Northern California Nesties
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Occupy Movement
Has anyone been following this? What are your thoughts?
There is a discussion on the GP board and it's interesting to hear the different perspectives.
This is in no way trying to create an argument, just a nice discussion 
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Occupy Movement
This is my problem too.
I get it. I get they are pissed and they are trying to make a change but what is your outcome? To riot? What is it?
Also Oakland is giving this Occupy movement a very bad rap for the more peaceful ones elsewhere. All I saw on the news last night was about Oakland but what was their goal? To shut down Oakland?
Can someone enlighten me here?
I don't really know enough but I wish they really had a platform, something they wanted. Do they want income re-distribution? That didn't work in the Soviet Union.
I have a hard time imagining a lot of well educated, mentally stable people actually being a part of the movement because we have jobs and can't be camping out.
Yea, Oakland has a tendency to do that.. unfortunately.
Most of them have no clue why they are out there. If you watch enough interviews on tv they either all say different things or they will say um uh um. Yesterday they were blocking the drivers in Oakland from leaving, preventing part of the 99% from working. I can't see how that's going to help anything. They do want income re-distribution and for the rich to foot the burden of taxes (which they already foot a significant chunk). You work hard for your millions and I'll take it thank you very much.
I'm using this as my cornerstone for what the movement is about.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
sorry - can't make it clicky (mac + chrome)
Clicky:
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
I have been following things. From what I saw and heard everything was peaceful and orderly yesterday in Oakland. But I am frustrated that businesses that are not the 1% by any stretch were negatively affected by the protests. Businesses in downtown Oakland struggle anyway, why target them? That seems misguided and makes me question the value of the protest. I do understand the frustration about wealth disparity and the general goal of the movement though. I know people who were part of the protest and they are not part of the camping out contingency. Those people who camp out are unemployed but many involved are employed and join the marches after work. I question whether the overall movement will have any impact though. It hasn't seemed to be on any politician's radar really. And for what I think they are asking, while I support it, I think a pretty bloody revolution would be involved. What they want to change is far too entrenched, sadly. And the people who benefit from the system are not going to give their power up easily. I have a feeling this movement will fizzle out without having had much impact. We'll have to see how things play out, of course.
Donate to My Pancreatic Cancer Research Page
Donate to My Pancreatic Cancer Research Page
I work in at ground zero in Oakland. We were told to work from home yesterday, and I'm glad we did. Some of the damage done to the buildings were just awful. It's really sad that there are hoodlums out there that are just using it as an excuse to do damage to buildings/companies, while the legit protesters are trying to make things better. sooo sad....
I support the movement. Inequality is getting out of hand in the US. And the policies we seem to be passing are making things worse -- cutting schools, social services, and cutting taxes on the wealthy.
It's not at all about the wealthy being job creators, or the wealthy earning their money so they should keep it.
I'll say it. I do well, and I work for the state in education. So, in some ways, I get very personal views of both view points, and I just get angrier.
There is no good reason why I can get away with paying so little in taxes on capital gains. And for those that think that the rich just work harder or something, I make money from simply having money. I don't have to do anything, and I make money.
And any rich person who says that raising the top marginal income tax rate would change their behavior is full of it. You could raise the top marginal tax rate to 50% and I probably wouldn't even notice the difference. Moreover, it's a marginal tax rate, so I only pay it on that part of my wages income that's over whatever bracket it is (say $250k).
But when our schools are some of the worst in the nation now b/c the rich don't want to pay taxes (or the middle class or poor don't want the rich to pay taxes), I get angry. When our parks are being closed, when public transit is so terrible (who's been on a train in Europe -- how awesome would that be here??), when college tuition is skyrocketing (and financial aid can't keep up), when our prisons are overcrowded and we have to let prisoners out, when it takes months to get a permit b/c they don't have enough staff... not to mention just crummy roads, slow internet bandwith, ...
And, related, there's research that indicates that inequality itself is bad. I can't remember who's working on this, and I'm too lazy to look, but a bing search would likely pull it up.
A great piece from Warren Buffet: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?scp=1&sq=buffett%20and%20taxes&st=cse
OK. Didn't mean to start a debate, but it's something that I'm happy is happening and know a number of friends (who are employed) who go out there to support the movement.
I have hope! If the Tea Party, who had much less support than the Occupy peeps, could have such an impact, so can the Occupy movement!!
From the news stories I've read and listened to, my impression was that it started over corporate greed (hence the Wall Street name and location). As in, the middle class is suffering while bank executives of banks that were bailed out by tax payer money are getting ever-bigger salaries (and frustration that hese banks, which caused our recession with their shady practices, have faced little repercussions and zero jailtime).
The 99% and 1% business refers to the growing gap between the super rich and everyone else. The top 1% have 50 or 70% of the country's wealth or some crazy figure like that (I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up). There's a bunch of stats out there about how wages have been stagnant for 30 years (adjusted for inflation) but the rich keep getting richer.
I personally believe the Occupy protests have become an outlet for people who are frustrated with the way things are, whatever their beef may be (the economy, unemployment, cuts in education, income inequality, etc.). And I think that's where the confusion comes in, because there's not one crystal clear unified message. That makes it easy for people to dismiss them and difficult to figure out what they're upset about.
My parents protested in the midwest and I know my mother's personal reason for doing it was that she's upset at cuts in education and health care for the poor while people are advocating tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the middle class. She's a retired librarian and held a sign that said "I'm not unemployed and I'm not a dirty hippie."
Thank you so much for writing this. Perfectly said.
I am with Pinkhiglighter. The disparity is growing, people are pissed.
I do agree that it may make more of a difference if the movement
had solid demands and goals, but just raising the topic to get people talking
and noticing the growing issues I think is great. <br> I do wish it would remain peaceful though.
Yea, it got pretty bad. I can't say I am surprised though (Oakland)
I am pissed too that the rich keep getting richer. My issue is the no clear definition of what they want. I want to see the people who will make a difference and represent the Occupy Movement and what I am seeing on TV and reading in the newspaper, I am not seeing it unless I am going to the wrong media outlets. It is not like I don't support it. I do. I just curious of what the purpose is and what the outcome they want.
Honestly, I am not sure if DH and I are middle class or maybe we are. We are certainly are a dying breed. We are not rich by any means yet we are not poor (as compared to others as well as "poverty" guidlelines which I think is a joke in of itself)
Not a debate. Just my view of it. I welcome more information to help me understand it more :-)
we are part of the global 1% and the domestic top 35% - I actually wonder how the occupy movement would change (in any direction, whether it be the tone or the goal) if the people who are participating knew where they stood globally as well as domestically - like, saw the numbers and realized what it means.
I agree 100% with PinkHighlighter, and I like the British Robin Hood tax that's coming up for a vote.
but i'd be curious whose song would change if they knew where they stood next to the rest of the world.
( http://globalrichlist.com/ and then this is a nice domestic calculator: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_01.html)
ETA - I looked at where it said we averaged on the NYT calculator and we got lowered closer to middle, which is what I expected. Guess that's what we get for not owning a home ;-) )
Others have covered a lot of what I was going to say. To summarize, the movement -- to me -- is about rampant corporate greed, bad priorities for how public money is spent (we can bail out banks but we can't bail out social services or schools?) and a deeply flawed taxation system.
Talking about this movement like it's a group of lazy, unshowered, entitled 20-somethings is really missing the point. Telling them to "just go get a job" and stop complaining is also really missing the point. We have serious problems when a company -- like the one I worked for until Tuesday, for example -- can file for bankruptcy and reward its top management for completing the bankruptcy proceedings, the same people who ran the company into the ground, then turn around and lay me and 34 other people off, citing "business reasons." I am a well-educated, hard-working, pretty privileged, regularly-bathing human who lives in the suburbs and pays a mortgage. But that sh!t pisses me off, and I'm happy to see other people are waking up and getting pissed off too.
There is something broken here. There are real and very legitimate reasons for these protests. I'm not sure what to make of people who don't see that; either they have been lucky enough to survive this economy completely or mostly unscathed, or they are really not paying attention.
And to clarify, there are bad apples in every movement, and unfortunately they give a bad name to the rest. I am not in any way defending people who are randomly destroying property or being violent. But I think that's what tends to draw people's attention, more than the many peaceful protesters out there with a real message and real issues. While I get that people are angry and frustrated -- and believe me, I am too -- I am all about peaceful protesting. Despite everything, you won't see me throwing trash cans through a bank's window. The points can be made without all hell breaking loose.
I don't think bailing out banks is anyone's responsibility. It was done to protect the economy from further harm, but they are private businesses. Government doesn't owe them anything.
And the feds already have bailed out schools. Tons of stimulus money went to them last year, but not this year, hence really big cuts coming this year (see here and here).
But more importantly, I don't think most people pay much attention to which form of government does what. They're just frustrated that they're getting poorer while the rich are getting richer.
It's complicated regarding how schools get funding. You're right in, MBB, in that the states have the discretion to allot most education funds to the local districts. But that money that the state gets to allot usually comes from the federal government.
I'm sure everyone has heard about this but in case: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/occupy-oakland-second-veteran-injured?
It's definitely disturbing the level of violence involved. I try not to assume the police use excessive force but I have a hard time imagining this was called for.
Donate to My Pancreatic Cancer Research Page
States and localities are the primary sources of K-12 education funding and always have been.
In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government's share is 8.3 percent. The remaining 8.9 percent is from private sources, primarily for private schools. [ * * ] This division of support remains consistent with our nation's historic reliance on local control of schools.
Most federal funding goes to Title 1 schools (poor) for social services...Free and reduced lunch, health and mental health services, and remedial programs. Federal funding also goes for special ed requirements.Who says the protests are only against the feds? And when a parent sees 60 kids in their child's classroom, no art or music at the school, out of date textbooks and a crumbling building, you think they care if it's the federal or state government's fault? They want it fixed. And the two entities are supposed to work together to serve the people.
As far as the federal gov. bailing out schools: I agree the federal government has given some extra funding for schools in the last few years because of the economy. But I disagree with characterizing that as a bailout. That was one-time money that is mostly expiring if it hasn't already. In the meantime, neither state nor federal officials have figured out how to solve the long-term issue, and kids are suffering, especially here in CA. Class sizes are still exploding, good programs are going away, and teachers are getting laid off. I don't see how a crumbling education system and more people out of work is going to get this economy back on track. And at least here in California, we're probably looking at another huge cut to education this winter (or, if the state government decides to wait, it will happen in the following school year.)
Boomboom, the example I gave about my company giving bonuses to people at the top while laying off people at the bottom is just one instance. My point is that there is more that could be done to regulate businesses, particularly big business, to ensure that the guiding principle is not just short-term financial gain but long-term gain accomplished with common sense and some dignity for the workers who help accomplish that. I believe this can be done without running a company into the ground, and it is actually in the best interest of everyone -- government, citizenry, business, etc. -- to keep those companies healthy and more people employed. But I realize not everyone sees it the same way. You and I will probably just have to agree to disagree.
this is a really good reflection on the movement in Seattle:
http://teachertomsblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/its-only-fair.html
(he addresses the austerity measures that are closing schools and cutting back on social programs)
"It's insanity and it doesn't seem to be about one political party or the other. Republicans might be overtly fighting against tax increases, but Democrats are so incredibly incapable of even pushing forward this wildly popular idea that I can only conclude that they are failing intentionally.
And you're right about the amount of state v fed money in schools, MBB. Most do come from state and local authorities through income and sales tax, which is why wealthier communities have better funded schools. I was having a brain fart, which I will chalk up to being very sick the last few days. That and most of the schools I've been involved in (whether as a student or a teacher) have gotten most of their money from the feds because they were Title I. Here is another good, short explanation of how it breaks down and why people are angry with the inequalities: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/finance/how-do-we-fund-our-schools/197
Donate to My Pancreatic Cancer Research Page