I am 16. I live below the poverty line. I don't eat everyday. No business will hire me. My parents both dropped out of high school and my mother has her GED. So while I accept that we should not have as much money as say, a surgeon, or a scientist, or an engineer, I know that If this country is as great as it pretends to be, I shouldn't starve. I should have a job. I should be able to afford a pair of decent shoes more than every two years. I should be able to afford medicine. And as someone who is forced to do it daily, I know for a fact that sitting on your ass all day doesn't earn a paycheck. So why do CEO's, politicians, and all these other jobs that produce little, if any, progress towards their business, earn more than what my house is worth a day? I'm not saying give me free money, and i'm not suggesting take what they have. I just want it to be possible to improve my situation in life. I wanna work. I wanna eat. I want to feel like one day I can start a family without having to worry about how much it costs. All I want is to be treated like a human being.
What do all society changing revolutionary actions have in common, the fact that they started small. When we look at the initial cause in each of these cases, it was an inequality among the society. In each case they revolution started very small just a few people decided to stand up against what they viewed as a social injustice, in the case of he Occupy Movement they may have started with a few supporters but most of America would would agree that there is a massive inequality when it comes to the distribution of the money in America. I am certain that no one thinks that we should completely redistribute he wealth or not reward those that have worked hard to obtain some kind of wealth. Although when the average CEO makes in one day what the average construction worker makes in a year, we must agree that there is something wrong with that distribution of wealth. The same banks that put the economy in crisis were rewarded with Million dollar bonuses and the Government still bailed them out, again there is something wrong with that distribution of wealth. If the average home owner goes into default on their loan the government certainly does not give them a bonus and bail them out.
OWS's goals include a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics,more balanced distribution of income,more and better jobs,bank reform , forgiveness of student loan debt or other relief for indebted students,and alleviation of the foreclosure situation.Some media label the protests "anti-capitalist",while others dispute the relevance of this label.Some protestors have favored a fairly concrete set of national policy proposals.
The initial revolution in 1776 was to rid excessive taxation, oppressive rule and a wealth disparity as well as being controlled by British Royalty. That's the same thing that the Occupy movement is facing now. What was different then than now? No one in the movement is holding rifles and squaring off against government troops, so they're doing it in a more peaceful way and are being told there is no problem? The ones saying there is no problem ARE the problem. The 6 family owners of Wal-Mart have more wealth than the bottom 30% of Americans, that's not a sign of the problems in America? Everyone in America knows that Wal-Mart isn't the only large brand that ruins the economy paying their employees pennies on the dollar while selling a vast majority of goods NOT made in the US, how are they a US brand when 95% of their goods are made overseas?
Although many individuals and news commentators have sneered at the Occupy Wall Street protesters, there are many citizens who support the ideas of the movement. The "Occupy" sentiment has not only spread across the country to other American cities, but has also had parallel protests around the world. The movement reflects a basic and shared frustration of the American people about how the government and wealthy entities (corporations and individuals) have rigged the system unfairly, and could continue to grow into a significant change about how America operates.
The occupy movement claims to be fighting for what exactly? That's right, they don't want businesses to make money. They don't think that it's fair for some people to be super-rich CEOs and business owners while they are unemployed. Maybe if they viewed the corporations as providers of thousands of jobs they would celebrate, rather than demonize, their success. They want to tax away the business owners' fortunes and give the money to the poor. The problem is that the only long-term solution to poverty is job creation. When the rich invest money in their companies or in the stock market, they make more money for themselves and more jobs for the middle and lower classes.
Attacking success will only bring failure. Most hard-working Americans want to know that, if they become hugely successful, their money won't be taken away to pay for those who have never tried hard work. Most people with jobs can't understand why these "occupiers", many of whom are unemployed, are camping out and doing drugs instead of looking for jobs (which the companies they hate offer). Lastly, all of the illegal activity doesn't get any sympathy from the general public.
Protesting against corporate greed won't do any justice but instead waste countless minutes of your precious time. As cliche as it may sound, when the going gets tough, the tough gets going would be a good phrase to consider in this kind of situation. Housing outside in street or in tents is bound to make the protest look as if they might have some potential, yet they do not have a concise message. Everyone's ideas generally accumulates with no centralized main idea at hand to recognized.
The Occupy Wall Street movement can not possible succeed. Firstly, they do not have a concise message. It is a compilation of ideas, many of which are good, but it is disorganized. They need centralized leadership. Secondly, the movement is outdoors, and weather prevents this from truly maximizing its potential.