But OWS is a national movement and I don't see the problem with using the actual, you know, figure for the top 1%. If you claim to speak for the 99% then you should own it. the 99% includes anyone below $385k in yearly income.
Question: how do you arrive at the 385k figure? Because searching the web gives me this:
Washington Post said:
Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.
That number is down from peak of $646,195 in 2007, before the economic crisis hit, all adjusted to 2011 dollars, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum.
...
When you look at the disparity in net worth, things look even more skewed. Wealthier Americans have assets in home equity, stocks and other investments that generally outstrip their cash income. Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009, according to a 2011 report from the Economic Policy Institute. Thats down from a peak of $19.2 million in 2007.
Are you using pure income figures? Just curious. The actual
wealth concentrated in the upper few percents are much more of a problem than just income differences, IMO.
As a foreigner, I only get occasional OWS news in my regular news ("real" news), so Iknow of it mostly by GAF news. I get the feeling that most people, even here on GAF, which is full of young, educated people, love to hate on it. Is it just the lack of a coherent message? Because many make comments that boil down to "lulz, stupid Iphone hippie brats".
I'm always suprised by this reactions. Here (Germany) people protest all the time and yes, other people often are suffering to a certain degree. Especially bad: Bahnstreik=people being late for work or school or stuck at train stations. People grumble, but the vitriol or pure
hate the OWS people seem to inspire isn't there. Is this a symptom of the divided two party "Us vs THEM" mentality that seems so ingrained in everything related to political or economic discourse in the US?
Because honestly, the protests seem very unfocused and there's not one single message besides "We're angry", but that's a pretty big statement on its own.
In this particular case, yes, the workers won't get paid, but if the article about their financial situation and work practice are correct something needs to be done. The goal here seems to be, well, targeting the business of Wall Street companies, not to annoy the people working there. Seems reasonable and in tune with this whole OWS thing.
Occupy organizer Kari Koch in Portland says that their action is aimed at disrupting business as usual for "Wall Street on the waterfront." In particular, they are targeting EGT (Export Grain Terminal) and Goldman Sachs. EGT is part of a multinational conglomerate, and the company is engaged a labor struggle with the International Warehouse and Longshore Union in Longview, Wash., and Goldman Sachs, much maligned for its shady business dealings, which were part of the economic collapse, owns half of SSA Marine, which operates four terminals at the Port of Long Beach and also owns the trucking company Shippers Transport Express (more on them below).
No idea how reliable alternet is and I don't care enough to google GS ownership of shipping companies, so take it with salt.
I'm watching tv, so I won't paragraph this nicely, but maybe someone understands my rambling and can answers some of my questions.
