Occupy the streets - or change the world?
Much has been written about the Occupy movement - but is the tide turning? There's evidence that cracks are appearing, but there's a long winter ahead.
In US cities, police have moved in to shift the protesters; assorted legal moves have wavered around the occupiers at St Paul's; media articles of all flavours have been published. But what else?
In the UK, many public sector workers (including civil servants) have woken up to the fact that their old social contract has changed. It used to be said that anyone going into public service was faced with this - lower salaries than the private sector, but "jobs for life", annual reviews and (small) increments, and pensions that made up for what they lacked in other ways. The same was true in other countries. What has changed? Jobs for life no longer exist - large numbers of public sector workers have been made redundant or outsourced into the private sector (or both); and now the pensions are hitting reality - the reality that on one hand, there simply isn't the money in the public purse to pay for everyone at the levels previously offered, and on the other hand, private sector pensions have gone down in value, making the old public sector pensions look increasingly out of sync. So, there'll be protests and walkouts, but what will change? Some politicians will make noises; most senior civil servants will keep quiet; and the deal for public sector workers will get worse regardless.
And the bankers and traders? Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citicorp, has offered to meet the protestors, acknowledging a lack of trust in Wall Street. Warren Buffett has said he should pay higher taxes (and has for some time been leading by example that the richest people in society should give up a large part of their wealth to help less fortunate members of society).
But there are still large numbers of city folk who just don't get it and show it by shouting the odds against the protests (and not changing their ways). Here's what John Cassidy, a writer in Fortune magazine, said this week: "For an economic elite whose perquisites ultimately depend on the acquiescence of everybody else, it is a silly and dangerous pose to strike. If only for its own sake, the 1% needs to show a bit of nous." ((c) Fortune acknowledged)
In US cities, police have moved in to shift the protesters; assorted legal moves have wavered around the occupiers at St Paul's; media articles of all flavours have been published. But what else?
In the UK, many public sector workers (including civil servants) have woken up to the fact that their old social contract has changed. It used to be said that anyone going into public service was faced with this - lower salaries than the private sector, but "jobs for life", annual reviews and (small) increments, and pensions that made up for what they lacked in other ways. The same was true in other countries. What has changed? Jobs for life no longer exist - large numbers of public sector workers have been made redundant or outsourced into the private sector (or both); and now the pensions are hitting reality - the reality that on one hand, there simply isn't the money in the public purse to pay for everyone at the levels previously offered, and on the other hand, private sector pensions have gone down in value, making the old public sector pensions look increasingly out of sync. So, there'll be protests and walkouts, but what will change? Some politicians will make noises; most senior civil servants will keep quiet; and the deal for public sector workers will get worse regardless.
And the bankers and traders? Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citicorp, has offered to meet the protestors, acknowledging a lack of trust in Wall Street. Warren Buffett has said he should pay higher taxes (and has for some time been leading by example that the richest people in society should give up a large part of their wealth to help less fortunate members of society).
But there are still large numbers of city folk who just don't get it and show it by shouting the odds against the protests (and not changing their ways). Here's what John Cassidy, a writer in Fortune magazine, said this week: "For an economic elite whose perquisites ultimately depend on the acquiescence of everybody else, it is a silly and dangerous pose to strike. If only for its own sake, the 1% needs to show a bit of nous." ((c) Fortune acknowledged)
posted by Simon | 12:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home