• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The "Occupy" Movement

The simple work around is for the CEO to move and reestablish his company in some location that does not have rules and regulations fixing rates of compensation. He presumably has the knowledge and drive to recreate the company, while all the line workers and corporate staff weenies do not. Real life examples of how eliminating a Celebrity CEO's can negatively affect a company is the history of Apple Inc after Steve Jobs was ousted the first time. Apple declined and was in grave danger of going bankrupt, while Jobs himself was creating new opportunities and wealth at Pixar. John Sculley's tenure as Apple CEO demonstrated that Apple really was personality driven (which is a bit worrisome today). The result of Job's energy, initiative and drive is that as of September 2011, Apple has recently been the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. (reference Wikipedia).

As was pointed out before, wages for various positions are determined independently of each other (Apple, for example, would have no minimum wage entry level jobs since the company has 0 use for unskilled labour. Apple might hire subcontractors who do use unskilled labour to do gardening on the company grounds, but the subcontractor would set wages based on the supply of workers and demand for gardeners). OTOH, Jobs compensation depended vitally on his delivering unique products that millions of customers around the world were eager to buy.
 
MCG said:
As the monetary minimum wage has been thoroughly discussed now ...What if minimum wage were instead a percentage of any given company's CEO's salary & bonuses?  Small businesses/backyard businesses with modestly paid CEOs would have access to low paid unskilled labour.  The celebrity CEOs would disappear as the resultant cost across a company's workforce would be unaffordable (thus the face of wage inequity would disappear). 

... but, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to find a way around whatever legal mechanisms that create such a system and then reestablish celebrity CEOs.

A job does not exist because you need work. A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.
 
Sythen said:
A job does not exist because you need work. A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.

I hope you notice the two statements contradict each other. This is the argument against minimum wages.
 
I am a very big supporter of smaller government, but I do realize that there are things that must be regulated. Minimum wage is one of those things. It must be standardized though, and the same for all businesses not based on some % of the CEO's salary... Think about it this way; Google CEO's used to earn $1 a year. (they still might, not really sure and too lazy to look it up)
 
Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.

To see how this distorts the market, consider the effect of price controls on consumer items like food. Milk and milk products are far more expensive in Canada because they are regulated (a minimum wage analogue), which ultimately limits the ability of consumers to purchase milk and milk products and also leads to work arounds (consider the amount of milk and cheese that comes across the border in Windsor as Canadians go grocery shopping in Detroit...). Milk production is also "brittle" in Canada since the number of milk producers and the amount of milk they produce are artificially constrained; there would be no ready way to meet increased demand, and a sudden drop in demand would leave large amounts of milk to be dumped or otherwise destroyed.

Should the government eliminate marketing boards, look for consumer prices to drop and for the production of food become more efficient (and eficient farmers becoming well rewarded for their work).
 
Sythen said:
A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.
?  What I have suggested is an alternate mechanism of setting a minimum wage.  Instead of a flat standard across all companies, the minimum wage could be proportional to the CEO's salary.

Thucydides said:
Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.
... and this is the source of my idea to de-link minimum wage from a universal standard and tie it to something internal to a company.  If the minimum wage is linked as a percentage to the CEO (or alternately the highest company earner to avoid the $1 CEO worries), then market forces are still able to act on how highly a company is prepared to spend on its workforce.
 
Thucydides said:
Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.

It's been explained already, but I'll get away from the armchair economics.

There needs to be regulation of various sorts because I don't want to live like they did in the industrial revolution, you know, back when you were either a factory owner or a factory worker, back when factory owners lived in excess while the other 99% often died of cholera because their sewage was running through their streets and into their water supply, back when 5 and 6 year olds were worked 12-14 hour days for almost nothing... and guess what, it didn't improve as they "gained skills and experience" like you were advocating, it improved through oppressed people forming unions and bargaining collectively for things like a minimum wage.

That whole invisible hand thing... yeah, non-existent things usually are hard to see.

EDIT to add
 
Thucydides said:
Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.

To see how this distorts the market, consider the effect of price controls on consumer items like food. Milk and milk products are far more expensive in Canada because they are regulated (a minimum wage analogue), which ultimately limits the ability of consumers to purchase milk and milk products and also leads to work arounds (consider the amount of milk and cheese that comes across the border in Windsor as Canadians go grocery shopping in Detroit...). Milk production is also "brittle" in Canada since the number of milk producers and the amount of milk they produce are artificially constrained; there would be no ready way to meet increased demand, and a sudden drop in demand would leave large amounts of milk to be dumped or otherwise destroyed.

Should the government eliminate marketing boards, look for consumer prices to drop and for the production of food become more efficient (and eficient farmers becoming well rewarded for their work).


The answer to the first question is that "we are humans and, therefore, very imperfect." We know from centuries of brutal experience - and I have seen it with my own eyes in 2011 in China - that the "price" of labour can always be driven down, often, indeed usually below its fair market value. We put a (low) floor in place (minimum wage) to deny ourselves (employers and potential employees) the opportunity to let our base instincts and our desperation manage everything.

Here in Texas, where I spend the winter, we could not afford to have someone clean our house and mow our lawn and so on and so forth if we did not have access to (illegal immigrant) workers who happily work for way less than the legal minimum wage - nor would many big businesses have such rosy bottom lines if they had to pay minimum wages for a whole host of jobs in most of the 50 states.

We, Americans and Canadians alike, "protect" various producers - the entire biofuels business, 100% of it, even in Brazil, is a scam - a huge farm subsidy programme that would, under any fair reading of international trade law, be illegal if the biomass was sold for food. We also try to "protect" our domestic labour force by using minimum wages. Successive and criminally weak American administrations, however, have made their borders and their wage policies a bad joke.

 
Edward cuts to the chase as usual.

McG; while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate. The company which is overpaying its line workers via the % rate method would have to shed costs somewhere, and that somewhere would be the line workers. Soon, there would no longer be enough workers to do the job, or the company would institute other labour saving methods like outsourcing or investing heavily in robotics and other automation.

Only a % based company which arranged to pay sub market wages by artificially lowering the highest wage earner's wages could gain an advantage, but since the highest wage earners would now be disgruntled, what is to stop them from going to the company that is offering a market wage? Once again, the compay which is not shopping carefully and paying the market rate of wages for each job category will discover it is no longer competitive; they cannot hire enough unskilled labour or they cannot retain their skilled workers. If they say "the hell with it" and pay more than the going rate they will loose their shareholders and investors, since the ROI is no longer in line with the rest of the industry; shareholders and investors want the profits and dividends to accrue to them.

Markets have worked since the dawn of human civilization (and possibly long before, flint has been discovered in Neolithic sites that was quarried hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, probably brought as a trading good), they provide accurate information and powerful incentives to move prices and resources (including labour) to wherever the highest rates of return can be found. Distortions caused by manipulating the markets always come with a high price as resources are poorly allocated due to the perverse incentives being created, and this also includes labour.
 
Thucydides said:
... while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate.  ...
If a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard (as opposed to traditional state/provincially set min-wage standards), then that would be the market rate.

Thucydides said:
... while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate.  ...

If minimum wage were switched from a standard provincially set rate to a % highest-paid rate, it would have to be set such that the majority of companies would already be in-line (Edward suggested that 100:1 was a little outlandish but not unheard of, so maybe that could be the benchmark).  There would be a few companies making difficult balancing decisions between raising the lowest pay rates and/or lowering the highest pay rate(s).  And for a few more companies ...  I predict the celebrity CEO companies would choose to cut that top earner's pay before significantly raising the lowest pay rate - and if a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard then the celebrity CEOs' only option for a better wage is to leave country.  Some might, but I predict many more would not because they are in fact already overcompensated and would they would be challenged to find that overcompensation anywhere else.

Where one of the OWS concerns was increasing income gaps, a % highest-paid min-wage would constrain that gap growth.

Edward has nicely laid out why minimum wages are necessary, but you have presented a good illustration of minimum wage negative impacts on small business.  A % highest-paid min-wage would allow small businesses to hire cheaper to stay within their means - though many may choose to pay a higher lower wage to be competitive with larger companies.

There would be a few years of adjustment, but eventually a market steady-state would take place.  There would be a typical wage range for the unskilled small business labourer.  There would be typical wage ranges for the semiskilled, skilled, various professionals, management and executives of medium to large businesses.  I suspect the steady-state would see companies learning to live within the 100:1 ratio (or whatever becomes set) with lowest paid rates floating somewhere above the min-wage threshold so that flexibility exists to adjust pay at either end of the hierarchy without requiring immediate adjustments across the whole.

 
They would just simply argue that compensation / remuneration by other means (stock options, bonuses, profit sharing) is not a salary, and would adjust their "salary" downwards, while adjusting all other forms of compensation upwards.

No wait. That's what they do now.

:nevermind:
 
Christmas toys are made in China by workers who make 27¢ an hour("illegals" without city permits). Only Santa's elves make less. The workers who make 1.20$ making iPods are lucky. Communism? How about some trade unions for China. It's hard to compete with a country where trade unions are illegal and their are no environmental controls.

Disney Toys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yF8jUDzz5bE#!
Blue Jeans (This documentary was great.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x55Rtq5JaUg
 
Nemo888 said:
How about some trade unions for China.

The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert shithole country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.

It's hard to compete with a country where trade unions are illegal and their are no environmental controls.

No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.

 
MCG said:
If a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard (as opposed to traditional state/provincially set min-wage standards), then that would be the market rate.

A mandated wage is not the market wage, which is exactly why low skill, low wage jobs go to China and India (and Chinese low wage, low skill jobs are being outsourced by the Chinese to places like Viet Nam). Markets always adjust to distortions, either by following perverse incentives or shifting resources away from areas where extra cost burdens are imposed.
 
And the end of Occupy LA is a nice piece of police work:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/occupy-l-a-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang/?print=1

Occupy L.A. Ends with a Whimper, Not a Bang
Posted By Jack Dunphy On December 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Crime,Media,Politics,US News | 7 Comments

When the end finally came, they went with a whimper.

Well, maybe something more than a whimper, but when Los Angeles Police Department officers at long, long last moved to clear the Occupy L.A. encampment that had blighted the landscape around City Hall for two months, they were greeted with catcalls and the usual tired, sophomoric chants — Whose streets?  Our streets!  The whole world is watching! and the rest of the tedious litany — but very little in the way of active resistance.

I was one of about 1,400 LAPD officers who took part in the eviction in the early morning of Dec. 1, playing my small role in a well-planned and well-executed operation that fulfilled both of its intended goals: to end the occupation of the City Hall grounds and to do so without the violence and bad press that had marked similar police operations elsewhere.

To these ends the LAPD devoted a large number of officers and deployed them in a manner the Occupiers clearly did not expect.  Well before midnight, officers began closing the streets near the encampment, luring many Occupiers from the City Hall grounds and into the empty streets.  News programs had been reporting throughout the evening of the impending eviction, showing LAPD officers collecting in the Dodger Stadium parking lot and boarding buses for the trip to downtown, and the Occupiers surely anticipated that the police would try to sweep them from the park in a predictable fashion: by amassing at First and Main Streets and then moving in a skirmish line across the City Hall grounds.

And for a while it must have appeared to the Occupiers that this was indeed the way things would go down.  A number of helmeted officers did gather at First and Main, drawing even more Occupiers out of the park and to the very edge of the police line.  But at about 12:15 a.m., as police and news helicopters circled and hovered overhead, 500 officers poured from the doors of City Hall [1] and moved quickly to divide the large encampment into several smaller and more manageable sectors.  The Occupiers who had been in the street were prevented from re-entering the park, and those who had remained in the park were prevented from coalescing into a mob.  Within a matter of minutes, it was all over but the shouting.  And yes, there was lots and lots of shouting.

Those 500 officers had entered City Hall undetected via a tunnel from a nearby building, allowing them to surprise, encircle, and isolate those Occupiers who chose to defy the dispersal orders that had been given.  After that, it was just a matter of collecting the ones who made the choice to be arrested.  Some went along under their own power while others had to be carried off [2] to waiting jail buses.  There were a few isolated incidents [3] in which officers had to use force, but considering the number of protesters involved and the tensions that had been building since L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced earlier in the week that the eviction was imminent, things went just about as well as could be expected.

Even so, it was cringe-inducing to watch Villaraigosa and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck at a news conference the next day as they all but slobbered over each other in congratulating themselves for their success.  “Was that a news conference just now by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck,” asked [4] Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, “or a love-in?”

The mayor and the chief were eager to boast that the LAPD had changed since the May Day debacle of 2007 [5], ignoring the inconvenient fact that it was for the most part the very same police officers who took part in both incidents.  Yes, the officers were restrained in evicting the Occupiers, but there was no reason for them not to be.  Recall that during the immigration protest at MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007, some small number of protesters pelted officers with rocks and all manner of projectiles, prompting a response from police that many called disproportionate.  To the Occupiers’ credit, none of them threw things at the police, so there was no call for the kind of force used at MacArthur Park.  (Whether this was due to the Occupiers’ commitment to nonviolence or to the tactics employed by the police is a matter for conjecture, but one must wonder what the plans were for the many gallons of urine found stashed among the 30 tons of debris [6] removed from the park after the eviction.)

Now comes the question: What’s next for all those Occupiers now left with so little to keep themselves occupied?  The grounds outside City Hall have been closed, guarded day and night by police officers and surrounded by concrete barriers topped with chain-link fencing, but some from the movement have been gathering at various times on the still accessible steps to the building’s main entrance.  Thus forced into nomadism, the Occupiers staged an impromptu march through the streets of downtown L.A. on Saturday, resulting in one arrest when marchers defied police commands to stay on the sidewalk.  (The L.A. Times reported [7] that the man arrested, Anthony Lascano, was also jailed when the Occupy L.A. camp was shut down Thursday morning.)

And what’s to be done when the Occupiers choose to occupy some other handy but unguarded public space?  Will it take another two months before Mayor Villaraigosa, Chief Beck, and the rest of L.A.’s political structure summon the courage to take action?  The eviction, when it finally came, was skillfully handled, but the shame of it was that it took those two months for it to come about, even as it diverted police and other municipal services from elsewhere in the city.

For example, early on the morning of November 28, just hours after the eviction notices were posted at City Hall, Occupiers poured into the streets in anticipation of a coming police raid.  No such raid was planned, but hundreds of officers nonetheless had to respond to downtown so as to clear the streets before the morning rush hour.  Well over half of the officers on duty at the time were sent, causing the LAPD to declare a tactical alert throughout the city and to stop dispatching officers to non-emergency calls.  If you called the police from the San Fernando Valley, the West Side, or from South Central L.A. that morning, they either didn’t come or they came hours later.  These are costs that neither Chief Beck nor Mayor Villaraigosa addressed as they crowed about the success of the eviction.

Even the editors of the Los Angeles Times, whose opinions I rarely share, came to see the light when the Occupiers at last were scattered. In an editorial [8] that ran on Dec. 3, the Times lamented that the LAPD had practiced what amounts to the opposite of “Broken Windows” policing by allowing the encampment to remain as long as it did.  “[C]ity officials bent over backward to accommodate a group of protesters they in some ways admired — and who, in some ways, deserved that admiration,” wrote the editors. They continued:

    This page even applauded the city’s restraint.  But what we didn’t anticipate is that once demonstrators were allowed to spend one night on the City Hall lawn, it became harder to deny them a second.  And then harder still to deny them a third. Given the ambiguity of their demands, it became unclear what would ever cause them to leave, short of force.

If the editors at the L.A. Times can learn this lesson, maybe Mayor Villaraigosa can as well.  But don’t count on it.  The Occupy movement is thoroughly enmeshed with the type of labor-union activism that launched the mayor into politics, and his reluctance to see the law enforced should be viewed in that light.  As the last two months have clearly proved, it will be politics and not the law that will determine his response when he awakes one day to find that the Occupiers have occupied someplace new.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/occupy-l-a-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang/

URLs in this post:

[1] 500 officers poured from the doors of City Hall: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-occupy-main.eps-20111130,0,7912620.graphic

[2] others had to be carried off: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-292-arrested-in-camp-shutdown-1.html

[3] a few isolated incidents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yInFCStepKE

[4] asked: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/steve-lopez-la-officials-should-stop-congratulating-themselves.html

[5] May Day debacle of 2007: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220818/may-day-madness/jack-dunphy

[6] 30 tons of debris: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-30-tons-of-debris-left-behind-at-city-hall-tent-city.html

[7] reported: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-march-20111204,0,6610806.story

[8] editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-lapd-20111203,0,7833335.story
 
CDN Aviator said:
The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert ******* country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.

No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.

What you are describing is the destruction of the middle class. Something I am quite fond of. Are you suggesting we prepare for this eventuality?

The occupy movement is not over anymore than the tea party. The media only has two settings it seems. Ignore and frenzy. The feeling that the social contract has been broken is not going away. Until there is some reasoned debate about our future and the pretense that the status quo is the only possible way to do things is dropped there will be more protests. Only the 1% are happy with things as they are now. Wait till they start cutting our pensions. Which is almost inevitable if we don't change course.
 
CDN Aviator said:
The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert shithole country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.

No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.


It's already happening. The Chinese are attempting to "open" the central and Western provinces to industry - building highways and even more rail lines and expropriating land for (cheap) resale to industrial developers - because too many of those East coast factory jobs are moving to Indonesia and the Philippines where wages are even lower.


 
OK, I have to ask, after seeing this post:

Thucydides said:
And the end of Occupy LA is a nice piece of police work:
Occupy L.A. Ends with a Whimper, Not a Bang
Posted By Jack Dunphy On December 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Crime,Media,Politics,US News | 7 Comments

When the end finally came, they went with a whimper.

Well, maybe something more than a whimper, but when Los Angeles Police Department officers at long, long last moved to clear the Occupy L.A. encampment that had blighted the landscape around City Hall for two months, they were greeted with catcalls and the usual tired, sophomoric chants — Whose streets?  Our streets!  The whole world is watching! and the rest of the tedious litany — but very little in the way of active resistance.

I was one of about 1,400 LAPD officers who took part in the eviction in the early morning of Dec. 1, playing my small role in a well-planned and well-executed operation that fulfilled both of its intended goals: to end the occupation of the City Hall grounds and to do so without the violence and bad press that had marked similar police operations elsewhere.

To these ends the LAPD devoted a large number of officers and deployed them in a manner the Occupiers clearly did not expect.  Well before midnight, officers began closing the streets near the encampment, luring many Occupiers from the City Hall grounds and into the empty streets.  News programs had been reporting throughout the evening of the impending eviction, showing LAPD officers collecting in the Dodger Stadium parking lot and boarding buses for the trip to downtown, and the Occupiers surely anticipated that the police would try to sweep them from the park in a predictable fashion: by amassing at First and Main Streets and then moving in a skirmish line across the City Hall grounds.

And for a while it must have appeared to the Occupiers that this was indeed the way things would go down.  A number of helmeted officers did gather at First and Main, drawing even more Occupiers out of the park and to the very edge of the police line.  But at about 12:15 a.m., as police and news helicopters circled and hovered overhead, 500 officers poured from the doors of City Hall [1] and moved quickly to divide the large encampment into several smaller and more manageable sectors.  The Occupiers who had been in the street were prevented from re-entering the park, and those who had remained in the park were prevented from coalescing into a mob.  Within a matter of minutes, it was all over but the shouting.  And yes, there was lots and lots of shouting.

Those 500 officers had entered City Hall undetected via a tunnel from a nearby building, allowing them to surprise, encircle, and isolate those Occupiers who chose to defy the dispersal orders that had been given.  After that, it was just a matter of collecting the ones who made the choice to be arrested.  Some went along under their own power while others had to be carried off [2] to waiting jail buses.  There were a few isolated incidents [3] in which officers had to use force, but considering the number of protesters involved and the tensions that had been building since L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced earlier in the week that the eviction was imminent, things went just about as well as could be expected.

Even so, it was cringe-inducing to watch Villaraigosa and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck at a news conference the next day as they all but slobbered over each other in congratulating themselves for their success.  “Was that a news conference just now by L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck,” asked [4] Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez, “or a love-in?”

The mayor and the chief were eager to boast that the LAPD had changed since the May Day debacle of 2007 [5], ignoring the inconvenient fact that it was for the most part the very same police officers who took part in both incidents.  Yes, the officers were restrained in evicting the Occupiers, but there was no reason for them not to be.  Recall that during the immigration protest at MacArthur Park on May 1, 2007, some small number of protesters pelted officers with rocks and all manner of projectiles, prompting a response from police that many called disproportionate.  To the Occupiers’ credit, none of them threw things at the police, so there was no call for the kind of force used at MacArthur Park.  (Whether this was due to the Occupiers’ commitment to nonviolence or to the tactics employed by the police is a matter for conjecture, but one must wonder what the plans were for the many gallons of urine found stashed among the 30 tons of debris [6] removed from the park after the eviction.)

Now comes the question: What’s next for all those Occupiers now left with so little to keep themselves occupied?  The grounds outside City Hall have been closed, guarded day and night by police officers and surrounded by concrete barriers topped with chain-link fencing, but some from the movement have been gathering at various times on the still accessible steps to the building’s main entrance.  Thus forced into nomadism, the Occupiers staged an impromptu march through the streets of downtown L.A. on Saturday, resulting in one arrest when marchers defied police commands to stay on the sidewalk.  (The L.A. Times reported [7] that the man arrested, Anthony Lascano, was also jailed when the Occupy L.A. camp was shut down Thursday morning.)

And what’s to be done when the Occupiers choose to occupy some other handy but unguarded public space?  Will it take another two months before Mayor Villaraigosa, Chief Beck, and the rest of L.A.’s political structure summon the courage to take action?  The eviction, when it finally came, was skillfully handled, but the shame of it was that it took those two months for it to come about, even as it diverted police and other municipal services from elsewhere in the city.

For example, early on the morning of November 28, just hours after the eviction notices were posted at City Hall, Occupiers poured into the streets in anticipation of a coming police raid.  No such raid was planned, but hundreds of officers nonetheless had to respond to downtown so as to clear the streets before the morning rush hour.  Well over half of the officers on duty at the time were sent, causing the LAPD to declare a tactical alert throughout the city and to stop dispatching officers to non-emergency calls.  If you called the police from the San Fernando Valley, the West Side, or from South Central L.A. that morning, they either didn’t come or they came hours later.  These are costs that neither Chief Beck nor Mayor Villaraigosa addressed as they crowed about the success of the eviction.

Even the editors of the Los Angeles Times, whose opinions I rarely share, came to see the light when the Occupiers at last were scattered. In an editorial [8] that ran on Dec. 3, the Times lamented that the LAPD had practiced what amounts to the opposite of “Broken Windows” policing by allowing the encampment to remain as long as it did.  “[C]ity officials bent over backward to accommodate a group of protesters they in some ways admired — and who, in some ways, deserved that admiration,” wrote the editors. They continued:

    This page even applauded the city’s restraint.  But what we didn’t anticipate is that once demonstrators were allowed to spend one night on the City Hall lawn, it became harder to deny them a second.  And then harder still to deny them a third. Given the ambiguity of their demands, it became unclear what would ever cause them to leave, short of force.

If the editors at the L.A. Times can learn this lesson, maybe Mayor Villaraigosa can as well.  But don’t count on it.  The Occupy movement is thoroughly enmeshed with the type of labor-union activism that launched the mayor into politics, and his reluctance to see the law enforced should be viewed in that light.  As the last two months have clearly proved, it will be politics and not the law that will determine his response when he awakes one day to find that the Occupiers have occupied someplace new.

Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/occupy-l-a-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang/

URLs in this post:

[1] 500 officers poured from the doors of City Hall: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-occupy-main.eps-20111130,0,7912620.graphic

[2] others had to be carried off: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-292-arrested-in-camp-shutdown-1.html

[3] a few isolated incidents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yInFCStepKE

[4] asked: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/steve-lopez-la-officials-should-stop-congratulating-themselves.html

[5] May Day debacle of 2007: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220818/may-day-madness/jack-dunphy

[6] 30 tons of debris: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/occupy-la-30-tons-of-debris-left-behind-at-city-hall-tent-city.html

[7] reported: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-march-20111204,0,6610806.story

[8] editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-lapd-20111203,0,7833335.story
http://pjmedia.com/blog/occupy-l-a-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang/?print=1

Are you on a drive to Occupy Army.ca with the longest meanderings posts ever? 

(There ought to be a posting-percentage based upon the top poster's length.  Or stuff)


 
E.R. Campbell said:
It's already happening. The Chinese are attempting to "open" the central and Western provinces to industry - building highways and even more rail lines and expropriating land for (cheap) resale to industrial developers - because too many of those East coast factory jobs are moving to Indonesia and the Philippines where wages are even lower.

Of course, supply and demand theory says that eventually, as globalization occurs more and more and more, wages across the world will reach an equilibrium. That of course, is a long ways off, and barriers such as the Chinese laws against collective bargaining, and censoring the internet, certainly don't aid that process. There is evidence to suggest that this "global standard" is on it's way though. Unfortunately I can't find the YouTube video right now, but I'm sure a lot of us have seen it. That graph with various sized and coloured circles on it that represent different country's, their population, etc, and it shows the standard of living increasing over time.
 
This is where to find hans Rosling's excellent graphs.'

By the way, Chinese labour laws and the roles, rights and duties of trade unions is more complex than most of us realize - especially if we rely upon ignorant American journalists for our "news."
 
Back
Top