Social Question

LostInParadise's avatar

What if the Occupy movement held a one day boycott?

Asked by LostInParadise (18075 points ) February 29th, 2012

I have seen articles talking about a May Day strike. I was thinking though of how effective a one day boycott would be symbolically. What I am thinking of is some well publicized random way of choosing a major company and product. It could be based on things like the last digit of the Dow Jones average or the last digit of the temperature in Washington D.C. on a certain day. As I see it, there would be no real damage caused to anyone, but it would send a strong message. Just think of all the company analysts pondering the one day blip in the monthly sales.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

33 Answers

SpatzieLover's avatar

Here’s a quick article regarding the potential May Day strike

I’m for it. I think people can easily go one day without making a purchase.

Personally, I think there’s a larger message of “F. U.” when people switch from banks to credit unions. However, a one-day strike is quite do-able and sends a strong message that OWS is not going anywhere. unlike the Tea Party

Rarebear's avatar

They would be hurting the 99% they say they are trying to help.

anartist's avatar

I don’t think it would be noticed. A media blip. That’s all.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Here’s the Facebook event page for the strike.

blueiiznh's avatar

What will happen is nothing but give the media something to talk about.

Aethelflaed's avatar

Hmmm. No school. So, they want me to stay home from school the week before finals, missing out on Very Important Exam Info? How does that not hurt me and my possible future way more than it hurts anyone else?

SpatzieLover's avatar

Yep @Aethelflaed. I don’t get the strike from school. It has zilch to do with sticking it to the other 1% as far as I’m concerned. If this happens, I would definitely not buy anything that day.

LostInParadise's avatar

@SpatzieLover , Thanks for the link. I did not realize that they included shopping. :::I think that the impact of not shopping would be greater than not working. Not working just encourages companies to do what they have been doing anyway – outsourcing and automating. If they can get enough people not to shop for one day, it will definitely grab people’s attention.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@LostInParadise I think the whole thing needs to focus on grabbing the attention of the 1%. Like you, I can’t see how not going to school or work doesn’t hurt the 99%.

Stick it to them in their over-sized pocketbooks.

LostInParadise's avatar

I would encourage the organizers to have as little economic impact as possible. The point is not to do damage, but to send a message or, more accurately, pose a threat of future damage. I would declare April 30 as “go shopping day.” Do whatever shopping you have to do so that you do not have to do any of it on May 1.

We may be reduced to being consumers (how I hate that term), but we still have great power in choosing how we consume and and refrain from consuming. The strength inherent in this power has not yet come anywhere close to being fully realized. Properly utilized, selective consumption can allow the 99% to bring the 1% to their knees at relatively little cost to the 99%.

Jaxk's avatar

What a completely asinine idea. If you think Shell Oil or big pharma or any other major corporation will be hurt, you’re living in fantasy land. The only people hurt will be small businesses. The local retailer or the local restaurant. If my morning person decides to not show up for work and doesn’t open the store, they will be fired. That way they can boycott thier job for the rest of thier life.

Another jackass idea from the minds of liberals. Sorry to be so blunt.

LostInParadise's avatar

Agreed. Strikes are not a good idea. Not shopping is a great idea. Hit them on the bottom line.

Jaxk's avatar

@LostInParadise

Think about who you’re trying to hurt here. The largest corporations won’t even see the hit. The CEO’s in the 1% won’t feel anything even if they could see the drop (which they won’t). The little guys on the front line, however track thier sales daily and would both see it and feel it. The sales tax for the states will also see and feel it. Chevron, BP, Insurance carriers, Drug companies, etc. won’t see or feel a thing. The local gas station, druggist, etc. However would feel the pain.

So, is it you intention to hurt the small businesses that provide these goods and services? If so you’re going about it the right way. But if you’re intention is to make a point with the 1% or with big corporations, you’ve completely missed the mark.

LostInParadise's avatar

It is a symbolic gesture. Most people will make up for the shopping either before or after. I expect little or no economic impact on anyone, but it sends a loud message. What if people randomly chose a large corporation and decided to boycott them for a month? That would be a lot of pain. Corporate America would start shaking in the knees and start listening to the 99% A one day shopping boycott is a shot across the bow warning of things to come.

Jaxk's avatar

@LostInParadise

I agree that this will have virtually no impact. These types of things rarely do. But I am curious as to what you want to accomplish. If you get the 1% to listen to you (the 99%) what exactly are you saying? Apparently you want the 1% to do something but I have no idea what. I suspect I’m not alone in this confusion.

LostInParadise's avatar

Mostly is is a cry of frustration. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is getting squeezed. College tuition is going up at an alarming rate. Politicians have all sold out to the most wealthy. There are hard numbers to back all this up. How did things get this way and, more importantly, what can be done? The first step is to cry out in protest. I don’t know what will happen after that. It will be interesting to watch.

Jaxk's avatar

So basically, you want the rich to stop earning money.

LostInParadise's avatar

For starters, I want them to pay their fair share. It is worse than that though. The poor and middle class spend a larger portion of their income and would generate more demand to help the economy grow if wealth distribution was not so skewed. The rich keep getting richer, but they are not investing in the economy. Why should they? It would do no good, since nobody can afford to buy anything due to low income. Clearly something is out of whack.

vitro's avatar

The rich already do pay their fair share.

“On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.”

“The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”
source

Why the hell should the government tax someone on his or her savings? That is retarded. Capital gains shouldn’t be taxable at all.

There shouldn’t be a redistribution of wealth, period. Government taking a guys hard earn money and giving it to some deadbeat who didn’t earn it is retarded. A sick idea.

Jaxk's avatar

I can’t help but wonder what thier fair share would be. The so called “Rich” pay about 70% of the federal taxes. The lower 50% pay almost nothing. And about 20% actually make money on their taxes (the government sends them a rebate check). So what is fair.

The idea that the rich don’t spend is simply not supported by any facts. The industries that rebounded first were the high end products and services. In fact, the rich account for 37% of consumer spending.

Something IS clearly out of whack, however. I find it amusing that that Obama gives a rebate for buying a Chevy Volt of $7500 and he wants to raise it to $10,000. The program will cost the tax payer about $10 million. The average income of a Chevy Volt buyer is $170,000. So Obama wants to tax the rich so that he can provide rebates to…..um….. uh….. the rich. This is the kind of insanity we need to STOP. And just for added pain Obama want to raise the tax rate on those making $200K or more. That means that a small business (paying the individual rate) will have a higher tax rate than GE or any other major corporation.

Let me add one more little tidbit. Obama has quadrupled the number of major regulations (regulations that cost the economy more than $100 million). About 90% of the cost of regulation falls on small business. Who the hell are we trying to hurt here. Our government is out of control and killing any chance of growth. I believe it was Santorum that said ‘if we were building the interstate highway system with today’s regulations, it would never have been built’. The environmental studies alone, would have killed it. I was investigating building a golf course a few years back. The environmental study alone was estimated to add 2 years to the project at a cost of $1 million. And that’s just to plant trees and grass. What do you think it would cost to build something substantial.

LostInParadise's avatar

We can go on forever. The top 10% may be paying 70% of taxes, but they make 90% of income. The capital gains tax is an absolute outrage. It allows people like Romney to pay about 15% of income on taxes while most the rest of us pay about twice that. 37% of consumer spending is absolutely nothing compared to the percentage of wealth and income these people account for. The tax rate on the rich is lower than it has been for decades, while the percentage of income concentrated at the top is higher than at any time since the Great Depression, and it is far more than a coincidence that we now have higher unemployment than at any time since then.

All the talk about supply side economics is demonstrably false. The rich are simply not investing in more jobs. They have no incentive to. If people cannot afford to buy current inventory, why should companies invest in more? The investment is going offshore and for increased automation, which will cut out even more jobs.

Regulations or not, highways keep being built, while the state of public transportation in the U.S. is a disgrace compared to the rest of the industrialized world. If only regulations would encourage better mass transit.

vitro's avatar

You’re mixing up capital gains with income tax. Romney makes money off of capital gains, so why the hell should Romney be taxed for saving money? What the hell does that have to do with work (income tax)? You’re also inconsiderate of all the regular Joe’s who are saving money in capital gains. It’s an absolutely sick idea to tax someone because they want to save some money, especially when they’re helping fund the economy in the process and risk losing everything.

Why the hell should tax brackets be returned to higher brackets? To fund all the stupid welfare and regulatory programs? No thanks. The government is one big shithead.

No one is supporting supply side economics. We’re supporting a free-market. The law of supply and demand. No government intervention. The law of economics run its natural course.

LostInParadise's avatar

Romney does not just save money. He lives off of the gains, while not doing any work.
Lack of government intervention has landed us in the mess we are in. Wall Street got a pass on some shady deals. Government is not investing in new jobs. Result? Recession. I hope you are enjoying it.

vitro's avatar

LOL, what should he do with savings? Keep it in a wall for the rest of his life? Of course he lives off of the gains. I still don’t understand why should savings be taxed, or how it relates to work?

No, government intervention is what caused this mess. Starting with the fed tampering with the markets interest rate. Wall street didn’t get a pass on anything, they got sued, and lost. Paid plenty. Anything else was at the fault of the consumer for signing a contract without any comprehension.

Government is not suppose to invest in new jobs. It’s what causes unemployment. Government needs to stay the hell away from the market and let the law of supply and demand run its course.

You’re always going to have recessions and depressions, this is a normal cycle. It’s called a market correction. The supply and demand adjusts itself and recovers. The problem is the Keynesians and liberals in general think that the government needs to step in during a down time. That is when things get fucked up. It becomes artificial and the law of supply and demand no longer plays a role. The result is prolonged depressions and recessions.

Jaxk's avatar

@LostInParadise

I don’t want to disrupt this chain but maybe a few facts would be in order. The top 10% don’t earn 90% of the income, they actually earn about 45% of the income and pay 70% of the taxes. And the share of federal income tax paid by the top 10% has grown steadily from less than 50% in 1980 to more than 70% today.

The problem is not that there is a lack of government regulation but rather there is too much regulation. Every time government puts more regulation in place the problem gets worse. The Democrat solution is always more regulation to fix the last batch of regulation that made the problem worse. There’s an interesting study concerning higher taxes and unemployment. It would seem the higher the taxes, the higher the unemployment. In another study they correlate taxes and happiness. It seems taxes can’t buy you happiness. One last study correlates the business environment. States that have less regulation have higher growth rates. Both business and population respond to a business friendly environment. You can’t regulate yourself to higher growth rates.

LostInParadise's avatar

@vitro, It is not savings. If someone unloads his stocks and makes a fortune off of it, how do you see that as having anything to do with savings? It is income and should be taxed like everybody else’s income.

I guess everybody had their own study. This one shows that we are just like we were during the time of the Great Depression. It is just astounding that the top 1% makes over 10% of all income and that the top 10% make about half. Income inequality tracks with unemployment and low values for maximum tax rate increases income inequality. It is plain common sense. You can’t sell goods if the vast majority can’t afford to buy them.

And our current recession was due to lack of regulation, which is how banks got away with giving loans to people who did not come close to having the resources to pay them back. Absolutely shameful. The best and the brightest grab quick profits for themselves and ruin the economy for the rest of us.

SpatzieLover's avatar

And our current recession was due to lack of regulation, which is how banks got away with giving loans to people who did not come close to having the resources to pay them back. Absolutely shameful. The best and the brightest grab quick profits for themselves and ruin the economy for the rest of us.

Yes and sick as it is: Republican Governors are now using bailout money from the mortgages to balance state budgets instead of giving it back to the people that were swindled.

Jaxk's avatar

Just for the sake of honesty, if you bought an adjustable mortgage and didn’t know the rates would adjust, you weren’t swindled, you’re just dumber than a bag of hammers.

LostInParadise's avatar

And what about the rest of us who are paying the price of the failed loans? We must be pretty stupid too for allowing this to happen.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Deceptive practices @Jaxk, on the lenders behalf have zilch to do with the intelligence of the homeowners. Period.

Jaxk's avatar

@SpatzieLover

I read the first link about the lady that considers herself to be a knowledgeable consumer. She bought an adjustable rate mortgage and wants us to believe she didn’t know when it would adjust or how much it would adjust. She’s either lying or is dumber than a bag of hammers. Period.

Jaxk's avatar

@LostInParadise

Actually I think we were rather stupid to allow this to happen. We need to look back and analyze how and why it happened. Government regulation and community organizers pushed us into changing our lending rules. What we have is the direct result of those changes.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther