Open Letter to that 53% Guy

[^_^ 5,021]

Hello,

I briefly visited the “We are the 53%” website, but I first saw your face on a liberal blog. Your picture is quite popular on liberal blogs. I think it’s because of the expression on your face. I don’t know if you meant to look pugnacious or if we’re just projecting that on you, but I think that’s what gets our attention.

In the picture, you’re holding up a sheet of paper that says:

I am a former Marine.

I work two jobs.

I don’t have health insurance.

I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.

I haven’t had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.

But I don’t blame Wall Street.

Suck it up you whiners.

I am the 53%.

God bless the USA!

I wanted to respond to you as a liberal. Because, although I think you’ve made yourself clear and I think I understand you, you don’t seem to understand me at all. I hope you will read this and understand me better, and maybe understand the Occupy Wall Street movement better.

First, let me say that I think it’s great that you have such a strong work ethic and I agree with you that you have much to be proud of. You seem like a good, hard-working, strong kid. I admire your dedication and determination. I worked my way through college too, mostly working graveyard shifts at hotels as a “night auditor.” For a time I worked at two hotels at once, but I don’t think I ever worked 60 hours in a week, and certainly not 70. I think I maxed out at 56. And that wasn’t something I could sustain for long, not while going to school. The problem was that I never got much sleep, and sleep deprivation would take its toll. I can’t imagine putting in 70 hours in a week while going to college at the same time. That’s impressive.

I have a nephew in the Marine Corps, so I have some idea of how tough that can be. He almost didn’t make it through basic training, but he stuck it out and insisted on staying even when questions were raised about his medical fitness. He eventually served in Iraq and Afghanistan and has decided to pursue a career in the Marines. We’re all very proud of him. Your picture reminds me of him.

So, if you think being a liberal means that I don’t value hard work or a strong work ethic, you’re wrong. I think everyone appreciates the industry and dedication a person like you displays. I’m sure you’re a great employee, and if you have entrepreneurial ambitions, I’m sure these qualities will serve you there too. I’ll wish you the best of luck, even though a guy like you will probably need luck less than most.

I understand your pride in what you’ve accomplished, but I want to ask you something.

Do you really want the bar set this high? Do you really want to live in a society where just getting by requires a person to hold down two jobs and work 60 to 70 hours a week? Is that your idea of the American Dream?

Do you really want to spend the rest of your life working two jobs and 60 to 70 hours a week? Do you think you can? Because, let me tell you, kid, that’s not going to be as easy when you’re 50 as it was when you were 20.

And what happens if you get sick? You say you don’t have health insurance, but since you’re a veteran I assume you have some government-provided health care through the VA system. I know my father, a Vietnam-era veteran of the Air Force, still gets most of his medical needs met through the VA, but I don’t know what your situation is. But even if you have access to health care, it doesn’t mean disease or injury might not interfere with your ability to put in those 60- to 70-hour work weeks.

Do you plan to get married, have kids? Do you think your wife is going to be happy with you working those long hours year after year without a vacation? Is it going to be fair to her? Is it going to be fair to your kids? Is it going to be fair to you?

Look, you’re a tough kid. And you have a right to be proud of that. But not everybody is as tough as you, or as strong, or as young. Does pride in what you’ve accomplish mean that you have contempt for anybody who can’t keep up with you? Does it mean that the single mother who can’t work on her feet longer than 50 hours a week doesn’t deserve a good life? Does it mean the older man who struggles with modern technology and can’t seem to keep up with the pace set by younger workers should just go throw himself off a cliff?

And, believe it or not, there are people out there even tougher than you. Why don’t we let them set the bar, instead of you? Are you ready to work 80 hours a week? 100 hours? Can you hold down four jobs? Can you do it when you’re 40? When you’re 50? When you’re 60? Can you do it with arthritis? Can you do it with one arm? Can you do it when you’re being treated for prostate cancer?

And is this really your idea of what life should be like in the greatest country on Earth?

Here’s how a liberal looks at it: a long time ago workers in this country realized that industrialization wasn’t making their lives better, but worse. The captains of industry were making a ton of money and living a merry life far away from the dirty, dangerous factories they owned, and far away from the even dirtier and more dangerous mines that fed raw materials to those factories.

The workers quickly decided that this arrangement didn’t work for them. If they were going to work as cogs in machines designed to build wealth for the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Carnegies, they wanted a cut. They wanted a share of the wealth that they were helping create. And that didn’t mean just more money; it meant a better quality of life. It meant reasonable hours and better working conditions.

Eventually, somebody came up with the slogan, “8 hours of work, 8 hours of leisure, 8 hours of sleep” to divide the 24-hour day into what was considered a fair allocation of a human’s time. It wasn’t a slogan that was immediately accepted. People had to fight to put this standard in place. People demonstrated, and fought with police, and were killed. They were called communists (in fairness, some of them were), and traitors, and many of them got a lot worse than pepper spray at the hands of police and private security.

But by the time we got through the Great Depression and WWII, we’d all learned some valuable lessons about working together and sharing the prosperity, and the 8-hour workday became the norm.

The 8-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek became a standard by which we judged our economic success, and a reality check against which we could verify the American Dream.

If a family could live a good life with one wage-earner working a 40-hour job, then the American Dream was realized. If the income from that job could pay the bills, buy a car, pay for the kids’ braces, allow the family to save enough money for a down payment on a house and still leave some money for retirement and maybe for a college fund for the kids, then we were living the American Dream. The workers were sharing in the prosperity they helped create, and they still had time to take their kids to a ball game, take their spouses to a movie, and play a little golf on the weekends.

Ah, the halcyon days of the 1950s! Yeah, ok, it wasn’t quite that perfect. The prosperity wasn’t spread as evenly and ubiquitously as we might want to pretend, but if you were a middle-class white man, things were probably pretty good from an economic perspective. The American middle class was reaching its zenith.

And the top marginal federal income tax rate was more than 90%. Throughout the whole of the 1950s and into the early 60s.

Just thought I’d throw that in there.

Anyway, do you understand what I’m trying to say? We can have a reasonable standard for what level of work qualifies you for the American Dream, and work to build a society that realizes that dream, or we can chew each other to the bone in a nightmare of merciless competition and mutual contempt.

I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. I’m willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesn’t matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it. And not just by crowding up an emergency room that should be dedicated exclusively to helping people in emergencies.

You probably don’t agree with that, and that’s fine. That’s an expansion of the American Dream, and would involve new commitments we haven’t made before. But the commitment we’ve made to the working class since the 1940s is something that we should both support and be willing to fight for, whether we are liberal or conservative. We should both be willing to fight for the American Dream. And we should agree that anybody trying to steal that dream from us is to be resisted, not defended.

And while we’re defending that dream, you know what else we’ll be defending, kid? We’ll be defending you and your awesome work ethic. Because when we defend the American Dream we’re not just defending the idea of modest prosperity for people who put in an honest day’s work, we’re also defending the idea that those who go the extra mile should be rewarded accordingly.

Look kid, I don’t want you to “get by” working two jobs and 60 to 70 hours a week. If you’re willing to put in that kind of effort, I want you to get rich. I want you to have a comprehensive healthcare plan. I want you vacationing in the Bahamas every couple of years, with your beautiful wife and healthy, happy kids. I want you rewarded for your hard work, and I want your exceptional effort to reap exceptional rewards. I want you to accumulate wealth and invest it in Wall Street. And I want you to make more money from those investments.

I understand that a prosperous America needs people with money to invest, and I’ve got no problem with that. All other things being equal, I want all the rich people to keep being rich. And clever financiers who find ways to get more money into the hands of promising entrepreneurs should be rewarded for their contributions as well.

I think Wall Street has an important job to do, I just don’t think they’ve been doing it. And I resent their sense of entitlement – their sense that they are special and deserve to be rewarded extravagantly even when they screw everything up.

Come on, it was only three years ago, kid. Remember? Those ####### almost destroyed our economy. Do you remember the feeling of panic? John McCain wanted to suspend the presidential campaign so that everybody could focus on the crisis. Hallowed financial institutions like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch went belly up. The government started intervening with bailouts, not because anybody thought “private profits and socialized losses” was fair, but because we were afraid not to intervene - we were afraid our whole economy might come crashing down around us if we didn’t prop up companies that were “too big to fail.”

So, even though you and I had nothing to do with the bad decisions, blind greed and incompetence of those guys on Wall Street, we were sure as hell along for the ride, weren’t we? And we’ve all paid a price.

All the” 99%” wants is for you to remember the role that Wall Street played in creating this mess, and for you to join us in demanding that Wall Street share the pain. They don’t want to share the pain, and they’re spending a lot of money and twisting a lot of arms to foist their share of the pain on the rest of us instead. And they’ve been given unprecedented powers to spend and twist, and they’re not even trying to hide what they’re doing.

All we want is for everybody to remember what happened, and to see what is happening still. And we want you to see that the only way they can get away without paying their share is to undermine the American Dream for the rest of us.

And I want you and I to understand each other, and to stand together to prevent them from doing that. You seem like the kind of guy who would be a strong ally, and I’d be proud to stand with you.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/12/1025555/-Open-Letter-to-that-53-Guy

[mawilson 2,133]

As a former Marine, he's eligible for VA health insurance.

All Veterans are Potentially Eligible

• Eligibility for most veterans’ health care benefits is based solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under other than dishonorable conditions.
  
• Reservists and National Guard members who were called to active duty by a Federal Executive Order may qualify for VA health care benefits. Returning service members, including Reservists and National Guard members who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations have special eligibility for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for five years following discharge from active duty.
  
• Health Care eligibility is not just for those who served in combat.
  
• Other groups may be eligible for some health benefits.
  
• Veteran’s health care is not just for service-connected injuries or medical conditions.
  
• Veteran’s health care facilities are not just for men only. VA offers full-service health care to women veterans.
  

[웃 910]

Poor kid

[scandal 951]

I think the OP is a really well written article. I liked it a lot.

A few points to note:

- Merrill Lynch technically did not go belly up. Yes, it was essentially insolvent when it was purchased by Bank of America. But it did not go bankrupt and was not liquidated. It still exists today as a unit within BofA (BAML).

- The 1950s ideal of the American dream: one wage earner working a 40 hour week and earning enough to pay the bills, put the kids through college, pay for retirement. Frankly, that version of the dream hasn't existed for decades. Median wage-earning Americans have required two incomes, overtime, credit cards and student loans to finance that version of the "American dream" since the 1970s and 80s. Let's not kid ourselves, that sense of prosperity left long before the 2008 recession and is unlikely to ever return.

- "I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you." OUCH. I wish he hadn't written that. Conservatives have dreams too. So do young ex-Marines. He could make his point just as well without belittling the Marine's capacity to have big dreams. They may be different dreams, and not involve public healthcare (the point he goes on to make), but that doesn't make them smaller or less valuable. Poor choice of words.

Otherwise, very well written!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

NO we don't want that! We want it all, we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it!

I am so glad to see these protestors associated with the Democrat party.

And they make such a mess, do you think they are environmentalists also?

[Dan and Judy 614]

What is it with all these goobers holding up their signs? This guy seems like he can't make up his mind if he is bitching or bragging about how tough he is.

When I was a kid we used to have to walk to school 5 miles one way in the middle of winter with no shoes and I had to carry my little sister the whole way

cause she had polio and we never had enough food cause my alcoholic father couldn't keep a job and it burns when I urinate but I don't blame wall street.

It is Obamas fault. At least the burning part.

[웃 910]

In the picture, you're holding up a sheet of paper that says:

I am a former Marine.

I work two jobs.

I don't have health insurance.

I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.

I haven't had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.

But I don't blame Wall Street.

Suck it up you whiners.

I am the 53%.

God bless the USA!

I'll say this again. POOR KID!!! 2 full time jobs. No health insurance. 70 hours a week of minimum wage work for EIGHT YEARS straight to pay for college tuition. Hasn't had a single 4-day vacation from work in over 4 years. "GOD BLESS THE USA". Poor kid is living the American Nightmare! I greatly respect his drive, and energy, and hard work, and service. But too bad he didn't apply his hard work to maybe earning a medical, computer science, or engineering degree, etc. He'd be working half as hard, have some of the best health insurance in the world, and make 5X his salary.

I have seen some illegal alien sightings. They work like this too (no health insurance, 2 minimum wage full time jobs, work 2 shifts a day, deprived of sleep, rarely a day off, and just to barely scrape by). And I feel really bad for the amount of hard work they put in but the pathetic measly ROI they get out of it!

And as Mawilson points out - he is eligible for VA health insurance.

[Ban Hammer 13,501]

And as Mawilson points out - he is eligible for VA health insurance.

yeah, that wonderful va

[mawilson 2,133]

The 1950s ideal of the American dream: one wage earner working a 40 hour week and earning enough to pay the bills, put the kids through college, pay for retirement. Frankly, that version of the dream hasn't existed for decades. Median wage-earning Americans have required two incomes, overtime, credit cards and student loans to finance that version of the "American dream" since the 1970s and 80s. Let's not kid ourselves, that sense of prosperity left long before the 2008 recession and is unlikely to ever return.

Well that's just it. The post-WWII version of the American Dream was an aberration.

Globalization (which started in the early 1900's) was interrupted by World War I and II and didn't fully get back on track until 1960-70s which is when we started to see the so-called "destruction of the middle class".

Now we're back to the economic roadmap abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century where capital can flow freely across borders and labor can move easily across countries and continents.

Here's how Keynes described a typical English gentleman in the summer of 1914:

"The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole earth, in such quantity as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep; he could at the same moment and by the same means adventure his wealth in the natural resources and new enterprises of any quarter of the world, and share, without exertion or even trouble, in their prospective fruits and advantages; or he could decide to couple the security of his fortunes with the good faith of the townspeople of any substantial municipality in any continent that fancy or information might recommend. He could secure forthwith, if he wished it, cheap and comfortable means of transit to any country or climate without passport or other formality, could despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient, and could then proceed abroad to foreign quarters, without knowledge of their religion, language, or customs, bearing coined wealth upon his person, and would consider himself greatly aggrieved and much surprised at the least interference. But, most important of all, he regarded this state of affairs as normal, certain, and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement, and any deviation from it as aberrant, scandalous, and avoidable. The projects and politics of militarism and imperialism, of racial and cultural rivalries, of monopolies, restrictions, and exclusion, which were to play the serpent to this paradise, were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper, and appeared to exercise almost no influence at all on the ordinary course of social and economic life, the internationalization of which was nearly complete in practice."

Of course, the English gentleman couldn't imagine the looming disaster of World War I and the subsequent collapse of the international economic order.

Globalization can only be held back by protectionist policies and wars.

Unless we have a World War III, the forces of globalization are going to scale even greater heights in the years ahead. If you think Unions are going to save your job, think again.

[scandal 951]

Well that's just it. The post-WWII version of the American Dream was an aberration.

Globalization (which started in the early 1900's) was interrupted by World War I and II and didn't fully get back on track until 1960-70s which is when we started to see the so-called "destruction of the middle class".

Now we're back to the economic roadmap abandoned at the beginning of the 20th century where capital can flow freely across borders and labor can move easily across countries and continents.

I think that is pretty accurate. There are some noteworthy differences between the lifestyle we can expect to experience in the 21st century versus a century ago. Technological innovation means that our food supply, transportation, health care and other key aspects of our lives are better, more reliable, more affordable to more people today than then. That's true in the USA, the developed world and much of the developing world. And it's true even for those largely shut out of the American Dream. Life is still better for them today than it was for their ancestors of the pre-WWI era. However the fact remains that the life of comfort and leisure and secure retirement that Americans expected as a birthright a few decades ago is simply not realistic for most. Politicians don't want to admit that, it's politically unpopular to tell your voters they're stuck in a life of loserdom, but it's pretty much true.

And a key fact about this state of affairs is that it is, as you a say, a secular trend and a necessary byproduct of our globalized economy. Our politicians and policymakers are largely powerless and have only very limited ability to interfere in this mechanism.

The best they can do is to prepare us for this competitive landscape by investing in infrastructure, education and healthcare for the long term while also responsibly managing the nation's finances. That won't restore current workers' pensions and 401(k)s, but it would at least give coming generations a chance to compete with the Chinas and Indias of the world. With the political gridlock we have in this country things don't look very good at all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As a former Marine, he's eligible for VA health insurance.

All Veterans are Potentially Eligible

• Eligibility for most veterans’ health care benefits is based solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under other than dishonorable conditions.
  
• Reservists and National Guard members who were called to active duty by a Federal Executive Order may qualify for VA health care benefits. Returning service members, including Reservists and National Guard members who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations have special eligibility for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for five years following discharge from active duty.
  
• Health Care eligibility is not just for those who served in combat.
  
• Other groups may be eligible for some health benefits.
  
• Veteran’s health care is not just for service-connected injuries or medical conditions.
  
• Veteran’s health care facilities are not just for men only. VA offers full-service health care to women veterans.
  

Potentially is the key word. Many veterans of the era from Post-Vietnam to Post-Desert Storm don't qualify for squat.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think the OP is a really well written article. I liked it a lot.

A few points to note:

- Merrill Lynch technically did not go belly up. Yes, it was essentially insolvent when it was purchased by Bank of America. But it did not go bankrupt and was not liquidated. It still exists today as a unit within BofA (BAML).

- The 1950s ideal of the American dream: one wage earner working a 40 hour week and earning enough to pay the bills, put the kids through college, pay for retirement. Frankly, that version of the dream hasn't existed for decades. Median wage-earning Americans have required two incomes, overtime, credit cards and student loans to finance that version of the "American dream" since the 1970s and 80s. Let's not kid ourselves, that sense of prosperity left long before the 2008 recession and is unlikely to ever return.

- "I’m a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you." OUCH. I wish he hadn't written that. Conservatives have dreams too. So do young ex-Marines. He could make his point just as well without belittling the Marine's capacity to have big dreams. They may be different dreams, and not involve public healthcare (the point he goes on to make), but that doesn't make them smaller or less valuable. Poor choice of words.

Otherwise, very well written!

Are you sure about Merrill Lynch? I thought it was acquired by Blackrock.

edit. It appears only the investment division went to Blackrock.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Sousuke

[웃 910]

Are you sure about Merrill Lynch? I thought it was acquired by Blackrock.

Bank of America Corp's $50 billion acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co would mark the end of a storied name in American finance, but create the nation's biggest bank by far.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/15/us-merrill-bankofamerica-idUSN1445019920080915

[scandal 951]

Bank of America Corp's $50 billion acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co would mark the end of a storied name in American finance, but create the nation's biggest bank by far.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/15/us-merrill-bankofamerica-idUSN1445019920080915

The Blackrock/Merrill deal happened in 2006, long before the subprime crisis in Sept 2008.

The OP reference to Merrill going "belly up" was clearly in the context of Sept 2008. The upshot of that was the shotgun marriage to BofA. The brokerage division continues to be branded BAML (Bank of America Merrill Lynch) till this day. I deal with them every day.

In contrast, after Nomura absorbed Lehmans' brokerage operations they've completely dropped the Lehman moniker. I guess it's a tarnished brand, whereas BAML feels there's still prestige in the old Merrill brand.