By now, I think it's safe to assume we've all heard of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. We've seen the signs saying "we are the 99%," we've seen the occasional Guy Fawkes mask. Less well known is just what they want. We know they're part of the 99%, we know that a lot of them probably like "V for Vendetta," and we know that they are angry. But about what, exactly?
The problem is that they don't have a centralized structure to get their message out. Maybe that's good with their ideals, but maybe not so good when it comes to the press. Sad to say, I suspect that many of the OWS people aren't even sure why they're out there.
But some messages still do come out loud and clear, thanks in particular to journalists and bloggers who support the movement and do some research into it. One such message in particular caught my attention:
Yes, you read that right. The gap between rich and poor in the US is wider than it was in the Roman empire, and the Roman empire collapsed. I'm not expecting the US as we know it to collapse anytime soon... at least not within our lifetimes. But then, what would a collapse mean? I don't imagine repo agents coming and shooing us out of the US. I imagine more that it would mean a complete loss of faith in the government. Maybe an armed revolt, maybe not. When you think about it, any government rules only at the mercy of its people. If the people as a whole simply began to ignore the government and set up their own, then that would be an effective collapse of America as we know it.
Many who read this may be rattling their sabers and shaking their fists, saying, "yeah, me and my group could make some real changes here!" That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I'm aware of some such groups... and the ones that I'm aware of, both conscience and my desire for survival would dictate that I resist such groups who would want to take things over. Each has their own agenda, and what I have seen, it is NOT to restore America.
Let's look back to this income gap issue though, shall we?
First of all, there is nothing wrong with capitalism in and of itself. It is kind of the ultimate freedom, and as I've said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Don't like an idea? Don't feed money into it. I feel that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Ideally, one gets paid for their efforts, and fairly so. That's the ideal. But, the human element gets thrown in, and that's where things get screwed up. As a whole, humans tend to be rather lazy and greedy.
If we go back maybe a hundred years, give or take, people were working their lives away. The five day work week, eight hours a day... if you mentioned that, you would have been laughed out of where ever it is you went. Even children had to work, just so their families could make ends meet. You may also have heard of "company stores." What that was, the companies, instead of paying workers in regular money paid them in credit for the company store, where they could buy the necessities. This way, there was a bare minimum in loss of profits by the company, by basically treating their workers as slaves. The workers had little choice but to accept.
Enter the labor unions. The labor unions organized workers to make a lot of changes in company policies and in law. This is where we get our more recognizable forty hour workweek, child labor laws, and similar things. But, as time passes, even the labor unions are not immune to the same laziness, greed, and corruption that they once fought against. They have the potential to still do good, but too often, they do not. They also attempt to take choice out of the workers' hands by making union membership, or at least paying union dues, a mandatory condition of employment, whether the worker feels they are doing a good job representing them or not.
Going forward, as technology improved, companies began noticing that it was possible to conduct business from afar. They hearkened back to the good ol' days of underpaid workers with low standards. This is when they began outsourcing to other nations. They loved it, the shareholders loved it, profits soared. For a time.
The thing about greed is that it is self-destructive. So many companies did this outsourcing that it noticeably raised unemployment and lowered salaries of workers. The very simple foundation of the economy is that if people are spending money, people are making money. American workers now had substantially less money to spend, because their jobs are being shipped overseas, and they are having to accept substantially less money when they are employed, and enjoying much less job security.
Seeing that income gap widen yet?
Further, like I said, this greed is self-destructive. With the American workers not working or having less money to spend, that greed is coming back around to bite those companies in the ass. Not just the ones that outsourced, though... poverty doesn't discriminate. Although what money people do have is generally used to buy the cheapest things possible to stretch the money as far as possible... which means more underpaid workers with minimal job security. So the problem is feeding off itself.
Whether you take OWS seriously or not, it may be wise to at least hear what messages you can from the movement. There is a reason for it, however garbled it may sometimes seem. As I've said, I'm not a news breaker, I simply think about the news and events more in-depth to clarify them, to look for first causes.
No comments:
Post a Comment