Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement an Answer to The Tea Party Movement?

[Gaspar]

If these folks are going to Iron Gate in the morning then they are just transients to me.  If they are supplying there own food then they are a step up.

Ok. . . so that's taken care of.  They will be evicted at 11.

No permit.

[Townsend]

Ok. . . so that's taken care of.  They will be evicted at 11.

No permit.

I've seen this.  Have you seen something more concrete?


http://www.ktul.com/story/15928099/mayor-wants-protesters-out-of-park?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Mayor of Tulsa is working to remove protesters from a city park in downtown Tulsa. The protesters are part of the "Occupy" movement taking part in dozens of cities around the country.

Mayor Dewey Bartlett Jr. is telling police to enforce the current 11 p.m. curfew at Centennial Green Park at 6th Street and Main. The mayor has also told utility crews to shut down all electrical outlets around the park.

Several tents have been setup as many protesters spend night and day in the park.

[guido911]

I heard a spokesman for Occupy Tulsa and he and what they wanted seemed very reasonable.

[nathanm]

Good news.  They caught the occupier who raped the 14 year old in Dallas.  Turns out he was a registered sex offender.

Is there actually any evidence he's associated in any way with the protest other than using it as a place to find a victim?

Edited to add: Too bad I have to pick up SWMBO from the airport at 11. Otherwise I might get a wild hair and go shoot some video of the eviction.

[nathanm]

I know Krugman makes some of you break out in hives, but he has a nice chart that illustrates the 99%/1% issue very clearly.



You'll note that it really is the 1% taking most of the gains over the last 30 years. Not even the rest of the top 20% are doing so well. Their income share has been pretty much flat for 30 years.

[Conan71]

I know Krugman makes some of you break out in hives, but he has a nice chart that illustrates the 99%/1% issue very clearly.



You'll note that it really is the 1% taking most of the gains over the last 30 years. Not even the rest of the top 20% are doing so well. Their income share has been pretty much flat for 30 years.

I'm in the 99% and I'm glad the 1% has made such gains.  It's assured I've made a great living working for some 1%'ers and I've made a great living as the result of doing business with companies which are owned by 1%'ers and 1%'er investment in companies I do business with has helped those companies spend money with the company I work for which has made a great living for me.  Look at total job growth in the last 30 years.  Who helps create those jobs?  Who created all those jobs in the 1990s when Clintion was paring down the Federal government?  The 1%'ers created a lot of those jobs.  Shouldn't the people who make the largest contributions to an economy and take the biggest risks also reap the biggest rewards?

Let me put it this way:  If you worked for straight commission in sales, would you think it fair for the company to cut your commission rate if you were the most successful salesman in the company and spread your commission around just to keep it fair for those who don't work as hard as you do?

Personally, I've got better things to do than worry about why the guy who works down the street drives a Porsche, why the other guy drives a Bentley, while I'm driving a Hyundai Sonata or riding my 18 year old Harley Electra-Glide.

[Red Arrow]

Personally, I've got better things to do than worry about why the guy who works down the street drives a Porsche, why the other guy drives a Bentley, while I'm driving a Hyundai Sonata or riding my 18 year old Harley Electra-Glide.

You clearly have your priorities all wrong.
 
 

[nathanm]

I'm in the 99% and I'm glad the 1% has made such gains.  It's assured I've made a great living working for some 1%'ers and I've made a great living as the result of doing business with companies which are owned by 1%'ers and 1%'er investment in companies I do business with has helped those companies spend money with the company I work for which has made a great living for me.  Look at total job growth in the last 30 years.  Who helps create those jobs?  Who created all those jobs in the 1990s when Clintion was paring down the Federal government?  The 1%'ers created a lot of those jobs.  Shouldn't the people who make the largest contributions to an economy and take the biggest risks also reap the biggest rewards?

Let me put it this way:  If you worked for straight commission in sales, would you think it fair for the company to cut your commission rate if you were the most successful salesman in the company and spread your commission around just to keep it fair for those who don't work as hard as you do?

Personally, I've got better things to do than worry about why the guy who works down the street drives a Porsche, why the other guy drives a Bentley, while I'm driving a Hyundai Sonata or riding my 18 year old Harley Electra-Glide.

There are larger implications for the economy as a whole. It's got nothing to do with giving a smile that the guy next to me is driving a Porsche. The decreasing income share of the people lower on the totem pole erodes the overall market for goods and services, thus retarding growth.

Let me put it this way:  If you worked for straight commission in sales, would you think it fair for the company to cut your commission rate if you were the most successful salesman in the company because you happened to get the best accounts because the company is run by your dad's long time golfing buddy, just to keep it fair to those who didn't get the leg up you did?

Or, to be more accurate, what if you actually worked six jobs part time for a bunch of different golfing buddies, and it was your job to decide how much your golfing buddies make. Oh, and don't forget, your golfing buddies also get to set your pay, too. Thanks to ever-weakening shareholder power, this is essentially how executive compensation works at most large firms now.

It's interesting to me that you think it's OK that 1% of society has taken literally all of the gains since 1980. I guess I should be glad that the rest of us aren't (in the main) seeing our share literally shrink. I'm just not convinced that it is only the 1% that are creating value.

[guido911]

It's interesting to me that you think it's OK that 1% of society has taken literally all of the gains since 1980. I guess I should be glad that the rest of us aren't (in the main) seeing our share literally shrink. I'm just not convinced that it is only the 1% that are creating value.

I wish you would stop with the 1% crowd taking the wealth. Many people in the 1% are people like doctors, lawyers, and small business owners. Many of those didn't reach the 1% class until the past 5-10 years. What did those people do to deserve being lumped in with Wall Street and the bankers because that is precisely what the effect of OWS. Like I said earlier, why isn't OWS protesting the Huxtables of our society?

[nathanm]

I wish you would stop with the 1% crowd taking the wealth. Many people in the 1% are people like doctors, lawyers, and small business owners. Many of those didn't reach the 1% class until the past 5-10 years. What did those people do to deserve being lumped in with Wall Street and the bankers because that is precisely what the effect of OWS. Like I said earlier, why isn't OWS protesting the Huxtables of our society?

Most small business owners aren't anywhere near the top 1%. Hell, most lawyers aren't there, either. The experienced attorneys are probably mostly in the top 10%. That's not the point, though. Doesn't it stand to reason that some of the rest of the top 25% or even top 50% should see some of those gains?

FWIW, in 2009, an aberrant year, to say the least, it took $343,927 in AGI to make it into the top 1% of income earners. Before the downturn, it was a little over $410,000.

[Red Arrow]

FWIW, in 2009, an aberrant year, to say the least, it took $343,927 in AGI to make it into the top 1% of income earners. Before the downturn, it was a little over $410,000.

It peaked in 2007 at $410K, bracketed in 2006 and 2008 by less than $390K. 

Scroll to Table 7.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

[nathanm]

Yes. 2008 and 2009 are aberrant, as they defy the long term trend of increases due to inflation, among other things. That's to be expected in the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Once the economy gets back on track, expect that number to resume its usual yearly increase. My point wasn't to quibble over the precise threshold, but that most small business owners and even most lawyers don't make that much.

[guido911]

Yes. 2008 and 2009 are aberrant, as they defy the long term trend of increases due to inflation, among other things. That's to be expected in the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Once the economy gets back on track, expect that number to resume its usual yearly increase. My point wasn't to quibble over the precise threshold, but that most small business owners and even most lawyers don't make that much.

The issue is not about "most lawyers" being in the 1%, it's that the 1% is populated to a notable percentage in the 1%. Same goes for the fact that all bankers and stock brokers are not in the 1%. Only a certain few are in the 1%. That's who the 99% are targeting. Stay focused.

[nathanm]

The issue is not about "most lawyers" being in the 1%, it's that the 1% is populated to a notable percentage in the 1%. Same goes for the fact that all bankers and stock brokers are not in the 1%. Only a certain few are in the 1%. That's who the 99% are targeting. Stay focused.

What? I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Perhaps try again in the morning? I don't know about you, but percocet makes my brain rather fuzzy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It peaked in 2007 at $410K, bracketed in 2006 and 2008 by less than $390K. 

Scroll to Table 7.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table6

At the same time the median income was $ 26,000.  And going down in real terms.