Scattershot Roundup

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I've been away - first to deal with some really nasty personal stuff, later on a much needed vacation. I did notice a few things not coming up in the last week regarding OWS that I found interesting, however:

* New York Magazine ran one of those never-fun-but-always-interesting quiz-type polls of those in the movement. It's about as telling as the "Tea Partiers want government out of Medicare" roundups, which is to say that it's barely useful at all, but considering the movement is hyper-focused on many of these issues and yet they still believe the incorrect left wing tropes about how much is spent on the military and aren't even aware of key legislation designed to deal with the very issues they're protesting about, well...it just goes to show that it's unlikely that you can be both well-informed and be someone who has the time/inclination to protest, regardless of your ideological stripes.

Further polling shows a significant lack of ideological diversity reflected in the rest of the nation. A Democratic pollster, Douglas Schoen, polled a handful of the NY protesters and found some interesting trends. Among the findings: they're split down the middle on bailouts(?!), essentially all of them support some sort of civil disobedience while 31% support violence to advance their agenda, 65% think the government should be guaranteeing access to "healthcare, college education, and a secure retirement for all," and majorities support protectionism, oppose capitalism, and support redistribution far beyond popular mainstream beliefs. And yes, I've seen the ThinkProgress hit piece, and no, the full data does not contradict his findings as written in the Wall Street Journal, so that dog won't hunt. Seriously, stop reading ThinkProgress - it's making you dumber.

* Hearts and minds, hearts and minds: likely voters blame government, not Wall Street for the financial problems facing the nation, and a plurality think the OWS movement will hurt Democrats and Obama, the two entities that are, in theory, more likely to help the OWS movement on the government side. But, then again, that's why those polled are likely voters, and the OWS folks don't seem to have an interest in electoral solutions.

* Among the stuff I've had an opportunity to read this week was a pretty significant data dump regarding a lot of information near and dear to the hearts of OWS protesters and sympathizers. Included in the data:

a) Income inequality statistics may not be compared properly, as the gap between income and productivity growth has remained consistent. Also, consumer goods dropping in price thanks to less protectionism and the growth of big box discounted retailers like Wal-Mart have largely bridged many gaps that would otherwise exist if prices stayed the same. These are important notes, because they dovetails with data from...

b) ...the BEA, which found, contrary to what the Census has been reporting, that household income has been rising, rather than stagnating. The Census hasn't been digging into the data enough to make a blanket statement about income growth, which these studies sought to adjust for.

c) The income inequality issue also fails to factor in how taxation impacts the numbers.

I fully expect some basic confirmation bias to settle in on this information as it largely did when discussing income mobility, but these are facts that the OWS folks and their supporters really need to be able to address if they want to really advance the conversation and make a difference. I won't hold my breath.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Yep, when I encounter that sort of response, I usually stare at my computer like this:



I have yet to figure out a logical way to explain why people who believe that are completely ridiculously off-base. But I suppose, once you've dove that far in, logic is an entirely secondary issue.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

There's some massive wank going on here. :P

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

You're Saddam Hussein? OMG!

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that depends on their point. It makes sense that demand would generally go up with income, right? And demand for Wal-Mart's goods, which compete on price, would be higher if income is lower? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The conclusion you appear to be making assumes we have (or still have) a demand problem, no?

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

WSJ article: "Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence."

The article you cite as verification:

"What would you like to see the Occupy Wall Street movement achieve? {Open Ended}

35% Influence the Democratic Party the way the Tea Party has influenced the GOP
4% Radical redistribution of wealth
5% Overhaul of tax system: replace income tax with flat tax
7% Direct Democracy
9% Engage & mobilize Progressives
9% Promote a national conversation
11% Break the two-party duopoly
4% Dissolution of our representative democracy/capitalist system
4% Single payer health care
4% Pull out of Afghanistan immediately
8% Not sure"

That doesn't seem like a focus on radical redistribution of wealth, or opposition to capitalism. In fact, it sounds like they want to influence elections and policy.

That Hill poll is weird. 23% think Cain is very qualified to be president? I don't know for sure, but that doesn't sound representative.

a.) The first link ignores the top 5%, which is an extremely bizarre oversight.

The second is partly correct, but ignores all sorts of things like automation and technical advances that have little to do with Wal-Mart. It also ignores that those low prices are unsustainable (third-world countries only go so long before demanding higher wages that eliminate cost savings) and that they come at costs not reflected in prices (environment, the health/quality of Wal-Mart's goods, propping up China's government, etc.).

b.) First article: he just picks a deflator to indicate...something, without much discussion about why it's a superior choice. And then he leaves "it's an 8-point gain" hanging there like it's an impressive number compared to our economy's growth over the same time period. Then he includes safety net programs as income, which I guess is fine but misses the point that the problem is with compensation. His comments about household size are weird - has household composition changed over the last 20 years enough to explain income changes? How about the last 10? Selecting 1976 allows him to make his point more cleanly, but again misses the criticism of a long-term trend.

The second article also doesn't explain why he uses one deflator over the other, besides convenience. He is correct about fringe benefits eating up compensation - health care costs are the biggest problem we have in terms of net income stagnation, budget deficits, etc.

c.) Look at Figure 1 near the end. It shows that even with after-tax numbers, we're near a high in terms of income inequality, which has increased by a third since the 70s. I'm also not sure whether their calculations take into account sales and property taxes.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That doesn't seem like a focus on radical redistribution of wealth, or opposition to capitalism. In fact, it sounds like they want to influence elections and policy.

Sure, if you assume that the question as asked is the only one that deals with wealth redistribution, civil disobedience, and violence. It's taking the questions as a whole.

You're making the ThinkProgress argument here.

That Hill poll is weird. 23% think Cain is very qualified to be president? I don't know for sure, but that doesn't sound representative.

If anything, I think that number is low. As a basic measure, Cain is very qualified - he's a natural-born citizen over the age of 35.

a.) The first link ignores the top 5%, which is an extremely bizarre oversight.

I'm not sure where you're seeing that. From the abstract: "This cessation of inequality’s secular rise in 2000 is evident from the growth of Census mean vs. median income, and in the income share of the top one percent of the income distribution." Maybe the 2-4?

The second is partly correct, but ignores all sorts of things like automation and technical advances that have little to do with Wal-Mart.

I don't know if I agree with that. On the production end, automation means more goods at lower prices. On the Wal-Mart end, their way of distributing product takes plenty of advantage of automation software for stock and inventory management, also reducing prices and creating smarter purchasing decisions.

It also ignores that those low prices are unsustainable (third-world countries only go so long before demanding higher wages that eliminate cost savings)

It doesn't ignore them, it's simply not a relevant point to what wages and prices are today and in the past.

and that they come at costs not reflected in prices (environment, the health/quality of Wal-Mart's goods, propping up China's government, etc.).

All subjective arguments that have little to do with the economic point at play here. A good point, but not a relevant one to the discussion as to how Wal-Mart's pricing has benefited the bottom line of the bottom of the economic ladder.

His comments about household size are weird - has household composition changed over the last 20 years enough to explain income changes? How about the last 10? Selecting 1976 allows him to make his point more cleanly, but again misses the criticism of a long-term trend.

Selecting 1976 is a standard in this discussion:



There was also another graph from a newspaper that I can't find that also noted 1976 as the year, for whatever reason, it all went to shit. Seems arbitrary, I agree, but the standard wasn't set by this guy.

c.) Look at Figure 1 near the end. It shows that even with after-tax numbers, we're near a high in terms of income inequality, which has increased by a third since the 70s. I'm also not sure whether their calculations take into account sales and property taxes.

The point is that inequality, assuming for the sake of argument that it's a problem at all, isn't as bad as claimed once you factor in taxes. I did not get the impression that the article was saying that it ceased to exist.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem with income inequality is that it's paired with the seemingly never-ending issue of real-wage stagnation studiously ignored by both parties. Were real wages rising as well as prices then the growing gap between rich and poor would matter less. Unfortunately real wages remain what they were at the end of Carter's Administration, the gap between rich and poor has reached the proportions seen in Brazil, and corporations, regardless of which party they prop up have effectively no taxes paid in the United States and people who object to them paying taxes, and even as the 1% in the USA amass an ever-growing proportion of total national wealth scream Stalinism when people point out that them that have more will pay more, the way for them to pay less is to ensure everyone has more.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How much data would you need to see to become skeptical about whether wages are indeed flat?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Much more than badly cited articles that deliberately skew evidence and ignore entire categories of information.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

This is also interesting.

Occupy Wall Street’s Finance Committee has nearly $500,000 in the bank, and donations continue to pour in -- but its reluctance to share the wealth with other protesters is fraying tempers. (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/they_want_lice_of_the_occu_pie_9xKCxcI4aectFYkafMb8UJ#ixzz1bec2E3H5)

Some drummers -- incensed they got no money to replace or safeguard their drums after a midnight vandal destroyed their instruments Wednesday -- are threatening to splinter off...

“The other day, I took in $2,000. I kept $650 for my group, and gave the rest to Finance. Then I went to them with a request -- so many people need things, and they should not be going without basic comfort items -- and I was told to fill out paperwork. Paperwork! Are they the government now?” Smith fumed, even as he cajoled the passing crowd for more cash. The Finance Committee dives on whatever dollars are raised by all the OWS working groups, said Smith, and doesn’t give it back...


Well, it looks like at least some of them know a little bit about business and money. When this is all over, expect the least stupid of this group to be walking around with quite a bit of cash...

And the money is being kept in a... *gasp* bank!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The money was frozen for a while due to banks freezing their accounts. I don't know if that's changed recently. The 500,000 figure shows up on several Rupert Murdoch media outlets, so I'd like to see something from a less biased source. The OWS fake WSJ that's published weekly is completely paid for online by donations to Kickstarter. I've seen one of them, and if you are into print or design work, it's a classy job and impressive.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Does The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052557/Occupy-Wall-Street-Is-end-Protesters-squabble-500-000.html) qualify as non-Murdochian enough according to your standards?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Atlantic doesn't seem to have a problem with the story (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/occupy-wall-streets-half-million-dollar-headache/44037/), so I'm not sure why anyone else should in this case.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

The average person doesn't look at statistics, polls, or have a PhD in economics and/or political science. They don't like the way the system works, and they're expressing their outrage. Again, your post seems to suggest that they're not expressing this outrage toward Washington as well as Wall Street. You already know this to be false, but keep mentioning it anyway. Why is that? Suggesting that it's one or the other is a false dichotomy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

. Again, your post seems to suggest that they're not expressing this outrage toward Washington as well as Wall Street. You already know this to be false, but keep mentioning it anyway. Why is that?

I don't know this to be false - there's no evidence of them expressing this outrage toward Washington at all - that is, after all, why they're protesting banks and businesses as opposed to marching en masse onto Washington and eschewing political solutions for problems that they fail to recognize as political ones.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

You do know it to be false, but choose not to acknowledge it to support your conclusions.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

My favorite part about OWS is everyone and their mother making up their own personalized narrative for it.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Sparks conversation, don't it?

DQ

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Unorite?

Another similarity with the TP.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

...it just goes to show that it's unlikely that you can be both well-informed and be someone who has the time/inclination to protest, regardless of your ideological stripes.

There is bound to be a level of uninformed people in any given protest but I strongly disagree with the idea that you can't be well informed and protest. In fact, I find that those who protest are EXTREMELY informed. Not sure where you're getting this.

Further polling shows a significant lack of ...

I'm sorry but if your argument is based purely on polls, then it simply doesn't hold water.

But, then again, that's why those polled are likely voters, and the OWS folks don't seem to have an interest in electoral solutions.

And rightly so, because how have electoral "solutions" helped you recently?

It's true that all blame shouldn't be placed on Wall Street, but it is a combination of bad government and bad business. We should focus on them both equally.

Among the stuff I've had an opportunity to read this week was a pretty significant data dump regarding a lot of information near and dear to the hearts of OWS protesters and sympathizers. Included in the data:

I don't really have the inclination to take any of your links apart piece by piece but I will say that from reading the articles and comments on some of these reports, that there is probably some bias that brings up questions about how the researchers came to their conclusion. I may come back to this at a later time.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

In fact, I find that those who protest are EXTREMELY informed. Not sure where you're getting this.

I'm being very US-centric with this, but those you speak of in this case tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

I'm sorry but if your argument is based purely on polls, then it simply doesn't hold water.

I'm not sure why you believe that.

And rightly so, because how have electoral "solutions" helped you recently?

The rightward movement of the House has significantly slowed Obama's agenda over the last year. The election of Obama and the Demnocratic takeovers of the two cycles previous moved the nation sharply to the left with the spending and legislation passed. Not only do electoral solutions help those who work toward them, but they produce tangible results.

It's true that all blame shouldn't be placed on Wall Street, but it is a combination of bad government and bad business. We should focus on them both equally.

Assuming for the sake of discussion that their role is equal, that's fine - OWS is the one focused on one aspect of the discussion, however.

I don't really have the inclination to take any of your links apart piece by piece but I will say that from reading the articles and comments on some of these reports, that there is probably some bias that brings up questions about how the researchers came to their conclusion. I may come back to this at a later time.

I suggest doing so, as many of the complaints lack merit.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

those you speak of in this case tend to be the exception rather than the rule.

You don't know that. You don't have data to confirm it. It's your "facts"(TM) as they exist in your head. It's that Reality(TM) that you choose to create for yourself so you could feel better.