On Occupy Wall Street

Note: This was an op-ed I was nicely asked to write about a month and a half ago. I thought it deserved to be online. Cheers!

Typically considered taboo, the subject of wealth inequality and financial irresponsibility has recently been brought to the attention of millions of Americans (and a considerable amount people overseas) by Occupy Wall Street (OWS). OWS is a movement that began on September 17th, 2011 in NYC, but later expanded to over 1000 cities across the globe. The movement’s purpose, according to its ridiculous array of online presences, is to end the irresponsibility in the American financial industry that resulted in one of the most corrosive financial recessions in recent memory. Though admittedly, they may not have their aims/objectives in order, they’ve garnered considerable support over the issue.

The issues OWS has brought up aren’t exactly unheard of:  During the early 1900’s, Henry Ford paid 3 times the average factory salary to his workers because he believed “Workers have a right to afford what they make.” The New York Times published an article by Robert Frank, an Economics Professor from Cornell, arguing the notion of a “growing income rift in America” over a year before the Occupy movement was even thought of. Through this comes the question of the purpose of the movement, its legitimacy. If it’s been argued before, and since some solutions have been applied, what’s the big deal? Shouldn’t they just bring up their concerns to their locally elected officials? Two things: The country wouldn’t be dealing with a recession if that were the case. Secondly, anyone who’s worked in a government office, particularly Beatrice Walton of the Harvard Political Review, can say that “the people protesting today have tried incessantly over the years to do just that and have largely been ignored.” OWS, in essence, is a backlash to that lack of representation. In banding together, the protesters are saying that, because they’re tired of being ignored, they will be heard. Enough is enough, etc. Aptly enough, this protesting boom comes months after the American Census Bureau reporting that 46.2 Americans are living below the poverty line, and 1 out 7 are dependent of Food Stamps, making people wonder why such an outburst as OWS’ didn’t come earlier.

In the end, ignoring such issues as socioeconomic inequality is relatively easy. Similarly enough is easily dismissing the Occupiers as smelly, fervent, bongo-banging beatniks who are asking for handouts. Such an outlook might make Americans feel less iffy about the topic, allowing us to keep our societal and economic norms untouched. Such a view lets us avoid the question of class division among other things. But, ignoring the class question and dismissing movements such as OWS won’t address the problems of income inequality. Pushing the issue aside does nothing to the problems of income disparity plaguing the nation. If England’s summer rioting has taught us anything, it’s that not confronting a problem just delays the solution. For making this issue explicit to the public eye, OWS has done us a favor.