The Occupy Economy | Hacker News Reader

The Occupy Economy

online.wsj.com

56 pointslambtron50 comments

"The whole operation runs on donations, of course."

You're not really "living" on $10 / day if your necessities are donated and you're occupying a public space. The costs of supporting you are borne by the donators and the taxpayers, respectively. EDIT: Turns out the park is privately owned by Brookfield Properties, and was created by US Steel.

An amazing spectacle, absolutely. Our generation's Woodstock, perhaps. But the title's misleading.

If you only spend $10 a day and manage to survive with that expenditure then you're living on $10 a day in a very straightforward sense of that word. As far as misleading headlines go, this one's rather mild :-)

Amazing how quickly the msm has flipped on OWS. This article contained information!

What's "msm"?

Mainstream media.

It's not entirely news that if you live with shared resources, costs per one person goes down.

Unfortunately, as 20th century showed us, it doesn't scale well. At all.

i don't think it did. Stuff like airbnb, freecycle, craigslist, zipcar and other resource sharing was just not feasible at the time.

I think you're overgeneralizing, but certainly more correct if one were to apply it only to something we really can't make more of... like land.

Building giant skyscrapers probably works, but tend not to be as desirable for most people.

Communism is the answer!

If communism is the answer, you're asking the wrong question.

The Occupied lifestyle, says Mr. Knowles, is a lot cheaper than real life: "I might go home with more money than I had."

So they're actually all just doing it for the money. I'd got the impression they were protesting about the mechanics of the world's financial markets, but actually they're just all just opportunistic capitalists looking for a quick buck. Thanks for clearing that one up, WSJ.

They're onto something here, they should add dust and dubstep and charge people $300 for a ticket.

edit: s/sand/dust/

Dust, not sand. :)

Now if they only carried out their own trash...

moop, not trash :)

Same thought occured to me. My first thought was it sounds like these people essentially set up Burning Man on Wall Street. I haven't been to the former, new to the Bay Area, but got real curious when it was held a few weeks ago and read up as much as I could about it. This article sounded very similar to the ones I read describing BM.

Makes me wonder what cross section of OWS are also burners, especially among the OWS organizers. Is that where they learned how to pull off something like this massive temporary settlement?

I just took a stroll up to Occupy Vancouver and it very much reminded me of BM. Really thinking about grabbing my tent and setting up shop. Probably gonna go hang out there some more after a couple more items done on my burndown list. My office is two blocks from the protest so it will be fun.

I don't know how many have actually been to burning man, but they seem to have the burning man mindset.

I think a big part of BM culture is bringing BM home with you. Building "local burns" and building local networks. I don't think this behavior is unique to BM though. Watching documentaries on hippies flooding California you see stands for free food, clothes, etc...

completely mis-titled headline. These people are living on $10/day (with help), but their permanent living expenses are not $10/day.

I can eat, Drive (pay for gas) and entertain myself for $10/day. But I can not shower, keep warm and shelter myself within good standards for $10/day....new title?

Or just get rid of these type of stories. Personally I don't think they're something that should be on HN. But then HN is not what it used to be. It's more of a "Reddit Lite" now sadly :/

First thing I thought: holy shit, if we did this kind of stuff for those living below the poverty line, they would have enough resources to pick themselves up and get new jobs (after showers, job interview supplies, counseling, etc etc). At the very least the 22% of American children living in poverty would have a meal and clean clothes.

Second thought: if this was Orlando most of the donators would be arrested.

Third thought: This is the perfect time to backpack up to New York and have a week-long vacation for super cheap. Swing a protest sign for long enough to get a free meal, then move on to sightseeing.

Actually, in New York you pretty much have to try to be homeless. I'm not going to say that being hard-on-your-luck is a breeze in New York, but with things like City Harvest (a truly brilliant concept -- http://www.cityharvest.org/), the anual coat drive, and the city's homeless outreach programs, it's certainly a lot better than many places. There was a good story a while back on "This American Life" that talked about this subject (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/358/s...). Additionally, you have Geoffrey Canada doing his thing up in Harlem...one of the true innovators in social reform. If you haven't heard of him, go read everything about him that you can now!

Honestly, the biggest gap in the city is caring for the mentally disabled. A large portion of the city's homeless population are schizophrenics, and they will effectively never be able to be productive members of society. For them, the only solution is long term care, but the city's mental facilities are really horrible. Unfortunately, the public's views on mental illness are still stuck in the 1890s...

The major cities of the Pacific Northwest actually have at least one serious problem that stems from making the homeless lifestyle too easy: too many runaway teens. One of my sisters lives in Portland, and for several years she worked as a social worker for teenage girls. The network of shelters, kitchens, and other services for the homeless is so extensive there that a lot of teens choose to leave home and just live on the streets. It is (or was, at least) so pervasive that there was actually some name for the phenomenon (can't remember what it was, off the top of my head), and it was a major concern to the organizations my sister worked with. Part of the problem is that there are policies in place that made it extremely difficult for parents to find their kids and bring them home. These policies exist for good reasons (e.g. abused children who shouldn't be found and brought home), but they are so one-sided that kids can just choose to run away because they feel like it, and their parents have no recourse if the kids are in the city's shelter system.

My comment was directed at people living below the poverty line, not homeless specifically. There are people who have a kind of sort of home (or live with relatives, or have the luxury of choosing between eating and having a roof over their heads) but giving them support can help them get through their situation without resorting to moving into a shelter or waiting in line at a soup kitchen.

Maybe it is nice to be homeless in NYC. It ain't in the rest of the country, and people need help everywhere.

It is a nice idea, but I don't believe that it would help. There are certainly people whom it would help, but I most of them are propperly unemployable because of other reasons and not just because they need a little hekp getting ba ck on their feet.

Actually I mentioned "people living below the poverty line", not homeless. People living below the poverty line are certainly employable, they just make the worst money possible. Give them food or clothes and maybe they can make their rent payment this month.

lets hope it scales well!

They definitely save money on cleaning.

And yet she packed a make-up kit. For someone who is "protesting" corporate greed it seems contradictory to wear cosmetics from a protestor's perspective-- they have a gigantic profit margin.

As a male, I'll never understand how cosmetics are so entrenched in the lives of females.

> As a male, I'll never understand how cosmetics are so entrenched in the lives of females.

really? same reason people like nice clothes. looking "better" is a competitive advantage to help you get the "best" mate. makeup is a means to that end.

That's fair, but it's definitely not the most effective means. If a woman takes 5-10 minutes to apply make up each day, and if they decided to allocate that towards some other activity, the amount of time spent doing something more productive would add up very quickly. I personally find that it makes women less appealing as it's quite superficial, and a waste of time/money.

This is why engineers aren't running fashion and beauty companies. It's not about efficiency. It may not make sense to you, but it very much does to a staggering number of people.

And to tie it all in, this is why Steve Jobs was such a visionary, because he understood both engineering and aesthetics, function and form. A lot of people understand one or the other, it's the rare person who can empathize with the necessity of both.

"Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life or come with me and change the world?"

I wouldn't be surprised if cosmetics were lumped in with sugar water on that one.

Telling women not to wear makeup is like telling guys to "be yourself". Great advice if you're a naturally gorgeous woman, or an extroverted and socially adept man. For the rest of us, not so much.

I appreciate the honest and rational response. I felt like I was being berated for asking a sincere (although perhaps misinterpretted) question.

I think you're confusing make up with too much make-up for the most part(with some exceptions) if it's obvious a woman is wearing makeup she's got too much of it on IMO.

Gigantic profit margins? Estee Lauder had a 2.1% profit margin last quarter.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:EL

Cosmetics are entrenched because beautiful women are sought after. It's not very complicated.

I have not looked hard at these financials (nor do I have ANY experience with the cosmetic industry) but it appears Estee Lauder has a Gross Profit Margin of 79% in its most recent quarter. That is pretty incredible. Of course, this excludes advertising expense, but it does provide evidence of significant mark-ups on their products.

Where'd you get that data? The google finance page seems to state 7.99% not 79% in 2011. You sure you didn't misplace a decimal?

Gross profit just counts cost of goods sold, not expenses like your employees. Cosmetics are high make up on a marginal basis, but involve lots of boots on the ground and advertising. Their Net Income is what you and I were talking about and is not outrageous at all.

(This is fairly similar to drug companies--very high marginal costs but in the end very normal profits.)

Agreed, but instead of "very high marginal costs", you meant, "very high marginal income" or "very high gross profit".

Make-up itself costs very little to produce, so I suppose I could have just said mark up.

I'm not an equity expert, but I have the feeling that how that one specific company has performed over one quarter isn't a great indicator. They still had double digit EBITD margins last year, and I know L'Oreal had double digit margins for something like 20 years in a row.

Out of interest, do you personally think cosmetics make someone "beautiful"?

There are a lot more costs than what it took to purchase the raw materials. It wasn't one specific quarter, it was simply the last quarter. And they were the first large cosmetics company I could think of.

I have no strong opinion on cosmetics either way, but it would be hypocritical for me to hate on someone for buying something with large profit margins. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro attached to a 27" Cinema Display. Apple's margins last quarter? 25.58%. Their Return on average equity was a staggering 44.81%. Now that's fat.

I wasn't hating, I'm a free market capitalist. I was suggesting it was contradictory of the protestor.

"For someone who is "protesting" corporate greed it seems contradictory to wear cosmetics from a protestor's perspective-- they have a gigantic profit margin."

And, when did Revlon get that TARP money again?

They are not just protesting TARP recipients, but "corporate welfare and corporate greed." I live in New York and went down to Zucotti Park a few days ago and was told this. They were also flying upside down American Flags. It's not just Wall Street they are upset with.

Ignoring the sexism of your second statement, your first statement is filled with self-righteousness.

Capitalism is a system of contradictions. Saying someone cannot argue with capitalism because they benefit from it is just an ad hominem attack. No one in the modern age can live outside of capitalism therefore everyone becomes a part of it. The equivalent stance is "feudalism should not end because you have benefited so much from feudalism which has given you your life so far and all you own" if said while feudalism was the norm. Everyone on this planet is presently affected by the positives and negatives of global capitalism.

Feel free to argue the ideas of the protests or the point of the article, that some people are living in New York very cheaply. Constructive debate is always welcome.

I don't quite understand how it is sexist. I'm actually interested in how makeup has come to be so predominant in the lives of women but not men. I've spoken with many people about it before, and most women actually liked the fact that I wasn't into makeup. I find it especially interesting in this case, where the person is limited in what they can bring and still cares about something like makeup.

Anyway, I thought some people might have something interesting to say on HN (where people's views aren't as aligned with mainstream media due to their forward-thinking disruptive mindsets) ... but it seems like it was taken as an attack.

I'm not trying to debate, I just find it strange.

You may find this article on recent research thought-provoking: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women... - "Wearing makeup...increases people’s perceptions of a woman’s likability, her competence and (provided she does not overdo it) her trustworthiness." (Journal link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal....)

You should at least understand that a "make-up kit" isn't a tackle box full of chemicals. It's generally pretty tiny.

Really not something to nitpick on.

What really got me is the profiteering on the photo taking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com