#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd argue all of what we got from that is a product of capitalism as well, the AK47 and the RPG are the only things I can think of that found a wider market from the communist block.

Eh?

The most spectacular technological leaps have resulted from the many wars throughout the 20th century.

Besides, what we have had for the past few decades sure aint Capitalism.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is not entirely accurate, as much as it pains me to admit it.

I'm as anti-union as they come, but the reason we live as well as we do today isn't because of the system but largely because of victories won by organized labour against the system in the post-war years. Things the middle class take for granted today, like company benefits, pensions, cost-of-living salary increases, etc., came about largely because of the successes of unions in the 1940s and 50s. As many graphs posted in this thread have shown, that era saw the middle class make rapid gains in their share of overall wealth and the gap between the rich and other classes was much lower than it was either pre-Great Depression or post-Reaganomics.

The rise of the middle class didn't happen because of altruism on the part of the corporate masters. In fact, the ideal world for the 1% is a return to the robber baron era of the 1880s, rolling back the New Deal and other programs and benefits (both government and corporate) that salaried workers -- either unionized or not -- depend upon.

I hate unions in their modern form as much as anyone, but I don't deny their historic significance and the benefits today's middle class owe to them.

As an ex BCGEU shop stewerd I wouldn't dipute any of your post, but wealth has to be created before it is distributed, unions without bosses get you little more than Yugo's and pumpernikel bread

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Barnet Flame

Eh?

The most spectacular technological leaps have resulted from the many wars throughout the 20th century.

Besides, what we have had for the past few decades sure aint Capitalism.

What the wars created was a massive goverment market, it is still capitalism.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Nothing is stopping you. My parents (3 kids) for example - both teachers - my mother stayed at home for 20 years. We didn't have the biggest house, the nicest cars....but off my dads teaching salary i was able to play hockey for 15 years, sister horse back riding, brother playing hockey, school europe trips, family vacations, without ever being in debt, my dad retired at 55 (10 years ago) and my parents through living within their means and saving money and investing the little money they made it - did quite well for themselves. No doubt they had some help from their parents in the form of inheritance (which wasn't that much) but they did it. They may not be in the 1% but they a nice little nest egg. That's just an example that it is possible.

Be smart with your money, live within your means and you may not be in the 1% but you will have a comfortable life.

Sorry don't mean to you preach to you.

Don't forget there are a lot of people in the 1% who came from nothing, how many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt?

I just don't believe in saying never....you don't need to be in the 1% to have a good life.


Do the rich need to be taxed more? Sure i have no problem with that....Do the some of the 99% need to freaking man/woman up and contribute more? YUP

You're talking about completely different things here. Your first post was about being in the 1%, this one is about living comfortably. Those aren't remotely close to being the same thing. I live very comfortably and have no reason to believe that won't be the case in the future. And you're right, most people have the ability to have comfortable lives. But you said nothing is preventing most people from being in the 1% and that's just simply not true.

Btw, I don't believe Trump himself has ever been bankrupt. Multiple entities have filed for bankruptcy but that doesn't impact his personal wealth.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'd argue all of what we got from that is a product of capitalism as well, the AK47 and the RPG are the only things I can think of that found a wider market from the communist block.

Semtex, t-62 and t-72 tanks, the Lada in the 70's.

Any number of transport and military aircraft.

The hand held sams were widely distributed.

They didn't export a lot of consumer type finished goods because communism inherantly builds bad products.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They didn't export a lot of consumer type finished goods because communism inherantly builds bad products.

And even if you fluke out and actually make a good product, Communism doesn't lend itself to industrial design at all.

The commies could fluke out and build an accurate and durable wrist watch, for example, but guaranteed it would be super ugly because there is no competition in their market, so no reason to waste time on aesthetics.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're talking about completely different things here. Your first post was about being in the 1%, this one is about living comfortably. Those aren't remotely close to being the same thing. I live very comfortably and have no reason to believe that won't be the case in the future. And you're right, most people have the ability to have comfortable lives. But you said nothing is preventing most people from being in the 1% and that's just simply not true.

Btw, I don't believe Trump himself has ever been bankrupt. Multiple entities have filed for bankruptcy but that doesn't impact his personal wealth.

fair enough, let me rephrase it, the only thing that stops people from being in the 1% is themselves....it's true. If i chose to be a bus driver, hey im prob never gonna be in the 1%, if chose to be a teacher, not going to be in the 1%

If i start a company and work hard to make it succesfull and sell it, i might be in the 1% .

People have a choice, some people might be limited by a disability, some people may not have a choice, but most people do.

If i chose to get a philosophy degree and sit and whine that other people have it better, hey i made that choice -

If i go to art school and make art that nobody likes....( you might be able to live off grants that other people have paid for) well i guess you aren't going to be in the 1%.....

Some people who are angry or occupy made their own choices and aren't taking responsibilty for those choices and expect everyone else to help them out - I think that's crap

[woob]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

As an ex BCGEU shop stewerd I wouldn't dipute any of your post, but wealth has to be created before it is distributed, unions without bosses get you little more than Yugo's and pumpernikel bread

Pimp My Yugo

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

fair enough, let me rephrase it, the only thing that stops people from being in the 1% is themselves....it's true. If i chose to be a bus driver, hey im prob never gonna be in the 1%, if chose to be a teacher, not going to be in the 1%

If i start a company and work hard to make it succesfull and sell it, i might be in the 1% .

People have a choice, some people might be limited by a disability, some people may not have a choice, but most people do.

If i chose to get a philosophy degree and sit and whine that other people have it better, hey i made that choice -

If i go to art school and make art that nobody likes....( you might be able to live off grants that other people have paid for) well i guess you aren't going to be in the 1%.....

Some people who are angry or occupy made their own choices and aren't taking responsibilty for those choices and expect everyone else to help them out - I think that's crap

Even phrased like that you're seriously underestimating how difficult it would be for anyone who is not born into money to crack into the 1%. I work at a large international law firm, the people I work alongside are all highly accomplished, highly motivated, and highly intelligent. They didn't go to art school, they didn't get useless degrees, they went to Yale, they went to MIT, they went to Harvard (note, this does not apply to me) and then they did it again to get their law degrees. The VAST majority of them will never crack the 1%. A comfortable life? Probably, depending on your definition. 1%? Unlikely.

[JohnnyB]

To me, getting into being in that 1% is not really the problem. The problem is the size of the gap between that 1% and everyone else and the growing influence of that 1% on the operation of what ought to be a democracy that looks after the majority's interests. Not everyone would want to choose a life that gets them into the 1%, but many people also do not want to live in a country where life and politics are ruled entirely by financial power without being balanced by social values.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by valo403

Even phrased like that you're seriously underestimating how difficult it would be for anyone who is not born into money to crack into the 1%. I work at a large international law firm, the people I work alongside are all highly accomplished, highly motivated, and highly intelligent. They didn't go to art school, they didn't get useless degrees, they went to Yale, they went to MIT, they went to Harvard (note, this does not apply to me) and then they did it again to get their law degrees. The VAST majority of them will never crack the 1%. A comfortable life? Probably, depending on your definition. 1%? Unlikely.

Providing my own bit of anecdotal evidence to support this point...

My company employs one of the absolute best Cisco network experts in the world. He didn't do a "useless" philosophy or arts degree but rather pursued a career in the business world. His time is in incredibly high demand, and he routinely works 60-80 hour weeks. There are maybe only 100 other people in the entire country who can do what he does.

I don't know his salary, but I suspect it's roughly in the $150-175k/year range (including bonuses). That's a very comfortable living, and most of us would be fortunate indeed if we ever reached that income level in our careers. That doesn't make him part of the 1%, though.

Now, what would happen if he absolutely screwed up on the job and was fired? Do you think he'd get a multi-million dollar golden parachute? Absolutely not. So why do corporate executives who are fired after driving their companies into the ground? It's like they play by an entirely separate set of rules, and for the vast majority of people, probably even more than "the 99%", we will never have the opportunity to join their exclusive club no matter how competent, how hard-working, or how educated we are.

I have zero problem with people earning large salaries if they deserve it, but I'd like very much to hear a compelling argument explaining why a corporate executive or investment banker can command a much higher salary, benefits package, and perks like golden parachutes while my colleague above cannot.

[woob]

Gap Between Rich And Poor

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't know his salary, but I suspect it's roughly in the $150-175k/year range (including bonuses). That's a very comfortable living, and most of us would be fortunate indeed if we ever reached that income level in our careers. That doesn't make him part of the 1%, though.

The top 1% in Canada is $170,000 so he may well be.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

The top 1% in Canada is $170,000 so he may well be.

I recall reading that the top 1% in Canada was $183k, but either way, my point was that he's not in the ultra-exclusive executive club where he earns millions in base pay, bonuses, stock options, etc. per year despite working very hard for long hours and having a skill set that is both extraordinarily rare and in incredibly high demand.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Providing my own bit of anecdotal evidence to support this point...

My company employs one of the absolute best Cisco network experts in the world. He didn't do a "useless" philosophy or arts degree but rather pursued a career in the business world. His time is in incredibly high demand, and he routinely works 60-80 hour weeks. There are maybe only 100 other people in the entire country who can do what he does.

I don't know his salary, but I suspect it's roughly in the $150-175k/year range (including bonuses). That's a very comfortable living, and most of us would be fortunate indeed if we ever reached that income level in our careers. That doesn't make him part of the 1%, though.

Now, what would happen if he absolutely screwed up on the job and was fired? Do you think he'd get a multi-million dollar golden parachute? Absolutely not. So why do corporate executives who are fired after driving their companies into the ground? It's like they play by an entirely separate set of rules, and for the vast majority of people, probably even more than "the 99%", we will never have the opportunity to join their exclusive club no matter how competent, how hard-working, or how educated we are.

I have zero problem with people earning large salaries if they deserve it, but I'd like very much to hear a compelling argument explaining why a corporate executive or investment banker can command a much higher salary, benefits package, and perks like golden parachutes while my colleague above cannot.

That is where the problem really lies. It's a social equity issue. If people are wishing they had the opportunity to be a part of the 1% it's because they can see or at least feel the gross imbalance in power and inequitable standards that have developed to favour the influence of the 1% in places that should still be ruled by social values and politics representing the majority interest.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I recall reading that the top 1% in Canada was $183k, but either way, my point was that he's not in the ultra-exclusive executive club where he earns millions in base pay, bonuses, stock options, etc. per year despite working very hard for long hours and having a skill set that is both extraordinarily rare and in incredibly high demand.

Is there any difference between the bottom of the 1% group and the top of the 99% group?

This guy has a skill set that is possessed by much less than 1% of the Canadian population and is probably being paid in the top 2% of incomes. If that's the level of inequity we are griping about (up to 2%), it's still pretty thin gruel on which to base a revolution.

[afc wimbledon]

Todays merchant bankers are just last centuries Dukes and Barons, is it unfair? of course, but as unfair as it is it is a system that has provided the most with the most than any other, personally I could care less about the gap between rich and poor, it is irrelavant as long as everyone is fed, and if their is one thing we can say with certainty it is that N Americans are well fed.

Of course I was dirt poor growing up so having enough to eat is probably more important to me than some mythic state of equity mankind has no chance of attaining.
That #### has always been something the middle class has sweated over, in between their late's and yoga classes.

[V]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

70% of OWS is employed

Do you have a link to support that? I'd love to see it, because I hate the fact that this protest has more or less been ridiculed as the movement of self-entitled lazy uninterested hippies. This bothers me, because I am very sympathetic to the movement, but incredibly disappointed with the embarrassing PR losses the movement is taking.

And to Mel, if it was that simple to make it to the 1% it wouldn't be the 1%. I'm so tired of the myth of meritocracy.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by V

Do you have a link to support that? I'd love to see it, because I hate the fact that this protest has more or less been ridiculed as the movement of self-entitled lazy uninterested hippies. This bothers me, because I am very sympathetic to the movement, but incredibly disappointed with the embarrassing PR losses the movement is taking.

Here's some information from Fast Company based on analysis on October 19th of OWS supporters.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1792056/o...cs-infographic

It's a pretty interesting infographic which basically notes that ~67% of supporters are employed, with only ~12% unemployed and ~10% are full-time students.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by V

Do you have a link to support that? I'd love to see it, because I hate the fact that this protest has more or less been ridiculed as the movement of self-entitled lazy uninterested hippies. This bothers me, because I am very sympathetic to the movement, but incredibly disappointed with the embarrassing PR losses the movement is taking.

And to Mel, if it was that simple to make it to the 1% it wouldn't be the 1%. I'm so tired of the myth of meritocracy.

That's where my disappointment lies as well, but I saw it form day one. The whole way this movement was established was ripe for the idiot fringe to become the voice, at least to the general public. There are so many good points, but they're lost due to the unwillingness to establish any sort of leadership based around actual intelligent points. The people and the ideas to do so are there, for some reason rejecting those at the edges isn't seen as an option and because of that the whole thing is undermining those points.

Oddly enough Bloomberg has been one of the view people to actually point this out. He had a statement today about the majority of the OWS protesters not being dirtbags. The OWS movement itself needs to find a way to separate itself from those people.