Since they waited until they own a home and don't live on campus, they save thousands. And their college costs are low enough that their parents can help out a bit (about half) without going into debt themselves.

Put your priorities in order and stop depending on other people to help you out. If you can't find a job, it's because people don't want YOU. It's YOUR fault, not theirs or society's or the 1% group. My wife has been searching for a full time job for 6 months, but you don't see us out there asking for help. We did this thing called 'budgeting' and 'doing without'.

These may be a difficult concepts for some of you young kids to grasp. But it's obvious you haven't learned how to wipe your bottoms, give it some time and you might learn how to do these things too.

Now GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!

Mod parent up

[davide marney]

Very solid advice. I'd add a few more:

- If you get married, learn to live on one income.

- If you do have a second income, use it to pay down debt as aggressively as you can, then to save up for big-ticket items such as a down-payment on a house, a used car, retirement, etc.

- If you plan to have children, don't count on a second income until the youngest is of school age. It's a full-time job to care for very young children. It makes sense to maintain business contacts, go to professional events, and do short contract work to keep your resume current, just don't count on the income. Take care of the kids first, then ease back into work -- and apply that extra income to getting debt-free.

- Don't spend a lot of money on "premiere" vacations while kids are very young. They won't remember any of it when they get older, and it's incredibly stressful on the whole family. Take the kids to the great outdoors instead. National and state parks are amazingly good vacations, and cheap, too.

- Invest early. It takes decades to build up a nest egg. The goal is to have a big enough nest egg so you can live 2/3 off the interest income when you retire, the other 1/3 from retirement insurance plans such as Social Security.

Not just we, but you too, are the 99%.

[MxTxL]

I've been around here long enough to know that top posting unrelated to the prior comment is bad etiquette, but again, I've been around here long enough to know when it is appropriate. I also know the magic formula for getting modded up is to say "I'll probably get modded down for this but.."

I'll probably get modded down for this but it is important enough to risk it.

The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have any leaders or stated goals or structure on purpose. This is an action deliberately taken in order to have broad populist appeal. The same instant they take a side on any issue, the established political system will immediately use that as a wedge issue to label, then divide and conquer the scraps of popular sentiment and kill any interest. Once a leader is selected, they will find one thing that guy/gal has said publicly, label him as a partisan for it and kill the movement. The parties have been doing this for years and have more experience, skill and money to deflate populist action than can be competed against. The only way to win that game is not to play.

The movement does have a goal and that is to take back our democracy. Get people talking about the issues again without having predetermined party lines or agendas. Once those lines are drawn, almost everyone stops listening or thinking and just go like lemmings how they have always done. The only thing this movement wants is an equal shake at a fair government. They want their representatives to actually represent them instead of representing the highest bidder: usually the rich and the corporations.

The purpose here is not to take any specific issue to congress, it's to overturn congress with people who actually listen to their electorate. If that means voting incumbents out, great, or at least put the fear of the people back into them, good too.

What is their stand on abortion? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.

What is their stand on gay rights? The environment? Housing? Taxation? Big Government? None. But once we have fair representation, we can talk about it democratically.

What is their stand on any issue? TBD but we'll talk about it democratically once we have fair representation.

You don't have to agree with this movement on any specific issue and you don't have to hold off on support because they don't have talking points or take stands on your personal hot-button issue. For now it's enough to say that all the issues are TBD until such time as we have fair representation and can figure it all out democratically.

There is a sentiment of discontent in everyone I talk to. Everyone knows the system is broken but nobody has the power to change that. Voting is supposed to solve these problems but voting either way is a vote for the same thing.

Slashdot is typically an open minded place, I think this movement should speak to each of you. The only thing they want is more democracy. I don't blame anyone for thinking there is a hidden agenda, because there almost always is. But this movement has reached enough of a mass with the cause of having no purpose that it would be hard to argue that there is one. When the only underlying cause visible in their message is "More democracy!", I don't see how anyone can be against that. Want to change something about that platform, get out there and discuss it democratically instead of sniping at it from the comfort of slashdot.

This is a movement that is outside of and has rejected the established political system. And it's the only one I've seen in my lifetime that has rejected playing the two-party game. I am very excited that it has even gained some traction and has people talking!!! To me it is a moral imperative that we support this. Even if all it means is getting some people you know to talk out the issue.... even that alone is progress.

And it's not the liberal Tea Party!!!

[MxTxL]

And one more thing: It's not the liberal version of the Tea Party. Both sides would **LOVE** for that to be the big soundbyte for precisely the same reason: Divide and conquer. The right will discredit it to their base as more liberal whack jobs and the left will attempt to co-opt whoever remains with the movement. It's important to reject that notion outright. The movement has NO POLITICAL STAND. The only way to win the game is not to play.

To me, the one side means the most

[JohnnyComeLately]

You can say Robosigners, corporate greed, etc all day and all night long. However, only ONE side is obligated to future performance. It's the borrower. When you apply for a loan, you are stating in writing you can make the payments. It doesn't matter if a one-eyed monkey rubber stamped your application, cut and paste with huge plastic scissors, and 6 year olds handed you the half million you borrowed. If you borrow $500,000, and see your payments close to $4,000 a month, it doesn't take a mathematical genius to say, "Do I really have $4,000 left over in my checking account at the end of every month? Or if I don't could I comfortably get there?" No math involved...just look at your bank statement for this month, and this month minus one. Do you see your average daily balance increase? Of course, if your rent is already there, no math needed. Another scenario: Paying $2k a month rent? Adjust. Do I have $2,000 left.

Back in 2000, I bought my home for $280,000. I knew it was tight, but I knew between my wife and I we could do it. 4 or 5 years later, we had 2nd mortgage lenders trying to talk us into huge loans, and I knew we couldn't easily afford it. I walked from them. Could I have gotten approved? Easily. Did I notice they were practically begging you to take their money? Sure. However, it's MY signature on the line, and MY credit. I am the one responsible for my actions and my debts.

Back to the OT, the same goes for my outlook on the protestors. You are responsible for your career and life. Life is not guaranteed nor should it be. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. When I was 18, I decided I didn't want a near-minimum wage job and wanted to provide for my soon to be wife. I enlisted in the Air Force, and earned my B.S degree before getting out 7 years later. I had my MBA half done. I took student loans, which 11 years later are still painful, but I pay them and am grateful I earn 6 digits to provide for my family. They live comfortably at my sacrifice. No one gave me anything. I worked from minimum wage, to near minimum wage (junior enlisted through most of the 90s). I positioned myself, got an education and worked my way up. Engineer. Senior Engineer. Senior Engineer II. Director.

Corrupt as Wall St may or may not be, you can still drive your destiny. Don't like corporate greed affecting your lives? Wall Street is the wrong address. Congress and the White House are your destinations for direct change. When you hear Obama is "far exceeding campaign goals," where do you think that money is coming from? What do you think it's intent is for? When you see in California moves to block reform of education and litigation, why do you think you see union and trial lawyer association donations jump up? Just these two items alone have deep, profound impacts upon your daily lives.

So to summarize, they're misguided and utopian. I don't want them to succeed because if one of their primary demands is, "Equal pay regardless of work," then that reeks of decay and socialism. If they really feel that way, I would encourage them to spend some time, say about 2-3 years, working in European countries that heavily legislate pay, benefits, etc and see how that's working for them.

It's not.