Olice-pay Ate-stay: What to do if you feel you live in one?

Are you sure the first bold part is true and not just a result of the 2nd bold part?

Nope, I'm not. What I can observe, is that I'm not seeing a significant attempt to wrestle with and escape from the underlying meme.
I'm unsure if that's due to the overwhelming volume with which this branding has been delivered, or if it's become organically self-reinforcing (or both).

We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything.

The very way this is framed, the "natural" solution is wealth transfer from "the evil 1%" to "the 99%". I'm saying that's an absurd and dangerous oversimplification, that it attacks the symptoms while completely ignoring the underlying causes (IMO money in politics, special interests, and regulatory capture), and has marginalized the conversation before it's even begun.

Robear wrote:

I'd argue that natural capitalism does not need to limit prosperity to 1%. If the inequity has reached that point - and it has - something is broken. Whatever the fixes are, we need to look at them, not reject them out of hand for ideological reasons.

I'd like to think that natural capitalism has it's own form of natural selection. Theoretically, only the well run, useful businesses would survive. Unfortunately what's happened in the modern version of capitalism is being controlled by an infection that provides no benefit to anyone other than the infection.

What modern capitalism needs is some antibiotics to kill off the infection.

The very way this is framed, the "natural" solution is wealth transfer from "the evil 1%" to "the 99%".

Can you give some examples of this, from the OWS leadership? Because I see that being how it's presented in the media, but I'm not seeing that from the movement, per se. (That said, there are a lot of people involved, each with their own ideas. I'm sure some would like a handout, but I don't see that as the goal of the movement.)

What's the wealth transfer, and who is proposing it?

People really need to stop focusing on the pay gap. It doesn't mean jack squat.

Let's take GM for example, their CEO brings down about $9 million a year. "That's ridiculous! The average worker makes much less!". Who cares? GM employs 209,000 people world-wide. You could pay the CEO $0, and do the following:

1. Give every GM employee $45.
2. Pay all of the health care and retirement benefits for 225 employees
3. Increase GM's 2010 total revenue (not profit) by 0.012%

Same thing with the CEO of Citibank, or JP Morgan Chase, etc. You could wipe them all out and "spread the wealth" and all the average worker would get is a decent dinner out for their family.

bandit0013 wrote:

People really need to stop focusing on the pay gap. It doesn't mean jack squat.

Let's take GM for example, their CEO brings down about $9 million a year. "That's ridiculous! The average worker makes much less!". Who cares? GM employs 209,000 people world-wide. You could pay the CEO $0, and do the following:

1. Give every GM employee $45.
2. Pay all of the health care and retirement benefits for 225 employees
3. Increase GM's 2010 total revenue (not profit) by 0.012%

Same thing with the CEO of Citibank, or JP Morgan Chase, etc. You could wipe them all out and "spread the wealth" and all the average worker would get is a decent dinner out for their family.

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

Unless the CEO is that dude from Monty Python's Meaning of Life, it's hard for one person to spend 9 million dollars a year on food or other kinds of economic activity that has a multiplier effect. Let's be honest: when you get above a certain amount of income, you start spending that extra money on things that will return even *more* money in the future.

There's a reason you wipe the Pslions out at the beginning of every Master of Orion game: you let those f*ckers stick around 'till the late game, and their tech will kill you. You keep letting a small percentage of the population acquire enough money that they can keep reinvesting that money to capture an even bigger percentage of the money in the future, well, ever seen a game of Monopoly turn into a healthy economic model?

CheezePavilion wrote:

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

The restaurant owners can't open new restaurants and hire staff because start up costs require either cash in hand (which most people don't have) or a business loan (which comes LARGELY from the top tier of income earners investing money, having money market accounts, etc).

The bottom 50% gets a multiplier because they spend literally every thing they own, but they spend it all on basic goods, not services and most sorts of luxury items. How does your functioning economy invent and sell the iPad if you don't have a healthy middle-upper class?

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

The restaurant owners can't open new restaurants and hire staff because start up costs require either cash in hand (which most people don't have) or a business loan (which comes LARGELY from the top tier of income earners investing money, having money market accounts, etc).

The bottom 50% gets a multiplier because they spend literally every thing they own, but they spend it all on basic goods, not services and most sorts of luxury items. How does your functioning economy invent and sell the iPad if you don't have a healthy middle-upper class?

The CEO of GM is only middle-upper class?

Times really are rough!

CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

The restaurant owners can't open new restaurants and hire staff because start up costs require either cash in hand (which most people don't have) or a business loan (which comes LARGELY from the top tier of income earners investing money, having money market accounts, etc).

The bottom 50% gets a multiplier because they spend literally every thing they own, but they spend it all on basic goods, not services and most sorts of luxury items. How does your functioning economy invent and sell the iPad if you don't have a healthy middle-upper class?

The CEO of GM is only middle-upper class?

Times really are rough!

I do believe the "rich" according to obama start at 200-250k, that's middle-upper in most of the big economic areas of the US.

johnny531 wrote:
We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything.

The very way this is framed, the "natural" solution is wealth transfer from "the evil 1%" to "the 99%". I'm saying that's an absurd and dangerous oversimplification, that it attacks the symptoms while completely ignoring the underlying causes (IMO money in politics, special interests, and regulatory capture), and has marginalized the conversation before it's even begun.

Your post took a statement of a problem, created a solution that's not being suggested in that statement, and then attacked it. No one I have talked to who is involved with OWS simply wants to transfer money. They want to reform the systems that caused this situation in the first place.

bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

The restaurant owners can't open new restaurants and hire staff because start up costs require either cash in hand (which most people don't have) or a business loan (which comes LARGELY from the top tier of income earners investing money, having money market accounts, etc).

The bottom 50% gets a multiplier because they spend literally every thing they own, but they spend it all on basic goods, not services and most sorts of luxury items. How does your functioning economy invent and sell the iPad if you don't have a healthy middle-upper class?

The CEO of GM is only middle-upper class?

Times really are rough!

I do believe the "rich" according to obama start at 200-250k, that's middle-upper in most of the big economic areas of the US.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lets play a game, I'll list a bunch of income categories, and you tell me what percentile should apply to that category. So basically, what percentage of each group "should" exist. Then we can look up the real income spreads that apply to those percentiles. No cheating!

Rich:
Upper class:
Middle-upper class:
Middle class:
Lower-Middle class:
Lower class:
Poor:

Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

Which means a lot of restaurant owners get a decent boost in their business. And more restaurant workers get hired. And so on and so forth until you've got, you know--a functioning economy.

The restaurant owners can't open new restaurants and hire staff because start up costs require either cash in hand (which most people don't have) or a business loan (which comes LARGELY from the top tier of income earners investing money, having money market accounts, etc).

The bottom 50% gets a multiplier because they spend literally every thing they own, but they spend it all on basic goods, not services and most sorts of luxury items. How does your functioning economy invent and sell the iPad if you don't have a healthy middle-upper class?

The CEO of GM is only middle-upper class?

Times really are rough!

I do believe the "rich" according to obama start at 200-250k, that's middle-upper in most of the big economic areas of the US.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lets play a game, I'll list a bunch of income categories, and you tell me what percentile should apply to that category. So basically, what percentage of each group "should" exist. Then we can look up the real income spreads that apply to those percentiles. No cheating!

Rich: 95th percentile
Upper class: 80th percentile
Middle-upper class: 60th percentile
Middle class: 40th percentile
Lower-Middle class: 20th percentile
Lower class: 10th percentile
Poor: Everyone else

I do believe the average american income is around $55k. Your game is kind of silly though because I don't think these percentiles mean as much as the overall quality of life.

bandit0013 wrote:

Rich: 95th percentile
Upper class: 80th percentile
Middle-upper class: 60th percentile
Middle class: 40th percentile
Lower-Middle class: 20th percentile
Lower class: 10th percentile
Poor: Everyone else

Ok, first lets say that you think that $200k-250k a year is supposed to be middle-upper class for you.

From here, statistics for married couples filing jointly.

You think that everyone at the 95th percentile and above should be rich, they make $300k and up.
Starting at the 80th percentile and up people should be Upper Class, they make 145k to 300k.
Starting at the 60th percentile and up people should be Middle-Upper Class, they make 90k to 145k.
Starting at the 40th percentile and up people should be Middle Class, they make 64k to 90k.
Starting at the 20th percentile and up people should be Lower-Middle Class, they make 38k to 64k.
Starting at the 10th percentile and up people should be Lower Class (which I would define as completely able to make ends meet with few luxuries), they are making 24k to 38k
The remainder are the poor, they are making 5k to 24k.

Seems like you should be all in favor of income distribution as well, looking at how many people you think should be "Middle-Upper class". You want 40% of the US to be there or higher, but only 8% are...

Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Rich: 95th percentile
Upper class: 80th percentile
Middle-upper class: 60th percentile
Middle class: 40th percentile
Lower-Middle class: 20th percentile
Lower class: 10th percentile
Poor: Everyone else

Ok, first lets say that you think that $200k-250k a year is supposed to be middle-upper class for you.

From here, statistics for married couples filing jointly.

You think that everyone at the 95th percentile and above should be rich, they make $300k and up.
Starting at the 80th percentile and up people should be Upper Class, they make 145k to 300k.
Starting at the 60th percentile and up people should be Middle-Upper Class, they make 90k to 145k.
Starting at the 40th percentile and up people should be Middle Class, they make 64k to 90k.
Starting at the 20th percentile and up people should be Lower-Middle Class, they make 38k to 64k.
Starting at the 10th percentile and up people should be Lower Class (which I would define as completely able to make ends meet with few luxuries), they are making 24k to 38k
The remainder are the poor, they are making 5k to 24k.

Seems like you should be all in favor of income distribution as well, looking at how many people you think should be "Middle-Upper class". You want 40% of the US to be there or higher, but only 8% are...

Your link, it reads differently than your conclusion.

For starters, it aggregates everyone without regard for cost of living and average regional wage, which varies greatly across the entire USA. For example, if you were to live in Newark knocking down $120k you could take a 23% decrease in income to live in Akron, OH and maintain the same standard of living.

Average income in the US according to the last census was $39,000 (less if you include under-25 and over 65).

So, the top 5% of households in 2009 had an income of 166,000 or more. You're defining that as "rich", Bandit? Really? I think most people would want to see maybe $2-3 million to make that assessment ($1M is pretty easy to get with a decent house in the suburbs). I know plenty of professionals with household income of $150-200K who are having trouble putting kids through college, etc. I don't think they are "rich". It's the top tenth of one percent that is "rich" by the usual assessment (being a millionaire, say $2M or more.)

The top 20% is two-earner households making more than $91,000 total (2006 figure). Two 5-year experienced programmers living together are upper class. Your middle-upper corresponds to about $40,000 in household income per year....

I don't think that you've got a realistic grip on income distribution in the US.

Interesting that the data for taxpayers and the census are different.

Robear wrote:

Interesting that the data for taxpayers and the census are different.

I worked for the census this summer and I'm definitely not confident in any results from it. It's good for ballpark figures but the process used was extremely inaccurate and not comprehensive.

bandit0013 wrote:
Yonder wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Rich: 95th percentile
Upper class: 80th percentile
Middle-upper class: 60th percentile
Middle class: 40th percentile
Lower-Middle class: 20th percentile
Lower class: 10th percentile
Poor: Everyone else

Ok, first lets say that you think that $200k-250k a year is supposed to be middle-upper class for you.

From here, statistics for married couples filing jointly.

You think that everyone at the 95th percentile and above should be rich, they make $300k and up.
Starting at the 80th percentile and up people should be Upper Class, they make 145k to 300k.
Starting at the 60th percentile and up people should be Middle-Upper Class, they make 90k to 145k.
Starting at the 40th percentile and up people should be Middle Class, they make 64k to 90k.
Starting at the 20th percentile and up people should be Lower-Middle Class, they make 38k to 64k.
Starting at the 10th percentile and up people should be Lower Class (which I would define as completely able to make ends meet with few luxuries), they are making 24k to 38k
The remainder are the poor, they are making 5k to 24k.

Seems like you should be all in favor of income distribution as well, looking at how many people you think should be "Middle-Upper class". You want 40% of the US to be there or higher, but only 8% are...

Your link, it reads differently than your conclusion.

For starters, it aggregates everyone without regard for cost of living and average regional wage, which varies greatly across the entire USA. For example, if you were to live in Newark knocking down $120k you could take a 23% decrease in income to live in Akron, OH and maintain the same standard of living.

So you're saying that you've changed your mind and now think that the average person making 90k is living an "Upper-Middle Class" Lifestyle for his area?

Robear wrote:

Interesting that the data for taxpayers and the census are different.

Hey you are right, Appendix A-3 of the report linked here shows the various percentile income as seen in the 2010 census, and their is a big difference between that and the taxpayer breakdown.

10%: $12k
20%: $20k
50%: $50k
80%: $100k
90%: $139k
95%: $181k

Robear wrote:

Average income in the US according to the last census was $39,000 (less if you include under-25 and over 65).

So, the top 5% of households in 2009 had an income of 166,000 or more. You're defining that as "rich", Bandit? Really? I think most people would want to see maybe $2-3 million to make that assessment ($1M is pretty easy to get with a decent house in the suburbs). I know plenty of professionals with household income of $150-200K who are having trouble putting kids through college, etc. I don't think they are "rich". It's the top tenth of one percent that is "rich" by the usual assessment (being a millionaire, say $2M or more.)

The top 20% is two-earner households making more than $91,000 total (2006 figure). Two 5-year experienced programmers living together are upper class. Your middle-upper corresponds to about $40,000 in household income per year....

I don't think that you've got a realistic grip on income distribution in the US.

If you actually go back and read what I said I was pointing at Obama saying that 200k is rich. I personally don't think 200k is rich, I think it's upper / upper middle depending on the cost of living where you reside.

Yonder wrote:
Robear wrote:

Interesting that the data for taxpayers and the census are different.

Hey you are right, Appendix A-3 of the report linked here shows the various percentile income as seen in the 2010 census, and their is a big difference between that and the taxpayer breakdown.

10%: $12k
20%: $20k
50%: $50k
80%: $100k
90%: $139k
95%: $181k

I answered your question, why don't you answer mine. Why do we care? If 70-80% of the population makes enough to cover all of their basic needs just fine and we ensure that the social safety net provides basic needs for the rest, who cares of Warren Buffet has eleventy bajillion dollars?

I also think that for the purposes of any discussion on income distribution you have to define what rich is.

Owning a residence worth more than $150k, two cars, all your basic needs more than covered. That is pretty damn good on the American spectrum, and if you increase it to the global spectrum even the poorest of the poor in America and Europe are in the top 5% worldwide.

bandit0013 wrote:

If you actually go back and read what I said I was pointing at Obama saying that 200k is rich. I personally don't think 200k is rich, I think it's upper / upper middle depending on the cost of living where you reside.

Right, and my point is that that monetary amount that you think is upper-middle class, 200k, is actually the top 5%, which doesn't seem like a good definition of upper-middle.

bandit0013 wrote:

I answered your question, why don't you answer mine. Why do we care? If 70-80% of the population makes enough to cover all of their basic needs just fine and we ensure that the social safety net provides basic needs for the rest, who cares of Warren Buffet has eleventy bajillion dollars?

We care because 70-80% of the population doesn't make enough to cover all of their basic needs, and the social safety net does not provide basic needs for the rest.

bandit0013 wrote:

I also think that for the purposes of any discussion on income distribution you have to define what rich is.

Owning a residence worth more than $150k, two cars, all your basic needs more than covered. That is pretty damn good on the American spectrum.

That shouldn't be "pretty damn good" though. That should be the definition of lower-middle class. 60% of the nation should be at that comfortable level. And I don't mean at that level because they are living paycheck to paycheck paying for all the mortgages and other debt that they needed to buy the house and cars, I mean living at that level with a healthy, sustainable amount of debt.

Yonder wrote:

That shouldn't be "pretty damn good" though. That should be the definition of lower-middle class. 60% of the nation should be at that comfortable level. And I don't mean at that level because they are living paycheck to paycheck paying for all the mortgages and other debt that they needed to buy the house and cars, I mean living at that level with a healthy, sustainable amount of debt.

I don't think if you think that 60% of the nation should have 2 cars (~30-40k) an average home mortgage ($150k) and not be living paycheck to paycheck that we have anything to discuss. Do you realize what the cost of goods would be?

If you're a city dweller you don't even need a vehicle in many cases. I'm assuming many of you went to college. I subsisted very well living alone on $9k/yr in the midwest. If the median income in the USA is $55k, I'd say your average, responsible family is doing fine.

The REAL problem with our system is that the bottom 30% (can't remember where I saw the chart) have outstanding debts that exceed their income by like 300%. It's pretty hard to bootstrap your way out of that, but it's mostly self inflicted.

If you actually go back and read what I said I was pointing at Obama saying that 200k is rich. I personally don't think 200k is rich, I think it's upper / upper middle depending on the cost of living where you reside.

I would say it's upper middle. Private school, no horses.

I'd like to throw out there that while Obama's plan may be using $250k as it's baseline, that is in no way related to any OWS demands or ideology. IIRC, $250k is well within the 99% still.

bandit used Obama's definition of 'rich' to respond to a point made about the anger over the 'pay gap'. That is an OWS talking point but not an Obama one, for what it's worth.

New York Times[/url]]Early in the morning on Oct. 22, a Saturday, Ms. Zucker, 21, and her friend Alex Fischer, also 21, were stopped by the police in Riverside Park and given tickets for trespassing. Mr. Fischer was permitted to leave after he produced his driver’s license. But Ms. Zucker, on a visit to New York City with a group of Carnegie Mellon University seniors looking for jobs in design industries, had left her wallet in a hotel two blocks away.

She was handcuffed. For the next 36 hours, she was moved from a cell in the 26th Precinct station house on West 126th Street to central booking in Lower Manhattan and then — because one of the officers was ending his shift before Ms. Zucker could be photographed for her court appearance, and you didn’t think he was going to take the subway uptown while his partner stayed with her at booking, did you? — she was brought back to Harlem.

There she waited in a cell until a pair of fresh police officers were rustled up to bring her back downtown for booking, where she spent a second night in custody.

Arrested, as they were complying with an officer's request they leave the park, without the opportunity to have someone retrieve her identification from the hotel, blocks away.

That officer should do jail time for bullsh*t like that. Of course, he won't -- and note that nobody even bothered to go to bat for that girl and get the injustice fixed.

36 hours of jail for nothing. And let me tell you, being stuck in the holding tanks for 36 hours is a horrible experience. Many jails deliberately try to keep you from sleeping, by pulling everyone out every hour or two for counts, and keeping the climate set either much too hot or much too cold, depending on the season.

I guarantee you that poor girl was miserable the entire time.

Did the friend have no way to get her id from the hotel?

He was willing, but apparently the officer refused to let this happen.

And note that 'not providing an ID' isn't even an arrestable offense. Per the Supreme Court, you can be compelled to provide your name, but nothing else.