Occupied

The “Occupy” protests continue, here in the Sault and around North America.

I’m not sure that they will have any real effect, but I agree with the general principle that the protestors are claiming: they have the right to peacefully protest.

I do hope that the escalation of these protests does not result in violence.

The idea for the Occupy movement came from a poster by AdBusters, a Vancouver-based anti-consumerist magazine. In general terms, the protesters are seeking to draw attention to the fact that – as they claim – the world’s economy is “broken,” and benefits only the world’s richest one percent.

Protesters are demanding change, although they are somewhat short on specifics.

Actually, that is not completely true. There are many, many specific claims being made, ranging from profiting from the inhumane confinement and torture of laboratory animals, to gender and racial inequities, to out-sourcing of jobs, to environmental issues to social welfare issues.

The laundry list of complaints is dizzying.

Some claim that the scope of complaints is what unites the movement, because economic issues are at the heart of all of the specific complaints.

Others suggest that with no concrete agenda, the effectiveness of the movement is questionable.

I don’t disagree with the general idea behind the protests. it is obvious, to me, that there are problems with the world’s economic structure. While we in Canada are less affected by the economic turmoil than our American neighbours and our European cousins, we are still affected to some degree.

The problem isn’t, however, the “one percent,” nor has capitalism proved to be a “failure,” as some have claimed.

The problem is that consumerism has proven to be a dismal failure.

While the teeming masses throng to the mega-marts like lemmings to a cliff, they are not satisfying their essential needs; they are entertaining their wants, attempting to attain and maintain a lifestyle that they cannot always afford, and resorting to credit in doing so.

I had someone argue this point with me last week, questioning how we could even “keep up” without using credit.

If credit is necessary to “keep up,” then perhaps the bar is set too high.

I’m not saying credit is necessarily bad. Used properly, credit can be an effective financial tool.

Obviously few of us could afford to buy a home without credit. But too many of us resort to using credit for purchases that should be made with cash.

This would, of course, require patience and establishing a pattern of savings.

I am not so naïve to think that our over-reliance on credit is the root cause of all society’s problems. That is only one aspect of consumerism.

The other, more insidious aspect is the corporate structure that underpins the world’s economy.

“A-ha!” you say. “The protesters are right. Corporations are evil.”

Well, no. Not really.

Corporations are responding to a perceived demand. Consumers want, so corporations provide. Of course, corporations do go out of their way to either create a demand, or to convince us that there is more of a demand than there really is.

It becomes a circular problem; a rat-race, if you will.

Listening to and reading some of the Occupy protesters being interviewed in the media, it becomes obvious that most are very idealistic. I don’t want to stomp all over their idealism – this is often the catalyst for change.

I do, however, wish to liberally sprinkle some pragmatism on their hopes and dreams.

The reality is that while corporations may end up changing with the times, they will not simply fade away.

In fact, the protesters forget to thank the corporations who have made their (the protesters) efforts possible, giving them such benefits as:

- smart phones, to communicate with each other
- sturdy, warm and comfortable footwear and clothing
- transportation to and from the various locations
- producing paper on which their protest signs are written
- media which broadcasts their efforts and raises awareness

…to name just a few.

The protesters point to thousands of jobs that have been “moved” overseas, to where labour costs are a mere fraction of what they are here in North America. This is unfortunate, but are corporations to blame?

“Yes!” I hear you saying. “They wanted to save money, paying overseas workers less than a living wage.”

Hmm. Less than a living wage here, perhaps.

Why are our wage demands so high? So that we can afford the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed; a lifestyle of service to our debt.

We want to buy more stuff, and we want it at the lowest price possible. But because we want more and more stuff, we demand higher wages. Corporations raise their prices so they can pay the higher labour costs, but consumers balk at the new, higher prices.

You can see where this is heading, can’t you? Our demand for more stuff at lower prices is one side of the equation.

The other side is satisfying the shareholders of the corporations.

Ah! The evil shareholders are to blame, right?

Partly.

Before we point the finger of blame, however, we need to identify who these shareholders are.

Yes, there are people “playing” the stock market, buying and selling shares, making and losing fortunes on a daily basis, always demanding a better return for their investment, insisting that corporations grab a bigger market share, and increase the dividends they are paying-out.

These are not just rich “one-percenters,” however.

Are you a member of a pension plan? Do you have an RRSP, or hold any of your savings in Mutual Funds?

If so, you are a shareholder.

Not a direct shareholder. But your pension fund and mutual fund managers have purchased shares in dozens, perhaps in hundreds of corporations in the hope of increasing the value of the investments they manage. They want the corporations to profit, so that you will be able to afford to retire.

You – and I – are shareholders.

Some of these younger, idealistic protesters are not yet members of a pension plan, nor have they even given much thought to their retirement. The sustainable, something-for-everyone future they espouse does not look ahead to retirement. In time, they will.

I do want to see some change, but not necessarily as radical a change as these protesters are seeking.

The change needs to come from all of us – individuals, governments, and corporations.

We need to think about sustainability, but also about the practicality that is necessary, too.

We need to be more realistic in our demands. We cannot have jobs at any cost. Corporations will not hire more workers at higher wages, and still charge prices for their products that do not cover their costs, just so that people will have jobs.

There will be no easy solution, but I believe we will all have to be a part of whatever the solution is.

We are all a part of the problem, and we must all be a part of the solution.

It will start with us examining our needs and wants, and learning – as our parents and grandparents knew – that some things are worth waiting for.

But… that’s just my opinion.