The following paper attempts to state what actually the Occupy Wall Street movement is and whether it should continue or not in the present circumstances. OWS movement was initiated by a Canadian activist group by the name of Adbustersin 2011. The main goals of the movement were to protest against the rising inequalities of wealth distribution in the US and eradicate problems such as unemployment and corruption in businesses. The main reasons for the widening gaps in the wealth distribution amongst the US citizens are over-capitalization and coercive practices of large corporations. In the end the paper concludes by stating that its demands are impractical and not specific enough to make the movement a success.
Occupy Wall Street or OWS as popularly known is an organized protest movement started by Canadian activist group Adbusters against the economic inequality, corruption and undue influence of corporations on government. The OWS movement began on 17th September, 2011 in Zuccotti Park which is located in the Wall Street financial district of New York. Protesters of the movement use ‘We are the 99%’ as their slogan to emphasize the growing disparities of income distribution. According to them, they are that 99% of the population which is not as wealthy and the rest 1% are the wealthiest people.
The motive of the OWS was to camp out for months to imitate the kind of protests that had taken place earlier in 2011 in Egypt and Tunisia. Within a short span of time other American cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Chicago and Boston started staging similar demonstrations. The OWS movement spread not only within the US but to cities in Europe, Asia and the Americas, drawing thousands of people. Occupy Wall Street protests rapidly developed even on college campuses across the country.
The political influence of the movement was increasingly standard in the United States. While the Democrats offered vigilant support,the Republicans approached the matter more critically. However, both parties were wary of the fact that the movement was moving public debate.
The occupy Wall Street movement is not only demanding change. The 99% as they are called are making sincere efforts to see that they rectify the system and prevent the super-rich from becoming richer. According to them, the movement has unleashed the political power of millions and issued an open invitation to everyone to be a part of the movement(Gelder, 2011).
The crucial point of the protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement is the Income inequality that has increased over the last three decades in the U.S. The majority of the protestors are the working people who want radical turnaround as regards to the economic stagnation and widening gaps of income between the working class and the corporate people. The OWS movement brought to the forefront the issues that have existed since the 1990’ssuch as increasing income disparities. The OWS movement also tried to resist the corrosive power and the might of major banks and MNC’s (Harcourt, 2011).
In my view the theory of ethics that best relates to the OWS movement is the Utilitarian theory of ethics. The utilitarian theory is one of the essential theories of ethics which argues that any course of action that leads to overall happiness is just and correct. The proponents of this theory argue that what ultimately matters is the happiness of everyone and aggregate happiness instead of happiness of a particular person. The OWS movement is a movement of the people, by the people and for the people. The supporters of the movement are the people who consider themselves as the 99% who are the have not’s and the 1% are the super-rich. Thereby, there exists a strong relationship amongst the have not’s for each other. They are mostly united and cohesive in all matters pertaining to the conduct of the OWS movement.
There are a number of opinions especially public opinions that have been brought to the center stage by the 99% per centers. The Occupy Wall Street movement has brought into the limelight the popular ethical sentiments. Some of them are as follows:
1. Adoption of unethical practices by businesses
2. Big businesses are more unethical than smaller businesses
3. Businesses in the financial services industry are more unethical than other businesses
This special bonding amongst the supporters of the OWS movement relates to the Utilitarian theory because everyone has a common goal and is prepared to take the brunt together to eradicate the evils. It is evident from the fact that although most of the members of the movement are stranger to each other, yet they are in unison when it comes to raising their voices against the malpractices of the businesses.These people when protesting shout slogans, display banners and take shelter on roadside paths all for a common objective i.e. to bring economic reforms to the U.S. This proves that there is not just a single person behind the movement who wants something for himself; rather there is a whole community of people behind the OWS movement who want the satisfaction of all the 99% i.e. the common people. This philosophy coincides with the Utilitarian theory of aggregate happiness so this movement is based on the Utilitarian movement.
The rates of unemployment continue to stand at 8% in 2012 as opposed to 8.9% in the previous year.This is just few points higher than the level at which unemployment was during the recessional period of Dec’07 to June’ 09. The unemployed and their families found it already finding it difficultto get employed were even worse affected during that period.
The sluggishspeed of recovery in the labor market has improvedthe interest in the long-standingtendency of growing inequality of the income allocation. The basic problem of unequal income distribution began long back in the US. Experts had perceived that economic theory had nothing to do with this problem. In concept, what should be taken into consideration is that the labor income is the result of distribution from markets that operate efficiently. Theoretical arguments for a more equal distribution of income than that which results from market forces are based on a number of propositions, including the diminishing marginal utility of income. The marginal utility states that the satisfaction level from each additional unit decreases. For example, the person earning $20000 would value a $100 increase in income less than a person earning only $1000. If we go by this theory the income of the wealthier could be transferred to the less wealthy ones. However, this is not true and hence cannot be the solution to the overall problem of inequalities of income distribution (Trudell, 2012).
Two common sources of income data are the Annual Social and Economic supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) and federal income tax returns submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The households overall well being of households is directly impacted by the duration of time in which income is arrived at. It is a business principle that over course of time unemployment rises and then falls and disturbs the labor income. Since the pattern of the effect of recession on different households is not same therefore it can be stated that stage of business cycle affects relative income.Experts completely deny the myth that globalization causes inequalities of income distribution. There has not been sufficient evidence that can prove that globalization is the chief reason behind unequal wealth distribution. Other studies have estimated that a large number of jobs possess characteristics which make them susceptible to being offshored (Levine, 2012).
Many economists are of the view that technological changes eventually leads to increased inequalities of income distribution.This fact can be substantiated by the fact that the fully skilled labor has been paid quite highly since the 1980’s. It becomes more evident after considering that income gaps between the skilled and semi-skilled labor has increased drastically since the past three decades.This obviously proves the pointthat the supply for semi-skilled labor did not match up with the demand for skilled labor by the employers (Levine, 2012).
The Occupy Wall Street movement has now gained tremendous momentum and force and is not only a national phenomenon but an international uprising. Naturally, there have been several attempts on the side of the authorities and the government to curb the movement but it has not been possible up till now. Those against this movement give their arguments that the movement does not uphold the public opinion and lacks clearly defined objectives. Their point is that unless and until the movement does not state its demands clearly there could be a counter-action by those bodies that it seeks to challenge.In November 2011, a nationwide poll was conducted by the Public Policy polling and the results were as expected. Out of all the voters in the country only 33% of had supported OWS while 45% opposed it. About 22% were not sure of their opinion. Interestingly, 43% gave a higher priority to the Tea Party thanthe Occupy movement. Another survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, in in January 2012 saw 51% of probable voters disliked the protesters, while only 39% perceived it as aneffective protest movement representativeof the American people(Yardley, 2011).
In my personal opinion the OWS movement is lacking a clear defined objective and practical applicability. Whatever demands are put up by the protestors are impractical and somewhat unachievable. The movement is also weakening by the day due to several political and social pressures. Most of all, the movement is creating a big nuisance for the common people and does not represent the national voice. So, it can be concluded that the Occupy Wall Street movement should be discontinued and all protestors give way for normalcy.
My prediction for the movement is that due to lack of political and economic backing it would fad away and get dead and buried. It is so because the movement is deficient of a common and strong public opinion. Another major reason could be that the corporates and the capitalists in the country are so strong that it is next to impossible to cause them any damage in our country.
References
Gelder, S., V,.(2011). This changes everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement. San Fransisco: Berrett Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Harcourt, B., E,. (2011).Occupy Wall Street’s Political Disobedience. The New York Times on the web .Retrieved online on November 1, 2012 from http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/justice2012/assembly/014Joint%20Exhibit%2014%20--%20Media%20Articles/Occupy%20Wall%20Street's%20'Political%20Disobedience'-1.doc.
Levine, L. (2012). The U.S. Income Distribution and Mobility: Trends and International Comparisons. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved online on November 1, 2012 from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42400.pdf.
Trudell, M. (2012). The Occupy movement and the Class Politics in the US. International Socialism,133.
Yardley, W. (2011). The Branding of the Occupy Movement. The New York Times. Retrieved online on Novemebr 1, 2012 from http://web.zone.ee/tiias/newspaper/The%20Branding%20of%20the%20Occupy%20Movement.pdf.
