Tweet
Those people that the Occupy protesters say the represent.
Are they the doctors and lawyers and business executives ?
Are they the real estate brokers and insurance representatives and automobile dealers ?
Are they the engineers and software designers for Microsoft and Apple and Adobe Systems and other computer and IT professionals ?
Are they the owners of the landscaping and lawn maintenance firms the keep the grounds neat and tidy for the gated communities and condominiums and apartment complexes ?
Are they the real estate managers for those complexes ?
Are they the tradesman and construction workers who put up the high rises ?
Are they the blacks and latinos and asians and native americans and other minorities ?
Are they the managers of the chain stores and big box stores and restaurants and hotels and motels ?
Are they the farmers and orchard owners and ranchers ?
Are they the high payed university professors and administrators at the better private and state universities and even some of the smaller ones ?
I do not believe that many (if any) of the above groups belong to the top 1%. Some do support the Occupy movement but a lot do not. A lot of the members of the above groups make out just fine under the current situation. Some do not but do not necessarily support the protest and some are down right hostel to it.
But to assume you represent all but the top 1% of the populace economically might be a bit of a stretch.
14 Comments
Interesting analysis: our diversity and the melting pot myth seems to debunk the claim that those who occupy(fill in the blank) Represent 99% of the population. Many on the right are quick to claim that they are living examples of what an American should be. From their self-proclaimed “heartland” they rage against the “others”, while threatening to “take their country back!”
Too many on the left fall into this same trap. If only they knew what we know: if we get the chance to educate them to what is really going on, than surely they will come around? Wishful think or self-deception?
Both I think. Or at the very least unaware.
You bring up a good point though. Most people in this country – for a very long time – pictured the country as being like the area they lived in. Most never left that area except maybe for a stint in the armed forces or sometimes to go off to college. But except for a very few, those colleges had students and even professors from the same or similar socio economic and ethnic backgrounds.
End after movies and “Talkies” were invented, they show the heroes and heroins as those next store. Be it John Wayne or Randolf Scott or Olivia Mary de Havilland or Betsy Palmer. For Hollywood produced for the generic American from middle America. The so called Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Smith from Anytown USA.
Radio also programmed for the same demographic as did television when it came about.
Fast forward and now we have television and internet and movies and what not showing a vast array of peoples and cultures and this is very upsetting to many.
And yet we still assume that we all think and see the same. Maybe it’s just some human thing. I really don’t know. The down side of being a social animal.
99% should not be taken literally in my opinion. I would include all the people on your list but like you say – would they include themselves? The true middle class, the professionals and managers most valuable to the ruling class, are not going to be eager for a populist uprising. They are doing very well thank you. I would feel more at home talking about the 75% or 80% that comprise the working class.
But I’m a lefty and everybody won’t agree with my construct and that’s Ok with me. 99% works for me. Lets get on with it.
just trying in my own obscure way to get people to think. Even the left forgets to do that sometimes.
cmaukonen:
Never apologize for pointing out the obvious: Liberals do not think in lock-step!
This is an interesting post, and you ask some good questions. But I still think the 99% is a brilliant choice for a moniker. And so is the slogan: We are the 99% and we are too big to fail. The 99% emphasizes the economic situation that 1% control most of the wealth while the remaining 99% of us are either failing, struggling to make ends meet, or are vulnerable to any further economic downtown. In your list of groups above, you may very well have some business owners or professionals who do not agree with the Occupy movement. However, getting laid off or experiencing a sharp decline in businss can change a person’s perceptions overnight. And if the Occupy movement succeeds in correcting mass injustice, 99% of us are in a position to benefit.
Me too.
Mother Jones has put together several well-documented charts on who the 1% are. They are here: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/one-percent-income-inequality-OWS
According to the data from the Paris School of Economics, in 2008, the top 1% in America had incomes, including capital gains, of over $1.1 million.
There is also a chart of who the 1% are by occupation, from a paper by professors at Williams College, Indiana University, and the US Treasury. 78% of the top 1% have occupations given as: nonfinancial executives and managers, medical, lawyers, financial occupations, computers/engineering/technical, and not working (trustfunders) or deceased.
;o)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/half-of-u-s-households-receive-government-aid-but-one-third-of-americans-are-still-one-paycheck-away-from-homelessness.html
I haven’t seen this on FDL, so I’ll put it here. I don’t remember where I first saw this, but here is a hostile interviewer shredded by Chris Hedges.
You are absolutely correct, we should properly claim “We are the 99.9%”!
Graphs and additional information.
But I think that’s exactly the author’s point. Let’s say you’re a lawyer at a firm with big banks for clients. You had a nice year, pulled in $400,000/yr. Do you really think the OWS protesters represent you? You aren’t in the top 1%. . .
Frankly, as Liz Berry has pointed out, basically anyone making $150,000/yr+ has benefited from income inequality. OWS should be saying, “we represent the 90%.”
I think they can not represent 99% of the people.