![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thewayne"The protesters are protesting against people who make $40,000 - $50,000 a year and are struggling to make ends meet. That's the bottom line."
— NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg criticizing Occupy Wall Street
No, they're not. They're protesting against corporations who pay people to gamble with other people's money, and they make half a million and more in salaries, their executives many times that in bonuses, and they almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy in the previous decade and pretty much skated away unpunished. They are wanting to see more social equality for the middle class, which is rapidly being destroyed. They are people making, probably in most cases, no more than $40-50,000. They are protesting our company rapidly becoming a plutocracy instead of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Case in point of someone getting wrecked: my employer had hired a guy from California, I believe for a GIS position, a classification that we need badly. It was contingent upon his wife, a teacher, being able to retire. Her retirement fund was wiped out and they decided they could not afford for her to retire and then move two states away, and we lost the guy.
I'm not saying the people comprising Occupy Wall Street are lily-white saints, according to some footage that I saw last night some are being rectal haberdashers to a lot of merchants in the area, and we're talking privately-owned, non-corporate merchants. That's a type of mixed message that won't sit well with the middle class that they're trying to improve things for.
— NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg criticizing Occupy Wall Street
No, they're not. They're protesting against corporations who pay people to gamble with other people's money, and they make half a million and more in salaries, their executives many times that in bonuses, and they almost single-handedly destroyed the world economy in the previous decade and pretty much skated away unpunished. They are wanting to see more social equality for the middle class, which is rapidly being destroyed. They are people making, probably in most cases, no more than $40-50,000. They are protesting our company rapidly becoming a plutocracy instead of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Case in point of someone getting wrecked: my employer had hired a guy from California, I believe for a GIS position, a classification that we need badly. It was contingent upon his wife, a teacher, being able to retire. Her retirement fund was wiped out and they decided they could not afford for her to retire and then move two states away, and we lost the guy.
I'm not saying the people comprising Occupy Wall Street are lily-white saints, according to some footage that I saw last night some are being rectal haberdashers to a lot of merchants in the area, and we're talking privately-owned, non-corporate merchants. That's a type of mixed message that won't sit well with the middle class that they're trying to improve things for.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-10 05:35 am (UTC)The protestors in the core are probably good people, but movements attract both agents provocateur and people who will feed off the energy for their own personal gain. Of course, if we were a socialist paradise where everyone had what they needed, we might not have the protests or the people who feed off of them. (Or we might have different protests).