What does interim NDP Leader Nycole Turmel, have in common with Phillip Brown, General Manager of the City of Toronto's Shelter Housing Support and 65 employees at the Hospital for Sick Children?
By analysing government documents I have calculated that they earn in excess of the $181,000 that grants them membership to Canada's demonized one per cent, that many participating in Toronto's very own Occupy Wall Street spin-off are directing their anger towards. By comparison, the top one per cent of earners in the United States earn closer to $300,000.
The Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread around the world with a series of protests has lacked a clear or consistent message and instead allowed the disaffected to seize the opportunity to speak out on the issue of their choosing. The clearest messages that have come out of the original protest on Wall Street focused on the "greed" of the top one per cent, the apparent insufficient taxation of the rich and the multibillion dollar bailouts of American banks.
It appears that grievances migrated to Canada with complaints about the top one per cent of earners and bank bailouts, as protesters in Toronto chanted, "We got sold out, the banks got bailed out" and "We are the 99 per cent". It's worth noting that none of Canada's banks were bailed out and in fact Canada's banking system has been praised as a model of stability for the world. Canada's top income earners are taxed at a rate of 46 per cent, compared to about 23 per cent for their American counterparts.
It's hard to imagine that those camped out in St. James Park seriously blame the interim leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, a municipal worker who dedicates his career to housing the homeless or a few dozen highly trained employees at one of the world's best Children's hospital for Canada's social and economic ills. Yet the imported chants and rhetoric that have fueled Saturday's march targeted these individuals, because of their incomes.
A handmade cardboard sign that lays near the path that enters St. James Park, now home to Occupy Toronto, reads "This Concerns Everyone." It turns out "this" is an apt definition for what is happening in Toronto and around the world.
While referred to as a movement, the 'occupy phenomenon' spreading around the world is poorly defined and lacks some of the key necessities that define social movements. The most glaring deficiencies, that are also significant barriers to success, are a lack of common purpose, and a resistance to defining specific target or demands.
A quick read of famous community organizer Saul Alinsky's seminal text "Rules for Radicals" would provide occupy supporters with perspective on the pitfalls of this 99 per cent vs. one per cent strategy while also outlining key conditions for winning. Four examples of Alinsky's advice that would come in handy to occupiers:
Occupy Toronto has benefited from an incredible amount of media attention. There is a clear willingness of media to tell their story, organizers just need to develop it. Picking a specific target, having clear demands and a plan will make it easier to keep the pressure on and find success before the tactic that has become the name and purpose of the movement; occupying, becomes a drag.
Follow John Laforet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/laforet
"Canada’s richest 1%1 — the 246,000 privileged few whose average income is $405,000 — took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes in the fastest growing decade in this generation, 1997 to 2007.
Think that’s normal? The last time the economy grew so fast was in the 1950s and 60s, when the richest 1% of Canadians took only 8% of all income growth.
The richest 1% took almost a third of all growth in one of the slowest growing decades in recent history too, 1987 to 1997. This eclipses anything seen before in Canadian history, including the share of gains eaten up by the richest 1% in the Roaring Twenties."
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National%20Office/2010/12/Richest%201%20Percent.pdf
Still think the 1% in Canada aren't part of the problem John?
And from the same source:
There were 24.6 million taxfilers in Canada in 2007. The richest 1% made more than $169,000 and had an average income of $404,000. The richest 0.1% made more than $621,000 and had an average income of $1.49 million. The richest 0.01% made more than $1.85 million and had an average income of $3.83 million.
Again, move the bar a little higher and I begin to see the inequality you're trying to raise.
I also don't see how blaming the workers for their incomes makes them part of the problem? Once again I think if that's you're issue you need to look even higher up the income totem pole.
Did you notice the bit in the CCPA quote about those in the 1% garnering 32% of the income growth. Do you think that is a good thing?
Where do you get this from? Statistics Canada only breaks things down by quintiles. The Canadian Council on Social Development puts the average family income of the top decile at $185,700. I haven't been able to find a figure for the top 1% in Canada, but if the CCSD figures are accurate it is certainly much greater than the $181,000 that you claim qualifies for membership in the 1%.
Based on those figures the bar (unfortunately for your argument is $181,000). Even if you raise it to $300,000 there are still a whole host of medical staff at Sick Kids saving lives you're swinging at for their success instead of doing something productive about the inequality you see.
The "1% - 99%" is symbolic - not to be turned into an accountants debate. The real figures (well documented statistics) of the disparity are horrific and if continued would lead North America back to the feudalism of Europe 400 years ago.
Do Canadians believe in "a government of the people, by the people and for the people". If so, it is simply not possible to achieve that goal with "1%" controlling all the wealth, media, politicians, and turning the "middle class" into a pool of desperate people, many unemployed, competing for the crumbs thrown off by the wealthy elite.
I have to say I am amazed by this whole thing, if not just because the looseness of the concerns and degree of rhetoric.
'many unemployed' in the middle class? Define many because Canada's unemployment rate would not suggest that 'many' is yet another 'symbolic' statement as is the claim of 'crumbs' being all the middle class have to work with.
There are real issues but you delegitimize them with arguments that aren't fact based, a lack of demands or coherent plan to do anything but identify things you don't like and sleep in the rain until it gets too cold to stay or you've convinced these people you believe are evil to suddenly change their ways and hand over their capital.
You seem to like to ignore what people who do not agree with you say, and just make it up your own way. Talk about "coherent plan" - how about lack of coherence in your last paragraph!
https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/
There is much to agree with and some to disagree with in this document, but it is a work in process and subject to change.
Mr Laforet will note that other than in the name, there is no mention made of the 1% 99% disparity. And yes, it is more like 0.1% who are at the heart of the problem ( some put it at 400 individuals ) 99% does roll off the tongue somewhat easier.
I am not confident that this group is representative of anywhere near 99% of anything, let alone the general population and I think it will be hard for them to create a demographically balanced assembly.
Because something sounds good is hardly a reason to make it the purpose of your cause. Articulating your actual issues is more important and leaves less opportunity to point out glaring logical flaws.
If it's 400 individuals, go after them. It's a more compelling argument. if thats the issue for these folks, then swinging at the 1% because it sounds better.
And despite the campaign funding laws, the same problem prevails here in Canada. We have the Harper government hell-bent on advancing the corporate agenda. Why?
We do need to be vigilant. Yesterday the Tories voted to scrap the wheatboard. This will only put money into the hands of America's one percent. For the last twenty years there has been a steady march to destroy small scale family farm prodcuers and replace them with American owned conglomerates, the slaughter industry is the purest example.
Don't feel too safe in Canada- the greed of america's one percent reaches up North.
When the family owned Canadian company ( that I used to work for) was bought out by an American company-it was simply a slaughter and rape.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the state of Canadian farming. I've spent a lot of time in rural Ontario, working with farmers and know how the local abattoir's have suffered and in many cases closed recently. The interesting thing there is local farmers and abattoir owners blame increased regulation that the government defends as being about food safety (although to meet the regs prices local abattoirs out of the slaughter business).
In a situation like that, the question becomes how to balance the government's desire for increased food safety and the reality that local businesses can't afford to meet those standards. Do we relax the standards, or find some acceptable financial instrument to allow the government to support the impacted businesses, or do we do what McGuinty let happen and just allow a bunch of them to go out of business.
I haven't heard this so-called '1%' cry about anything? Who is speaking for them, let alone defending themselves against the Occupy Toronto movement?
I don't think anyone has laughed or made fun of occupy Toronto folks, and am certain decision makers and business elites are not scared. I wouldn't even call what is happening ignoring Occupy Toronto, because they are no demands, no targets and no solutions being put forward by the so-called movement.
Whenever you do anything that involves action, you need an exit strategy, Occupy Toronto doesn't have one.
In your message you've gone after the 1% as they do, and provided no sense of what it is you actually seek or how you'd like that to work. It's unrealistic to expect anything will change if you can't articulate what, how or where you want that change to happen.
You are seeing a new paradigm being developed and, perhaps, wedded to the paradigm of your experience, it is difficult for you to appreciate this new one. Moreover, as with any new paradigm, there is a strong pull to have it fit the old one. As with any new paradigm, it is an evolving design not entirely free of remnants of the old.
At this time, it is difficult to say whether this new paradigm will be revolutionary or evolutionary. However, try to understand what is happening not what is suppose to happen.
They've attempted to build a movement without purpose, leadership, focus or a plan -- I don't think it can be either revolutionary or evolutionary at this stage because it amounts to a couple hundred people fighting against abstract concepts while the 99.999% of regular folks go about their day to day life, unimpacted by who is sleeping in a park and why they've chosen to.
Sometimes when you make an investment, you have to wait for it to materialize and that materialization may be different from expectations. I bet that Steve Jobs didn't have a concept of the iPhone when he cobbled together his first computer.
Try stepping outside the box - if just on a dare.
As some sage has pointed out, the protesters are aware they have been screwed, and by whom, but are unclear as to just how. To further complicate things, there is no single how. However, at the forefront of the many ways people have been screwed are such things as jobs being outsourced to China, Mexico, and India, houses foreclosed on based on forged documents, savings destroyed by near zero interest rates and the inflationary effects of QE1 &QE2, and to top it all off having the futures of our children and grandchildren mortgaged to fund the insane idea that failed businesses should be bailed out by the taxpayer.
The salient result of the advancement of these and other corporate agendas is the growing disparity between the 99% and the 1%. That disparity is, in part, a result of the same root cause as the above. That cause has been clearly identified by Dylan Ratigan here on HP and reiterated in Canada by Dr. Suzuki. That root cause is the excessive influence in government (yes even in Canada) by corporations and other moneyed interests. Globalization, free trade, deregulation, and the bailout meme are all the agenda of the corporations.
I won't take the Suzuki bait but his ideas for Ontario's economy would be bankrupting for the 99% who would be living in energy poverty and unemployed.
He also endorsed McGuinty whose donor list reads like a who's who of special interests that the Premier's policies clearly benefit.
Not quite! Read the first sentence in my third paragraph again. While the root problem lies with the 0.1% (or less) there is a growing disparity between the incomes of the 1% and the 99%. The fact that many of the protesters identify with that says nothing about other concerns. It is just one grievance among many.
I disagree with Suzuki on green energy, (nuclear in the form of liquid fluoride thorium breeders is the way forward IMO) but he hit the mark with his comments about democracy in Canada.
" He also endorsed McGuinty whose donor list reads like a who's who of special interests that the Premier's policies clearly benefit. "
Again! All the problems stem from the excessive influence of these special interests. That applies to all parties, voters are given a Hobson's choice. Would you have us believe that Hudak is any better in that regard?
To say the Occupy Canada demonstrators lack a voice is true. To say their facts are wrong is also true, but this is the same as the Occupy America movement generally. I don't think a common voice is neccessary in a movement. But the anti-capitalism, anit-establishment themes are present.
For me, the movement is the social expression of deep rooted discontent and mistrust of the political and economic systems of the western world.
This is a nicely written article, but the author doesn't consider Huffington Post's audience, who are (as implied) web-savvy and anti-establishment.
I agree you can have many voices within a movement but you need a consistent message and a set of demands if you hope to get any action outside of showing you don't like what is currently happening.
I think Occupy Toronto and other Occupy equivalents have the opportunity to cause change if they seize the potential. That is the purpose of pointing to Alinsky and critiquing some aspects of what is currently happening that I think actually hurts their chances (not using valid arguments for Canada as an example).
Alinsky is perhaps the most famous anti-establishment organizer and basically the founder of community organizing. Being web-savvy can be an important element of telling a story and organizing, but for folks using boots on the ground strategies like the occupy movement, the Alinsky model is important -- or you have the risk of three people showing up at a protest, as happened on Bay Street today.
CEOs get paid in millions, or get perks and benefits worht millions. They do not "earn" it. Nor do they deserve golden parachutes.
What you're identifying as the problem is closer to the 0.1% which is almost exclusively CEO's and other C level executives who are also more prone to find ways out of the 46% tax rate those closer to $500,000/year a partner or surgeon would be paying.
You may also want to look at the data on income inequality, here's one example:
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/saez/saez-veallAER05canada.pdf
The increase in income inequality, particularly the income share of the top 1%, has been almost as large in Canada as the US. We began at a lower level of inequality, and the trend in Canada does not owe as much to regressive tax reform, but the fact remains that a tiny minority is benefitting disproportionately from economic growth.
Please try to do more research for your next article so as not to misinform the public. Canada is different but we have massive income inequality, it has grown substantially, and our tax code is not nearly as progressive as it could be and much closer to the US than you realize.
That said, think of the consequences of taxing those differently on seniors who don't have pensions and rely on dividend income or interest to prevent them from depleting their capital while sustaining themselves.
Income inequality when comparing different levels of responsibilities and positions is also a classic comparison of apples to oranges. If the issue is that people doing the same job have grossly different pay scales for compatible work, fine -- you've got a point that clearly needs a solution and can be easily addressed by determining why and how that happened.
If the issue is you don't like how many multiples that Radiologist at Sick Kids makes compared to the nurse, that's an entirely different topic, as would be the difference between the NDP Leader's salary and a constituency assistant. At one point is it the right of the institutions whose budget it is to determine what level of income inequality is allowable, providing they are compiling with Canada's labour laws?
What do you think is a reasonable pay scale difference between a radiologist who is part of the hated 1% and a nurse who is part of the 99%?
What is your ideal level of income inequality?
First the main issue people seem to have is that income gains have accrued disproportionately to the richest. The particular line may be arbitrary but any measure of inequality is going to show a significant increase (I won't bore you with Lorenz curves crossing or first order stochastic dominance). More importantly real income gains have been zero or negative for the bottom half of the income distribution. Taxation policy is complicated - as demonstrated by your own difficulties stating understanding the issues (for example, changing the top marginal tax rate on capital income does not mean that poor seniors relying on pensions or asset income will be gravely affected, again remember marginal is not the same as average!) - and to expect a bunch of people upset at widening inequality to provide the same type of analysis the world's top public economics experts (like Emmanuel Saez or people working at the Center for Budget Priorities, or in Canada the CCPA) is unnecessary and a bit of a straw man.
On the issue of income inequality and redistribution through taxation and spending, we have some evidence that more progressive tax systems lead to greater happiness:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906152459.htm
So far as I can tell, the protesters just needed the practice.
On the troubled assets, in many ways that was more a trade than a bailout because it was bonds for other, perhaps riskier investments. I am with you though that the government has the potential to win on that deal, and it's also good news for those on the distressed side of the asset because something tells me the government is a less aggressive collector than the banks would be.
Second point...While we are not in a dire a situation as the US, the underlying principle is the same. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in a few hands, democracy itself become subverted. The cost of political campaigning or the ability to influence the election of specific individuals or, once elected, the policies of our representatives serves to undercut the concept of "one-person-one-vote".
This becomes especially worrisome under our current "first past the post" system which can create the current situation where total legislative and executive power is now vested in a group that had the support of a relatively small percentage of the electorate. And I would be saying exactly the same thing regardless of which party was in power at this moment.
So it's not just a question of who's rich and who's not. It also speaks to the nature of democracy and how much relative influence the BlackRabbit's and Blodo's and all the rest have on the direction our country is taking.