While I can agree that everyone has a personal level of responsibility when it comes to job security, they are not 100% in control of it either. Like you said, the fluctuations in the market can dictate who's hired and who's fired just as much as a person's willingness t

rk.
I, for example, looked for a job for nine months after my year of forced unemployment. I put out upwards of 50+ applications in the surrounding area, from gas stations to department stores to fast food and restaurants. It took nine months to get a job, not because I wasn't trying, but because the market dictated that I couldn't be hired due to a down-turn. That down-turn was caused by a corrupt system that the Occupy Wallstreet movement is trying to change.
The problem that Occupy Wallstreet is trying to fix, I believe, is the fact that we no longer live in a democratic society, but instead, a society where no matter the option when it comes to candidates, corporations will have a much larger influence on policy making than that of the everyday man. There are very few ways to change a system that benefits two parties: government gets personal funds from the corporations and in return, they give the corporations what they want with little to no regard for the "99%".
How would you go about changing the corporate control of the government?
I'm willing to let the market make you poor an jobless if it give someone else the chance to make money. You're not guaranteed a job in a capitalist system, down turn or not. I'm pro-wealth gap because it allows for the opportunity to achieve a life style I desire to achieve. Its hard to get there and its not realistic for a majority and demands a worse situation for the "99%" but I'm more than ok with that because the roles in the "1%" and "99%" are not set.
Good for you putting out 50+ applications, next time try 1000+ in the same time frame and it might work better.You point out the time and number of applications you put out like there is something wrong with it. I see no issue.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is an undefined anger that s misguidedly protesting at the door of corporations. They're as close to a communist revolution as you can get in a America(which is pretty far from actual communism). They don't know what they want, some of them want more than regulation, they want retribution and redistribution. Even the regulation makes me take pause, because I don't believe any one can pull a number out of their ass and say any one above it is too wealthy.
We never lived in a democratic society. Liberal democracy is just a term we use to feel better about our system of government. We live in a republic, the people have a very detached say a far as the federal system. They have a higher say on the local level and are able to lobby as much as any corporation. An if I could have my way the people wouldn't even have a say in the election of senators or the president. You can't trust the people, they're to impassioned and uneducated. They don't turn out to vote now and those that do are so wrapped up in the political machinery of party politics that they effectively may as well not vote.
Corporatism isn't the root of corruption, but the current political machines are.
Still if I were to draft legislation to reform the American legal system in regards to corporate influence it would focus on two reforms.
I would overturn the supreme court Dartmouth College v. Woodward so that corporations were no longer people, enact campaign finance and size limits similar to those in Britain to dismantle and reduce the absurdity of political campaigns, establish term limits for all political offices, and restrict the formation and workings of political parties.
I would still allow money to count as speech and I would allow lobbying and I would still allow corporation to exist in there former size and scopes and practice business near unregulated within the market.
The best government is the one that governs least.