To be thankful, or to not be thankful, that is the question.
CNN Money came out with a report earlier this week that ranked the economic inequality of countries all over the world. The report shows that Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Ukraine are the most equal, while Honduras ,Guatemala, Colombia, Central African Rep., and Bolivia are the least equal. Countries like the UK, Canada, China, Australia, and South Korea are somewhere in the middle, while America sits below these countries in a position that isn't horrible, but isn't really good either.
After taking a look at this list, I thought about Occupy Movement and where it stands now. It is obvious that the US is in great disparity when it comes to income equality, which explains why Occupy Movement is what it is; a call for change that many of us are grateful for. At the same time, this call for change has been regarded as just Americans not being thankful for how lucky we are as a country, and that middle-class-less countries like Honduras and Guatemala have it worse than us. However, I feel like it should be pointed out that one of the reasons the Occupy Movement exists is because we're trying to avoid the great income equality divide that these countries have. It doesn't mean we're not thankful-it's simply a change for the better, and by looking at this report, it'll help more people understand why protesters aren't just protesting for the sake of it.
11 comments:
I agree with your point. It is ridiculous to say that Americans should be happy with where they are just because they do not rank in the bottom of economic equality. However, people also weigh the pros / cons of protesting, which is where the contention of the necessity of the protest often arises (I believe). The question being whether the situation with inequality is so bad or might become that terrible that protests that disrupt many people's lives / public areas are really worth it.
Some people think that income inequality is okay as long as anyone has the opportunity to be on the top. However, today’s increasing inequality accompanies low social mobility. Most Americans who are born poor stay in poverty. America is a very rich country and even the poor are rich by global standards. But relative deprivation still limits a person’s capacity for social achievement in an industrialized nation. Although some poor families might have some properties/ things that are considered expensive in developing countries, those are nothing compared to the things rich people have in that developed country. The lower class doesn’t also fair well in education and job. Moreover, income inequality, which creates poverty, is also related to other social ills like crime, drugs, and teen pregnancy. Therefore, if we want a progressive nation, our leaders should try to lower not only income inequality but also social immobility. We might not completely eradicate inequality since there is always competition, but we can at least give everyone the chance to reach the top.
I do believe that the occupy movement is a little ridiculous. Protesters complain about income inequality and debts and blame them on wall street? Really, people that take on debt for college and then expect to be on top will get a rude awakening because going to college does not guarantee a high paying job. I still don't understand the logic behind occupying a district and shutting down business sectors to protest. Doesn't this just slow down the businesses that people are complaining don't pay them enough? And how is wall street supposed to fix this problem? Isn't the level of government regulation the problem that allows wage inequality to get out of hand?
In response to Alice's question about government regulation, no. Government regulation is not the sole blame for income inequality in America. While government regulation does affect income inequality, it is not the sole cause of it.
Shouldn't it be noted that the very beginnings of government regulation of business started as a response to economic inequality? The anti-trust laws of the late nineteenth century tried to divide companies in order prevent economic inequality.
Also, the Occupy movement is much different from the business protests of the industrial era. The Occupy protesters are not workers protesting against their bosses (as Alice suggests).
A large part of what the Occupy movement is about is the idea that investment banks have only been furthering the economic inequality divide. Protesters believe that these investment banks had, prior to the 2008 meltdown, taken on too much risk. The negative outcomes of this risk, however, was largely placed upon the 99% of the people rather than the investment banks. While the nation's economic situation has suffered as a result of the 2008 meltdown, many investment bankers are still doing very well in terms of economic status. This perception is ultimately what the Occupiers are protesting about.
I really don't like the fact that they have these occupy protests and sure I have nothing against it but I think it is very idiotic that these so called, "protesters," steal and vandalize after a march. How can the 99% be taken seriously if many of them just vandalize, it just makes the occupy movement look like a joke in my opinion. It is as if 50% of the people who join in the protests are just there to stir up trouble. I know many of the people are there to deal with the inequality issue, but if some of these protesters don't clean up their acts, I don't see this doing anything good for the future.
I agree with the ultimate motives of the Occupy Movement-- to decrease the inequality schism in America. Like Kore said, Americans shouldn't settle for a mediocre economic balance despite scoring better than other countries in terms of economic inequality. However, I feel like this movement is trying to achieve their purpose in ineffective ways. Assuming that the protesters are protesting with sincere motives (not out of laziness), the whole movement is still too unorganized to accomplish much. I see this especially on college campuses, where students rallying in the Occupy Movement spend days camped outside running "democratic" meetings. A recently released list of Occupy Cal's demands include "Make UC Berkeley a Sanctuary Campus for Undocumented People" and "Immediate Forgiveness of All Student Debt". Even when a decision has been made, the demands are often too extreme to be considered, as observed in Occupy Cal's demands.
I think the Occupy Movement is protesting for good reason as to draw attention to the economic inequality in our country, but I think the protest has gathered for itself a negative connotation and association. I think the protesters are justified in their motives, but they might want to think of a new/different way to get their point(s) across.
blesseWhat bothers me the most about the protests is that the protesters are implying that the 1% of society got what they have and became successful because they were born with silver spoons in their mouths and/or because of their own corrupt practices. While, of course, this may be true for a minority, the majority of the 1%, such as the late Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Zev Siegl, Bing Gordon, and Jeff Bezos, became successful because they were innovative, took a huge risk, and worked exceptionally hard. Is it such a crime that they saw the efforts of their hard work and bravery rewarded? Shouldn't the United States be trying to encourage this kind of innovation? Not to mention the fact that Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Starbucks, EA Games, and Amazon employ hundreds of thousands of people and give most people, regardless of income, services that they really, really want.
The 1% of society also give back to their communities immensely. Look around the entire city of San Francisco. Look at how many institutions, hospital wings, and community centers were funded by the Fisher family, the Goldman family, the Haas family, the Pritzker family, and the Stern family. These are all just the descendents of Levi Strauss, the man who invented blue jeans. Arts organizations such as ODC/Dance, the American Conservatory Theater, and the San Francisco Ballet would not exist without the support of the 1%.
We are a country that is built on the concept of meritocracy. We should be grateful to these individuals who, in taking risks, changed the world with their goods and services. Corruption is separate than success, and it should not be tolerated. However, it feels as if these protesters are confusing the two.
While I do agree that OWS is protesting for good reasons, like Jackie said, I think their whole movement is a bit bizarre. They have no real organization and no list of improvements they think should be made. What is it that they want from government, other than the vague umbrella term of equality? I guess it's mostly for this reason that "we're the 99%" have become the butt of some jokes and memes on the internet recently.
On a side note, I just saw an article on Forbes that examined how the top .1% earn half of all capital gains, evidence that further exaggerates the immense inequality in this country. It's quite interesting. http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2011/11/20/the-top-0-1-of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/
I think that even though we are not one of the lowest countries for economic equality, we do also have a large economic disparity. We are below many other developed countries and the countries on the bottom are devoloping countries. The United States needs to find a way to make it a little. I am not saying that we need to be the most income equal country but a little higher would benifit the country and economy with more people having a little bit more money.
Post a Comment