undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnatrius14y ago0 comments

"I think it is opposed to the zero-sum thinking that characterizes much of Wall Street and political life right now."

No, I think OWS is very pro-zero-sum thinking. Its core messaging pits "the 99%" against "the 1%". It's class warfare in its purest form.

There are many smart people who are painting more reasoned critiques of our society onto OWS than the movement is actually articulating. Perhaps that's inherent to mass movements in general, but I judge OWS by its most common messages, which are far from what you've described.

There are two OWS-related messages that would have broad appeal, and I'd suggest they focus on those: "Our Laws Are Not For Sale" and "Too Big To Fail Is Too Big To Exist".

0 comments

jberryman14y ago

Historically invoking the term "class warfare" has been a way to scare liberals out of broaching issues of class and wealth disparity in America. Using it here makes you look like a shill.

The Occupy movement is about finally having a discussion about these issues.

natriusOP14y ago

Allow me to restate my claim without the words of which you disapprove. The most common message of OWS reduces to "households that make more than $500,000 a year are against everyone else." This is problematic.

olefoo14y ago

It is problematic; more so because it is true.

Households that make more than $500,000 a year pay less in taxes as a percentage of their earnings than households that make $50,000 a year. They also benefit disproportionately from the protections our society offers and suffer less from the economic uncertainty that has become the bane of middle-class existence in the last two decades.

Now I am certain you can find more than a few members of that group who are sympathetic to the plight of the middle class but how many can you find that would be in favor of rescinding the Bush tax cuts?

2 more replies

_delirium14y ago

I read it to be something like: the American economy is structurally set up in a way that disproportionately benefits households making more than $500,000. Empirically, given how real wages have trended over the past 50 years (flat, with decreasing job security, for everyone except the top), that's at least close to true. People seem to disagree much more why that is, though I do agree that a substantial number of people have implausible theories on that point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse