Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[WhoWee]

But it is not correct to say that these costs are being created by the protestors. There's little to suggest the extra police presence is warranted.

Police are needed to protect property from damages - and local residents from bad behavior.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/local/la-me-occupy-lawn-web-20111020
"The cost of repairing the increasing damage to the City Hall lawn where hundreds of Occupy L.A. protesters are camped out is becoming an issue for Los Angeles officials even as the protesters make plans to expand their demonstration to other downtown city property."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-commissioner-Occupy-camps-cause-19K-in-damage-132013693.html
"Damage caused by the “Occupy Portland” encampments at Lownsdale Square and Chapman Park will cost the city at least $19,000 and several months to repair, according to Commissioner Nick Fish.
The city leader sent a letter to “Occupy Portland” Monday, urging them to make changes that will minimize the strain on the parks’ fragile urban ecosystems.
“Parks belong to everyone,” Fish said in the letter. “The cost to restore the damage to our parks will not be borne by Wall Street bankers but by Portland taxpayers.”"


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20123807/nyers-to-occupy-protesters-lay-off-the-drums/
""Our neighbors do not urinate and defecate in the street," said resident Linda Fairstein, WCBS-TV reports. "These occupiers need to vacate our neighborhood.""

 

[OmCheeto]

Police are needed to protect property from damages - and local residents from bad behavior.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/19/local/la-me-occupy-lawn-web-20111020
"The cost of repairing the increasing damage to the City Hall lawn where hundreds of Occupy L.A. protesters are camped out is becoming an issue for Los Angeles officials even as the protesters make plans to expand their demonstration to other downtown city property."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-commissioner-Occupy-camps-cause-19K-in-damage-132013693.html
"Damage caused by the “Occupy Portland” encampments at Lownsdale Square and Chapman Park will cost the city at least $19,000 and several months to repair, according to Commissioner Nick Fish.
The city leader sent a letter to “Occupy Portland” Monday, urging them to make changes that will minimize the strain on the parks’ fragile urban ecosystems.
“Parks belong to everyone,” Fish said in the letter. “The cost to restore the damage to our parks will not be borne by Wall Street bankers but by Portland taxpayers.”"


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20123807/nyers-to-occupy-protesters-lay-off-the-drums/
""Our neighbors do not urinate and defecate in the street," said resident Linda Fairstein, WCBS-TV reports. "These occupiers need to vacate our neighborhood.""

bolding mine

oooooo...

$19k/2M metro residents = oooooo! 1 cent per person.

We should discuss the governmental "and several months to repair" comment this weekend.

I would say more, but Mr. Fish's comments read like an Onion headline, and I'm having trouble breathing, after all my laughter.

ps. sorry for all my oooooo's. I'm preping for Halloween.

 

[Evo]

bolding mine

oooooo...

$19k/2M metro residents = oooooo! 1 cent per person.

We should discuss the governmental "and several months to repair" comment this weekend.

I would say more, but Mr. Fish's comments read like an Onion headline, and I'm having trouble breathing, after all my laughter.

ps. sorry for all my oooooo's. I'm preping for Halloween.

OM, it's $19,000 that shouldn't have to be used. How many taxpayers are there, you can't use total population.

The fact is, no small group of people has the right to destroy public property, heck, no one has that right.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I can't tell what people are supposedly protesting, it seems they are all over the place. Perhaps the largest group wants rich people to give them money. I don't get it.

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics. As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Newsflash - banks ARE regulated. Also, how exactly did the banks drive the economy into the ground? Last, what specific regulations do the protesters want ?

Personally, I'd be happy with something like Dodd-Frank's provision for orderly unwinding of illiquid banks. Its the surest way to avoid "too big to fail".

The subprime crises wouldn't have spread to every area of the economy if mortgage-backed derivatives hadn't permeated everything. The large damages were essentially caused by runs on the shadow-banking sector.

Further, these investment banks sold derivatives they knew to be crap just to get them off their own books to "sucker" clients, mostly pension funds,state/local government, etc.

And this is before mentioning the big players in the mortgage market. We are so quick to blame the people who took these loans, but I ask you- when a banker and a client sit down to negotiate a mortgage, which one is claiming to be the mortgage expert?

Basically, everyone relied on banks to provide good advice, instead of providing terrible advice to enrich themselves. Jokes on all of us, huh?

 

[DoggerDan]

The costs are directly caused by the protestors as there would be no need without their presence. Police are needed 24/7 in areas where they otherwise would not be needed. If these people went home, no extra costs.

I heard on the radio this evening the additional costs above and beyond routine top $1.1 Million for police alone. Most of this is due to the overtime required to cover the event.

 

[Oltz]

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics. As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

Lets break this down.

I interpret that you think things were better when your parents were your age.

What has changed since then?

Do not blame the "rich" for the high cost of your eductation blame easily attainable government backed student loans.

The same thing that caused the housing bubble. The Education Bubble will be the next to burst.

Univiersities see how easy and willing students are to take on debt so they are comfortable raising prices consistently 10% a year.

Minimum wage increases and printing money are big drivers of inflation. Mini,u, wage has increased far faster then the average wage essentially raising the bottom and making every doller you make worth less.

Making Money is not zero sum the rich can be 4 billion times richer then you are and you can still have a great life income inequality is a joke and has no real meaning. It does not effect the price of food ro gas or housing doesn't drive your income.Al of these are more effected by poorly planned governement intervention with side effects they did not anticipate.

The Majority drive pricing if average person could not afford a TV then TVs would get less expensive or not be sold.

 

[WhoWee]

Personally, I'd be happy with something like Dodd-Frank's provision for orderly unwinding of illiquid banks. Its the surest way to avoid "too big to fail".

The subprime crises wouldn't have spread to every area of the economy if mortgage-backed derivatives hadn't permeated everything. The large damages were essentially caused by runs on the shadow-banking sector.

Further, these investment banks sold derivatives they knew to be crap just to get them off their own books to "sucker" clients, mostly pension funds,state/local government, etc.

And this is before mentioning the big players in the mortgage market. We are so quick to blame the people who took these loans, but I ask you- when a banker and a client sit down to negotiate a mortgage, which one is claiming to be the mortgage expert?

Basically, everyone relied on banks to provide good advice, instead of providing terrible advice to enrich themselves. Jokes on all of us, huh?

I noticed there is no mention of Government involvement in the problem - an oversight?

 

[WhoWee]

Someone should pass this story on to the protesters:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/18/acorns-illegal-alien-home-loan-racket/

"In 2005, Citibank and ACORN Housing Corporation – which has received tens of millions of tax dollars under the Bush administration alone — began recruiting Mexican illegal aliens for a lucrative program offering loans with below-market interest rates, down-payment assistance and no mortgage insurance requirements. Instead of Social Security numbers required of law-abiding citizens, the program allows illegal alien applicants to supply loosely-monitored tax identification numbers issued by the IRS.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that “undocumented residents” comprise a vast market representing a potential sum of “$44 billion in mortgages.” Citibank enlarged its portfolio of subprime and other risky loans. ACORN enlarged its membership rolls. The program now operates in Miami; New York City; Jersey City, N.J.; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Bridgeport, Conn., and at all of ACORN Housing’s 12 California offices. San Diego ACORN officials advised illegal alien recruits that their bank partners would take applicants who had little or no credit, or even “nontraditional records of credit, such as utility payments and documentation of private loan payments.”
The risk the banks bear is the price they pay to keep ACORN protesters and Hispanic lobbyists from the National Council of La Raza screaming about “predatory lending” off their backs. These professional grievance-mongers have turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act – which forced lenders to sacrifice underwriting standards for “diversity” – into lucrative “business” opportunities. Or rather, politically correct blackmail. As the Consumer Rights League noted in a 2008 report on the group’s successful shakedowns of financial institutions, “an agreement with Citibank, a significant ACORN donor and partner, showed that some activists become less active when deals are in place.”"

Of course this must be labeled as opinion.

 

[WhoWee]

Here's another opinion piece on the subject - anyone think the protesters would want to hear these details?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225898/planting-seeds-disaster/stanley-kurtz

"Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster."

 

[OmCheeto]

OM, it's $19,000 that shouldn't have to be used. How many taxpayers are there, you can't use total population.

It was one of those "off the top of my head" comments.

I was looking at the NYPD overtime numbers vs the NYPD annual budget the other day.
It stuck me as the same kind of argument over a seemingly big number, until you take a look at the huge number behind the curtain.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/occupy-wall-street-nypd-overtime-hits-3-4m-1.3272630": $3.4E6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department" : $3.9E9
So that's ~1/10 of 1% difference.

Graphically speaking:

Barely a blip on the radar.

The fact is, no small group of people has the right to destroy public property, heck, no one has that right.

I'm fairly certain that the only damage is to the lawn.
But we're kind of weird out here. We exercise our right to destroy public property every year.
It's called the http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2010/06/rain_sets_record_in_portland_s.html" .

 

[WhoWee]

It was one of those "off the top of my head" comments.

I was looking at the NYPD overtime numbers vs the NYPD annual budget the other day.
It stuck me as the same kind of argument over a seemingly big number, until you take a look at the huge number behind the curtain.

http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/occupy-wall-street-nypd-overtime-hits-3-4m-1.3272630": $3.4E6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department" : $3.9E9
So that's ~1/10 of 1% difference.

Graphically speaking:

Barely a blip on the radar.



I'm fairly certain that the only damage is to the lawn.
But we're kind of weird out here. We exercise our right to destroy public property every year.
It's called the http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2010/06/rain_sets_record_in_portland_s.html" .

The $19,000 post was related to Occupy Portland - not NY.
from my post 701

"http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-com...132013693.html
"Damage caused by the “Occupy Portland” encampments at Lownsdale Square and Chapman Park will cost the city at least $19,000 and several months to repair, according to Commissioner Nick Fish.
The city leader sent a letter to “Occupy Portland” Monday, urging them to make changes that will minimize the strain on the parks’ fragile urban ecosystems.
“Parks belong to everyone,” Fish said in the letter. “The cost to restore the damage to our parks will not be borne by Wall Street bankers but by Portland taxpayers.”"
"

 

[WhoWee]

This is a very interesting development:

http://www.wtvr.com/news/wtvr-richmond-tea-party-wants-refund-after-seeing-occupy-richmond-protesters-camp-out-for-free-20111026,0,7880023.story

"Richmond Tea Party wants refund after seeing Occupy Richmond protesters camp out for free
Tea Party was charged nearly $10,000 to host their demonstration"

""And they’re not having to pay for the park, they’re not getting permits, they’re not paying for police, they’re not paying for port-o-potties, they’re not paying for emergency personnel," Owens says.

"Everything that we were required to do," she adds.

Owens says the Tea Party hopes to get an invoice into the Mayor's office this week and ask for a refund.

“It’s not fair, the City of Richmond’s picking and choosing whose First Amendment rights trump someone else’s First Amendment rights and we thought--well that’s fine--then they can refund our money," she says.

"If that’s how they’re going to run the city then they owe us our fees back.”"

It was reported earlier that the Occupy Movement had received $450,000 in donations - why aren't they subject to the same rules?

 

[mheslep]

The policing cost credited to just the OWS people, alone, is not the issue. If they are allowed to displace others from public spaces, destroy property, impede local business and disturb residents, then the issue becomes why can't everybody?

 

[OmCheeto]

The $19,000 post was related to Occupy Portland - not NY.
from my post 701

"http://www.kgw.com/news/Portland-com...132013693.html
"Damage caused by the “Occupy Portland” encampments at Lownsdale Square and Chapman Park will cost the city at least $19,000 and several months to repair, according to Commissioner Nick Fish.
The city leader sent a letter to “Occupy Portland” Monday, urging them to make changes that will minimize the strain on the parks’ fragile urban ecosystems.
“Parks belong to everyone,” Fish said in the letter. “The cost to restore the damage to our parks will not be borne by Wall Street bankers but by Portland taxpayers.”"
"

Yes. I know/knew that. I live in Portland.

I find Nick Fish's political wording humorous.

"make changes that will minimize the strain on the parks’ fragile urban ecosystems."

translates to

"keep off the grass." in OmSpeak.

 

[Oltz]

If i went to the local park and went to the bathroom I am willing to bet I would be arrested.

Yet somehow it is over looked for this "movement"

 

[WhoWee]

If i went to the local park and went to the bathroom I am willing to bet I would be arrested.

Yet somehow it is over looked for this "movement"

Might we conclude that "movements" are more acceptable?

 

[edward]

Newsflash - banks ARE regulated. Also, how exactly did the banks drive the economy into the ground? Last, what specific regulations do the protesters want ?

The financial derivatives market was and still is totally unregulated. Nice try at obfuscation but no cigar.

As for regulations, stopping banks from betting against a financial product they have sold, ala Goldman Sachs, would be a good start.

 

[WhoWee]

The financial derivatives market was and still is totally unregulated. Nice try at obfuscation but no cigar.

As for regulations, stopping banks from betting against a financial product they have sold, ala Goldman Sachs, would be a good start.

First, I don't think banks should be allowed to risk deposits in derivatives markets. Second, the lack of derivatives regulation is a global problem. I don't see any method of imposing regulations on existing contracts - only contracts initiated after a specific future date.

Please keep this in context - nobody said anything about derivatives markets (thanks again to Bill Clinton)

"Statement from link:
""He doesn't agree with the way the banks aren't regulated, the way they drove the economy in the ground. He wants there to be regulation of the banks," Shannon said."

WhoWee's
Newsflash - banks ARE regulated. Also, how exactly did the banks drive the economy into the ground? Last, what specific regulations do the protesters want ?"

Again, banks are regulated.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm fairly certain that the only damage is to the lawn.
But we're kind of weird out here. We exercise our right to destroy public property every year.
It's called the http://www.oregonlive.com/rosefest/index.ssf/2010/06/rain_sets_record_in_portland_s.html" .

I think the 'Zombie Walk' event is better. http://www.yelp.com/events/portland-portland-zombie-walk-2011

 

[Galteeth]

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics. As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

Well Put.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think the 'Zombie Walk' event is better. http://www.yelp.com/events/portland-portland-zombie-walk-2011

I can only say that you've arrived with a most appropriate name on the eve of all hallows eve.

 

[OmCheeto]

If anyone hasn't noticed, I like to point out things that seem out of place. Or at least things, out of proportion to the things we discuss here.

Portland's parks budget vs O'whatever...

and then there's

A certain number of trillions of dollars of USA wealth that went away, because of those that, who's names, if we mention them, they will appear vs. a bunch of bums, that are us.

find the pixel!

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

 

[WhoWee]

If anyone hasn't noticed, I like to point out things that seem out of place. Or at least things, out of proportion to the things we discuss here.

Portland's parks budget vs O'whatever...

and then there's

A certain number of trillions of dollars of USA wealth that went away, because of those that, who's names, if we mention them, they will appear vs. a bunch of bums, that are us.

find the pixel!

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

That sounds like the rationalization of the mortgage broker who (hypothetical example) did the $100,000 no-doc loan to two people working part time at 7-11 - because it was only temporary and the home would only increase in value (no risk). What's $100k compared to the $Billions being written?

 

[OmCheeto]

That sounds like the rationalization of the mortgage broker who (hypothetical example) did the $100,000 no-doc loan to two people working part time at 7-11 - because it was only temporary and the home would only increase in value (no risk). What's $100k compared to the $Billions being written?

To each his own, interpretation, of what is rational, and, what is not...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBG1j_flrg"

 

[CAC1001]

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics.

Oh wow, I could not disagree more here. For one, the issue of inequality. Inequality of outcome is a natural outcome of a free society. During periods of major wealth creation, you will often see a lot of very wealthy people created. But usually, this also results in huge increases in society's standard of living (because the way those people got very wealthy in the first place was by creating products and services that people wanted in large quantities). If a society tries to create an equality of outcome, then it will infringe on freedom.

But also, I would disagree that we have gone from high social mobility and moderate inequality to low social mobility and a level of income inequality rivaling banana republics. Far from it! The average American today is incredibly wealthy by both global and historical standards. I live in an inexpensive apartment, yet I sit at a computer attached to high-speed Internet, by cheap electric light, with instant access to all the great movies, works of music, books, etc...I have access to all sorts of fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, cheeses, etc...at the market, innumerable drinks and beverages, ranging from milkshakes to various fruit drinks to coffees, teas, etc...modern people have access to goodies that even billionaires (or their inflation-adjusted equivalents) did not have access to a decade or so ago. For example, look at some of the smartphones today. You can watch TV, access Youtube, surf the Internet, listen to music, read books, play videogames, DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS, etc...along with make phone calls. Look at toys. Kids today have access to toys and entertainment that when we were little were unheard of. When I was little, the Gameboy from Nintendo was a big, thick device with black-and-white graphics and cost $200. The state-of-the-art in videogames was the 8-bit Nintendo, then came Super Nintendo and SEGA Genesis, then eventually Sony's Playstation, Nintendo 64, and SEGA's Saturn. And so forth. Today, little kids have everything from computers with blazing speeds and flat LCD displays to high-speed Internet and all that comes with that (music, movies, videos, etc...), flat-screen TVs for some of them, and videogame systems that used to be considered a fantasy. In terms of toys, you can get remote-controlled toys these days that ten to twenty years ago used to be only hobby-grade. But the technology has advanced enough that what used to be hobby-grade and costs a bundle now is toy-grade. Kids have access to some incredibly advanced toys now.

Look at cars even! In the the 1980s and even the 1990s, having a television and phone in your car meant you were the big cheese. Today, even the cheapest cars have features that used to be options or luxuries, and today you can easily equip a car with the ability to watch movies or television, play games, surf the Internet, etc...(via tablet PC or smartphone), cellphones are commonplace, you can buy a GPS to guide you around or a backup camera for backing up, etc...

My point is that the standard of living continues to go up for the average person. It's just that, as a society, we are unequally wealthy. But that's a lot better then being in a society that is equally poverty-stricken. I would also disagree that social mobility has declined. How is this? There have been more opportunities to make wealth and get ahead then ever before over the past few decades.

As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

My understanding of it is that the reason the cost of a college education went up so much is because the government has been subsidizing it for decades. Just like with the housing market, where the government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and various pieces of legislation to try and allow everyone to be able to buy a home, which resulted in some major adverse affects, government policy to try and make it where everyone can go to college has also had some major adverse effects. The government has continually over the years increased the subsidizing of college education, and the cost continues to go up far quicker than the rate of inflation. These colleges and universities have tons of money, billions. But they keep raising tuition. Another problem is that the flood of college graduates with bachelors degrees has over-supplied the market and thus negated the value of the degree, thus requiring many now to need to get a graduate degree in order to be worth something.

In terms of the criticism of our generation not having "grown up yet," well with someone such as yourself, you are an exception, but a LOT of young folks seem to have a real entitlement mindset. They go and major in subjects that are not in demand on the job market, and then think they should just be given a good-paying job right off the bat it seems.

Also, keep in mind that part of the reason the job market is so terrible right now is because the government took actions to try and make life easier for people. The government wanted everyone to own a home and it blew up on us with major economi ramifications because the financial sector took the easy money of the government and created outcomes way beyond what the government ever thought could happen. Same with college. Same with healthcare even (which is increasing in cost faster than inflation).

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

I don't think they had things easier per se, just they didn't have to deal with the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

What the protesters are calling for, to me, looks socialist, like they want to tear down the entire system. That's not a good view to have. Or, they want the government to get a lot more involved in society, without ever considering that some of the major areas where society is having problems (housing, education, healthcare), are areas where the government has tried to help for decades and made things worse.

 

[CAC1001]

Lets break this down.

I interpret that you think things were better when your parents were your age.

What has changed since then?

Do not blame the "rich" for the high cost of your eductation blame easily attainable government backed student loans.

The same thing that caused the housing bubble. The Education Bubble will be the next to burst.

Between China possibly having a major crisis via their gigantic credit and real-estate bubble and the Education Bubble possibly bursting next, I wonder if we are just nearing the End of the Beginning of bad times...?

Univiersities see how easy and willing students are to take on debt so they are comfortable raising prices consistently 10% a year.

Minimum wage increases and printing money are big drivers of inflation. Mini,u, wage has increased far faster then the average wage essentially raising the bottom and making every doller you make worth less.

Making Money is not zero sum the rich can be 4 billion times richer then you are and you can still have a great life income inequality is a joke and has no real meaning. It does not effect the price of food ro gas or housing doesn't drive your income.Al of these are more effected by poorly planned governement intervention with side effects they did not anticipate.

The Majority drive pricing if average person could not afford a TV then TVs would get less expensive or not be sold.

Yup.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

The Parks & Recreations numbers came from:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=294199&c=52417
and the previous newspaper article

The Wall Street meltdown vs Occupy Wall Street costs are a bit more dubious.
From the graph in the following article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/household_wealth/index.htm
I eyeballed a loss of $7.8 trillion.
The OWS costs are totally made up: $100 million
Based on: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/occupy-protests-cost-cities-millions/

7.8e12/100e6=78000
sqrt(78000)=~279

So there is a red pixel in the blue square which has the dimensions 279x279.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

The numbers of course, are changing daily:

By October 9 protests had taken place or were ongoing in over 95 cities across 82 countries and over 600 communities in the U.S.

 

[WhoWee]

The Parks & Recreations numbers came from:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=294199&c=52417
and the previous newspaper article

The Wall Street meltdown vs Occupy Wall Street costs are a bit more dubious.
From the graph in the following article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/household_wealth/index.htm
I eyeballed a loss of $7.8 trillion.
The OWS costs are totally made up: $100 million
Based on: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/occupy-protests-cost-cities-millions/

7.8e12/100e6=78000
sqrt(78000)=~279

So there is a red pixel in the blue square which has the dimensions 279x279.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

The numbers of course, are changing daily:

"Dubious" is a good word. The $7.8 Trillion that you refer to is Wall Street's fault? If you pay too much for a pair of shoes - is it the retailer that sold them to you for full price to blame, or is it the retailer that had them on sale that didn't advertise effectively so that you knew to blame, or quite possibly is it your fault for not doing a better job of shopping?

The funny thing about the stock market is that somebody sold their shares at the high point - that's how the price was achieved. On the other hand someone also paid that price - not too smart. Everyone else holding that stock bought at another price and COULD have sold at the peak - but didn't.

The housing market is the same. I saw houses on the market for $500,000 that were bought new for $25,000 in the late 1950's. If you sold the ranch for $500k in DC or CA and bought a new McMansion in TX for less than you cashed out for - it was a good experience. If you cashed out for $500k and bought a new house for $1 Million in FL or NV and it's now worth $600 - you might not be very happy. I know several people that lost big. I also know a handful of people that sold at the top of the bubble - waited for the collapse and went back into gobble foreclosures - they are very happy.

My point is you have nobody to blame but yourself if you paid too much for an asset.

If you lost an established job and can't make payments that were no problem earlier - and now you're behind and can't refinance - I hope someone comes up with a strategy that will work for you. IMO - you're the one that deserves help - and can be counted on to make it work.

 

[edward]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm


Millions of homes have gone through foreclosure. 11 million are under water.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-presidential-race-sidesteps-housing-crisis-20111020


Companies are refusing to hire the unemployed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


Failed CEOs are rewarded

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


No one in Washington will listen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html


The ranks of the millionaires has surged by 10% in the last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prosper-austerity-U-S-3-1m-millionaires.html


I could fill this page with what is wrong with the economy and yet there will be those who just don't get it as far as OWS goes. Or they just don't get it period.

 

[OmCheeto]

"Dubious" is a good word. The $7.8 Trillion that you refer to is Wall Street's fault? If you pay too much for a pair of shoes - is it the retailer that sold them to you for full price to blame, or is it the retailer that had them on sale that didn't advertise effectively so that you knew to blame, or quite possibly is it your fault for not doing a better job of shopping?

The funny thing about the stock market is that somebody sold their shares at the high point - that's how the price was achieved. On the other hand someone also paid that price - not too smart. Everyone else holding that stock bought at another price and COULD have sold at the peak - but didn't.

The housing market is the same. I saw houses on the market for $500,000 that were bought new for $25,000 in the late 1950's. If you sold the ranch for $500k in DC or CA and bought a new McMansion in TX for less than you cashed out for - it was a good experience. If you cashed out for $500k and bought a new house for $1 Million in FL or NV and it's now worth $600 - you might not be very happy. I know several people that lost big. I also know a handful of people that sold at the top of the bubble - waited for the collapse and went back into gobble foreclosures - they are very happy.

My point is you have nobody to blame but yourself if you paid too much for an asset.

If you lost an established job and can't make payments that were no problem earlier - and now you're behind and can't refinance - I hope someone comes up with a strategy that will work for you. IMO - you're the one that deserves help - and can be counted on to make it work.

Um...

I bought my house on April Fool's day of 1989 for $22,600.
According to Zillow, it is now worth $115,900.
This is 2.45 times my standard rate of inflation of 3.41%.

The house is nearly paid off, after only 3 refinances, where, like a lot of people, I improved my feeble lot, by riding the waves.

So I'm not really looking out for myself. I'm fine. I'm speak out for my yet unborn grandnieces and nephews, and people like Char, Binzing, Helixe, Rootx, et al.

They will come to understand cycles, as more than just some weird concept in their college courses. I just pray they don't come to this understanding whilst living in cardboard box houses, because of the fact that people our age, can't read graphs.

post tax income since 1979 until 2007
bottom 5 lines are quintiles
top 3 lines are 1%, 5%, & 10%
I'm sure you can identify which is which. (Who knows how to say; Cha-Ching!)
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/after-tax_income_shares.pdf

 

[OmCheeto]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

I knew there was reason I didn't have kids back in the '70s./'80s../'90s.../ought's..., teens...

You'll have to bring your own bunk-beds. Otherwise, you're all sleeping under the front porch.

 

[WhoWee]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

Millions of homes have gone through foreclosure. 11 million are under water.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-presidential-race-sidesteps-housing-crisis-20111020

Companies are refusing to hire the unemployed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


Failed CEOs are rewarded

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

No one in Washington will listen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html

The ranks of the millionaires has surged by 10% in the last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prosper-austerity-U-S-3-1m-millionaires.html

I could fill this page with what is wrong with the economy and yet there will be those who just don't get it as far as OWS goes. Or they just don't get it period.

Given your list (does it actually represent the current list from the "movement"?) it sounds very foolish to "Occupy Wall Street".

1.) What does Wall Street have to do with college kids moving home?
2.) Wall Street didn't sell anyone a house - why not picket Fannie/Freddie and your local realtor's office?
3.) Why not protest the companies that refuse to hire the unemployed - Wall Street doesn't hire anyone that's not qualified and able to sell securities.
4.) Wall Street punishes failed CEO's on a daily basis - the stock price crashes - take a look at GE - only the White House and the shareholders choose to reward Immelt.
5.) If no one in Washington will listen - protest in Washington not NY.
6.) The ranks of millionaires has surged? Your link doesn't say this increase was among Wall Street personnel - apparently lot's of entertainers though.

 

[edward]

Given your list (does it actually represent the current list from the "movement"?) it sounds very foolish to "Occupy Wall Street".

1.) What does Wall Street have to do with college kids moving home?
2.) Wall Street didn't sell anyone a house - why not picket Fannie/Freddie and your local realtor's office?
3.) Why not protest the companies that refuse to hire the unemployed - Wall Street doesn't hire anyone that's not qualified and able to sell securities.
4.) Wall Street punishes failed CEO's on a daily basis - the stock price crashes - take a look at GE - only the White House and the shareholders choose to reward Immelt.
5.) If no one in Washington will listen - protest in Washington not NY.
6.) The ranks of millionaires has surged? Your link doesn't say this increase was among Wall Street personnel - apparently lot's of entertainers though.

Like I mentioned some people just don't get it. I hope you have a very secure job.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I had a girlfriend once who used to argue like that. "I'm not going to tell you what you did to make me mad; you wouldn't understand."