Occupied Wall Street, Unoccupied Brain

Pretty much everyone has seen or heard about the mob of malcontents camping out near Wall Street.  Well, attention was their goal, so far as I can tell.  The mob was not very strong in working for any specific change, and their communication skills were and are execrable.  The people saying these ‘occupy’ stunts are puerile attempts to distract the public from the current Administration’s blunders and failures rings true, but even so, the complete inability to convey an effective message or mission by these jokers makes their whole effort a waste of time by any reasonable standard.

 

But speaking of the election, when everything is said and done, the most important factor, as in most elections, is the economy.  A great many pundits and self-proclaimed ‘experts’ have addressed the economy in great detail, but in the political sense the economy can be understood as the national condition on three points of concern:

 

  1. Unemployment
  2. Inflation
  3. Debt

 

The biggest stage, as should be obvious, is Unemployment.  Inflation can be serious, as can debt, but it all starts with jobs.  Economics, at its core, is all about money in motion.  Someone has to spend money for anyone to make money, and it has to make sense for the participants.  This is, coming back to the protesters, one of the reasons why their hatred of the American system is misplaced and wrong – envy of an efficient system and those who succeed in work, attacks the people who can best help the unemployed find work, and destabilizes the economy instead of finding answers.  The OWS protesters, including those who have copied their tactics in other cities and countries, at best are ignorant and selfish, and at worse know they are liars and parasites.  Harsh words for someone who claims to just want to work, granted, but the protesters do not want work, at least they don’t want work in the classic sense of wanting a chance to earn money and prove they can add value to their nation and community.  Instead, careful attention to what the protesters actually do and say shows that they what good things handed to them, or at the least they expect people who have succeeded in business to be punished for hard work and initiative.  They rail against ‘Corporate Greed’, but when pressed for specifics they resort to broad stereotyped attacks against the largest employers and best-established firms, with absolutely nothing for evidence.  They claim that they represent “99 percent” of the nation/world, but again provide no evidence to support the claim, and their demographics suggest they are so far from the truth as to make the claim laughable.    If all the protesters were tallied in the U.S., for example, they come up to only a few thousand members, well short of one-hundredth of one percent of the population, let alone ninety-nine.  This does not touch the rather obvious observation that the protesters are the same in demographic – they are urban, young and unemployed with little (if any) experience or significant job skills, they are liberal in political orientation, they demand punishment of the wealthy on no basis other than the assumption that wealth is wrong, while simultaneously demanding jobs and money for themselves. 

 

The OWS crowd could be dismissed for the nauseous parasites they are, except for two things.  One is the fact that the media has tried to play the OWS stunt into a legitimate grassroots movement; particularly noticeable is how the MSM sells OWS as similar to the TEA Party, which is nothing short of a bald-faced lie.  Where the TEA Party is a true populist movement, and wholly American in its spirit and creation, OWS was designed and initially driven by the Canadian firm Adbusters, which as a by-the-way has come under fire in the past for promoting anti-Jewish bigotry.  Gives one a sense of their true values, perhaps.

The TEA Party operates in a spirit of increasing citizen participation in election, and demanding that Congress adhere to constitutional limits and principles, while OWS demands punitive action against selected targets, and seems to have no concern whether the government has authority for such action, or whether due process is followed.  Whether the groups’ demographics, mission, or tactics are considered, it is clear that the TEA party is American, responsible, and accountable, while the OWS is none of these things.

 

Supporters of the OWS protests may reasonably claim that the protesters simply want jobs.  While I do believe the OWS participants, the ones on the street, do in fact want jobs, they’re going about it the wrong way.  The tactic of demanding something you want, without first showing how you will earn it, is always foolish, but to do so as a mob appeals to precisely zero potential employers, excepting criminals and political thuggery movements.  What’s worse, in this age of instant information, people who participate in the OWS have damaged their profile for any potential employer.  To be blunt, I can scarcely imagine any potential hiring manager considering OWS participation to be anything but a red flag which would cause the application to be rejected out of hand.  It’s not that the hiring manager would have to agree with my politics, or even find the OWS position unreasonable; it’s just that when so many people apply for any available position, any potential liability could be disastrous, and so the job-seeker who engages in such behavior damages his personal credibility. 

 

This comes back, as well, to the question of corporate integrity.  I will readily admit that there are a large number of companies which I consider to be void of ethics, but even so the corporate identity in general protects employees better than do most private businesses.  To see what I mean, consider harassment.  A private business is not well-equipped to address harassment, because if it happens the perpetrator is likely to be the owner, and even when a private company chooses to investigate allegations of harassment, they seldom have professional HR tools to do so properly.  In a corporation, however, not only are there enough safeguards built in to create a culture of compliance, the potential cost of litigation and range of management between floor and C-suite insure that as a practice, harassment will be strongly discouraged and punished where found. 

 

The same effect exists in compensation.  Although corporations are commonly vilified in the media for executive pay and bonuses, most observers fail to note that standardized pay scales also protect raises and bonuses for most other levels of position.  In short, while private firms may fluctuate greatly in how much they pay their employees, corporations generally pay for what the work is worth to the company.  At low pay, this means the employee must demonstrate superior skills or work to move into the desired pay range, but for proven performers and star employees, corporations generally make sure the employee is paid well enough to make competing firms less attractive.  The problem for the OWS mob, is that unskilled labor and lack of a work ethic do not produce attractive opportunities, and these undisciplined people are not yet willing to improve their skill set or work hard enough to stand out and show excellence in their profile.  The sum effect of their protest is to damage their own employment prospects.  This demonstrates that while they may “occupy” parks or landmarks, the brains of these miscreants are quite empty.      

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on October 19, 2011.
Filed under Agitators, Business, Economics, Occupy Protest.
Tagged with: .
DJ Drummond holds an MBA with a concentration in Accounting, and has worked in Finance/Credit for 13 years, with 17 years of Operations Management experience before that. He writes on political, religious, and cancer-related issues, with the occasional foray into satire and snark.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    Last I heard there wasn’t much need (outside of academia) for those with a PhD in “Womyns Studies.”

  • retired.military

    Cue Chico coming to their defense.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      A sure sign of an issue or cause which has jumped the shark.

    • Anonymous

      Not to worry, we can safely ignore Commander_Irrelevant on this issue.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        A quibble:

        Not to worry, we can safely ignore Commander_Irrelevant on this issue.

        There.  FIFY.

        • Anonymous

          I stand corrected.

          Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if they want to be professional protesters or Acorn workers their prospects are good. This is how Barry hopes to garner or strong arm support for 2012? Get real! The Martial plan has much more possibility of working for 2 days before the pitchforks and torches break through..

  • herddog505

    The way I see it, it boils down to a pretty simple question:

    Who would you rather have in control of how much money you make?  You and your boss, or a pack of corrupt politicians in DC who MIGHT vote for a good COLA this year or, then again, might be too busy investigating steroid use in baseball to get around to it?

    A worker in the private sector who feels really, really underpaid can look for another job, or at least pitch to his boss why he ought to be getting more.  When the government controls his monthly check, not so much.  Given the whining I’ve listened to all my life (well, whenever there’s been a Republican in the White House, anyway) about Social Security recipients living on cat food, I’m always amazed when people ask for Uncle Sugar to control EVEN MORE decisions about people’s income.

  • herddog505

    Jebus, these yahoos are even more disorganized (stupider?) than I thought.  Other than free stuff, they really don’t have any idea what they want.  Worse, they are too damned dumb to try to figure it out:

    [E]ven the two stalwarts were hardly enthusiastic about the idea of demands.

    “You can make demands, but I’ve seen coalition after coalition marching and marching and making demands, yelling mostly, and then going home,” said Janet Kobren, an experienced activist who left Occupy Wall Street’s San Francisco outlet to join the New York hub.

    “Who are they talking to?” Kobren, 68, asked of protestors who habitually stand outside barricaded government offices asking for something specific. “I see them as kind of teenagers saying, ‘I want, I want,’ to their parents.”

    Kobren reflected the purist Occupy Wall Street philosophy: that there’s no point demanding change from the government or the financial industry when those institutions are rotten. “We need to do it (bring change),” she said.

    The other Demands Working Group member was also in no hurry.

    “The process is supposed to help us understand the variety of perspectives in the group and consider them,” said James, an activist from Chicago, asking that his last name not be used.

    Mysteriously, James added: “The Demands Group could also have a discussion of what are ‘demands’?… Part of demands has to be understanding what demands mean to the development of a democratic culture.”

    [F]ew in Occupy Wall Street see their failure to issue demands as a failure at all.

    The goal, explained Patrick Wilson, volunteering at the camp’s media desk, goes far beyond what any single demand could articulate.

    “What we have in the United States is an oligarchy and what we need is a people’s democracy…. So we’re occupying this country. We start out at Wall Street, then we spread out and occupy the country and take it back,” he said.

    “The only demand,” he said, “is: give the country back to the people.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTeRU4tqk-alytT7MGl5KRzehJJA?docId=CNG.ea2d83b634da8ac0dda3193eefc51267.231

    I take back what some things I’ve written: they aren’t dirty damned reds.  They are MORONS.

    But it could be that they are USEFUL morons to some people.  When the Arab Spring was heating up, a blogger I enjoy (Bruce McQuain at Q&O*) wrote of his belief that a small but ruthless and well-organized group (the Muslim Brotherhood, in the case of Egypt) might take over a larger, apparently benign but disorganized and diffuse movement, subverting it to its own ends.  Much the same happened in Russia in 1917: the Bolsheviks took over the popular revolt agains the corrupt and ineffective monarchy / Kerensky government.  Is this happening with the COWS?  Are the usual lefties (democrats, unions, MiniTru) taking advantage of these idiots, putting words in their mouths to advance their own agenda?  We know that some “reporters” have been coordinating their stories with the COWS and each other, but is it to help the COWS… or to try to use their aimless, brain-dead passion to push the usual democrat policies?

    Witness this:

    A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn’t know or refused to answer.

    Which segues into this:

    When it comes to the question of how to pay for the Democratic jobs bill, most respondents were more than willing to place a special burden on the wealthy.

    And:

    Congressional Democrats and Obama can also take comfort from Americans’ reaction to Senate Republicans blocking the nomination of Richard Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created in the wake of the financial crisis to look out for the interest of citizens.

    http://nationaljournal.com/daily/occupy-d-c-most-back-protests-surtax-20111018

    So, we go from “Boy, a lot of Americans support the COWS” to “democrat policies and talking points”.  Hmmmm…

    —-

    For example: http://www.qando.net/?p=10430

    • Anonymous

      I don’t know how many of you have taken the Myers-Briggs psychological profile.  Who knows whether it has any value in the real world.  But it’s a fascinating subject for water cooler talk in the office.  Your Kobren et al discussion above reminds me of the classic explanation of the difference between those with” Judging (J)” preferences and those with “Perceiving (P)” preferences.  You put a dozen Js in a room with orders to build a bridge from a pile of matchsticks and glue.  You return an hour later and you have a functioning bridge that even raises and lowers to let ships through.  The Ps OTOH, after receiving the same instructions and materials, will have passed the hour discussing the metaphysical nature of a “bridge,” with the matches and glue untouched.  It appears that the OWS phenomenon is a series of scattered urban discussion groups for frustrated “Perceivers,” a sort of informal Amalgamated Perceivers Union.  Don’t get me wrong.  Any productive organization requires some questioners of CW and out-of-the-box thinkers.  It’s just vital to have a lot of “doers” also, unless, of course, you’re a community organizer NGO.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_EJGOSD7BRBBY4ZQQEUCFQU4GHU W

    Most are probably there to try and hook up.

  • Pingback: SnyderTalk Editorial: The United States can’t afford four more years of President Obama. « SnyderTalk