Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[crazy canuck]

The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".

Agreed.  Entitlements alone do not work and done improperly simply purpetuate the problem.  The welfare trap is a good example of that.  But public policy properly implemented can in theory at least reduce or avoid those traps.

@ Jacob, the kind of positive reinforcement social programs you mentioned have been tried but have been struck down as being discriminatory.  The way it works is the program says if you do X you will get extra cash.  Then someone who doesnt do X files a complaint saying they couldnt do X because of some limiting factor protected by human rights type legislation.  If the tribunal/court decides in favour of the Plaintiff then the government has the choice of giving extra cash to everyone (because normally the category of alleged discrimination covers a large number of people) or simply remove the possibility of obtaining extra cash for everyone.  Guess which option is normally chosen.

[Ideologue]

Like a negative income tax.

[Sheilbh]

Most protests of any sort fail.

But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.

I'd argue that the former is possibly dead in modern protests simply because most don't have leaders any more so they're less easily defined.  Perhaps this role's now done by some protestors through new media and by the media themselves, looking for a story to thread the protests together.  It's striking how out of date the trade union anti-cuts march looked, ending with a rally and speeches by the Labour Party leader and the heads of the big unions.  That felt very dated.  Is it possible to have a clear message when you've done away with the man on the stage making a speech?
 
I think the middle bit is and always will be done by politicians.  It's Hilary Clinton's point about Martin Luther King and LBJ.

I think the last bit's what protests do and succesfful one's shift the ground on a political subject.

[MadImmortalMan]

for people to compete effectively - that is, you need a floor set at some basic point to allow for the competitive striving for mobility to effectively happen by the poorest (particularly, the poorest children). Otherwise, they are condemned to a life struggling simply for existence.

The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".

That's not a counter-argument, it's the flip side of the same coin. And you're right, of course. The trick is balancing it properly.

[MadImmortalMan]

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

"Those things" as you call them allow infidivuals the opportunity to raise their ceiling and with out them would always remain on the floor.  That is the very nature of social mobility.  Your concern as more to do with those who already have resources to lift their ceiling ever higher and has nothing to do with social mobility.  You are confusing the two concepts.  But that is part of the American Myth (I mean Dream) and so you can be excused.

And both are equally important. There is no confusion. There is no social mobility in an environment where taking a business risk will mean you lose everything if you fail and the government takes everything if you succeed. Just as there is very little if you have no access to education to acquire the skills you need to try the thing in the first place. Same coin.

[Jacob]

The welfare trap is a good example of that.

The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.

[Barrister]

The welfare trap is a good example of that.

The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.

I'm not so sure about that.

[crazy canuck]

The welfare trap is a good example of that.

The welfare trap is a convenient and much publicized example of that, with an existence that is much greater in rhetoric than in reality.

Oh really?  Consider a single mother on welfare trying to figure out whether it is better to stay on welfare or take a job which in the end, once transportation costs, day care and extra expenses are factored in will actually net her less income.

Where is the rhetoric in that?

Edit:  then consider the improvement in her life if we created a system that did not penalize her for getting that job.

Is that also rhetoric?

[Jacob]

I think well-designed redistribution programs are part of the solution, but not the whole of the solution.

Agreed.

I dunno where you got the idea that my post amounted to 'problem too difficult, so don't try'.

It didn't amount to it, but some of the wording and sentiment is also used as arguments (by people that aren't you) for "don't try" so I just wanted to be clear

I'm saying that the relative purportion of lifestyle protesters cuts the effectiveness of the protest. If it's just a few who are attracted to any sort of protest, but the actual bulk of the protesters are more serious, then fair enough, focusing on the few guys in tats and dreadlocks going on about freeganism is lame. If the protests are largely composed of the dreadlocked types, the *protests* come off as lame, even when they are organized with clearly-articulated and reasonable goals. Much more so if their goals are generalized unhappiness with, well, the economy, capitalism and stuff.

Agreed.

It is silly to say, 'complaining about the flakes is just a distraction from the serious issues'. The whole point of a protest is to get attention, otherwise why do it? Of course protesters will be judged by their appearance, actions etc. If people say 'yeah, these guys look/sound/are reasonable', then the protest works. If they say 'these guys think protesting is recreational', it will not.

Agreed, except for the part I italicized. Right now there's a fierce battle of discourses going on, painting the protestors as filthy entitled layabout dreadlocked freeganist hippies on one hand and hardworking average people like all of us who are fed up with an increasingly broken system on the other.

Saying "don't come across like silly hippies" makes no difference. The people who are going to be silly hippies aren't going to stop because they're not listening to you, and they've got their own silly hippy agenda going anyhow. The regular people may listen, but they're not going to protest or not protest or be any more regular than they already are.

Silly hippies acting out and acting irresponsible is an important issue because they represent the battle over how these protests are framed and understood, and thus how much impact it has. There could be one silly hippy for every 10 000 protestors, and you'd still have Caliga and garbon and Ed Anger et. al. go on about silly unwashed hippie college kids who spend too much on Apple products.

The actual behaviour matters somewhat, as it pushes the debate, but not that much because the media mitigates it and frames it to fit their favoured narratives anyhow, which ever one it is.

[garbon]

I haven't heard from anyone who saw the protests that they saw lots of average hardworking people participating. I haven't seen them either in the stragglers that are all over the place now nor in portrayals in media photos. Perhaps I'm doing a bit of self-censoring and the media isn't helping - but I'm just not seeing it.  And give me a break, if it was mainly or even 10,000 "regular" people to one "silly hippy" - my viewpoint would be different.  That's not what I'm seeing or hearing though.

[Jacob]

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.

[Jacob]

Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.

Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.

[Barrister]

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

I think real world data contradicts that. The societies with the best social mobility are more redistributive than the ones that aren't.

There tends to be a "chicken and egg" paradox on that though, isn't there?

[Malthus]

Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.

Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.

Damn, envious. Toronto hasn't solved this particular problem - it allowed alternative food vending, then apparently created a bureaucrasy to regulate it so stifling that alternative vendors coundn't make any money. 

[crazy canuck]

Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.

Yeah, all the new food vendors have been a really positive change to Vancouver in the last little while.

Unfortunately for this one the protestors have caused a significant drop in his business.