Occupy Wall Street

Is the “Occupy Wall Street” a legitimate movement like the Tea Party or just a short-term delusional venting campaign being propped up unions and other far left ideologues?  As you might guess, the “View From the Middle” would say - yes.  First, let’s do a real comparison to the Tea Party.  The Tea Party has been in place for over two years now.  Whether you like it or not, about 15 percent of the country claim to be part of the Tea Party even according the SEIU weekly poll done on October 6^th of this year.  It is in every state and is totally volunteer.  It also has a very clear and achievable agenda.  Its 10 points include the elimination of excessive taxes and deficit spending, abide by the constitution and reduce the size of government.  All of which are achievable, even if you don’t agree with them.  Their rallies have also been orderly and peaceful, acquiring all the correct permits to assemble.  The rally in Washington DC arguably left the National Mall cleaner when the hundreds of thousands of participants left than when they came.

By contrast, the Occupy Wall Street group appears to be unorganized, belligerent and lacking in focus.  While all Americans should applaud their right to protest, that protest needs to win the hearts and minds of all of us with their character and direction.  They have trashed most of the areas that they have occupied including “relieving” themselves on police cars and in other public areas.  This by itself tarnishes its reputation, but it also boasted an original 13 point list of demands that included the global elimination of debt, free college education for all and absolute open boarders.  These demands with almost all the others are delusional and unachievable.  Interestingly, its 13^th demand involved union voting changes which seemed odd compared to its first 12 demands and hints at who might be sponsoring these people to protest for a month at a time.  If they truly want to become a movement like the Tea Party, they have a long way to go.  Not only do they need to last a lot longer and show they can influence an election, they need to clean up their act and develop a reasonable and rational platform.  The good news for them is that in recent days they have expressed their desire to do exactly that.  Good for them.

The bigger point is – do they have a point?  Actually, that depends on what their point is.  If they really think that Wall Street is our biggest problem, than I think their target is too small.  If they actually are protesting the disparity between the “haves” and “have-nots”, then they might have a point.  If you look at the ratio of CEO (Chief Executive Officer) pay and the average worker in the US, you will find that in 2010 the average CEO in the Fortune 500 made $325 for every one dollar the average worker for those companies made.  That sounds high, but some may tell you that ratio is down from last year, so it’s not bad.  The best way to deduce the truth is to compare that ratio over the long haul and to compare it to other countries.  That’s when we start to see the issue.

In 1965 that same ration in the US was just 24 to one and in 1978 it was 35 to one.  In my opinion, this is a ratio that should stay fairly static as long as both CEO’s and workers are earning the same dollar.  Unfortunately, in 1989 that ratio had grown to 71 to one and by the year 2000 it had ballooned to over 500 to one.  Again, that sounds bad, but how do we compare to other countries.  The answer is – not so good.  In 2000 the US ranked number one in this ratio at 531 to one.  Number two on the list was Brazil at 57 to one and number three was Venezuela at 54 to one.  That same year, France had a ratio of 16 to one, Germany was 11 to one and Britain was only 25 to one.  While I haven’t seen a similar ranking since 2000, the evidence would suggest that the relationships have not changed dramatically.

THIS is an indication that the Occupy Wall Street group might have a legitimate point, especially if companies in the US have laid off workers while paying their executives hefty salaries and bonuses.  Using this year’s numbers, if the average CEO in the Fortune 500 would cut his or her salary in half, they could hire over 160 workers, and still make over 160 times what their average worker earns.  Multiply that times all of those 500 companies, and that would create 80,000 jobs.  Would that help stimulate the economy?  I’ll let you decide.