tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post1858432351855696558..comments2024-03-28T05:30:09.322-04:00Comments on Corporate Justice Blog: Occupy Wall Street XI: An American Oligarchy?Steven Ramirezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16741346526253732489noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-55980310282092215072011-12-05T21:04:54.052-05:002011-12-05T21:04:54.052-05:00Just like I thought, the top 1%'s share of inc...Just like I thought, the top 1%'s share of income dropped from 17.3% in 2007 to 11.3% in 2009. So Bush's last two years reduced inequality. Don't know about the rest of you but even though I'm not in the 1% I prefer the greater inequality of 2003-2007 to what we have now.<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577062661910819078.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTopAaron_MemphisLawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-82322967940029012202011-11-29T13:50:16.551-05:002011-11-29T13:50:16.551-05:00I agree with Melissa Tillilie that higher taxes a...I agree with Melissa Tillilie that higher taxes are essential to bridging the income gap as higher tax rates will lead to better funded school. In our service based economy education is essential to both financial and social mobility. crafting tax policies that address the importance of a well educated populace to continued prominence in the global marketplace will be essential to eradicating the scourge of inequality.freestyle673https://www.blogger.com/profile/05891393596683805409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-85358564366260585482011-11-29T13:02:32.280-05:002011-11-29T13:02:32.280-05:00Zach H brings up an excellent point in his first c...Zach H brings up an excellent point in his first comment in which he highlights that mobility is extremely limmited for those in the lowest taz bracket and so saying that it is easier than ever for children raised in solid middle class or upper middle class households to move into the ranks of the super rich is not an indicator of the fact that America is moving towards an oligarchy, but rather seems to suggest that those in the shrinking middle class are being manipulated into continuing to support policies that broaden inequality by the promise that they might get to be included in the rarefied ranks of the super rich as opposed to meeting the much more statistically likely fate of falling into the ranks of the poor. There is nothing wrong with a society that affords opportunity to those that are relatively well off to become more well off, however it is disturbing that this function would be regarded as a statement of the ultimate fitness of our economic system.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-5304166301743673532011-11-29T12:00:17.851-05:002011-11-29T12:00:17.851-05:00Brigid W (Memphis Law)
Unfortunately, it is the s...Brigid W (Memphis Law) <br />Unfortunately, it is the super wealthy that are to blame. The idea of free markets and deregulation that fit into the idea that America is a meritocracy is complete crap. The idea of "trickle down" economics or insinuating that the poor or unemployed need to pull themselves up by their boot straps simply is not realistic. Our society does not work that way. The super wealth have all the power, in the form of wealth, education, and political dominance. Holding up a few examples of middle and low class individuals who have made it doesn't change the fact that the rich keep getting richer because it is extremely easy under our current system for them to retain power, while the rest of the population is subject to their greed. America is increasingly becoming an oligarchy, much the way it was during the early days of industrialization before monopoly busting policies and unionization made a middle class existence possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-71753149872917826282011-11-29T10:58:48.208-05:002011-11-29T10:58:48.208-05:00I believe that the anger of OWS is misplaced. Thei...I believe that the anger of OWS is misplaced. Their anger should be focused at those in charge of making the rules, not those responsible for taking advantage of them. While nobody can argue that there is a large disparity in wealth in this country, I don't think it is ever ok to demonize the successful. "Don't hate the player, hate the game."JCB (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-63297395018914563432011-11-29T03:21:25.488-05:002011-11-29T03:21:25.488-05:00I agree with Elizabeth F., in that Americans need ...I agree with Elizabeth F., in that Americans need to come together in a situation like this if we are going to want to see any improvement at all. Although the disparity is overwhelming, blaming the rich and resenting the wealth of others is not the way to go, otherwise there will be serious consequences for this country’s future.Salwa (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-22276242869350228612011-11-29T01:33:32.180-05:002011-11-29T01:33:32.180-05:00I think the phrases - "disappearance of the m...I think the phrases - "disappearance of the middle class" and the "rich getting richer" - that are thrown around so often have become a bit too much of a scare tactic. While the fate of our economy does worry me it really only pushes me to work harder. I may be a bit naive but, personally, I am not seeing a disappearance of the middle class. Most people that I know fit squarely in that middle class and are surviving and even thriving. Yes, I am aware that unemployment is at an all time high and that the housing market is crashing but that encourages me to learn better financial policies for myself/my family and spend/invest money smarter. While I am not so optimistic as to think everyone can go from poverty to Bill Gates, I do believe that people must start taking responsibility for themselves instead of constantly blaming other. Your rise or fall in the class structure may greatly depend on yourself, what you choose to do with your life, and how you choose to spend your money. We must first hold ourselves accountable before pointing a finger at the person beside us.Rebecca_MemphisLawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-77337828002717372612011-11-28T23:40:15.540-05:002011-11-28T23:40:15.540-05:00I agree with Cole. Democrats and Republicans alik...I agree with Cole. Democrats and Republicans alike are in office and will continue to be elected to office because of campaign contributions from large corporations. They are funded by the 1% and therefore cater to and make decisions that benefit the 1%. Our leaders are supposed to be representatives of the American people but far too often they are only interested in issues that will get them re-elected; issues that concern their corporate backers. I agree that this problem is at the heart of the OWS movement.Lindsey G (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-76304406493284527252011-11-28T22:32:41.250-05:002011-11-28T22:32:41.250-05:00I agree with Spencer. Instead of focusing on a spe...I agree with Spencer. Instead of focusing on a specific group of people and only trying to help them we should focus on helping the public in general by focusing on fixing the market. This way eventually everything will balance itself out. In reality the upper class relies on the lower classes to become wealthy and because of that some of the wealth, in the form of jobs and other opportunities, ends up trickling down the ladder and thus everyone can profit.Izabela M- Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-19077477084986482192011-11-28T22:31:44.346-05:002011-11-28T22:31:44.346-05:00"Both sides of this issue need to come togeth..."Both sides of this issue need to come together and compromise."<br /><br />I don't know if I agree with this statement. It seems like that line has been typically used by mainstream media in relation to Democrat-Republic infighting. The Occupy movement is seeking to hold corporations accountable for causing this economic recession. Democrats and Republicans meet in the isle all the time. The problem is that neither party stands up to corporate pillaging. Rather, each party caters to different corporate interests. <br /><br />There isn't a lot of compromise to be had here. Democrats and Republicans have sold out the American people to corporations for too long. Enough damage has been done, and folks are finally speaking up about it.ColeW_MemphisLawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-47285530102026085832011-11-28T22:24:35.337-05:002011-11-28T22:24:35.337-05:00This is only slightly off-topic, but I've alwa...This is only slightly off-topic, but I've always thought that the figure of "the 1%" was a little too broad and I'm glad to see my opinion reinforced by Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman. I think that the OWS's movement would be so much more effective if they targeted "the 0.01%" and would exaggerate their point that wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few.<br /><br />I agree with Andrew F's enthusiasm for Michael Jackson.Kirkland (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-55005822893575763292011-11-28T18:58:17.700-05:002011-11-28T18:58:17.700-05:00I agree with Elizabeth F.
Both sides of this iss...I agree with Elizabeth F. <br /><br />Both sides of this issue need to come together and compromise. We can't accomplish anything when everyone insists that his or her viewpoint is completely right and those who disagree are completely wrong. Instead of pointing out so many flaws in our opponents' viewpoints we need to recognize the flaws in our own viewpoints. To quote Michael Jackson "[Start] with the man in the mirror."Andrew F. (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-14406909099363439482011-11-28T15:22:18.772-05:002011-11-28T15:22:18.772-05:00I agree with Josh's comment that the owners of...I agree with Josh's comment that the owners of major companies have an incentive to ship jobs overseas and thus reduce the amount of jobs for working middle class Americans. The top 1% earners in America are generally the owners of the companies and are able to make important hiring decisions for their company. By shipping jobs overseas to workers who are able and willing to perform the job at a much lower cost than the average American worker, the top 1% are effectively eliminating the jobs and pay for the eroding middle class. Unless more incentives are given to the people in control (i.e. the 1%) to keep jobs in America, job opportunities available to the middle class will continue to shrink. Gray N. Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-59917299230082685232011-11-28T12:34:08.570-05:002011-11-28T12:34:08.570-05:00A major reason for the huge disparity in income an...A major reason for the huge disparity in income and the disappearing middle class seems to be the scarcity of jobs. The top 1% or .01% are the owners of the companies. They cut spending and ship jobs overseas where they can spend less money and keep more for themselves. When a person is worried about losing their house or not having a next meal, it is hard to be inventive or creative. Then it is just a downward spiral. The middle class jobs disappear, they can't find another one; therefore they get poorer while the CEO gets richer because he is getting the same work for cheaper.Josh T Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-76069886152117013512011-11-27T21:42:41.571-05:002011-11-27T21:42:41.571-05:00Extrememly wealthy individuals and companies spend...Extrememly wealthy individuals and companies spend billions on lobbying and campaign efforts to benefit their interest to the disadvantage of those who are not organized and massive in number. As most would say, just follow the money, but federal accounting doesn't make it easy to see where your tax dollars are being spent. Tax codes are not easy to understand. Special language in spending bills is above even most of the law makers heads. But trust me, massive donors understand it all and know exactly what the effect will be of the legislation they are lobbying for. If you think you are as important as the big money folks, I have a challenge for you. Pick up your phone and call your Congressman. See how long it takes him/her to get back to you. I guarantee you the likelihood of getting a personal response and the quickness of that response is directly proportionate to the amount of money you donated/raised to the campaign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-19692517897856658642011-11-27T21:30:47.013-05:002011-11-27T21:30:47.013-05:00On another point, the author points out that "...On another point, the author points out that "[t]he bottom 80% of U.S. households receive less than half of total income paid out to Americans" and that during the time frame from 1979 to 2005, the 1% (or .01%) "saw an income increase of more than 400 percent." While I agree that there is a large (and potentially problematic) disparity with the distribution of wealth between the 1% and the 99%, I agree with Aaron's previous comment that an important factor to keep in mind when examining all of this is standard of living. The 1% has certainly seen a significant increase in income, but that isn't to say that the 99% haven't seen increases as well. While the 1% may be getting a larger take of the figurative "pie" than they have in previous decades, the "pie" itself has grown substantially, making more available to everyone, not just the 1%. During that same time period, advances in many fields (including medical and technology) have become available to the general population that did not previously exists or were available only to the more wealthy populations. This overall growth and development results in an increased standard of living for everyone.Kate M_Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-37979545218418959022011-11-27T21:30:38.251-05:002011-11-27T21:30:38.251-05:00A person who has more disposable income than that ...A person who has more disposable income than that of his neighbor will on average see his wealth grow at a higher rate than that of his neighbor. His neighbor may try to catch up through injunity or through getting by with less, so that more of his money may be invested. This is just the way of the free market, and it is good because it spurs invention and increases efficiency. But the wealthier person should never be given the advantage of having a lower effective tax rate than that of his poorer and lower earning neighbor. Anyone who understands the American tax code can recognize the many ways which deductions and loopholes allow a person to keep more of their money sheltered as their wealth increases. The less disposable income a person has, the more his effective tax rate will be compared to his neighbor because he is not able to take advantage of the tax loopholes, deductions, and shelters. The result is that those who are in the top percent of wealthy individuals not only have more wealth to invest, compound, and leverage, but also pay less as a percentage of the wealth they build in a year as taxes than than do those who do not build as much wealth in that same year.Dennyhttp://www.memphis.edunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-6888750667163288972011-11-27T20:55:36.363-05:002011-11-27T20:55:36.363-05:00I agree with Kenneth's point that congressiona...I agree with Kenneth's point that congressional votes have a tendency to follow lobbyists' money. However, provided that there is adequate transparency showing the source of these types of monetary contributions, I don't see that this practice should be entirely condemned. The middle class is a powerful voting bloc with the ability to effect change and select representatives best able to advocate for their interests. I see the greater issue being a level of apathy among voters such that many people do not educate themselves properly on the candidates running for office and the platforms on which they run, or, abstain from the voting process altogether. I do agree that corporate lobbyists currently hold a great deal of power in the political process (probably too much), but I think that it is largely up to the middle class to take a more assertive role in countering the weight of corporate lobbyists by properly researching the candidates up for election and exercising their own votes.Kate M_Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-27987079269093422652011-11-25T16:21:39.379-05:002011-11-25T16:21:39.379-05:00This is shocking and yet again Mr. Cummings you ha...This is shocking and yet again Mr. Cummings you have unveiled the truth of what is really going on behind the " Corrupt Wall Street Executive Movement." This is shocking and really sad to hear, while at the same time it is the inconvenient truth that we all should know. My question is how do you resolve this. While the truth is unveiling, what steps should be taken to correct this? How did it get this way? The only effort I see is Occupy Wall Street and the several other city focused groups that follow this movement making an effort to affect change. <br /><br />Above, Natasha states that the power lies in the middle class to vote on elected officials that will represent their interests and vote on policies that favor the middle class. However, I see the limitations on this method/resolution. You cannot discount the effect that lobbying has on elected officials and what they vote on. While the middle class has the power to vote and re-elect, politicians still hold the power to vote how they please and a lot of their voting is reflective of the interests of corporate lobbyists. I do agree that middle class members hold the power to elect officials to represent their interests, however where is the accountability once they get into office and how do you collectively hold them accountable?Kenneth W (Memphis Law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-78131039792460217322011-11-24T16:22:58.728-05:002011-11-24T16:22:58.728-05:00Here's an interesting article on a banking lob...Here's an interesting article on a banking lobbyist's strategy to undermine the message of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It seems as if big business and banks foresee competing with Occupy Wall Street in a similar way they would with industry competitors. <br /><br />http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/11/21/lobbyists-offer-an-occupy-wall-street-smear-campaign-for-just-850000ColeW_MemphisLawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-22800083131958013382011-11-23T13:42:13.962-05:002011-11-23T13:42:13.962-05:00Although the middle class may be disappearing, and...Although the middle class may be disappearing, and although wealthy individuals may lobby and endorse politicians, individuals in that same middle class still possess the power to vote in order to hold elected representatives accountable for their political choices. Squeezing the middle class out its fiscal holdings can be attributed to some fiscal policies that favor some segments of society over others. It is up to the individuals to be wary as to what is occurring and to use the power that they hold to collectively do something about it.Natasha__Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-14475355583465858582011-11-23T13:23:38.647-05:002011-11-23T13:23:38.647-05:00While the rich may be getting richer faster than t...While the rich may be getting richer faster than the rest of us, what the data fails to convey is improvements in quality of life. My parent's may have spent the same percentage of their income on music in the 1970s as I do today, but I'm receiving a much higher quality product and experience then they were. Similar advances in medicine, technology, and other areas mean that today we get better products for less than previous generations.<br /><br />Also the data does not relate after tax income. Considering most Americans pay little to no income tax, the disparities probably are less than that article suggests.<br /><br />Furthermore, it's interesting to note that the top 1%'s gain in wealth appears to track the stock market (note the huge decrease around the 2001 recession). Though the chart does not include data for the last recession, I would wager the 1% has lost a lot of wealth over the past few years.Aaron_MemphisLawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-91349437900144225622011-11-23T11:59:03.326-05:002011-11-23T11:59:03.326-05:00I would say that concern with the 1% is not becaus...I would say that concern with the 1% is not because of jealousy, it is because the disappearance of our middle class is an important issue. The middle class helps to drive the consumer market in the United States. The middle class proves that our economy is not a total failure; lack of a middle class and very drastic separations of the upper and lower classes shows that people are simply not getting paid what they deserve. Those in the 1% have been getting tax breaks for YEARS. Why? They said that if given tax breaks they would increase employment rates because they are the ones with the power to do so. They said if they weren't given tax breaks the percentage of unemployed citizens would rise. So, they got tax breaks and what happened? I don't think anyone can say that their tax breaks increased employment. This country's unemployment is at an all-time high. The lack of job opportunity is directly related to the disappearance of this middle class and the lowered economy. The vast majority of people in this country are struggling financially and they cannot spend money on anything but the necessities while a very small minority has more money than anyone could ever need.<br /><br />Another thing to consider is the fact that not all families have two parents and even those that do probably are not choosing to be unemployed. They are unemployed because the 1% has not kept their word that they would create jobs. I think that this is a big reason OWS supporters and even people who have no interest in OWS are concerned with the 1%. The job market has become so cheap for employers because there are so many people desperate for a job, so employees are forced to accept underpaid positions.<br /><br />So how about a 2 parent family where the dad has a full-time job and mom is looking for employment. They have 3 kids who will have to be in day care if both parents are working. Childcare has not gotten cheaper, but work has. So, if the only jobs the mom is being offered are at minimum wage (less than $8), she will make less than $300 per week before taxes are taken out. Then, for daycare it will be around $200 per week, just for one child - so for this family, daycare will cost more than what the mom would be making if she worked. So, is she supposed to pay to go to work and get a paycheck? That is probably not going to happen, so until the job market balances out and jobs become available that actually do pay above minimum wage, parents like this will probably continue to choose not to work. Really, is this a choice though? Wouldn't they rather go to work and make more than they would have to pay out for day care? I'm sure most would but they are being forced to make the most economical choice for their family they can. <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that the OWS participants are not protesting because they wish to be a part of the 1%, but because the issues they are bringing to light are very real and pressing. This country is in a financial crisis and while there can be blame on multiple sides of the issue, the ones who have the power to create jobs, have gotten tax breaks to do so, and have chosen not to are deserving of the heat they are getting right now.Jessica S - Memphis Lawnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-509420064457259842011-11-22T19:32:48.542-05:002011-11-22T19:32:48.542-05:00Just an observation… Isn’t Mayor Bloomberg the 1% ...Just an observation… Isn’t Mayor Bloomberg the 1% of the 1% (maybe even of the 1%?) Are the police officers who ejected the OWS protesters in the 1%?JC (memphis law)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1194375569044391746.post-84237391763813310582011-11-22T19:24:15.409-05:002011-11-22T19:24:15.409-05:00OK, now a little sympathy for Mayor Bloomberg here...OK, now a little sympathy for Mayor Bloomberg here… Even if you are a 1st Amendment absolutist, doesn’t drumming at all hours of the day or night invoke time, place, and manner restrictions? And what about the continuous, physical occupation of a public space that is supposedly available to all?JC (memphis law)noreply@blogger.com