Why Occupy Wall Street Isn't Working

Posted: 07/31/2012 9:10 am

React

AmazingInspiringFunnyScaryHotCrazyImportantWeird

Follow

Social Media , Zuccotti Park , Occupy Movement , Occupy Wall Street , Occupy Wall Street Criticism , Teen News

SHARE THIS STORY

2

9

0

Submit this story

On September 17, 2011, over one thousand protesters moved into Zuccotti Park, located in New York's financial district. This marked the start of a movement that would soon gain international attention: Occupy Wall Street. The idea for a peaceful protest on Wall Street, ironically, did not emerge from the United States but instead from a Canadian-based group known as the Adbusters. After spreading to the United States, the protesters embraced the slogan "We are the 99 percent," which implies that the United States is now controlled by a one percent elite group who have an immense amount of social, economic and political influences. The slogan emphasizes the extreme wealth disparity that is present today, but also highlights various other issues in the United States economy and society, such as the limited social mobility and lack of opportunity. The reasons and concerns brought up by the Occupy Wall Street movement are justified because of the growing economic and social inequality; however, although the movement has significantly increased awareness about the economic disparity and the unbalanced power in the hands of the wealthy, the movement has ultimately failed to produce tangible reform or make a positive impact because of the lack of leadership and inefficient protest methods.

Some people might praise the movement for launching itself into a new era with different and more technology-oriented protest methods, making it more innovative and effective protest. With Internet and technology revolutionizing the world, people believe that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are taking a step in the right direction and creating an Internet-based movement where most of the discussion and planning is done over Internet in a collaborative fashion. As Stephen Gandel states, people have "tweeted, Tumblred and streamed" in order to get the work out about Occupy Wall Street; most of the Occupiers heavily rely on "social media to get their message to friends and the rest of the world." What people fail to realize is that having an Internet-based movement actually takes away the impact and the ability to facilitate change and make a difference -- relying on the Internet vastly limits the efficiency and efficaciousness of the protests. Because so much of the movement is influenced by the events and comments online, the demographic of the audience is immediately confined to a younger generation. Instead of appealing to a variety of people of different ages, most of the protesters are relatively young because those are the people who use social networking sites the most.

The Occupy protesters have also been threatening the livelihoods of many people who are not part of the protest, which can be clearly seen in Zuccotti Park, the symbolic base of the movement. Because there is so much press about the protesters occupying Zuccotti Park, many potential customers are being scared away from the small businesses that surround the area. According to Connor Sheet's article in the International Business Times, 12 business owners report that they have been losing $9,000 per day since the Occupy Wall Street movement first started in September; by mid-November, the businesses reported that "$479,000 has been lost due to the impacts of the Occupy Wall Street protest encampment in Manhattan's financial district." Many people cannot easily access these businesses anymore because of the police enforcement in the local area; because of the decrease in revenue, many of these businesses have had to lay off a number of employees due to restricted access and fewer customers. The Occupy protesters are directly and negatively impacting the small business owners and their employees, who are the same people that they should be fighting for.

Occupy Wall Street brings many important and legitimate concerns about the future of America, such as the growing wealth disparity, lack of job opportunity and social mobility, and lack of response from the government. The issues they raise are essential to the well-being of the United States, but the protest methods have neither been beneficial or impactful. Though Occupy Wall Street aims to better the conditions for the 99 percent, because of their lack of leadership and dependency on the Internet, they do not have a positive influence. The protesting methods that the protesters have been employing are more detrimental for the 99 percent than for the one percent, making the movement ineffective as a whole.

Share your reports & photos from Occupy Wall Street events

If you've been to an Occupy Wall Street event anywhere in the country, we'd like to hear from you. Send OfftheBus your photos, links to videos or first-hand accounts of what you've seen for possible inclusion in The Huffington Posts's coverage.

'Dark Knight Rises' Connection To Occupy Wall Street Was 'Luck'

'We couldn't have planned that. It just sort of happened,' writer David S. Goyer says of the parallel between the movie and today's politics.

By Kevin P. Sullivan (@KPSull) 

• • Email
• More»

When people talk about Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, it is usually not in the context of a superhero movie. In the seven years since "Batman Begins" redefined the character's cinematic persona, the series has entered into a realm of its own, one based on gritty realism and weightier consequences.
MTV News spoke with two of the series' writers, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer, at the red-carpet premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" to find out what made these movies stand out in the genre of costumed heroes.
Nolan said that much of the difference came down to the nature of the man behind the mask, Bruce Wayne. "The thing about Bruce Wayne is that his superpower is money and rage," he said. "And there's something transformative about a normal person, not a guy who was born with some magical gift that he just discovers, but a person who decides to become something extraordinary."

'Dark Knight Rises' Writer Inspired By Frank Miller's 'Batman'

It was that choice that had an effect on Nolan at a young age. "I think I always related to that. It's always been the key difference between a character like Batman and all the other characters in the DC pantheon," he said. "There are some great characters there, but this is the one I always kind of connected to the most. ... You had all kinds of science fiction and some fantasy throughout the Batman books through 70 years, but for the most part, we took the idea that this was a real guy in the real world and ran in that direction."
David S. Goyer, who co-wrote the screenplay for "Batman Begins" and the stories for "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises," brought up some similar reasoning, but it was also important to make the hero relevant to today.
"Batman has always been the most grounded of the major superheroes," Goyer said. "He doesn't have any superpower, doesn't come from an alien planet, things like that, but our approach from the very beginning was that we were going to treat this as real-world as possible within the superhero confines."
Many have pointed out an apparent parallel between the story of "The Dark Knight Rises" and the Occupy Wall Street Movement, but Goyer dismissed any similarities as coincidence. "It was just kind of luck that the themes we were dealing with in this film happened to coincide with the Occupy Wall Street, 99 percent thing," he said. "We couldn't have planned that. It just sort of happened. We try to make them as meaningful. Hopefully, they're sort of like a Greek myth that reflects back on what's happening in today's politics."
Check out everything we've got on "The Dark Knight Rises."
For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com.

'Dark Knight Rises' Ending Had Goyer Tearing Up

Steve Scauzillo: Occupy is 'Bane' of new Batman movie

Posted:   07/27/2012 02:43:00 AM PDT

FRIENDS and countrymen:
I have not come here to bury the Occupy Movement, but to praise it.
That quote, loosely adapted from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar," is not true for the movie "The Dark Knight Rises."
The latest Batman installment, third in a trilogy of meatier super hero movies based on "the Batman" comic book character by director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan, has strong allusions to the Occupy Wall Street Movement. It pokes and prods the rich, or in the Occupy vernacular, the 1 percent, in not-so-subtle ways.
It puts the Occupy message into the mouth of the evil villain - Bane. Seems like this movie's more damaging to the left than to the right. (Some have said it was a dis on Bain Capital, a company once run by Mitt Romney.)
The movie's antagonist, an exile turned away by the League of Shadows (see the first Nolan movie, "Batman Begins," 2005) puts capitalism in his bull's-eye and literally occupies Wall Street and New York, er, Gotham City. There are speeches made by the evil Bane talking about removing wealthy and corrupt leaders and giving "the people" their rightful power.
One scene shows a Batmobile-type hovercraft zipping down a Manhattan street, past a shot of a Saks Fifth Avenue store as the city is occupied. Even more blatant, there's a scene in which a rich man is hiding under a piece of Rococo furniture in what presumably is a high-rise apartment, only to be dragged away by one of the 99

---

Advertisement

---

percent now running Gotham with Bane.When I saw the movie, I was reminded of my last trip to New York City in October, when Occupy Wall Street was rallying in a small city park nearby.
I stood a good 500 yards from the capital of Western wealth. Police barricades blocked the entrance to the New York Stock Exchange Building to all but traders and office workers. Later, NYPD officers wearing crisp blue uniforms patrolled the streets, some on horseback, swarming Lower Manhattan in anticipation of the anti-movement's next strike. But nothing happened, at least not that day. And I still don't recall any daggers being thrust into the heart of capitalism by the fledgling group.
As an aside, a device made popular in Shakespeare tragedies, Wall Street didn't need any Bane or Occupiers to toss monkey wrenches into the economy. It managed to mess things up on its own through greedy brokers and dishonest trading based on faulty mortgages and a pyramid scheme involving credit default swaps. But that, as they say, is history.
My point is this movie - a reminder that it is just that - doesn't pay homage to Occupy. It shatters it. It directly lifts themes and some language and puts them in the mouth of an evil terrorist who loses credibility with his twisted plan to kill innocent people.
Yes, I know, that's entertainment. But why aren't I hearing more outrage from the Occupy Movement about this? The group is clearly cast in this unflattering light. To tell you how unflattering will reveal too much of the plot and I don't want to be a spoiler for those who haven't seen it yet.
Even though Nolan and others who made the movie say they didn't base the character or the plot on the Occupy movement, that's not the point. Even if it was not intentional, the perception is there. And perception is what sways public opinion. That can't be good for a movement that just got into trouble for drawing on the sidewalk in L.A with chalk.
Unless the folks from Occupy adhere to that old Hollywood adage: There's no such thing as bad publicity.
Steve.scauzillo@sgvn.com
626-962-8811 ext. 2237

Read more:http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_21171416/steve-scauzillo-occupy-is-bane-new-batman-movie#ixzz21r1g8HNQ

Hardworking Americans should not be living in poverty

By Mary Kay Henry and Christine L. Owens, Special to CNN

updated 10:15 AM EDT, Wed July 25, 2012

A woman shops at a Salvation Army thrift store recently in Utica, New York.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Writers: Working at minimum wage, Americans can't keep families fed and clothed
• As prices rise, they say, federal minimum wage stays at $7.25 an hour, or $15,080 a year
• Writers: As CEOs, corporations profit, middle-class jobs lost to low-wage work
• Writers: Minimum wage hike would help struggling Americans

Editor's note: Mary Kay Henry is international president of the Service Employees International Union. Christine L. Owens is the executive director of the National Employment Law Project.

(CNN) -- When the U.S. economy collapsed, millions of us lost our homes, our jobs, our retirement savings and our faith in the American dream. What we gained was a very clear view of the vast -- and growing -- divide between the rich and the rest of us.

Like many hardworking Americans earning minimum wage, Margaret Lewis knows firsthand what it's like to live on the edge. She works as a transporter for passengers with disabilities at O'Hare International Airport. She wakes up at 1 a.m. to go to work, and spends the early morning hours pushing wheelchairs to gates and helping travelers on and off planes.

With tips, and Illinois' minimum wage -- which is $1 above the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour -- Margaret makes about $18,000 a year, or $10,000 below the federal poverty limit for a household of five.

Margaret lives with her four school-age children in a three-bedroom apartment on Chicago's South Side. Two recent shootings on her block make her fear for her children's safety, but she cannot afford to move. Margaret is unable to pay the $850 per month rent, so she and her family perform janitorial tasks for the landlord to make ends meet. The children's clothing is all secondhand, Margaret uses food stamps to make sure everyone is fed and when it is time to buy shoes for school, she has to save an entire paycheck.

Mary Kay Henry

Christine L. Owens

Tuesday marked the third anniversary of the last increase in the federal minimum wage. For the last three years, while the prices of gas and milk have risen steadily and the richest 1% have enjoyed huge tax breaks, the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $7.25 an hour, which amounts to just $15,080 a year -- as long as you get paid for any time you take off. That's more than$7,000 below the federal poverty line for a family of four.As a result, the purchasing power of the minimum wage has slowly eroded -- in just three years, its real value has sunk to $6.77 per hour, a nearly 50-cent drop.

The Bush tax cuts, which are simply the perquisite of the moment for the 1%, allow for the richest to prosper at the expense of middle-class and low-income workers. While CEOs make millions and their corporations make billions as part of a so-called economic recovery, the majority of Americans are struggling to make ends meet. This struggle is exacerbated by the low federal minimum wage. Asmiddle-class jobs are increasingly replaced by low-wage work, however, this is the economic reality for a growing number of Americans.

Unless Congress raises the federal minimum wage, economic security for workers in low-wage jobs, the fastest-growing sector, will disappear. It is incumbent on members of Congress to raise the federal minimum wage and index it to inflation, putting more money into the pockets of ordinary Americans to boost our economy and aid a real, long-term recovery.

The Rebuild America Act has been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do just that, while also raising the federal minimum wage for tipped workers, which has been a meager $2.13 since 1991. The Fair Minimum Wage Act, not yet introduced, is also a call for a more decent wage. Support for these bills is support for an economic recovery that extends to all Americans.

Group pushes minimum wage raise

This legislation could make a difference for Bruce Gross, a father of three in Baltimore. He worked as a sandblaster, supporting his wife, their twin boys, daughter and two nephews, until the economy crashed. Now, Bruce makes $7.36 an hour as a telemarketer.

Bruce's wife is sick and unable to work, leaving him as the sole breadwinner. Bruce estimates he brings home about $200 every other week and his bills are more than double that. Bruce and his family recently sat in the dark for a few days because he had to choose between paying his electric bill and buying groceries.

When things got really rough, Bruce asked neighbors if they could spare a few slices of bread and some cheese for sandwiches. He is heartbroken that he is unable to provide even basic necessities, like food and school supplies, for his children.

People who work for a living should be able to make a living from their work. Low-wage workers should not have to scrape by, while many of the companies they work for are making more money now than they were three years ago. The federal minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, but CEO pay has risen 725% over the last 30 years and 80% of all real income growth has gone to the richest 1% of Americans.

The real value of the minimum wage peaked in 1968. Had it kept pace with rising living costs, the minimum wage would exceed $10.50 per hour today. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has been reorganizing over the past 30 years away from middle-wage jobs in manufacturing and construction and toward low-paying jobs in the rapidly expanding service, retail and restaurant industries.

We have little reason to expect large corporations that are the principal employers of low-wage workers to voluntarily offer higher pay; rock bottom wages are a core profit-making strategy for retail giants and fast food chains. Nor does reality match the myth that prosperity at the top will eventually "trickle down" to workers at the bottom: corporate profits are at their highest level as a share of GDP, and wages at their lowest, since the 1950s.

Neither facts nor common sense support a federal minimum wage stuck at $7.25. It wasn't low-wage workers who crashed the economy. It was not a raise for these workers, but rather an unquenchable thirst for profit, that led to Wall Street's disastrous game of financial Russian roulette. Why, then, should low-wage workers pay the price?

How high must profits go before a modest wage increase isn't raised as a specter of impending corporate doom? It's easy to exploit such fears in this economic climate, but these tired old canards -- trotted out in every minimum wage fight -- are just an excuse for political inaction and continued corporate greed.

The bottom line is that people who work for a living put their money right back into our economy. What business in this country needs right now is customers and too many hardworking Americans aren't making enough money to get by. If we raise the federal minimum wage and demand the 1% pay their fair share to reduce income inequality, we will boost our economy, help small business grow and create jobs.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

America's prosperity requires a level playing field

To fix the economy, we must boost demand. To do that, we have to address inequality.

• 
• Comments

  474

• Email

  Share

Countries with high inequality tend to underinvest in their collective well-being, spending too little on such things as education, technology and infrastructure. (Wes Bausmith / For The Times / July20, 2012)

• It's the fiscal cliff, stupid
• Kinsley: The wealth gap
• Tax cut season in Washington
• President Obama's Mondale-esque call for higher taxes
• For Romney, it's back to being Reaganesque on the economy
• McManus: The candidates play gotcha

Ads by Google

• Mitt Romney and GST SteelTrying to save a closing plant Learn the truth about GST Steelwww.MittRomney.com
• EKU | Online Fire Degrees100% Online. Classes forming now. Download your Free brochure here!FireScience.EKU.edu/Online

By Joseph E. Stiglitz

July 22, 2012

Despite what the debt and deficit hawks would have you believe, we can't cut our way back to prosperity. No large economy has ever recovered from serious recession through austerity. But there is another factor holding our economy back: inequality.

Any solution to today's problems requires addressing the economy's underlying weakness: a deficiency in aggregate demand. Firms won't invest if there is no demand for their products. And one of the key reasons for lack of demand is America's level of inequality — the highest in the advanced countries.

Because those at the top spend a much smaller portion of their income than those in the bottom and middle, when money moves from the bottom and middle to the top (as has been happening in America in the last dozen years), demand drops. The best way to promote employment today and sustained economic growth for the future, therefore, is to focus on the underlying problem of inequality. And this better economic performance in turn will generate more tax revenue, improving the country's fiscal position.

Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking — activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.

Some examples: Corporate executives in the U.S. take advantage of deficiencies in our corporate governance laws to seize an increasing share of corporate revenue, enriching themselves at the expense of other stakeholders. Pharmaceutical companies successfully lobbied to prohibit the federal government — the largest buyer of drugs — from bargaining over drug prices, resulting in taxpayers overpaying by an estimated half a trillion dollars in about a decade. Mineral companies get resources at below competitive prices. Oil companies and other corporations get "gifts" in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year in corporate welfare, through special benefits hidden in the tax code. Some of this rent-seeking is very subtle — our bankruptcy laws give derivatives (such as those risky products that led to the $150-billion AIG bailout) priority but say that student debt can't be discharged, even in bankruptcy.

Rent-seeking distorts the economy and makes it less efficient. When, for instance, speculation gains get taxed at a lower rate than true innovation, resources that could support productivity-enhancing activities get diverted to gambling in the stock market and other financial markets. So too, much of the income in the financial sector, including that derived from predatory lending and abusive credit card practices, derives not from making our economy more efficient but from rent-seeking.

If we curbed these abuses by the financial sector, more resources (especially the scarce talent of some of our brightest young people) might be devoted to making a stronger economy rather than to exploiting the financially unsophisticated. And the banks might actually go back to the boring business of lending rather than high-risk and often opaque speculation.

Curbing rent-seeking is not that complicated (aside from the politics). It would take better financial regulations, fairer and better-designed bankruptcy laws, stronger and better-enforced antitrust laws, corporate governance laws that limit the power of CEOs to effectively set their own pay, and, in all of these areas, more transparency. Because so much of the income at the top is from rent-seeking, more progressive taxation (and in particular, taxation of capital gains) is necessary to discourage it. And if the additional revenue is used by the government for high-return public investments, there are double benefits.

Countries with high inequality tend to underinvest in their collective well-being, spending too little on such things as education, technology and infrastructure. The wealthy don't need public schools and parks. That's another reason economies with high inequality grow more slowly. Indeed, the United States has grown much more slowly since the 1980s, while inequality has been growing more rapidly than it did in the decades after World War II, when the country grew together.

Public investments are of particular importance today; they increase demand in the short run and productivity in the medium to long term. Increasing public investment would help make up for continued weakness in the private sector. Investments in training for new jobs could facilitate the economy's structural transformation, helping it move from sectors with declining employment (like manufacturing) to more dynamic sectors. Strengthening education would help restore the American dream and help make the country once again a land of opportunity where the talents of our young people are fully utilized.

The right says that we can achieve greater equality only by belt-tightening. But that vision would result in a slowdown of the economy from which all would suffer. Because so much of America's inequality arises from rent-seeking and other activities that distort the economy, curtailing inequality would actually strengthen the economy. Investing public money in the collective good rather than allowing it to be captured by rent-seekers would enhance growth at the same time it reduced inequality.

By giving priority to the austerity/deficit cutting agenda, we'll fail to achieve any of our goals. But by putting the equality agenda first, we can achieve all of them: We can have both more equality and more growth. And if we get better growth, our deficit will be reduced — it was weak growth that caused the deficit, not the other way around. We can achieve the kind of shared prosperity that was the hallmark of the country in the decades after World War II.

Joseph E. Stiglitz, recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics, chaired President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers and was chief economist of the World Bank. His latest book is "The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future."

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times