Going home from campus yesterday, I passed a tiny Occupy protest near my school. It was so cute in a way -- there were 12 people in a speech circle, passing around a microphone inside the school's "Free Speech Zone" (read: restricted speech area; it's out of the way and no one gets a chance to express jack to each other). They were speaking to an adorable group of 4. There was no need for a microphone. They had a huge banner announcing their Hunger Strike. For what? They didn't say. They have been there for about 4 weeks, sometimes larger, sometimes only a trickle of 6 people.
I respect their dedication, but it seems lost. This professor's statement says it all: it's about the twitch of fate and how it could tear anyone asunder. It's the seemingly indiscriminate way some people are millionaires and some are stuck between jobs and between homes.
My in-laws bought a house in 2007, before their first house sold. (As is normal, I might add; you don't want to sell your house before you find another one to move into) Suddenly straddled with 2 mortgages, my father-in-law was laid off suddenly, a month later. A very well-educated engineer, he halved their very good retirement savings before getting work again 18 months later. And he applied to EVERYTHING that posted. They only just sold the house this year, after 2 years of paying two mortgages. And just as things began looking up, my mother-in-law got cancer... and it's somehow a "preexisting condition" so my in-laws, who have always been super-careful with their money, are looking at those medical bills all on their own. After decades of never going on vacation, always sacrificing, they are again as broke as newly-weds and unable to send their remaining kids to college.
These free speech kids on my campus have no direction, but the ideas that bring them there are pretty universal. So where does education fit in this situation, this protest? We talk a lot about how over-rated current education institutions are, and the shift from tenured profs to adjuncts, the incredible rise in tuition. What is the next generation to do?
What are we to do?
I grew up in the 1%, but I am the 99%. I am also the 53%, but afraid of becoming the 47%. If you don't know what any of this means, for godssakes, turn on a tv.
I am sympathetic to the 99%, since I am certainly among them, but things didn't go so well for university faculty during the French revolution or the Russian revolution, since we're seen as an elite.
ReplyDelete99% of 300 million people doesn't mean much to me. If we were talking about a much smaller base, let's say, a few hundred, then perhaps I could understand the whole "99%" thing. But how useful is it to say, "I am just like 300 million people, but unlike 3 million people"?
ReplyDeleteI never knew that you're supposed to have two mortgages, probably because I've never had 20% down payment to actually be eligible for a mortgage, at least not one from any lender with whom I'd voluntarily associate myself. I figured you close on the house you own, put your stuff in storage, rent a place, then buy another one, never that you're supposed to buy a second home before you sell the first one. I guess it's obvious that I'm a renter and probably will remain one for a good long time.
I am sorry about your mother-in-law. The number one reason people file for bankruptcy is because of medical bills, which I think is atrocious. I do hope that things aren't too rough for them and for you and your wife.
What should the next generation do? Major in something in which you can make a decent living, go to a state or even community college, or do what I did: spend six years in school, get a masters degree in a subject I love, spend a couple of years trying to make a living in a field in which were are no jobs, then give up and build a career based on a six-week vocational course because that's where the jobs were. Another option is to follow your bliss and don't become bitter that you are poor or have to take a menial second job to chase your dream. Some people happily work as waiters in order to pursue acting careers.
It is totally unfair that you can make a lot of money in fields like plastic surgery or investment banking, and not much money in fields like teaching kindergarten or social work. I wish I could change this; I suppose I'm more accepting of it than most people since I never had any expectation of fairness in life. None of my experiences ever suggested that fairness was to be expected, so I'm probably less disappointed than most. And I'm lucky - I happen to have a job. If I did not, I'd be in serious trouble as there is much competition for even retail and service jobs at Starbucks and McDonalds and The Gap. College graduates are now competing for jobs that high school students used to have. That is terrible but I don't think it's the fault of all 3 million Americans who are the so-called "1 %"
I see people who worked hard and played by the rules and have nothing to show for it.
ReplyDeleteRight, like the students who aren't very bright but try hard and turn their work in on time. They deserve at least a B-, right?
"Right, like the students who aren't very bright but try hard and turn their work in on time. They deserve at least a B-, right?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps; perhaps not. But they, like others, certainly deserve a roof over their heads and enough food to eat, and the basic resources required to raise children if they choose to do so.
That the US, in spite of its enormous wealth, doesn't have a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) system available for every citizen, seems criminal to me. Social scientists have known for some time how to address the issue of dire poverty and food insecurity, but the corporatocracy has other vested interests (like fuelling the military-industrial complex, and maintaining a chronically scared and desperate workforce).
@Ben: This is a false analogy. A university professor is not obligated to give his students they have not earned. A country ought to be obligated to look after its citizens, at the very least with its national security, but also in other ways, particularly if it prides itself with being "the land of opportunity," with its citizens being "equal." Of course, these citizens could smarten up and get informed, and involved in their own governance.
ReplyDeleteHas anybody seen figures reflecting what our salaries would be if we all earned exactly the same amount? Obviously, that's hard to figure out, since people work in many different ways and for different reasons. But a figure for full-time-employed adults between, say, 25 and 65 would be interesting. Fairness might call for younger folks to make less, and older folks to make more, but it would still be interesting.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the really scary figures result when one looks at how we'd live if the whole world's resources were distributed more evenly. By that standard, even the poorest member of the 99% is comparatively well off (which is not, of course, an excuse for failing to fix the problem; I'm all for providing the minimal standard of decent living that Frod mentions to everyone in the U.S., and also working toward that same minimal standard -- which may cost less elsewhere, so purely economic comparisons don't work all that well -- for the world as a whole).
Cassandra, I agree.
ReplyDeleteOnce you take into account all the various issues related to fairness, you'd probably have salary structure similar to what we have now but with a few less people at the bottom, nobody at the top and a lot of people employed to monitor everything so that it remains "fair."
Anybody who has the resources to spend 20+ years in school to learn what they want is part of the 1%.
BB Anybody who has the resources to spend 20+ years in school to learn what they want is already part of the 1%.
ReplyDeleteFixed your post.
I don't think anyone is demanding total equality. Just a return to the period when the top 1% did not own such a grotesque share of the country's wealth, and a progressive tax structure ensured that a reasonable amount of their profits got plowed back into the rest of society.
ReplyDeleteAs to "life isn't fair," bullshit. Some people are incorrigibly greedy and rapacious of the world's resources. That's not about random twists of fate or the rest of our poor choices. Wealth has been systematically transferred upward for 30 years.
I have to go lie down with the smelling salts now.
Sure, some people are greedy and deserve to be punished, and I'm in favor of progressive tax reform, but I'm not angry at rich people because they have wealth and I do not. It'd be nice if they'd give me their money but I don't expect that to happen, so I'm not dissapointed that it isn't happening. I'd like them to pay more taxes. But I still think if being wealthy or even moderately prosperous is important to someone, they should at least attempt to choose to a well-compensated career path. It is possible to make intentional choices - the government's occupational outlook is one source of information. Most wealthy Americans weren't born rich, nor did they inherit it. They worked for it. This was much easier in their day - the average age of American millionaires is 57. It's certainly much harder to do so today. Nevertheless, wealth shouldn't be a hallmark of evil. Greed, corruption, that sort of thing, sure. The disreputable bankers and their shady dealing with subprime mortages should be condemned, but that's a different attribute than merely being wealthy. For a profile of American millionaires:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
I think what gets me is the way my extremely wealthy father talks about his investment portfolio. He is always talking smack about companies who are not earning enough for their investors and how they need to eliminate jobs in order to be an attractive investment. This seems to be the opposite of how our economic system ought to work in an idealized world; jobs first, and then profit-sharing later.
ReplyDeleteProgramming Patty seems to be a little resistant for some reason -- at least, there was a sense of hostility in that post the way I read it. Ultimately though your solutions, Patty, assume that if one "makes the right choices" then they will be fine. And that's bollocks. You can be really well qualified in medicine, in math, in science, but the ability to secure a job involves luck: the opportunity to apply, the rise to the top of the pile with mediocre or lesser competition, the money to make sure the job comes through. There is no "doing it right" without good fortune as well.
Also, re: mortgages, I think you misunderstand. I wasn't saying everyone should have two mortgages, that's rather ridiculous, I was saying that before you sell your house and have to move, you should have another place to move to. And most people only have the overlap for about a month. The people whose story I told should have been able to finish that way, but the housing collapse made everything fall apart.
Also, not sure why you assumed I'm a man. Think it's interesting that you went there.
@F&T: agreed. Admittedly the past does not always predict the future, but looking at things from an historical perspective, it looks like we're in a new gilded age, and that kind of extreme inequality does not lead to longterm prosperity for the nation as a whole. In fact, it looks like we're getting close to a point where the robber barons just might run out of people to exploit (though they're certainly doing their best, and predatory student loans and worthless online degrees are part of the picture). Or, to put it another way, I think Warren Buffett is right, and I appreciate his speaking up.
ReplyDeleteHowever, perhaps because I live in a fairly wealthy area (and suspect that many of the Occupy protesters come from fairly privileged backgrounds themselves), I do find myself wondering whether some people who are feeling pinched realize how well off they still are, or just how much the lifestyles of many middle-to upper- class two-professional families are dependent on the support of very low-paid workers: in child care, and also, to a lesser extent, in food service, cleaning/yard care, elder care, etc. Looking around my own area, I wonder exactly how things would work out if all the low-paid support workers suddenly received a living wage (which would probably have to be pretty close to my own -- probably a bit more for a single parent with children). The prices of some goods and many services would unquestionably go up, perhaps to the point where many families with children and/or elderly members would find it necessary, or at least more attractive, from a financial perspective, to have one working-age adult at home doing those jobs him/herself, rather than hiring them out. Historically, of course, that's what women did, and I don't want to see us return to such restrictive gender roles. On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many of the worst-paid workers are doing what was historically women's work (and many of them are, in fact, still women, who also need to find similar services for their own families, at even lower cost). I'm not at all sure what the solution is, but I suspect that getting millionaires to pay their fair share of taxes is only the tip of the iceberg.
Personally, I wouldn't mind making the same as a janitor or a child-care worker (with or without a college diploma), as long as we were all doing our jobs well. But I have a ridiculously non-competitive personality (not a virtue, but an inbuilt quirk), and I'm sure I would feel differently if I had had to take out loans to go to college and/or grad school. As it is, inherited money played a role in my ability to finish a Ph.D. despite the disintegration of both my department and the job market (both because I drew on it from time to time, and because it provided a security blanket of sorts). That puts me, if not in the 1%, then somewhere in the top 10-25%. I sure don't feel privileged (certainly not today, when I'm waiting once more to go retrieve my 19-year-old car from the mechanic's, and feeling grateful that the repair came in under $500), but realistically, I am (I may have to do some scrambling to find that $500, but I have it, and can put the bill on a credit card in the meantime).
I don't think we should discount the participation of people who empathize with those working 2 or 3 jobs and protest with them in mind even if we ourselves are middle class or above.
ReplyDeleteI actually do not, myself, feel uncomfortable -- I have tenure and a liveable salary, and live at a much higher standard than I grew up with. I actually made it to a middle-class standard of living, without an inheritance, though with [pause for earthquake] a safety net. And that was about luck as much as it was about anything else.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't mean I don't stand with the 23%, or the 12% or the 47%, or whatever.
"Of course, these citizens could smarten up and get informed, and involved in their own governance."
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking that democratic government is like education - the folks being governed/educated have to be involved in the process or it doesn't work. I read an interesting article the other day that pointed out that if a few more of the Occupy Wall Street supporters had taken an hour out of their day on November 2, 2010 and voted, then many (though by no means all) of the problems they are protesting could have been ameliorated (though by no means completely solved).
Another interesting perspective came in the form of a Venn Diagram.
F&T, The "23%, or the 12% or the 47%, or whatever" ... (ie, the 99%) is not about "being comfortable." It's about not having enough money to buy your way through government. You might be fine for now, but real wages are declining while the number of individual millionaires is rising, and those who are lucky enough to be millionaires can buy lobbyists and policies and influence government in a way that you cannot.
ReplyDeleteEven with a handful of votes. Fuck, even with 1 million votes. Because voting gets someone into office; paying for lobbyists leads to actual policy. Voting has become almost irrelevant.
"Because voting gets someone into office; paying for lobbyists leads to actual policy."
ReplyDelete... only because of what people choose to vote for. I'd wager that most of the 'buying' of politicians comes in the form of campaign contributions. And the reason politicians are so eager for campaign contributions is because voters seem to go for the candidate with the best (or even just the most) attack ads. I don't pretend campaigning will ever be cheap, but the money it takes to win an election is way out or proportion with the basic cost of communicating a message or a platform.
I'm appalled by the current level of inequality, and I hope the Occupy movement can gain some real traction. I just think there is an interesting parallel between the disengagement of many students in a classroom and the disengagement of many citizens in a democracy.
AM, I am with you all the way -- all I mean is that I may be surprised by my own level of comfort (and I live fairly modestly), but that doesn't prevent me from understanding myself as having things in common with those with much less. I understand my comfort as very, very contingent. Especially if the GOP wins in 2012.
ReplyDelete