Did the Occupy Wall Street protests result in any changes?

[ttt]

No.

[irishbride2]

Dec 7, 2014 10:16:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Did it result in a change in the language we use to talk about these issues? I know that seems small, but I think the landscape for sexual harassment wasn't able to change until we had the word for what was happening. I think that happened with Catharine McKinnon. Anyway, I was stuck in my car for an hour yesterday while K took a nap and there was an entire hour long segment in four different experiments conducted to examine the way people behave with respect to money. It was both fascinating as hell and completely predictable. I'll see if I can find the pod cast.

Spoiler: Being rich really does make you an asshole.

Jesus. Can we at least a qualifier? It CAN or maybe even OFTEN. I have yet to see a study that says it does flat out.

[irishbride2]

Dec 7, 2014 10:32:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:18:30 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Jesus. Can we at least a qualifier? It CAN or maybe even OFTEN. I have yet to see a study that says it does flat out.

I think the studies (of which there are apparently several showing that having money makes you LESS generous, LESS empathetic, MORE likely to demonstrate socially dominant and oppressive behavior) is found at this link:

www.npr.org/2014/04/04/295349615/are-we-wired-to-be-bad-with-money

Look for the link to The Money Paradox experiments.

Good news - you can encourage rich people to be less assholish by placing them in situations where they are confronted with poverty. The example they used was showing them a short video about childhood poverty.

But I'm sorry to report, since I am a 1% er that there is loads and loads if data suggesting having money even in a completely artificial way (like in a game of monopoly) does indeed make you act like an asshole.

Yes it makes most people less generous and less empathetic. I think that's a giant duh. I do not think all waelthy people are automatic assholes which was my beef with your wording. But I know you believe that so I don't know why I bother saying anything.

[saz]

Dec 7, 2014 10:32:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:18:30 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Jesus. Can we at least a qualifier? It CAN or maybe even OFTEN. I have yet to see a study that says it does flat out.

I think the studies (of which there are apparently several showing that having money makes you LESS generous, LESS empathetic, MORE likely to demonstrate socially dominant and oppressive behavior) is found at this link:

www.npr.org/2014/04/04/295349615/are-we-wired-to-be-bad-with-money

Look for the link to The Money Paradox experiments.

Good news - you can encourage rich people to be less assholish by placing them in situations where they are confronted with poverty. The example they used was showing them a short video about childhood poverty.

But I'm sorry to report, since I am a 1% er that there is loads and loads if data suggesting having money even in a completely artificial way (like in a game of monopoly) does indeed make you act like an asshole.

Monopoly brings out the worst in everyone. Fact.

[friendlydoula]

Dec 7, 2014 10:18:30 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:16:24 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Did it result in a change in the language we use to talk about these issues? I know that seems small, but I think the landscape for sexual harassment wasn't able to change until we had the word for what was happening. I think that happened with Catharine McKinnon. Anyway, I was stuck in my car for an hour yesterday while K took a nap and there was an entire hour long segment in four different experiments conducted to examine the way people behave with respect to money. It was both fascinating as hell and completely predictable. I'll see if I can find the pod cast.

Spoiler: Being rich really does make you an asshole.

Jesus. Can we at least a qualifier? It CAN or maybe even OFTEN. I have yet to see a study that says it does flat out.

#NotAllRichPeople

[irishbride2]

Dec 7, 2014 11:24:31 GMT -5 saz said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:32:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I think the studies (of which there are apparently several showing that having money makes you LESS generous, LESS empathetic, MORE likely to demonstrate socially dominant and oppressive behavior) is found at this link:

www.npr.org/2014/04/04/295349615/are-we-wired-to-be-bad-with-money

Look for the link to The Money Paradox experiments.

Good news - you can encourage rich people to be less assholish by placing them in situations where they are confronted with poverty. The example they used was showing them a short video about childhood poverty.

But I'm sorry to report, since I am a 1% er that there is loads and loads if data suggesting having money even in a completely artificial way (like in a game of monopoly) does indeed make you act like an asshole.

Monopoly brings out the worst in everyone. Fact.

Monopoly is just a terrible game. I'm grumpy when I play because the damn game NEVER ENDS! Someone has to turn into an asshole just to end the damn thing. 

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 11:26:39 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Not really. I do think there is more awareness of the increasing inequality of wealth in this country though.

As evidenced by the overwhelming electoral victory for the party strongly in favor of increasing this inequality.

[josieposy]

Didn't they kind of redirect their efforts from large protests to helping people? Like when they paid off debts for people and were trying to prevent foreclosures for others?

ETA: I guess as far as big sweeping changes, no major results. At the ground level they did help people.

[LoveTrains]

Dec 7, 2014 11:28:40 GMT -5 @lcap said:

The problem is with the .1% or .01% in my opinion, not really the "1%". You can't lump people who make 500k with people who have billions or hundreds of millions. The former are the people who have real, true political power in this country. Why do you think the carried interest loophole has never been closed, despite *repeated* promises from a whole host of politicians to do so?

I think we need to have some more tax brackets that start at like $5 million.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 7, 2014 11:39:09 GMT -5 josieposy said:

Didn't they kind of redirect their efforts from large protests to helping people? Like when they paid off debts for people and were trying to prevent foreclosures for others?

ETA: I guess as far as big sweeping changes, no major results. At the ground level they did help people.

Sort of. They're taking the money they raised and buying large pots of medical debt and student loans, and forgiving them. In a way, it's another form of protest, not charity. They're highlighting the ridiculousness of how the banks deal with debt. To that effect, I think they're making changes. Slowly, and bit by bit, but changes nonetheless.

[jln]

Dec 7, 2014 11:24:31 GMT -5 saz said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:32:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I think the studies (of which there are apparently several showing that having money makes you LESS generous, LESS empathetic, MORE likely to demonstrate socially dominant and oppressive behavior) is found at this link:

www.npr.org/2014/04/04/295349615/are-we-wired-to-be-bad-with-money

Look for the link to The Money Paradox experiments.

Good news - you can encourage rich people to be less assholish by placing them in situations where they are confronted with poverty. The example they used was showing them a short video about childhood poverty.

But I'm sorry to report, since I am a 1% er that there is loads and loads if data suggesting having money even in a completely artificial way (like in a game of monopoly) does indeed make you act like an asshole.

Monopoly brings out the worst in everyone. Fact.

Truth.  Just ask my family, who refuses to play with me.  

[Velar Fricative]

Income inequality is increasing, so no.

ETA: Although, one could argue that OWS was all over the place in their goals and actions so it's hard to pinpoint how successful they were when there is confusion about what they were protesting against.

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 11:39:09 GMT -5 josieposy said:

Didn't they kind of redirect their efforts from large protests to helping people? Like when they paid off debts for people and were trying to prevent foreclosures for others?

ETA: I guess as far as big sweeping changes, no major results. At the ground level they did help people.

That's true - that movement is pretty awesome. I wish it got more press but I can certainly see why there's a lot of powerful pressure against that. 

[meshaliuknits]

Dec 7, 2014 11:26:40 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:24:31 GMT -5 saz said:

Monopoly brings out the worst in everyone. Fact.

Monopoly is just a terrible game. I'm grumpy when I play because the damn game NEVER ENDS! Someone has to turn into an asshole just to end the damn thing. 

What do you mean? It ends when the board gets flipped. That never takes more than 30min.

Sent from my EVO

[summer]

Have the banks changed? No. Not at all. No one has really been fired who was actually involved in shenanigans. Many were actually promoted. And they are all getting their bonuses and patting themselves on the back, and comparing the size of their nutsacks.

[mominatrix]

Dec 7, 2014 12:07:49 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:26:40 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Monopoly is just a terrible game. I'm grumpy when I play because the damn game NEVER ENDS! Someone has to turn into an asshole just to end the damn thing. 

This is very true. However, the thing that made the monopoly experiment in the above pod cast interesting was that at the beginning of the game, they flipped a coin and the person who got heads was allowed to roll two rather than one dice. That meant that that person got to pass go more often and get the $200 more often. This obviously made them MUCH more likely to win. BUT, what it did to their behavior was also interesting. It made them more likely to be noisy when moving the game piece slamming it down on each square. More likely to laugh and be boisterous and belittle the other person's inability to get ahead. And at the end of the game, those who had won AND had rolled with two dice explained their victory by referencing game strategy, but almost none acknowledged that the simple luck of the heads tails flip was the root cause or even A cause in their victory.

Similar experiments: folks with six figure incomes were more likely to take candy from a jar designated for.children only. More like to not stop for pedestrians at a cross walk. Less likely to give away any portion of $10 they were given by researchers. There were a couple other things, too, that I found pretty interesting. And yes #notallrichpeople but a pretty statistically significant percentage of them. Certainly enough to explain the behavior of Congress.

exception that proves the rule: J. K. Rowling. Definitely rags to serious, serious riches. Acknowledges luck. Acknowledges that the government was a huge help to her. Doesn't mind paying taxes. 

...but she's seen as a freak by the community of 1%ers, isn't she?

[teflepi]

Dec 7, 2014 11:50:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 10:43:41 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

Yes it makes most people less generous and less empathetic. I think that's a giant duh. I do not think all waelthy people are automatic assholes which was my beef with your wording. But I know you believe that so I don't know why I bother saying anything.

I can't find a gif that adequately expresses how nonsensical I think your response is. But you've made it evident to me in several posts now that you just really want to say something shitty about me and are having trouble finding an opening for a fight. So, why don't I help you out by fast forwarding to the part where we have said all the meanie stuff and can go back to actually talking about the question of the thread which is interesting. I offered the link because it suggest that one of the reasons we haven't seen change is because there is something inherent in the way humans behave when it comes to money.

TBF, you did say being rich does make you an asshole.  So, couple that with past expressions of disdain for the rich you have made in the past, I am thinking that is where this came from?  I don't have a dog in this fight, but irish is probably one of a handful that is not mean to people on this board so I was trying to look at this from an outside viewpoint.

[LoveTrains]

Dec 7, 2014 15:38:06 GMT -5 @lcap said:

Dec 7, 2014 13:09:53 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

exception that proves the rule: J. K. Rowling. Definitely rags to serious, serious riches. Acknowledges luck. Acknowledges that the government was a huge help to her. Doesn't mind paying taxes. 

...but she's seen as a freak by the community of 1%ers, isn't she?

I don't know. There's all those "giving pledge" people. They're all committed to giving away most of their fortunes within their lifetimes, which is pretty cool.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, didn't even Mark Zuckerberg sign up for something like that?

Also I work in philanthropy and I know plenty of people who are extremely wealthy and very, very generous. 

[teflepi]

Dec 7, 2014 15:17:09 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 15:13:26 GMT -5 teflepi said:

TBF, you did say being rich does make you an asshole.  So, couple that with past expressions of disdain for the rich you have made in the past, I am thinking that is where this came from?  I don't have a dog in this fight, but irish is probably one of a handful that is not mean to people on this board so I was trying to look at this from an outside viewpoint.

Shut up, tef. Seriously. Shut. Up. I made one comment to Irish that I apologized for YEARS ago.

Please to read what I said (I highlighted, just to be clear what I am referring).  You make them to the rich (notice I say rich, not her) many a time. But, okay.  You need to step back and seriously read it all before going to 1000 mph in your responses, imo.

[LoveTrains]

Dec 7, 2014 16:54:17 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 16:12:26 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, didn't even Mark Zuckerberg sign up for something like that?

Also I work in philanthropy and I know plenty of people who are extremely wealthy and very, very generous. 

I give Gates the partial side eye because of his connection to charter schools.

Well that is fair enough, but there are others.


givingpledge.org/ 

[teflepi]

Dec 7, 2014 17:31:15 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 16:54:43 GMT -5 teflepi said:

Please to read what I said (I highlighted, just to be clear what I am referring).  You make them to the rich (notice I say rich, not her) many a time. But, okay.  You need to step back and seriously read it all before going to 1000 mph in your responses, imo.

No, Tef. You need to stop with the pot stirring. If you have some specific example to share with the class, go ahead. But the fact I like Bernie Sanders does not mean I hate the rich. It means I support economic policies that narrow the wealth gap. I support those policies for both ethical and historic reasons. And I'm not alone.

Your spoiler post above was not about loving Bernie Sanders, but I will take you at your word .  I don't really get why this is wide-eyed in nature here.  Not a dig on my end.  WhyTF would I want to pot stir for something I care little about(prev stated)?  I was trying to work through your thinking something wanted to be said to you and why someone was saying there should be a disclaimer.  It is something that I figured was common knowledge, a la your first post about the rich being assholes.  Obviously, you are trying to make me into some heartless bitch eating crackers or some ish in speaking with me in most every thread, which I can't change.  But acting as if I am being a jerk in this thread is not something I will not respond to tonight. sorry not sorry.

[blink]

Dec 7, 2014 11:39:28 GMT -5 LoveTrains said:

Dec 7, 2014 11:28:40 GMT -5 @lcap said:

The problem is with the .1% or .01% in my opinion, not really the "1%". You can't lump people who make 500k with people who have billions or hundreds of millions. The former are the people who have real, true political power in this country. Why do you think the carried interest loophole has never been closed, despite *repeated* promises from a whole host of politicians to do so?

I think we need to have some more tax brackets that start at like $5 million.

Didn't there used to be more tax brackets? Obviously none starting at $5 million, but more, weren't there? Am I misremembering things? 

[ttt]

But see, if you make a tax bracket at $5 million, then nobody is going to want to make more than $5 million anymore!!

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 20:38:46 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 20:34:10 GMT -5 blink said:

Didn't there used to be more tax brackets? Obviously none starting at $5 million, but more, weren't there? Am I misremembering things? 

You're right.  There used to be quite a few brackets.  I believe the top brack was taxed at 70%.  The flip side is that you used to be able to deduct almost every kind of interest on every kind of loan including consumer debt.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was literally every kind of interest was deductible.  Reagan 'simplified' the taz code,  I'm only using half dick-quotes there because there's something to be said for the fact it probably needed some kind of simplification.  He traded the fewer and lower tax brackets for no more interest deductions with the exception of the mortgage interest deduction on a primary residence.  

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top tax bracket was over 90%. 

ETA: it was 91% and it kicked in at the equivalent of today's $3.1 million. 


taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf 

In 1959, there were nearly 25 different tax brackets. Today there are seven. 

[ttt]

Just some more comparisons from that chart, today the top tax bracket for married filing jointly is about $440k and it's 39.5%. In 1959, if you made that (the inflation adjusted equivalent), you were paying 62%, and there were 10 additional brackets above that, going all the way up to 91%.

[teflepi]

Dec 7, 2014 20:47:29 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 19:23:38 GMT -5 teflepi said:

Your spoiler post above was not about loving Bernie Sanders, but I will take you at your word .  I don't really get why this is wide-eyed in nature here.  Not a dig on my end.  WhyTF would I want to pot stir for something I care little about(prev stated)?  I was trying to work through your thinking something wanted to be said to you and why someone was saying there should be a disclaimer.  It is something that I figured was common knowledge, a la your first post about the rich being assholes.  Obviously, you are trying to make me into some heartless bitch eating crackers or some ish in speaking with me in most every thread, which I can't change.  But acting as if I am being a jerk in this thread is not something I will not respond to tonight. sorry not sorry.

Uh-huh.  You got me. I used hyperbole in one post in this thread.  Of course, you reference "many" posts so, I'm assuming you can direct me to some trove of rich-bashing posts I've made.  Something beyond admiration for FDR or a belief that Social Darwinism is flawed if not inherently immoral.  

And I'll be sure to note the intolerance of such rhetorical tools, for the future.  I'll expect your posts to be equally accurate, perhaps footnoting would be good.  Maybe I'll go back and edit my post to say: ...'makes you 32.762% more likely to be an asshole."  

As for your pot stirring, I thought that too was common knowledge.  

If that is how you see me, then ignore me. I didn't realize I had become a pot stirrer, esp where I was trying to diffuse a post.  I should have known better than to try.  But, yes, in the future please be sure to be less generalizing in nature  and I will be sure to post things so as to not too, oh wait, f off.   You get so ridiculous of late when anyone tries to say anything to you so, yup, foff

[ttt]

Dec 7, 2014 20:51:47 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Dec 7, 2014 20:41:46 GMT -5 ttt said:

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the top tax bracket was over 90%. 

ETA: it was 91% and it kicked in at the equivalent of today's $3.1 million. 


taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf 

In 1959, there were nearly 25 different tax brackets. Today there are seven. 

I'm not sure I'd support a 90% top tax bracket.  On the other hand, I do wonder whether it would be such a bad thing if people WERE discouraged from making billions and billions of dollars.  Yes, I mean, that.  What would it look like the reward for your second $500 million earned was only $50 million take home (is that math right?).  Would salaries grow because there was no real incentive for the top executives to hoard the revenue?

It's actually $5 million. But it would essentially put a cap on salaries because nobody really earns $500 million a year in income. But this is a really interesting idea - what would happen if you practically speaking couldn't earn more than, say, $10 million a year in income? Would people really stop working hard because $10 million a year simply isn't enough to motivate people? 

ETA I'm not advocating for this, to be clear. But as a thought experiment, it's interesting. 

[NewOrleans]

[irishbride2]

Wtf? I actually like you SBP. I have zero desire to "say something shitty to you." Im highly frustrated with your wording about this topic which is what my response was about. My comments were hardly mean.

[pixy0stix]

I don't know what's going on in here.