Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it was something along the lines that WS etc are not meant to be, what they are now.
In other words, they are harming society now, instead of helping out businesses raising money for growth.
As it is, in the Netherlands we are screwed with our pensions now. It has been tied to the market! Whatever asshole thought that
that was a fair thing to do....should be shot.

Anyway, as said before, not nearly enough media coverage at all. The No Agenda podcast also talks about it. Although Adam Curry
and John C Dvorak are goofballing around lots, they do point out and highlight news that the normal media just won't touch.

Sparhawk wrote:

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it was something along the lines that WS etc are not meant to be, what they are now.
In other words, they are harming society now, instead of helping out businesses raising money for growth.

The most common (and incredibly true IMO) complaint along these lines is that the current market system is too much about short term speculation instead of long term investment. I'm not sure what the best way to address that would be. I am tempted by the idea of a fee when selling a stock that is inversely proportional to how long you have owned it trailing down to zero at a month or so.

Yonder wrote:
Bear wrote:

There are jobs out there, in fact, there are a LOT of jobs out there. The problem is most of these jobs don't come with an instant $100k salary, a corner office and a company car. It seems to me that we've got a generation that assumes they'll be granted instant mid level managerial status becuase they got a degree.

I just don't think that this is accurate at all.

Me neither. Up until last November I was unemployed for a year. There are other GWJers who have talked openly on here about being unemployed for a year or more. And then you have actual statistics that show that long-term unemployment is at a 80 year high.

Yonder wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it was something along the lines that WS etc are not meant to be, what they are now.
In other words, they are harming society now, instead of helping out businesses raising money for growth.

The most common (and incredibly true IMO) complaint along these lines is that the current market system is too much about short term speculation instead of long term investment. I'm not sure what the best way to address that would be. I am tempted by the idea of a fee when selling a stock that is inversely proportional to how long you have owned it trailing down to zero at a month or so.

I feel like quarterly reports have helped lead us here. We wanted transparency in accounting and what you you end up with are companies not looking to the long term bottom line as much as making sure Wall Street is happy.

To be honest, it's easy to say the blame lies in chasing short term results, but our behavior often reinforces this. Like, when you're picking 401k options, do you do a deep dive of each fund's investment philosphy, average turnover rate, etc? If you just look at posted return rates and pick the highest one, you are actually part of the problem.

DSGamer wrote:

Me neither. Up until last November I was unemployed for a year. There are other GWJers who have talked openly on here about being unemployed for a year or more. And then you have actual statistics that show that long-term unemployment is at a 80 year high.

I can only relate my experience from the interviews I've done in the last year or so and what my customers are telling me they are experiencing. My largest customer posted a dozen openings for IT positions 3 months ago. To date they've filled 6 spots because the "applicants" are either completely unqualified or unwilling to accept what I'd consider to be a fair starting salary.

On our end, every resume we seem to get comes from someone who's had a job for less than 2 years. Not just their last job but their last several jobs. Either that or their resume looks like it was written by my daughter.

Your mileage may vary.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

To be honest, it's easy to say the blame lies in chasing short term results, but our behavior often reinforces this. Like, when you're picking 401k options, do you do a deep dive of each fund's investment philosphy, average turnover rate, etc? If you just look at posted return rates and pick the highest one, you are actually part of the problem.

Right, working people who have 401ks are idiots and part of the problem. Not short term extraction of profits. But the people who are in the market for long term. Who don't have the expertise but are told (marketed) that they have to invest in the Market. When I was 23 right out of college, I had no idea.

Like DS - I also know I am lucky. My younger brother, not so much. His career has stalled because of the recession.

This is the real reason they want to destroy public sector pension funds and Social Security. More rent extraction.

But since they are so myopic they can't see that it won't work.

Yonder wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:

I wish I could remember where I heard this, but it was something along the lines that WS etc are not meant to be, what they are now.
In other words, they are harming society now, instead of helping out businesses raising money for growth.

The most common (and incredibly true IMO) complaint along these lines is that the current market system is too much about short term speculation instead of long term investment. I'm not sure what the best way to address that would be. I am tempted by the idea of a fee when selling a stock that is inversely proportional to how long you have owned it trailing down to zero at a month or so.

I agree. When trading has been automated to suck a fraction of a penny a share in profit by quickly buying and selling a stock it's very hard to claim Wall Street is doing anything but stealing money from the rest of the economy and providing very little in return.

When banks spend more time trading their own portfolio to generate profits rather than, I don't know, loaning money to credit-worthy people and companies then it's pretty safe to say the financial system is horribly broken.

Financial firms are making it worse by speculating. Goldman is keeping a quarter of the world's supply of aluminum locked up in warehouses outside Detroit so that it can drive up prices and make a killing.

So instead of fulfilling their traditional role of ensuring that capital was somewhat intelligently allocated to companies who would use that money to create even more economic activity Wall Street is stunting economic activity and are effectively acting as a parasite on society.

OG_slinger wrote:

I agree. When trading has been automated to suck a fraction of a penny a share in profit by quickly buying and selling a stock it's very hard to claim Wall Street is doing anything but stealing money from the rest of the economy and providing very little in return.

When banks spend more time trading their own portfolio to generate profits rather than, I don't know, loaning money to credit-worthy people and companies then it's pretty safe to say the financial system is horribly broken.

Financial firms are making it worse by speculating. Goldman is keeping a quarter of the world's supply of aluminum locked up in warehouses outside Detroit so that it can drive up prices and make a killing.

So instead of fulfilling their traditional role of ensuring that capital was somewhat intelligently allocated to companies who would use that money to create even more economic activity Wall Street is stunting economic activity and are effectively acting as a parasite on society.

But but but....business should be left along to regulate themselves right? We don't need government intervention because "capitalism" will suck all the evils out.

Monopolizing a commodity like aluminum seems to just a hair shy of price fixing. Companies like Goldman Sachs are trying to re-create the age of the robber baron. Only now our government seems powerless to stop them.

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Me neither. Up until last November I was unemployed for a year. There are other GWJers who have talked openly on here about being unemployed for a year or more. And then you have actual statistics that show that long-term unemployment is at a 80 year high.

I can only relate my experience from the interviews I've done in the last year or so and what my customers are telling me they are experiencing. My largest customer posted a dozen openings for IT positions 3 months ago. To date they've filled 6 spots because the "applicants" are either completely unqualified or unwilling to accept what I'd consider to be a fair starting salary.

On our end, every resume we seem to get comes from someone who's had a job for less than 2 years. Not just their last job but their last several jobs. Either that or their resume looks like it was written by my daughter.

Your mileage may vary.

I'm curious, Bear: do or your customer you hire people straight out of school and train them to be the employees needed, or are the openings only for experienced workers?

When most companies out there actively avoid hiring less-experienced workers, they are making sure that the number of highly-experienced workers will decline every year. I know a lot of people from my engineering program who were refused interviews because some companies wouldn't consider anyone with less than a decade of experience.

the current market system is too much about short term speculation instead of long term investment. I'm not sure what the best way to address that would be.

Not flooding the market with endless liquidity would be a powerful positive step in that direction. Liquidity gives speculators power.

We don't need government intervention because "capitalism" will suck all the evils out.

It would, if we'd f*cking let it. But every time the economy tries to correct itself, we jump in and flood the system with more money to keep it doing what it has been doing.

So of COURSE it's wildly misadjusted and doing stupid things. We refuse to accept even the tiniest of recessions, so waste and fraud just keep piling up.

Most recent evil of modern capitalism: Trading derivatives on financial instruments.
Underlying evil of modern capitalism: Private control of the money supply.

My 2p

Kraint wrote:

I'm curious, Bear: do or your customer you hire people straight out of school and train them to be the employees needed, or are the openings only for experienced workers?

When most companies out there actively avoid hiring less-experienced workers, they are making sure that the number of highly-experienced workers will decline every year. I know a lot of people from my engineering program who were refused interviews because some companies wouldn't consider anyone with less than a decade of experience.

It really depends on the position. There are some positions that it's basically a prerequisite to employement. Our clinical specialist positions really demand that you've worked in the healthcare field and have a day to day knowledge of clinical and operational issues. Our "field" positions such as sales don't actually require experience but I believe from a pure human resources perspective it is preferred. We have hired a number of people straight out of school though. Some of them have now been with us MUCH longer than some "experienced" people we hired that just sucked. As I look back on the last ten years we've hired about and equal number of really young and inexperienced along with some that are at the end of their careers.

Malor wrote:

It would, if we'd f*cking let it. But every time the economy tries to correct itself, we jump in and flood the system with more money to keep it doing what it has been doing.

So of COURSE it's wildly misadjusted and doing stupid things. We refuse to accept even the tiniest of recessions, so waste and fraud just keep piling up.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about government intervention in the economy. I'm talking about capitalism's inability to regulate itself in any meaningful way. There's nothing about capitalism or deregulation that stops Goldman Sachs from trying to corner a commodity market. If anything, I think it promotes it. There is no throttle on greed.

Maq wrote:

Most recent evil of modern capitalism: Trading derivatives on financial instruments.
Underlying evil of modern capitalism: Private control of the money supply.

My 2p

This is a 'Merican site. Use 'Merican money please.

2 cents. Thank you.

Kraint wrote:
Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Me neither. Up until last November I was unemployed for a year. There are other GWJers who have talked openly on here about being unemployed for a year or more. And then you have actual statistics that show that long-term unemployment is at a 80 year high.

I can only relate my experience from the interviews I've done in the last year or so and what my customers are telling me they are experiencing. My largest customer posted a dozen openings for IT positions 3 months ago. To date they've filled 6 spots because the "applicants" are either completely unqualified or unwilling to accept what I'd consider to be a fair starting salary.

On our end, every resume we seem to get comes from someone who's had a job for less than 2 years. Not just their last job but their last several jobs. Either that or their resume looks like it was written by my daughter.

Your mileage may vary.

I'm curious, Bear: do or your customer you hire people straight out of school and train them to be the employees needed, or are the openings only for experienced workers?

When most companies out there actively avoid hiring less-experienced workers, they are making sure that the number of highly-experienced workers will decline every year. I know a lot of people from my engineering program who were refused interviews because some companies wouldn't consider anyone with less than a decade of experience.

I think the problem is a bit worse than that, at least from a UK viewpoint. Each part of someone's education/career is only really concerned with themselves. For example a school only cares about the marks they get(*), universities pay lip service to skills that are going to be useful to earn a wage from (*2), and employers that expect the ideal employee to land in their lap (*3) yet don't want to invest in training. Another major factor which is sufficiently educating kids in the facts of getting a job and preparing them to make good decisions at the age we're asking them to make those decisions.

It just seems to me that the entire job/training situation is lacking in cohesiveness. It's like asking for a house to be built and being surprised when it doesn't just appear, lots of parties have to talk and work to each other to make the end result and be effective, which involves all parties investing time, money and effort so they all come out richer at the end.

If an employer in an industry needs a steady supply of skilled workers, they need to be involved with educating them. I was clearing up my parent's attic last year, and discovered one of my Dad's college books. The college book was from when he was around 17/18 and the college was run by the place he ended up working at (major employer in the area), which (figuratively) blew my mind as such a thing is almost unheard of now. He worked their most of his career, and they kept him trained where necessary.

(* and if you're lucky some nice stat about X% of students go on to uni/college/employment (note: rarely do they care how good employment, just any employment))
(*2 although I can appreciate a university is almost by definition, an academic institution, not vocational training)
(*3 but with the current jobs/workers supply/demand situation right now, I'm not sure I blame them)

Part of my point earlier was that I came up at a time where someone with a Liberal Arts degree fresh out of college wasn't a liability. They weren't squeezing 50 - 60 hour weeks out of people and didn't need them to be 100% productive. They needed them to be good teammates and communicate well and be willing to learn. That benefited many of us who used this opportunity to slide easily into an office setting and then get ramped up on technical skills specific to our job. So the company paid a small portion of on-the-job training, but in exchange they got more loyalty and cheaper labor. The market is much different now. You can get a good salary still. Now that I'm no longer unemployed I'm making the most money I have in my career. I also work long hours and do the job of a couple people. There's no way they'd split my job up and bring in an "understudy" fresh from college.

I don't think that's a slight on the universities or the kids, though. They're doing what everyone told them to do. Go get a degree. Because factory work is overseas, call center work is overseas. There isn't much left for them entry level. It really sucks.

I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about government intervention in the economy. I'm talking about capitalism's inability to regulate itself in any meaningful way.

You actually ARE talking about the same things, without quite realizing it. The reason these people have so much power is because of government intervention. Without Uncle Al (and now Uncle Ben) at the Federal Reserve, standing ready with the cash spigots at the first sign of trouble, most of these bad players would have been wiped out long ago.

As Buffett has said, it's only when the tide goes out that you find out who's been swimming naked, and the Federal Reserve is absolutely determined never to let the water get below shoulder depth.

Journalists are being arrested now.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...

The Guardian has more on the Boston protests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...

Just wow...

Sparhawk wrote:

Just wow...

This is the police state many Americans sat back and allowed to happen or actively voted for. Enjoy.

I did not possess the press credentials that NYPD allocates to journalists.
NormanTheIntern wrote:
I did not possess the press credentials that NYPD allocates to journalists.

So he should be subject to arrest? Isn't requiring press credentials just "Big Government"?

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Bear wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This is why protesting Wall Street makes more sense than protesting Washington.

The only aspect I'd disagree with is the fact that protesting Wall Street is largely a gigantic waste of time. There's no end game and there's no possible impact from this.

If the protests in Washington get large enough you'll get more national, if not international attention and representatives will start to notice. Ask the Tea Party if showing up and shouting works.

My experience with the protests in Madison earlier this year would contraindicate that, at least from a media perspective.

Protests with 100k+ people? Barely even a mention in mainstream media.

Contrast that with the squad of national news trucks who showed up when Sarah Palin came to speak to 800 Tea Partiers (who were vastly outnumbered by the protestors, though that went without mention in most media coverage of the event).

"Protestors mass in Washington" is really easy for the media to ignore. "Protestors mass in Wall Street" at least has the story hook of novelty, and unlike Madison, has the advantage of being in one of the biggest media markets in the world. If more mainstream folks keep showing up (especially highly-visible ones like United pilots in uniform), the protestors stand a chance of getting their story out.

The interesting part to me is that even the USA needs "Mass media" support these days. I'd figure the internet and all the "new generation" of kids could do something more, but I guess TV is still king.

Mex wrote:

The interesting part to me is that even the USA needs "Mass media" support these days. I'd figure the internet and all the "new generation" of kids could do something more, but I guess TV is still king.

In part, it depends on who you're trying to reach. For a lot of folks, coverage by the mainstream media also serves as a form of validation.

As we've seen in this thread, it's easy to be dismissive of what "kids with iPhones" have to say about a subject.

Given the eligibility requirements even if you pass it seems unlikely you're going to obtain one of the press passes on short notice. Also it's rather convenient that they control the press passes, "hrmm there's a protest and some of our officers are being dicks... let's just 'forget' about these applications for a while."

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Mex wrote:

The interesting part to me is that even the USA needs "Mass media" support these days. I'd figure the internet and all the "new generation" of kids could do something more, but I guess TV is still king.

In part, it depends on who you're trying to reach. For a lot of folks, coverage by the mainstream media also serves as a form of validation.

As we've seen in this thread, it's easy to be dismissive of what "kids with iPhones" have to say about a subject. :)

Unless they're in a foreign country under a dictatorship. Those kids are heroes. Our kids are trustafarians.

It's the old freedom fighters versus terrorists thing -- rules only apply to the other side.

Malor wrote:

It's the old freedom fighters versus terrorists thing -- rules only apply to the other side.

Every once in awhile you make a statement of stunningly eloquent brilliance.

Occupy Wall Street should not be a pure left wing protest. But a protest for all Americans that are sick of corruption and tired of the obfuscating and political pandering.

goman wrote:

Occupy Wall Street should not be a pure left wing protest. But a protest for all Americans that are sick of corruption and tired of the obfuscating and political pandering.

We do have another protest movement. The Tea Party. They want to protect Medicare from Comrade Obama and keep government small.

clover wrote:

People from NYC aren't generally into social justice?

I haven't lived in NYC for a while now, but what I remember is that although protests happen from time to time, it being NYC no one cares. People just walk around that new group of crazies yelling about whatever just like every other group of crazies yelling about whatever. It's just another day in NYC. The police presence for this protest is pretty surprising though. I guess they expected things to get out of hand?