The Demands of Occupy Wall Street

[WinePusher]

People at occupy wall street have released unofficial lists of demands here and there. There are apparently many out there and they don't seem to correspond to eachtother, but here's one unofficial list of demands:

-Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending Freetrade by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
-Demand 2: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
-Demand 3: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
-Demand 4: Free college education.
-Demand 5: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
-Demand 6: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
-Demand 7: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of Americas nuclear power plants.
-Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
-Demand 9: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
-Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
-Demand 11: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the Books. World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the Books. And I dont mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
-Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
-Demand 13: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/10/08/o ... f-demands/

1) What do you make of these demands? Are they reasonable or unreasonable?
2) In a list of demands seperate from this list, OWS protestors have expressed disapproval towards the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision. Do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
3) Although absent from the list of demands, OWS have expressed disdainment towards what they percieve to be a growing gap between the top 1% of society and the remaining 99% of society. What is the truth regarding wealth and income inequality?

[JohnPaul]

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

Uh.. No. he was not 'middle class'.. his parents were mulch-millionaires. And, back in the early 80's, a million dollars was a lot more than it is now.

Now, Wozniak and Jobs were middle class.

I'll take your word for what a million is worth. I never came close to making my first million, although I did manage to scrimp and save enough for a secure retirement.

This may be a little off-topic, but what exactly is your definition of middle class? I know that in political speeches now, the words "lower class" are never used, so the lower class no longer exists and the middle class is wide open at the bottom all the way down to the gutter, but what do you see as the top level of middle class?

John

[Lux]

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

Uh.. No. he was not 'middle class'.. his parents were mulch-millionaires. And, back in the early 80's, a million dollars was a lot more than it is now.

Now, Wozniak and Jobs were middle class.

His father was solidly middle class all his life; went to school on the GI bill, became a lawyer...in fact, his parents were what we all think 'middle class' IS.

Well, 'upper-middle class' and they got their on their own. They also taught their son the work ethic that allowed him to get where HE is.

He didn't inherit his billions, and his dad didn't inherit HIS wealth, either. What in the name of all that is wonderful have you got against people actually succeeding in America, anyway?

Whether or not you think it's morally right, it's hard to dismiss the idea that if you come from a well-off family you will have a lot more opportunities to succeed than if you don't. Heck, I come from a middle class family and I will admit any day of the week that, as I start college, I am at a distinct advantage over people my age that come from low income families.

This is not to say that most people don't work to get to where they are, but that depending on where you come from you will have more or less opportunities to be successful, by any definition of the word, regardless of how much you work.

[dianaiad]

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

Uh.. No. he was not 'middle class'.. his parents were mulch-millionaires. And, back in the early 80's, a million dollars was a lot more than it is now.

Now, Wozniak and Jobs were middle class.

His father was solidly middle class all his life; went to school on the GI bill, became a lawyer...in fact, his parents were what we all think 'middle class' IS.

Well, 'upper-middle class' and they got their on their own. They also taught their son the work ethic that allowed him to get where HE is.

He didn't inherit his billions, and his dad didn't inherit HIS wealth, either. What in the name of all that is wonderful have you got against people actually succeeding in America, anyway?

Whether or not you think it's morally right, it's hard to dismiss the idea that if you come from a well-off family you will have a lot more opportunities to succeed than if you don't. Heck, I come from a middle class family and I will admit any day of the week that, as I start college, I am at a distinct advantage over people my age that come from low income families.

This is not to say that most people don't work to get to where they are, but that depending on where you come from you will have more or less opportunities to be successful, by any definition of the word, regardless of how much you work.

Actually, the kid who comes from a poor family whose mother (or father...I'm an equal opportunity parenting sort of person) who STAYS HOME and teaches the kids the value of work and education is light years ahead of the kid from a family whose parents both work, have money....and fob the kids off onto day care.

But then, I'm just a teacher who has had to deal with kids from all sorts of family situations, and the mother of five kids who have had to deal with "Dad works, Mom's home," "Mom works, Dad's home," and "single Mom" situations. What would I know about it?

[nygreenguy]

Whether or not you think it's morally right, it's hard to dismiss the idea that if you come from a well-off family you will have a lot more opportunities to succeed than if you don't.

Especially since I posted statistics which prove this. If you start high, you are more likely to stay high. If you are middle class, they are split with 1/3 moving up. 1/3 moving down. 1/3 staying the same. For the lower classes, they are most likely to stay low.

Heck, I come from a middle class family and I will admit any day of the week that, as I start college, I am at a distinct advantage over people my age that come from low income families.

This is not to say that most people don't work to get to where they are, but that depending on where you come from you will have more or less opportunities to be successful, by any definition of the word, regardless of how much you work.

I come from a lower class and I am definitely moving ahead of my parents. this is for MANY reasons though. My parents did a lot of drugs, and one arrest could have totally altered my life outcome. So I owe that to pure luck. I also did have middle class parents who did help to raise me which gave me some sense of stability. I also wouldnt be where I am without financial aid for school.

then there is the small aspect that I simply refused to end up like my parents. I wasnt taught work ethic or anything of the sort so I have had to learn it all on my own as an adult.

Either way, because of my class it was much more difficult to move. I dont know a single peer of mine who i grew up with that even went to college. Many didnt even finish school. It is statistically improbable it is simply due to "laziness". The idea that if you work hard, you can make it, and not just make it, but become wealthy is a total myth. Im not saying it CANT happen, but it is just one extreme of the bell curve. There are a multitude of factors which influence economic mobility and hard work and ingenuity are only two of them.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

So if I am understanding you correctly, you dismiss the statistics because they do not take the number of people per household into account? If so, I think you're mistaken, because the referenced study clearly does take household size into account. I'm not really grasping how you think this makes the numbers inaccurate.

Do you have any other better studies to compare with?

The problem with statistics is that they report income at one given moment in time as opposed to following changes in income over a long period of time. You think your case has been proven Fuzzy Dunlop just because some people have recklessly thrown out some statistics and numbers that seem to support your premise. Statistics, especially in economics and sociology, are extremely dubious because they contain thousands and thousands of fallacies. A statistic showing a huge income and wealth gap among different quintiles does not take into account that people within these quintiles are constantly moving. So while the number of people comprised in a quintile remains constant, the individuals themselves are always changing. In addition to that, the measurements of family/household income do not incorporate factors such as househould size. Median household income can decline at the same time per capita income can rise because as the number of people per household declines the median income of that household will also decline. When you look at actual individuals, per capita income, the average total has been increasing, not decreasing. The gap is much smaller in this area which is why you people ignore it. It's an inconvient fact.

You have been shown evidence. You have criticisms of this evidence which, as far as I can tell, are entirely unfounded. You suggest that the study does not take into account people moving between quintiles when the study is about movement between quintiles. You suggest that the study does not take into account household size when the study clearly does take into account household size and discuss how changes in household size affect the findings.

You provide no counter-evidence, only false criticisms and rhetoric, and then you call this "fact." I don't understand how I am supposed to find yours a convincing position if you present no evidence to support it.

[WinePusher]

The problem with statistics is that they report income at one given moment in time as opposed to following changes in income over a long period of time. You think your case has been proven Fuzzy Dunlop just because some people have recklessly thrown out some statistics and numbers that seem to support your premise. Statistics, especially in economics and sociology, are extremely dubious because they contain thousands and thousands of fallacies. A statistic showing a huge income and wealth gap among different quintiles does not take into account that people within these quintiles are constantly moving. So while the number of people comprised in a quintile remains constant, the individuals themselves are always changing. In addition to that, the measurements of family/household income do not incorporate factors such as househould size. Median household income can decline at the same time per capita income can rise because as the number of people per household declines the median income of that household will also decline. When you look at actual individuals, per capita income, the average total has been increasing, not decreasing. The gap is much smaller in this area which is why you people ignore it. It's an inconvient fact.

You have been shown evidence. You have criticisms of this evidence which, as far as I can tell, are entirely unfounded. You suggest that the study does not take into account people moving between quintiles when the study is about movement between quintiles. You suggest that the study does not take into account household size when the study clearly does take into account household size and discuss how changes in household size affect the findings.

You provide no counter-evidence, only false criticisms and rhetoric, and then you call this "fact." I don't understand how I am supposed to find yours a convincing position if you present no evidence to support it.

I'm done talking to you about this. You won't produce an argument and there isn't one single drop of substance in your post. It's not productive. You say my criticisms are unfounded but can't argue or demonstrate the flaw in the reasoning. Debate isn't where you post up a link and I post up a link, it's where both of us takes the time to type out an argument or post explaining our position. For whatever reason, you don't want to. I suspect it's because you don't understand what I'm saying.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'm done talking to you about this. You won't produce an argument and there isn't one single drop of substance in your post. It's not productive. You say my criticisms are unfounded but can't argue or demonstrate the flaw in the reasoning. Debate isn't where you post up a link and I post up a link, it's where both of us takes the time to type out an argument or post explaining our position. For whatever reason, you don't want to. I suspect it's because you don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm starting to get the impression that you haven't read the study you're criticizing. Here is a quote from the study that you say does not take household size into account:

The growth in family incomes over this time period was accompanied by a shrinking in family size. According to Current Population Survey data, the average number of individuals per family shrank from 3.1 to 2.3 individuals between 1969 and 1998. Taking into consideration the smaller family size as well as the growth in family income, families are generally better off economically today.

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/ ... ations.pdf

How exactly are my criticisms lacking in substance? You are trying to dismiss evidence based on methodological flaws that do not exist, and present no counter-evidence to support your own position.

[JohnPaul]

nygreenguy wrote:

Especially since I posted statistics which prove this. If you start high, you are more likely to stay high. If you are middle class, they are split with 1/3 moving up. 1/3 moving down. 1/3 staying the same. For the lower classes, they are most likely to stay low

Wow! Imagine that! Have you never heard of the Bell Curve showing the distribution of human abilities? I don't mean a plot of class or income status. I mean actual inherent individual abilities! This may come as a total shock to liberals, but PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ABILITIES! This is true over any class or income level. Any mention of IQ or the Bell curve has been adamantly banned from American public schools for more than 50 years of liberal domination which has resulted in an American adult population more than half of whom were recently reported to be "functionally illiterate" and has placed America near the very bottom of the developed world in educational achievement.

In my experience, I have encountered dozens of high school graduates and even at least one college graduate who could barely read and write at the most elementary level and could not add a column of numbers to save their life. Simple instructions had to be verbally explained to them, they could not write a coherent sentence on an application form, and considered such things as fractions or percentages to be advanced math which should not reasonably be expected of them. Yet these stump-stupid clods came from a variety of backgrounds and all proudly claimed high school diplomas.

Enough ranting for now! You get the idea. In a land of opportunity, people tend to end up where they belong.

John

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

nygreenguy wrote:

Especially since I posted statistics which prove this. If you start high, you are more likely to stay high. If you are middle class, they are split with 1/3 moving up. 1/3 moving down. 1/3 staying the same. For the lower classes, they are most likely to stay low

Wow! Imagine that! Have you never heard of the Bell Curve showing the distribution of human abilities? I don't mean a plot of class or income status. I mean actual inherent individual abilities! This may come as a total shock to liberals, but PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE EQUAL ABILITIES! This is true over any class or income level. Any mention of IQ or the Bell curve has been adamantly banned from American public schools for more than 50 years of liberal domination which has resulted in an American adult population more than half of whom were recently reported to be "functionally illiterate" and has placed America near the very bottom of the developed world in educational achievement.

In my experience, I have encountered dozens of high school graduates and even at least one college graduate who could barely read and write at the most elementary level and could not add a column of numbers to save their life. Simple instructions had to be verbally explained to them, they could not write a coherent sentence on an application form, and considered such things as fractions or percentages to be advanced math which should not reasonably be expected of them. Yet these stump-stupid clods came from a variety of backgrounds and all proudly claimed high school diplomas.

Enough ranting for now! You get the idea. In a land of opportunity, people tend to end up where they belong.

John

Am I to understand that you argue income immobility is caused by the inherent biological deficiencies of many poor people to a larger extent than any other factor? I am not understanding how your theory is supposed to explain the data. Shouldn't we expect much more income mobility to be apparent in the data if intelligence were equally distributed among the population?

Do you have any evidence supporting your assertions?

[nygreenguy]

Am I to understand that you argue income immobility is caused by the inherent biological deficiencies of many poor people to a larger extent than any other factor?

No. It is more of a social/cultural/economic barrier.

I am not understanding how your theory is supposed to explain the data.

It is not a theory.

Shouldn't we expect much more income mobility to be apparent in the data if intelligence were equally distributed among the population?

Yes, except intelligence is not what drives income mobility.

Do you have any evidence supporting your assertions?

What specific assertions?

I just realized you were not talking to me. oops..