In 2011, Manhattan’s Financial District took center stage as a people-powered movement known as Occupy Wall Street emerged in protest of a rigged economic system. Protesters gathered in Zuccotti Park, frustrated with a global economy which not only exacerbates problems of income inequality but also rewards the vast influence of corporate money in politics. To understand the ways in which New York City does not always work for the majority, it is imperative to recognize the people and motives behind the social activism in response to wealth inequality.
The People
As Occupy protesters gained national attention, so too did the issues surrounding wealth inequality. More importantly, Occupy Wall Street was able to raise visibility and quantitatively measure wealth inequality through a coined political slogan: “We are the 99%.”
At the heart of the Occupy movement, lies the idea of a “99% vs the 1%”. The 1% refers to an elite class of economic and political families who are responsible for widening the wealth gap through the creation of economic circumstances advantageous solely to those families. According to the Center for American Progress, the richest 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent of the country’s wealth, own 50 percent of U.S.-owned stocks and bonds, and earn 24 percent of total income in 2011.
On the other hand, the 99% is far more difficult to classify by a singular race, gender, or political alignment.
Based on the given chart, there were 46.5% who have an annual income of $25,000 and 23.3% for $25,000 annually. In addition, 29.4% have a grad school or higher education. Other stats also state that there were 12.3% unemployed, 19.0% part-time and 47% full-time employees. The chart reveals that the 99% does not belong to one social or economic class. Instead, it is the majority of Americans dissatisfied with shrinking income mobility, a rigged tax code, and an ineffective democracy.
The Motive
Since the economic recovery from the Great Recession, upper-income families in America were the only beneficiaries of increasing wealth. With middle- and lower-income families seeing no wealth growth, the wealth gap between America’s high-income group and everyone else has continued to widen. According to the Pew Research Center, the median wealth of the nation’s upper-income families in 2013 was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families. At the same time, the median net worth of the upper-income families was nearly 70 times that of lower-income American families.
In their paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman argue, “the rise in wealth inequality is almost entirely due to the rise of the top 0.1 percent wealth share, from 7 percent in 1979 to 22 percent in 2012.” The share of wealth controlled by the bottom 90 percent of Americans has steadily declined since the mid-1980s, leading economists such as Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz to argue that wealth inequality hurts economic growth. It is no secret that exorbitant executive pay over the last decade has resulted in paychecks of millions even for failed and fired executives. Meanwhile, the economic crisis reflected financial stability that did not exist as risk-taking activities increased by modern financial institutions. The Great Recession and the recovery thereafter have had a significantly larger impact on middle-income and lower-income families’ wealth, with the majority of Americans feeling dissatisfied despite improvements in the unemployment rate, stock market and the economy as a whole.
With the current economic structure of New York City dividing people into either extreme wealth or poverty, the identity of a strong American middle class has disappeared. As of April 2016, New York’s billionaires are worth a combined $364.6 billion, far exceeding the combined yearly incomes of hundreds of thousands working class families. Occupy Wall Street embodied the sentiments of the vast majority of American citizens with regards to how wealth inequality affects the lives of the average American – the 99%.
