We're Angry! About....Stuff!

Old-Timey Protests

Current Protests

Let me be clear. I'm all for a good social uprising. Change the established practice! Shake things up! Push for critical social innovation! Show (fill in the blank organization) that they're doing something that makes you cranky! That being said, I'm a bit embarrassed about how low our forms of protest have fallen. 

I know. Things are pretty messed up right now. Esquire actually did a great about the value of the dollar, just one of the many things that people aren't particularly thrilled about right now, in their most recent issue. I highly recommend it. Back to protests. The Economist noted our (global, collective) failure to focus on our protest goals in a recent article titled "Not Quite Together". They made some good points about the global protesting spirit is alive in kicking (Occupy Wall Street in New York, austerity ruckus in Greece, unemployment marches in Spain, etc.), but that a lot of it is misguided. For the most poignant example, I don't think we need to look much farther than our own country though...So, for example:

• Movement: Occupy Wall Street- Although initially jump started as a protest of the 99% against the 1%, this particular movement has generated a lot of publicity, and because of its high visibility, has made very clear some of the problems in this outraged group. Even though this movement bills itself as the majority finally taking back what is due to them, underneath the Facebook groups and twittering, this is really not that different than the austerity movements in Greece. The American economy is turmoil. Undoubtedly, these banks hold a lot of that responsibility. The American public pays the price for their poor decisions. The "why do I have to pay for this?" mentality begins. Anger ensues.
• Interesting Facts:  
• There have actually been studies on the science and mathematics behind protests. For example, in a sample of European protests between 1980 and 1995, austerity-focused protests attracted over 700K people on average, whereas other protests attract less. Anti-war protests for example, only attract 15K on average
• Protests, especially the ones related to spending cuts during times of increasing expenditure, have no party preference. In another study of protests in Latin America between 1937 and 1995, researchers found that tight link cuts and instability that cuts across democracies and autocracies alike
• Researchers also found that a 1% increase in GDP results in a reduction of estimated protests per year by about 0.4 events (roughly half the impact of a similar increase in the government budget)
• What went wrong?  
• Misinformation and scattered agendas. It's supposed to be about the 99% against the 1%. In fact, it is clear based on financial data that approximately 58% of the real economic growth in America of the past 30 years was captured by the top 1% of earners. For obvious reasons, societies with a larger income disparity generally have more civil unrest. However, research on wage growth in the United States questions whether this polarization is really based on wealth capture or if it really is due to the dramatic segmentation of the labor force into high and low-skill segments (cannibalizing the middle-skill/middle-wage positions), which would result in social discomfort
• Most financial firms in New York have moved to midtown long ago, and although it is a symbolic space, the sheer numbers have begun to cause serious concerns for sanitation and public safety. As the signs above show, these protesters believe they're united, but its become a farce of itself- ultimately more trendy than impactful. The demographic in attendance is pretty young (mostly around college age/young professionals), but relatively well educated (most hold college degrees). By itself that makes me wonder-- how 'majority' can you be if you were educated at one of the best universities in the nation? (NYU, Columbia, etc are in the area) or if you have the means to be living near Manhattan? 
• Early splintering. We started with the chant of "I am the 99%", but then...wait... we got really mathematical about it and came up with some 53%-ers too. Although this is really just the conservative retort to the protest, some of their points do resonate (To feed my family, I'm working or trying to find a job, not camping out in Manhattan). I can't admit that I support them wholeheartedly though. I'm from California after all

 So. I'm torn. I keep thinking about a saying I heard in college, "If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're old and liberal, you have no brain". The point is that your views will change as you move through your life depending on where you are socioeconomically. I know that I make more than your average 25 year-old. I know a lot of people who are struggling through this hard economic time, so I give thanks every day that I have a job and that I can save money for a rainy day. I live frugally and I believe in postponing current happiness for future security (that one is actually probably more cultural). I'm fiscally conservative and am a crazy savings account-er. But I still feel the need to support this protest. The financial system failed Americans. But many Americans also tried to "outsmart" the financial system by living outside their means. They're both at fault, but to fix this mess, I just have to think that there must be a better (more effective) way.