The 99% or the 1%?

As best I can tell, the entire Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is about frustration borne of powerlessness. It can’t quite put its finger on a solution, but things just aren’t right. We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore. The 99% believe they are being taken for granted, exploited, nameless and faceless. Bob Dylan’s “Only a Pawn in Their Game” may have focused on civil rights, but the sentiments are easily transferrable.
It’s the American reaction to the overthrow of totalitarian regimes elsewhere in the world. While those people were striving to achieve the most basic of freedoms, OWS wants a renewed, realistic chance at the American Dream. The time-honored capitalist maxim of work hard (and, perhaps more importantly, “smart”) no longer necessarily holds true. Indeed, the “about” section of the OWS website (http://occupywallst.org/about/) has a tagline of “The revolution continues worldwide,” and it specifically mentions Egypt and Tunisia.
I see the sign industry as both the 99% and the 1%. It’s the 99% in its sense of powerlessness and frustrations, but, as a double whammy, its minuscule size also makes it a de facto, traditional 1% (and that’s being overly generous) in terms of influence.
What if the sign industry had its own Occupy City Hall (OCH) movement? What if it camped out on the lawns of city halls across the U.S. to protest municipalities’ failures to recognize signs’ value? The industry could boycott making any signs for government entities in municipalities with onerous sign codes (fat chance of such solidarity, I know, and what would the specifics of “onerous” entail?).
Unfortunately, portions of the sign industry are probably as guilty as the Oakland OWS contingent, and they can blemish the entire sign industry – those who steal UL tags to put on their signs, or who simply ignore the mandates of being licensed installers. They simplify the naysayers’ task of denigrating the sign industry as a whole.
But, unlike OWS, which focuses on complaint and demands, in lieu of discernible solutions, OCH could powerfully extol its products’ virtues with empirical data.
Also, in contrast to OWS, OCH wouldn’t ask for any redistribution of wealth, but simply a free-market approach to marketing its wares. No demands for results, but simply opportunities. (Ironically, if cities did adopt equitable sign codes, maybe many OWS complaints would slowly be rectified.) Small businesses would be given a better chance to compete with the big boys. After all, restrictive sign codes greatly favor those larger entities with signature buildings.
In its September 29, 2011 “Declaration of the Occu-
pation of New York City,” the NYC General Assembly states, “We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.”
I read that as a blanket indictment of business and capitalism in general; I wonder what the OWS stance would be if the words “small businesses” replaced “corporations.” How different would things be if small business did run our governments?
Ironically, OWS calls itself a worldwide concern with a recurring theme of exploitation of American workers. Yet the primary problem with business costs is that American workers are treated like human beings with fair wages, health care, 401Ks, etc. for the most part, which makes it tacitly impossible to compete against foreign entities that truly view (and compensate) laborers as disposable assets. OWS protests that American workers’ former lofty perches have descended significantly. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs puts this in context.
A few years ago, I’m sure the OWS movement could easily have been called OWM (Occupy Wal-Mart) because of the retail giant’s reputation for importing and reselling a disproportionate amount of Chinese items (in lieu of American-made items), and offering its workers paltry salaries and benefits, which, in turn, allowed Wal-Mart to sell items cheaply, which compelled people with lower wages to shop there, perhaps almost exclusively.
Wal-Mart also made it difficult for the sign industry’s custom customers – independent retailers – to compete, especially when they couldn’t afford TV advertising and had to rely disproportionately on their on-premise signs, which were limited because of local sign codes.
Much of the opposition to on-premise signs comes from those who view nebulous “aesthetics” as a muni-cipality’s highest calling. I’ve yet to see aesthetics pay a police force’s salaries. Many of the 23 bullet points in the OWS Declaration seem bent on idyllic conditions, as if economics should be completely dismissed. Yes, it makes some good points, but it goes too far.
In contrast, OCH would simply want unnecessary obstacles removed. n