On October 19, 2011, Dave Ramsey wrote a thought provoking article addressing the Occupy Wall Street article. Inasmuch as he addressed the protestors' concerns as he saw them, it was clear that his article was written from an understanding of the movement as he saw it, and not from any felt communication with the people involved in the movement. You can read Ramsey's article here: http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occupy-wall-street/lifeandmoney_economy/
Before I continue, let me state that I highly respect Dave Ramsey, and believe that if we followed his principles, we would not be in the financial condition that we are in. To that end, I would like to address his letter from the perspective of one who supports the Occupy movement.
Dave begins by saying that the OWS protestors have no idea what their goals are. Because of this, he begins on a flawed premise. While OWS protestors represent a diverse group, most of us are very WELL aware of what our goals are. The problem is that we are not molding them into the neat little shapes that bureaucratic societies like to see. That is, rather than consisting of a list of clearly definable goals in the shape of a party platform or business plan, what we unite around is giving a voice to those who have none. In Amarillo, it's fair to say prevailing thought is more Libertarian than it would be in, say, Oakland...but it's also fair to say that the Libertarian thought is, at best, a plurality, not a majority, and DEFINITELY not a consensus. Michael Moore is cited as frequently in our discussions as Ron Paul, and there are Obama supporters as well as Tea Partiers within the movement.
That's what makes the Occupy movement so hard to pigeonhole. We unite around the idea of liberty, NOT partisan politics, although the latter is hardly absent from our discussions. To present a list of demands at this point would be to do the very opposite of what we hope to do: it would alienate those who deviate from the prevailing thought. There are plans underway to develop something more cohesive, and Ramsey of all people must realize that proper planning and preparation takes time.
The first issue he addresses is actually the point where he and the Occupy movement (as well as the Tea Party) are in agreement. I won't spend a lot of time here because he does acknowledge this point of common thought, as I believe, does most of America.
The next issue is that of corporate greed. Again, surprisingly, Dave is on the same page as the Occupy movement: greed is bad, or, to use his words, “It’s a spiritual disease, and it is a disease that sadly affects a lot of companies across the country”. Dave is on point here. Where he deviates from the movement is when he assumes that we (as a group) believe that all businesses are evil or that capitalism is ineffective. While that thought certainly is not absent within our movement, I would again hesitate to call it a consensual view. Michael Moore, who has spoken to the movement, readily admits he is part of the 1% and that capitalism has been very, very good to him. I think if anything the thought is that we want to be included, not exploited.
And again, Dave makes the flaw of assuming ours is a capitalist economy. A look across the board would tell you otherwise. Walk into most factories and workers aren't paid “merit pay”; those with similar longevity and equivalent positions are paid pretty much the same. That's more consistent with socialism than it is with capitalism. A capitalist economy would reward those who contribute more to the wealth of the company with greater pay across the board. Yes, the CEO would still make bank, but still would the company's top producers, the idea guys, and those who effectively produce the company's output.
The next point he attacks is the thought that “Wall Street is evil”. That statement in its simple form is not entirely true, but with a simple addition could be made to represent a consensual view. It would be fairer to say “Wall Street, as it currently does business, is evil”. That is because the way it does businesses capitalizes on the failure of the economy through short selling and rewards day traders and speculators with ridiculously low capital gains taxes that incentivize market manipulation and instability. The market has not caught up with the Internet, and this has allowed some very greedy people to take advantage of that lag.
I have to shake my head at the next point where he claims we believe wealth redistribution is the answer. Again, we have that contingent among us, but they do not represent a widely held consensus. Many of us are working class families not looking for a handout but for a piece of the American dream. We have built, we have worked, and we have sacrificed to have that opportunity.
In the end of his article, Dave encourages us to celebrate the land of opportunity. And while it's easy to look at Dave and castigate him as part of the 1%, if you know his personal life story, you know how hard he worked to get there. Dave Ramsey is not a trust fund baby, and in fact loathes that mentality entirely. And he's right; we SHOULD celebrate the fact that many have greater opportunity than other parts of the world.
But we must also recognize the changing aspects of the world around us. I respect Dave Ramsey enough that his is the model we use for our household finances. But looking at his income models shows us that what he suggests often does not work for modern incomes.
He recommends that we spend 25-35% of our income for housing. I know of few among the working class who can keep it below those levels. In fact, if you can keep it below 50%, you're doing pretty well.
Utilities and food come next, each are supposed to take between 5-10% of your income (actually, food is up to 15%). In many households, winter heating bills easily top $500 per month; summer utilities are usually no less than $100 a month. To a family making $2000-3000 a month, this threshhold again might not be reachable. With an average household income just north of $40,000, you MIGHT be able to reach it, but just barely. As for food, well, most of us probably CAN make some cuts to bring the food prices down, but with the rate of inflation in food over the past few years, that is getting harder and harder to achieve.
Transportation is next, again it is supposed to consume 5-10% of your income. In our area, gas has not dropped below $3.25 a gallon for 8 months, meaning that 5-10% figure is not reachable for rural families, if it's reachable for anyone.
Medical and health was the interesting one. He recommends you spend 5-10% of your income. I cannot speak for everyone here, but health insurance alone consumes 25% of our income. The only way to drop that is to get on Medicaid, a move I am considering even as I don't want to do it.
To put it simply, living on today's budgets in today's economy, Dave Ramsey's own plan is unworkable. While working 60-100 hours a week may be a temporary solution, it is not sustainable to many of us and is more likely to lead to broken homes, broken dreams, and premature death, the very things that people who follow Ramsey's plan are trying to avoid. And for those of us in rural communities, it is even harder, as options like a second job aren't workable if the gas to get to the job eats up more than the money you would make at the job.
If Dave Ramsey's assumptions of the motivations of the OWS movement accurately reflected the ideals of the movement, I cannot think of a single point of his with which I would object. And regardless of the misinformation on Dave's part, I believe that the article is a worthwhile read. But when I look across the actual faces of the movement, the people I've seen marching and the stories I have seen posted on various blog sites, I don't think that these ideals are typical of the movement at all. At least, they are not typical of our local Occupy movement.
So, if I were to sit down face to face with Dave and have just a moment or so of his time, what would I tell him? I would tell him that the faces I have seen, the people I have met and encountered, and the voices I have heard, are voices that are frustrated because they're not being heard. They watched while the very banks given the bailouts foreclosed on their homes, not always by honest means. They watched while their wages fell against inflation and the dreams they had were deflated by the decreasing dollar. They watched as their Supreme Court gave power to the corporations under the guise of the First Amendment to buy and sell politicians at a level where the individual could not compete. And they watched as millionaires drank champagne on the balconies, laughing at the hurting, the aching, the needy below them.
We ARE the land of opportunity, and the ideals that founded this country are ideals in which I still believe. But until this country works as hard for the factory worker as it does for the factory owner, we have an injustice that needs to be remedied. And that is why we march.
No comments:
Post a Comment