Occupy Movement

[Aggie]

I'm surprised we haven't discussed this yet.  What's your take on the Occupy movement?


I'm quite surprised this is actually happening now. I thought it would take people a little longer to wake up to things, but perhaps that's Alberta bias (the crude's still flowing here, and so are the petro-dollars, so there's little concern about the economy or corporate pay).

[Opsa]

I have mixed feelings about it, since the cynic in me sometimes can't figure out who's side they're on, but overall, I am happy that there's a protest movement that strong out there. It definitely lowers the complacency factor, and that's good.

[Griffin NoName]

I think they have the right idea. Sadly, it's been a bit of a fiasco here in London as there's been so much trouble with the Church (St Pauls) and also they seem to have been infiltrated by druggies, the homeless, and other fringes of society.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Nice, well intentioned, idealist, naive, there's not much pragmatism in them, therefore stuff happens, homeless people take the opportunity, and with reason. Hierarchical structures exist for a reason, and while it is understood how corruptible they are, it is practically impossible to effect change without some form of it.

A pragmatical approach is to organize each chapter and try to win elections, but given that anyone running for office is suspect by default they wouldn't do so, which makes them a nuisance, and one not too effective unless it is to call attention to themselves for a little while.

Sadly the only way to move ahead is to accept that you will have to deal with sociopaths, but ones willing to win a little less than the ones we currently have...

[Swatopluk]

One effect they have is to 'force' the elites to react, which in many cases mean that they come out from behind the curtain because they lose their nerves. From their perspective the wisest choice would be to simply ignore and let the winter do the rest. But instead they either let drop their mask (mow that mob down!) or they run around in panic (they're on to us!). And their attempted/discussed countermeasures work further to discredit them (e.g. the Luntz persentation or, the memos about agents provocateur).
Some might say (as is the favorite phrase of the Faux) that Occupy is like the terrorists. They can only win by making the other side destroy itself. There will be no new American revolution from the Left but the Right's counterproductive actions in fear of it may (best case scenario) achieve something similar. But of course it could also end with neofascism or the 'Chinese Solution'. The latter has more or less been endorsed by at least one GOP presidential candidate ('we should be more like China!' without a social safety net an no (legal) unions).

[Sibling DavidH]

Sadly, it's been a bit of a fiasco here in London as there's been so much trouble with the Church (St Pauls) and also they seem to have been infiltrated by druggies, the homeless, and other fringes of society.

Right!  You can't get the protesters these days, it's not like when I was a young lad....

[Swatopluk]

Wacht auf, Verdummte dieser Erde
Die stets man noch nach Ungarn zwingt

[Aggie]

I think they have the right idea. Sadly, it's been a bit of a fiasco here in London as there's been so much trouble with the Church (St Pauls) and also they seem to have been infiltrated by druggies, the homeless, and other fringes of society.

The druggies, homeless and other fringes of society are largely what this is about, IMHO.  Largely speaking, the Occupy discussion is about re-imagining society to bring it into a form that will enfranchise EVERYONE.  I'm not saying that the Occupy movement has any ability to achieve these kind of goals, but I think that's the spirit behind it.  

Free-market capitalist society is quite fine with letting the bottom 1% fall under the bus to keep the wheels rolling. Tearing down the top 20% to improve life for the middle 60% shouldn't be the goal here, IMHO*. The gap between the median income (in the US) of ~$50,000 and the bottom 1% (<$2500 per year) is starker and more appalling in many ways than the gap between the median and the top 1% (>$500,000 per year).

The whole point of civilization, in my opinion, is to provide an adequate standard of living and opportunity for personal development for all people within the civilization.  That's apparently not a common perspective in many places.  

_{*but can we tear down the top 20% anyways for the sheer hell of it?  I'm personally committed to the cause:  According to this little calculator I would have been in the top 20% in the US last year, and I'm now personally seeing to tearing down my income to follow my ideals.}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Free-market capitalist society is quite fine with letting the bottom 1% fall under the bus to keep the wheels rolling.

They're quite fine letting the bottom 60% fall under the bus, in smaller economies where ~50%+ of the population lives in poverty they couldn't care less, and when they care is because they think can squeeze even more out of that rock.

Right now, the percentage of people living under the poverty line is close to ~15% in the US and UK, and ~10 in Canada (as a point of comparison, Mexico has a ~35%, and Colombia ~45%), those numbers have been growing over the past 20 years in the first world so we can rule out compassion in laissez. faire economies.

My main hypothesis is that one of measures taken during and after the New Deal, not only in the States but in western Europe was the realization on part of the .1% that the only way to prevent the rise of communism was to assure some level of balance between the upper and the lower ends of the pyramid (some call that a social contract). Once the Soviet Union collapsed, and China moved towards a market economy, communism was discredited enough to allow the end of the social contract, given that a communist revolution is no longer possible, IOW there is no need to protect the median citizen of the western world. If things balance themselves out as expected, poverty in the first world should be closer to the average of the rest of the world, that is upwards 30%+.

And they are perfectly happy with that.

[Aggie]

If things balance themselves out as expected, poverty in the first world should be closer to the average of the rest of the world, that is upwards 30%+.

And they are perfectly happy with that.

Perhaps my plan to learn skills to live fairly comfortably with little income is not so short-sighted.  I'd encourage any potential future offspring to pursue formal education, but also think that learning to do with what you can scratch up on your own will be invaluable.  

If your balance of 30% below the poverty line is correct (seems reasonable to me), one has to determine whether they are comfortable with being in the top 70% of a society that allows the bottom 30% to live in poverty.  Thinking generationally, everyone would like their children and grandchildren to have an equivalent if not better standard of living than themselves, but this may not be possible for a significant slice of the population in this century.  

I've personally given up on any hope of trying to change the system, but I would prefer not to be complicit in it.  I'm preparing to be a very successful poor person rather than struggling to reach the top in a game I don't believe is beneficial to anyone involved.  I'm not expecting it to be easy, but it may or may not prove to be a pragmatic strategy.  The US in particular seems to be doing a good job of cranking more and more (unpaid/underpaid) effort out of those who are 'in' using the implicit threat that if you are not sacrificing more than the worker in the next cubicle, you'll soon find yourself out on your @$$. Making sure your family continues to have a home easily and naturally becomes a more acute concern than y'know, actually spending quality time with them.


It's a joke I make at the moment, but soon the social structure is going to have to figure out how to accommodate 3-parent families, because it'll take three incomes to raise one.    

[Griffin NoName]

Sadly, it's been a bit of a fiasco here in London as there's been so much trouble with the Church (St Pauls) and also they seem to have been infiltrated by druggies, the homeless, and other fringes of society.

Right!  You can't get the protesters these days, it's not like when I was a young lad....

   (agreed!)

The druggies, homeless and other fringes of society are largely what this is about, IMHO.

Yes, agreed, but it's just no good having them on demonstrations 

Perhaps my plan to learn skills to live fairly comfortably with little income is not so short-sighted.     

As long as your health is good enough to "do the work" involved. (speaking as someone who's sudden, long term ill health has had a drastic effect).

It's a joke I make at the moment, but soon the social structure is going to have to figure out how to accommodate 3-parent families, because it'll take three incomes to raise one.    

LOL !

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

It's a joke I make at the moment, but soon the social structure is going to have to figure out how to accommodate 3-parent families, because it'll take three incomes to raise one.    

Polyandry works that way as a way to increase the odds of survival of the offspring. Considering that female income is still 20% below and that childcare is often as expensive as the income mom would make, several fathers make perfect sense...  

[Griffin NoName]

It's a joke I make at the moment, but soon the social structure is going to have to figure out how to accommodate 3-parent families, because it'll take three incomes to raise one.    

Polyandry works that way as a way to increase the odds of survival of the offspring. Considering that female income is still 20% below and that childcare is often as expensive as the income mom would make, several fathers make perfect sense...  

Surely what makes sense is to have no children? Capitalism as the end of the human race?

[Swatopluk]

At least as the start of a human race reduced in numbers significantly (which would be good).
I guess 1-1.5 billion would be enough. The problem is how to get there without massive misery, brutal bloodshed, and cruel carnage.

[pieces o nine]

Surely what makes sense is to have no children? Capitalism as the end of the human race?

Considering the real-world application of personal- and family-related policies in many US corporations, that would seem to be the end game...