Why Occupy Wall Street?

Social media's been riled up for the last few days over the way the police have treated the protesters who are "occupying" Wall Street this month.  And at first glance, there does seem to be quite a bit wrong with the police's actions.  If they did pepper spray peaceful protesters, that's inexcusable and should probably lead those policemen to face serious consequences (though it's far from conclusive from the video that they were indeed maced).  But the point of this post isn't to consider whether the police's actions were appropriate or not-- if they were as unseemly as they appear, they were obviously unacceptable.  The more interesting issue is whether the protesters have any basis for their actions.

Now, in scouring the internet, I really couldn't find a coherent vision behind the protests.  To me, in all honesty, it seems like a case of protest more or less for the sake of protest.  That's not to say that Wall Street hasn't played a role in the country's struggles right now-- it certainly was massively irresponsible for the better part of the last decade (if not the last 3), and played a role in the massive misallocation of resources that's plagued the economy.  But the question that they don't seem to have any answer for is what Wall Street is supposed to change to make the country a better place.  Have Wall Street professionals been overpaid for the last thirty years? Without a doubt.  Is finance too big a part of the US economy? Probably.  But none of that explains what Wall Street's supposed to do to fix the problems we are facing as a country.  In short, if Wall Street pay was cut in half, across the board, tomorrow, there wouldn't be too many negative consequences (setting aside investments they've already made that count on them earning a steady salary), but there also wouldn't be many positive consequences.

Put simply, while cutting Wall Street pay might make a lot of people feel good about themselves, it won't improve the stagnation in the American worker's wages (which has been going on for a good three decades now, with a short pause during Clinton's second term).  Nor will it fix the country's fraying infrastructure, or convince people to come together for a common cause.  Wall Street is a natural target, for sure-- while the country as a whole has struggled for three decades, it's done exceptionally well, minting money and growing rapidly as a portion of the economy.  But that doesn't mean that there's anything Wall Street can do to reverse that trend, or any particular reason to demonize finance as the source of the country's problems.  To put it in broader terms, if the "problem" is the death penalty, then picketing the needle industry isn't a solution.

So who should bear the blame? To me, it's politicians.  For decades, our country thrived on strong infrastructure, community spirit, and rising wages and standards of living across the income spectrum.  It's clear that we've lost our way as a whole.  However, protesting Wall Street because it has escaped that stagnation is the wrong place to go-- instead, focus on politicians who have stopped protecting the interests of the working classes and instead have focused on shrinking government for its own sake, consequences be damned.