Occupy Calgary/Do Not Merge

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Great article on the growing strength of the Occupy movement:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...2198405/page2/

Also, I think this paragraph sums up the whole thing very well:

It’s true, as critics state, that the occupiers lack focus. What those critics haven’t grasped is that the initial absence of a cleanly packaged set of demands is precisely what marks Occupy Wall Street as a truly democratic movement. It’s all about the process. There is no CEO corporate-style hierarchy here, and no one told the occupiers in advance what they should say. What we are witnessing is a leaderless, horizontally organized, participatory democratic process in action

"Growing" is a bit of a misnomer in this case.

It's not difficult to find a few hundred like-minded people on a subject like this in ANY city of one million or more.

And its probably not difficult in our social media age to have those few hundred in a variety of cities spring up for their day in the sun, which is what is happening.

"Growing" as a descriptive would be more applicable if, after springing up with those first few hundred, thousands and tens of thousands more joined the initial group in EACH of those locations.

You're just not seeing that yet.

Organizers would hope that would happen but I haven't seen it.

And I think a lack of clear goals and focus is the problem.

"The usual suspects" are coming out but its hardly a groundswell.

Cowperson

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

sure, because plotting the data points for the other 10 years and then connecting the dots would clearly debunk the trend that is shown right?

there's tons of data showing how housing prices have escalated compared to salaries. And it hasn't been since the nineties. Try mid 70's. The housing bubble simply exacerbated that difference.

I don't know. It wouldn't change the trend, but it might make it look far less drastic - or more drastic, I dont know.

I don't have time to search through all the data and create a chart, and the creator of the chart decided to make it with *at least* 25% of it comprised of completely fabricated data. There is no reason to think the rest of the information displayed on the graph is fully accurate either.

Trust me, as a student working full time for a non-profit organization while attending classes with a wife and 2 kids at home, I feel the pain of housing prices.

I just don't think that graph is an accurate.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

What we are witnessing is a leaderless, horizontally organized, participatory democratic process in action

They left out unemployed.

[Fire]

So we know what the unproductive members of society will be doing this weekend...

[GP_Matt]

Two issues have come up more than once here that I have a problem with.

The first is the money in politics. I think the last presidential election cost around a billion dollars. That works out to less than a dollar a year per citizen. It doesn't seem like a lot of money to spend to determine the direction of your country. As for the lobbyists and corporate donations, it sure looks like the general public can generate a lot more money through millions of small donations then any corporation could part with. Even looking at a few of the previous elections, I think Obama and Harper both benefited from lower average donations from a larger group of people. I think the problem might not be the money, but rather that only a few are engaged enough to spend it while the others complain. I would wonder how many of the protestors have donated even 5$ a year to a party or political campaign that they believe in.

My second complaint is the wealth gap. I don't see a wealth gap as a bad thing by itself. If inflation adjusted income is dropping in any quintile there is a problem, but if everyone is making more money but some are seeing their wages increase faster than others why does that matter. As an example, if I start a business that bills out all employees at an hourly rate equivalent to cost plus 20% then if I need 5 employees to make the same income as the employees. From there, for every extra employee I hire, their salary will stay constant but my profits will go up. Looking at that purely from the perspective of the wage gap, hiring extra employees would make me a monster and sharing a rate increase with them in the form of a wage bump would be a neutral act.

[Resolute 14]

I'm struggling to find numbers on long term income trends in Calgary, but to help (or obfuscate) the debate:

Housing prices in Calgary over the last 40 years:

Spoiler!

More charts here: http://calgaryrealestatereview.com/2...ales-timeline/

As I said, the median income is hard to find long term, but according to this CBC article from 2008, the median income in the city rose. In 2006, it was just under $31k for an individual and just over $82k for a family. In 2001, inflation adjusted, it was just under $29k and $77k. Or about a 6.5-7% increase in real spending power. Ouch.

Looking at the housing price chart, it appears that in mid-2001, the average price of a home was about $175k. In mid-2006 right before the market shot up like a rocket), about $250k. Inflation adjusting the 2001 average for 2006 dollars comes to $195,000. So a difference of $55k or a 28% increase in home cost vs. the 7% increase in income.

Now, the problem: lies, damned lies, and statistics. All of these charts and totals are median figures, but they simply do not reflect the median person. Calgary has a healthy number of CEOs and million dollar homes that skew the averages upward, and a healthy number of homless and working poor that skew the averages downward. On the balance though, and only from my personal experience, I do think the housing market saw a greater disparity in that time for the average person/family than the raw numbers suggest.

Then again, I was able to buy a condo in 2009 when I had no hope of affording one in 2007, despite the fact that my income was decreasing when adjusted for inflation. In short, Caramon's table became complete BS somehere in mid 2008, but the overall point his rooted in a valid argument.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

"Growing" is a bit of a misnomer in this case.

And its probably not difficult in our social media age to have those few hundred in a variety of cities spring up for their day in the sun, which is what is happening.

"Growing" as a descriptive would be more applicable if, after springing up with those first few hundred, thousands and tens of thousands more joined the initial group in EACH of those locations.


Cowperson

If spreading to over 70 American cities and gaining traction in countries worldwide isn't "growing", then I don't know what is. What started out as a few hundred students not just three weeks ago in one location has ballooned to hundreds of thousands (if not more) people protesting worldwide and supporting the cause. What can't you see about the "growing" part? Does there need to be over a million in each location? How much more of a description do you need?


I also think you're underestimating the power of social media and how people use it to drive social change. The Arab Spring this year clearly demonstrated this, and I can think of a few more than just a 'few hundred' people with their 'day in the sun':

- Iran, 2009 - Twitter Revolution against Irainian elections - the role of social media was paramount in voicing dissent, and the U.S. government even ordered Twitter to stay open during routine maintenance so they could gather Tweets that provided open-source intelligence
- Moldova, 2009 - civil unrest organized with 10k people on Twitter
- Egypt, 2008 - 40,000 protestors organized on Facebook over food prices and government corruption
- Colombia, 2008 - Solidarity movements against FARC - 1.5 million protestors

There are other examples, but don't discount the younger generation's ability to organize and drive change. People are pissed off, even if you don't see why they are, Cow.

[Resolute 14]

It is rather cute that the hipsters in the OccupyCity protests try to compare themselves to oppressed people hoping to gain freedom from dictators...

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is rather cute that the hipsters in the OccupyCity protests try to compare themselves to oppressed people hoping to gain freedom from dictators...

It would be amusing for Nenshi to greet them with fire-hoses and rubber bullets, so that they can have a "reality" experience. Someone might drop their soy latte...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Two issues have come up more than once here that I have a problem with.

The first is the money in politics. I think the last presidential election cost around a billion dollars. That works out to less than a dollar a year per citizen. It doesn't seem like a lot of money to spend to determine the direction of your country. As for the lobbyists and corporate donations, it sure looks like the general public can generate a lot more money through millions of small donations then any corporation could part with. Even looking at a few of the previous elections, I think Obama and Harper both benefited from lower average donations from a larger group of people. I think the problem might not be the money, but rather that only a few are engaged enough to spend it while the others complain. I would wonder how many of the protestors have donated even 5$ a year to a party or political campaign that they believe in.

Here's the problem that I have, here is a list of Obama's largest contributors

University of California $1,648,685Goldman Sachs $1,013,091Harvard University $878,164Microsoft Corp $852,167Google Inc $814,540JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799Citigroup Inc $736,771Time Warner $624,618Sidley Austin LLP $600,298Stanford University $595,716National Amusements Inc $563,798WilmerHale LLP $550,668Columbia University $547,852Skadden, Arps et al $543,539UBS AG $532,674IBM Corp $532,372General Electric $529,855US Government $513,308Morgan Stanley $512,232Latham & Watkins $503,295

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

I think I read somewhere that Obama raised almost $10 million from Lobby groups and about $45 million from Law firms
Here's a site where you can breakdown by sectors

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=F09

I also think your wrong on the private donation versus corporate donation scale, but I don't have time to dig that up right now.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is rather cute that the hipsters in the OccupyCity protests try to compare themselves to oppressed people hoping to gain freedom from dictators...

What are you going to say if they actually achieve true, political change?

[troutman]

This generation needs an Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music. At Cowperson's ranch.

[CaptainCrunch]

With all due respect Ozy, I have my doubts that a rabble is going to achieve much of anything.

the Arab Wellsprings were well organized, had fairly defined leadership especially in Egypt, and they were focused on a specific goal.

For example, I looked at the list of demands that popped up from the Occupy Wallstreet, and it was so ludicris that nobody is going to take them seriously in terms of changing the system.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

This generation needs an Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music. At Cowperson's ranch.

But you never once paid for drugs.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But you never once paid for drugs.

Don't try the Brown Acid.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You can start by posting average income vs housing prices over the last 20 years.

LOL, I'm not doing that. The fact is you posted a chart which is basically made up to try to prove a point.

If you can't afford a house then don't buy one. There is more to life than owning property though; you can always rent if that is the best option.

I'm not that much older than these disaffected 20 somethings. I'm not getting into the details of my upbringing, but it was far from being born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I whole-heartedly agree with pylons post early which basically says if you want something than go work for it. Its funny because I'm one of the posters on this board who would be considered "bleeding heart"....so if I have a strong feeling about that I can only imagine how strongly some of the others feel about this!

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

With all due respect Ozy, I have my doubts that a rabble is going to achieve much of anything.

the Arab Wellsprings were well organized, had fairly defined leadership especially in Egypt, and they were focused on a specific goal.

For example, I looked at the list of demands that popped up from the Occupy Wallstreet, and it was so ludicris that nobody is going to take them seriously in terms of changing the system.

I agree these Occupy protests are significantly different from the Arab Spring protests, but that doesn't mean something won't come about from this - it may just take a little longer. The protests show no signs of slowing down, and it's all been done in a non-violent, peaceful manner. That's the kind of mass public action that demands attention at the highest echelons of the U.S. administration. Obama has even sympathized with them and admitted the current system isn't perfect.

I guess I'm more pragmatic about the whole situation because I see it as the first real response by the American public on a mass scale to protest a broken banking and regulatory system. If some change - any change - can come of this, then I think the protests have achieved a purpose.

[GP_Matt]

Captain, I am not saying that private donations are bigger than corporate, I have no idea really. I am just saying that private donations have the potential to be a lot bigger simply because of the scale. If every American sent $5 a year to the party that best represents their interests that would be 6 billion dollars per election cycle which dwarfs the million dollars that the big corporations hand over. I don't think there are too many people who can't scrounge up a few dollars for a cause. I don't know about the states, but the tax credits in Canada mean that on the first $200 you get $150 back come tax time and anything over ~ $1500 carries no tax credit at all. The system is in place to encourage small donations from everyone.

[RedJester]

Did I miss the memo that the Occupy Movement was suddenly all about the twenty something crowd not working hard enough?

I was under the impression, at least in the United States, that it was a mixed crowd of people. Baby boomers who have lost their pensions, healthcare workers who aren't able to help the sick, union workers who are fighting for a cause, those kinds of people. Certainly students and younger people are going to be among them, I suppose, but that hardly says anything about their work ethic.

If anything, it's exactly what troutman alluded to earlier - a left wing version of the Tea Party. And given the pull the Tea Party has had on the Republican party as of late, this is precisely what the US needs right now to hopefully bring things back closer to center.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Here's the problem that I have, here is a list of Obama's largest contributors

University of California $1,648,685Goldman Sachs $1,013,091Harvard University $878,164Microsoft Corp $852,167Google Inc $814,540JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799Citigroup Inc $736,771Time Warner $624,618Sidley Austin LLP $600,298Stanford University $595,716National Amusements Inc $563,798WilmerHale LLP $550,668Columbia University $547,852Skadden, Arps et al $543,539UBS AG $532,674IBM Corp $532,372General Electric $529,855US Government $513,308Morgan Stanley $512,232Latham & Watkins $503,295

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/co...?cid=N00009638

I think I read somewhere that Obama raised almost $10 million from Lobby groups and about $45 million from Law firms
Here's a site where you can breakdown by sectors

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=F09

I also think your wrong on the private donation versus corporate donation scale, but I don't have time to dig that up right now.

How does the US government give a donation to a candidate in an election?