OCCUPY EVERYWHERE

"Yeah, baby I need a plan, oh, to understand that life ain't only supply and demand" ~ Amos Lee

It has been notably impressive that Occupy Wall Street has spread as far as it has to numerous "Main Streets" throughout the US and beyond – to well over 1,000 US cities according to occupytogether.org – with considerable help from the media that always gives protests at least their due. Occupiers are popping up everywhere saying "We are the 99%," now in Berkeley, where a dozen or so stalwart Occupy Berkeley people have camped out "indefinitely" downtown in front of the Bank of America – a beautifully appropriate spot. Many, including me, have wondered  why it took so long to get this started. I guess we should be thankful that younger folks finally got it enough together to catch the media's attention about economic and social issues that have been gnawing away at this nation, and others, for a fairly long time.

I have a minor pedantic quibble about the Occupiers' 99 percent. Sure, it's well worth focusing on the indisputable fact that the very richest Americans (the top 1%) have hugely and disproportionately benefited during the last decade relative to the rest of us. But the tippy top of this giant group – the 99^th percenters – makes on average $815,868 per year and have net worth of $19,167,600. That the Occupiers are hoisting their "99%" flags is thus askew on its face – although the media loves it.

Are we really so concerned about these gilded 99^th percenters, a completely exclusive group that includes numerous millionaires (as well as some of the current candidates for the US presidency), that people are now occupying public places around the US? I hope not.

It's far more appropriate, though less media-centric, to talk about the economic hollowing out of a narrower, less inclusive majority of us; say the 50% of us – what we used to call the "middle class." Median US income – the 50^th percent of working people – is now $26,364, down 1.2% over the past year and the lowest since 1999. On an hourly basis, that's less than $13/hr. and less than one-thirtieth of the 99% folks' income. It's these 50%ers and below who have suffered and continue to suffer, not the 99%ers. Their real income has steadily declined since 2002, unlike the 99%ers.

Other analysts have stated the 50%ers dead center in the US income distribution had about 90% of their assets in their home. Now, after the 2007-08 popping of the real-estate bubble, between a third and a half of their total wealth is gone, unlikely to return during their lifetimes.

So why do some of us keep wondering why folks don't feel positive about the future, and willing to display their upset? Here are but two reasons: (1) because at least 50% of us are significantly poorer than we were a short time ago; and (2) because 21.6% of US children are now affected by poverty, a despicably high percentage that ranks our nation 28^th out of the 34 OECD countries. New York Times columnist Charles Blow's column, "America's Exploding Pipe Dream," centers on this and related issues.

The Occupiers are right – economic policy over the past several decades has certainly caused a huge number of folks to lose in many economic contexts – but to say that 99% of us have been screwed is egregiously wrong. If the Occupiers truly care about the distressed majority, then drop the imprudent 99% number and re-focus on the "Bottom 50%ers" who have been truly suffering. It's these folks that the Occupiers are really talking about, despite their slogan.

The Bottom 50%ers account for a mere 13% of all earned income. These people's economic standing has been steadily deteriorating (median real US income has declined since 2002). The Bottom 50%ers – including working class, lower middle-class, urban and rural poor, dropouts, unemployed and homeless people – have become increasingly unsupported either through their own actions or by federal, state, and local government programs. This is the tragedy of Republicans' all-too-successful efforts to cut education funding and government programs that provide aid to middle-class and lower-middle class people who are unemployed and untrained.

The Occupiers have been unjustly criticized as not having a single, media-friendly focus. Others say it is precisely because the Occupiers don't have a single message that they've been successful. [This judgment of success seems a bit premature to me.] Nevertheless, irony abounds that Fox and other mainstream media demand that the Occupiers make the networks' lives easier by only shouting one or two glib, 15-second sound-bite statements. OMG. It boggles my mind why the Occupiers should accede to the media's narrow demands.

The multi-hued rainbow of Occupiers is justly upset about a lot of inter-related things that have happened recently which I believe have its base on the insidious spread of crony capitalism – including income inequality (and more dramatically wealth inequality, although it's not as much mentioned as it should be), wars and conflicts around the globe, immigration policy malfeasance, political graft and duplicity, continued and devastatingly  high unemployment, unending housing crisis, education issues, and the "heedlessness of economic growth" (a quote from an Occupier in Arizona). There are a myriad more if you scan the Occupiers' protest signs (including, "Abolish Money." Huh?) Given these many legitimate concerns, are there any policy actions that can make these folks less incensed? Of course there are, but because of policy-makers' complete unwillingness to address and remedy these central issues, I wouldn't hold your breath.

In the meantime, should the Occupiers non-violently expand their presence everywhere and continue to remind everyone far and wide that our nation's priorities are way out of balance? Absolutely.