Am I the only one who doesn't get the "Occupy Wallstreet" movements

[Acklander]

Banks were charging a fee to merchants for each debit card use. Dodd-Frank and the Durbin Amendment changed that, costing the banks billions in income. That is a fact. So yes, the loss of income is a direct result of government intervention.

BofA may have had $6.2 billion in profits in the 3rd quarter, but that does not even make up for the $8.8 billion LOSS they had in the 2nd quarter. 1st quarter was only a $2 billion profit, so they are still operating at a loss for the year. Gee, now why would they want to make up at least some of the $6.6 billion loss due to Dodd-Frank-Durbin? I can't imagine why!

And they're more than welcome to charge whatever they want. The government didn't get involved on the user end, where we have a choice. They got involved on the other end, where the vendors didn't have a choice. It's easy to rake someone over the coals when you have them over a barrel.
Like I said previously, why are the credit unions able to have debit card users without charging fee? Why is it only a loss for big banks but not small banks??

 

[JDUCKY]

The above quote was agreeing on the comment prior of:

Originally Posted by Nina1
Couldn't have said it better myself. Additionally, I wonder if any of these people ever got a job from a poor man. Oh wait a minute...they're not interested in working. Only criticizing those who do while trying to figure out a way to have those who work pay for their Starbucks. Give me a break. Quit whining, get a job and quit sponging off the rest of us. I'm so sick and tired of this entitlement mentality. If they are so interested in a nanny state, find a way to move to England or Cuba or the like and leave the rest of us who want to be in control of our lives and work to achieve our dreams alone. They are an embarrassment to our great country.

I am in utter dis-belief that people like this even exist. They have no compassion, are not in touch with reality, and don't even know what they are speaking about. In fact, the comment is SO over the top, Im going to assume the poster was needing attention and doesn't even believe what they actually wrote.

I've seen that sentiment before.

It is disgusting.

The entire OWS movement is about corporate greed and corporate/lobbyist takeover of the government. It's about the disparity of wealth that is worse now than it was in 1929 before the Great Depression. It's about reigning in the mutation that is called capitalism and returning it to its true form. It's about protecting workers' rights, consumers' rights, the environment, etc. all while corporations can still make a profit.

Many of these people involved in the movement would LOVE to have a job! Some even do have jobs and join the movement to sleep there or spend time there during the day.

The ones in NY have created a bicycle-powered generator after the NYPD took away their gas-powered ones.

The movement is for real, it's a true grassroots movement, not funded by billionaires like another recent movement which got quite a bit of positive press over the last couple of years.

 

[Acklander]

Except of course, that BofA is currently at a $600 million loss for the year. We'll see how they do in the 4th quarter, but without that $6.6 billion that Dodd-Frank-Durbin stripped from them, its going to be more difficult to turn a profit. And what happens then? New fees or charges somewhere else, or a loss of thousands of more jobs they can no longer afford.

Or less bonuses for the CEO? Or less taxes paid to the government?
Maybe some of those unemployed can go get jobs at the credit union, I hear business Is booming there

 

[JDUCKY]

Except of course, that BofA is currently at a $600 million loss for the year. We'll see how they do in the 4th quarter, but without that $6.6 billion that Dodd-Frank-Durbin stripped from them, its going to be more difficult to turn a profit. And what happens then? New fees or charges somewhere else, or a loss of thousands of more jobs they can no longer afford.

They shouldn't have bought up Countrywide and Merrill Lynch and all their toxic assets then.

Why should they make existing customers pay for the folly of the execs who made those decisions? Why do the execs keep getting millions in salary and bonuses?

 

[eliza61]

Except of course, that BofA is currently at a $600 million loss for the year. We'll see how they do in the 4th quarter, but without that $6.6 billion that Dodd-Frank-Durbin stripped from them, its going to be more difficult to turn a profit. And what happens then? New fees or charges somewhere else, or a loss of thousands of more jobs they can no longer afford.

You're partly right Moburg and I don't want to give the impression that I like the legislation. My point is that this stuff doesn't occur in a vacuum.

People like to blame DFD but the flip side of it was the merchants screaming that they were being put out of business due to the fees.

Just like unions. Right now every ones' favorite whipping boys are the unions but no one stops to realize why unions developed in the first place. They sprung up because when we became industralized big companies ran sweat shops that were 1 step up from slavery. abysmal working conditions, non livable wages and corruptions so deep you need hip boots to wade through.

Bank of America will do now what every small business has to do to stay viable because now it's not going to be so easy to "fee" your way into profitablity. Now another question is are these fees covering the cost of your actual doing busines or are they covering the fact that the company made bad investment decisions like those risky mortgages and bundled reits?
One thing the america consumer has realized is that smaller banks and credit unions have managed to do business very nicely while still giving the service. Hence the free for all of people leaving BoA.

I have no problem with a fee that actually covers the cost of my using my debit but sorry I highly doubt that was what these fees were covering since we're not talking the dark ages where you may have had a human doing the work, we're talking Ipad, steve jobs technology era.

I think unfortunately the days of what I call "emotional" hostage where the business says "Well if you don't let me rape you I'll have to go out of business and all those poor people will be unemployed" are over. People didn't like the bailouts and we don't like the fees so if you can't stay profitable then yes, you go under.

And lastly its now becoming hard for the public to garner a lot of sympathy that you loss 600 million while you are still paying your CEO close to 3 million bucks a year.

 

[moburg]

I've seen that sentiment before.

It is disgusting.

The entire OWS movement is about corporate greed and corporate/lobbyist takeover of the government. It's about the disparity of wealth that is worse now than it was in 1929 before the Great Depression. It's about reigning in the mutation that is called capitalism and returning it to its true form. It's about protecting workers' rights, consumers' rights, the environment, etc. all while corporations can still make a profit.

Many of these people involved in the movement would LOVE to have a job! Some even do have jobs and join the movement to sleep there or spend time there during the day.

The ones in NY have created a bicycle-powered generator after the NYPD took away their gas-powered ones.

The movement is for real, it's a true grassroots movement, not funded by billionaires like another recent movement which got quite a bit of positive press over the last couple of years.

 

[moburg]

And they're more than welcome to charge whatever they want. The government didn't get involved on the user end, where we have a choice. They got involved on the other end, where the vendors didn't have a choice. It's easy to rake someone over the coals when you have them over a barrel.
Like I said previously, why are the credit unions able to have debit card users without charging fee? Why is it only a loss for big banks but not small banks??

Of course vendors have a choice. Just as if enough consumers leave the big banks in favor of credit unions or smaller banks, if enough vendors reject the debit fees, the big banks will have to respond. Its called the free market. And it does not matter where the government got involved, the fact is they did and it cost the banks billions.

As for credit unions and smaller banks and their fees... Were they charging vendors for debit usage? The Dodd-Frank-Durbin seems to only apply to banks with $10b in assets or more. So the law didn't affect them. Were they charging the vendors less, not charging at all, or just piggybacking on the infrastructure that the big banks put in place?

 

[Geoff_M]

Of course vendors have a choice. Just as if enough consumers leave the big banks in favor of credit unions or smaller banks, if enough vendors reject the debit fees, the big banks will have to respond. Its called the free market. And it does not matter where the government got involved, the fact is they did and it cost the banks billions.

Yep, in the past I've encountered businesses that either refused to accept debit cards and plenty more that set minimum purchases to use a debit card.

As for credit unions and smaller banks and their fees... Were they charging vendors for debit usage? The Dodd-Frank-Durbin seems to only apply to banks with $10b in assets or more. So the law didn't affect them. Were they charging the vendors less, not charging at all, or just piggybacking on the infrastructure that the big banks put in place?

One of the amusing things about this stink is that about a year ago our credit union started charging a similar monthly debit card usage fee that applied for each statement period that you used the card.

 

[eliza61]

Of course vendors have a choice. Just as if enough consumers leave the big banks in favor of credit unions or smaller banks, if enough vendors reject the debit fees, the big banks will have to respond. Its called the free market. And it does not matter where the government got involved, the fact is they did and it cost the banks billions.

As for credit unions and smaller banks and their fees... Were they charging vendors for debit usage? The Dodd-Frank-Durbin seems to only apply to banks with $10b in assets or more. So the law didn't affect them. Were they charging the vendors less, not charging at all, or just piggybacking on the infrastructure that the big banks put in place?

Its called a "sophies choice". after the movie starring Meryl streep where she had to "chose" which one of her kids she wanted to let the Nazi exterminate. Not much of a choice is it.

DISCLAIMER: My knowledge of this is from my families restaurant not retail and it was 14 years ago. so the process may have gotten better. DO NOT IN ANY WAY TAKE THIS AS GOSPEL. have to add that before people start yelling at me.

Ok, yes a small business can decide to go "cash" only but in todays market when you are competing with the walmarts, targets and Macys and where the vast majority of people carry cards or debits. Cash only can be economically suicide.

So generally if you have a restaurant and you want to accept visa, first you go to an "acquirer" usually your bank and tell them you want to set up an account to do this, they in turn have to contract out to an "authorizer" thats the banks that pretty much act as a transfer service between merchant and bank and lastly a "clearing" who at t he end of the month, week or whatever sends out the actual payment to parties.
all these guys get a piece of the action which trickles down to your merchant fees.

2ndly, Geoff, you do know that technically charging a minimum amount is illegal right. Mastercard and visa require you to take the card for any amount Stores do it because generally the cost per transaction on credit cards is so high that they actually lose money if they transaction amt is low so they set min. they get away with it because the consumer doesn't know or care. I think if I'm not mistaken gas stations have some kind of exemption. not completely sure how it works with them.

CU and small banks typically (and folks please don't tell me about your one special case, I'm talking generalities here) they are not "processing centers" for MC, Visa and american express. so they don't collect those fees thats why in general it's a fight with the big banks. so yes it a way they do piggy back off of big banks. they will offer the card to individual but will leave merchant acquistions to the big boys.

So merchants are in a bit of a tighter bind than consumers. When I left BoA I had at minimum 10 banks to choose from. A merchant doesn't have 10 clearing houses" for visa, pretty much they've got maybe 2 "visanet" and I think one other.

but you are right they can absolutely decide not to accept cards but remember the end game is to bring in more customers and in todays world of most americans using credit cards, that can be a killer decision.

here's a pretty cool link that sort of explains how it works.

http://usa.visa.com/merchants/new_acceptance/how_it_works.html

 

[jm-mom]

Seriously??? They can't afford the workers anymore because the workers are competing with communist wages. A communist country has a much lower cost of operation because they don't need to make a profit for the stockholders. They're communist. What i wonder is why a corporation, who is shoving the "socialism and communism is evil, and all hail the free market" is out sourcing to communist countries. If you're going to be using socialist or communist labor, then hand your profits over to the government like they do. If you want a capitalist company, then pay fair wages. You shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.

Every business in America, big and small, public and private, have a set budget of expenses and an amount of money they want to make per year. American factories just don't let companies meet the budget goals they have set forth. They have no choice but to go outside the U.S. to have their goods made more cost-effectively. In some cases doing so allows the corporate bigwigs to make a larger salary and in some cases it allows a company to stay afloat. I don't think any of it has a thing to do with communism. A lot of American goods are manufactured in non-communist countries.

For the work being done, I do believe that American companies do pay their employees more than fair wages. If you're job is to sit at a sewing machine all day and stitch sleeves onto a shirt or put lug nuts on tires in the car plant, you have made the choice to work in a field that is low paying. Why should it pay more or even equal to someone who has gone to college, worked their way up and is doing well financially? If anything, American blue collar wages are MORE than fair when you compare it to many white collar professions.

 

[eliza61]

Every business in America, big and small, public and private, have a set budget of expenses and an amount of money they want to make per year. American factories just don't let companies meet the budget goals they have set forth. They have no choice but to go outside the U.S. to have their goods made more cost-effectively. In some cases doing so allows the corporate bigwigs to make a larger salary and in some cases it allows a company to stay afloat. I don't think any of it has a thing to do with communism. A lot of American goods are manufactured in non-communist countries.

For the work being done, I do believe that American companies do pay their employees more than fair wages. If you're job is to sit at a sewing machine all day and stitch sleeves onto a shirt or put lug nuts on tires in the car plant, you have made the choice to work in a field that is low paying. Why should it pay more or even equal to someone who has gone to college, worked their way up and is doing well financially? If anything, American blue collar wages are MORE than fair when you compare it to many white collar professions.

Most time blue collar guys are not trying to get wages to compete against white collar guys. they are trying to get wages TO LIVE. So if you're job is sewing at a machine which may be extremely back breaking work and then you don't get paid enough to buy aspirin, I would say you are not compensated fairly.
and many blue collar jobs are just as specialized and need just as much training as white collar job.

I think the point is more about the ability to live decently than it is about who gets more than whom.

 

[jm-mom]

This is a heated and controversial subject and it's interesting to hear so many varying points of view. My take on the whole thing is that it boils down to this. You work hard, you earn a decent living based on the job/career you have. Not all jobs are created equal so not all salaries should be either. America is a capitalistic country that allows for these variances. We are not socialistic or communistic and therefore there is no reason to expect that everyone earn similar wages. What then becomes the question is as Americans do we earn a "fair" wage? Of course we do! By and large people earn what their employment position should pay. If you pump gas all day long, put in 12 hours a day, you are working very hard and exhausted by day's end. Nonetheless you are still just pumping gas. A bank exec works hard all day long too but he's been to college and climbed the corporate ladder to make a success of himself. Should he not be rewarded for his efforts?

This whole idea of "fair" wages is not rich vs. poor, employed vs. unemployed, it's a group of people who want to chastise the rich for being rich and blame them because they themselves are out of work or poor. Yes the corporations and banks do get tax breaks and their top execs get outrageous pay, but those same companies and execs also donate millions of dollars to charities and educational institutions so they are giving back.

Let's not forget Hollywood. If you want to chastise someone for making an outrageous salary, how about a movie star who makes 20 million a picture? He works for 3 months making a movie and rakes in the dough. It's not fair and yet we still watch their movies and tv shows, buy their cd's and attend their concerts. I imagine they have the same tax breaks and tax shelters as the corporate bigwigs and yet the Occupy movement doesn't even mention them. They march through their parks with their Ipod's on listening to the music they've paid to download making the rich richer!

 

[Geoff_M]

2ndly, Geoff, you do know that technically charging a minimum amount is illegal right. Mastercard and visa require you to take the card for any amount Stores do it because generally the cost per transaction on credit cards is so high that they actually lose money if they transaction amt is low so they set min. they get away with it because the consumer doesn't know or care. I think if I'm not mistaken gas stations have some kind of exemption. not completely sure how it works with them.

No, it's not "illegal", it's a violation of their merchant services agreement... and I see businesses that do it all the time (gas stations and otherwise). Rarely does the card issuer take action. Call it a "protest", if you want to.

 

[eliza61]

No, it's not "illegal", it's a violation of their merchant services agreement... and I see businesses that do it all the time (gas stations and otherwise). Rarely does the card issuer take action. Call it a "protest", if you want to.

sorry, call it nuance. lol. you're right they call it a "violation". anyway merchants aren't suppose to do it.

think I mentioned that no one really cares.

 

[A Mickeyfan]

You're missing the point - WHO BAILED THEM OUT - that's who you should be protesting with your vote next election! Or use the best weapon - the mighty dollar. I won't buy products from companies who take buyouts. Get them where it hurts - in the pocketbook. What company could care if you're sleeping out in a park at night?

As so much for peaceful demonstrating - I heard on the radio today that there have been at least 10 rapes in the NY city camp-out alone.

Bush bailed them out and he is no longer President.. he started the bailouts... we aren't voting on him anymore..

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Actually, the large corporations who got bailed out have paid us back. When the government bailed Citibank out, the government got stock warrants for their effort. Once the bank was solvent the government sold those shares for a profit (happened last spring, I know I am a shareholder) and we the people got our money back with a profit. The fact is that if Joe and Mary average citizen losses their job,needs food, health care, free cell phones, reduced utilities etc...........All are avaliable through programs all ready enacted by our government. If people are truly in need, they can get help, paid for by taxpayers like you and me. I think over the history of the USA the needy have been bailed out more times with more money than any big corporation. The OWLS anger is a good thing but it is missguided. Government is the problem, be it the republicans who vote to the right with the big corporations or the democrats who vote to the left with the unions. Who votes for the middle? The money that was suppose to be put aside decades ago for the retirement, pensions and medicare was stolen, mispent and misapropriated. The bottom line is this country is bankrupt both moraly and fiscally. Its going to take higher taxes , spending cuts and judicious oversight to solve this mess and playing the blame game will solve nothing. Until somebody from some party has the guts to propose a sensible solution that everyone can compromise on....America will suffer.

fact is if Joe and Mary need free health care, food and cell phone, they must be at poverty level, and they aren't yet. Joe and Mary lost thier jobs, and health insurance, but still have something left in the bank, they still own their car and are paying on it (their modest small American made economy car, they did sell one). They don't have enough to cover their mgt payments therefore they lost their home. Since they lost their jobs, they do not get health care anymore and cannot afford COBRA. They are using the money they have in the bank to pay rent, electric, phone, cell phone food & car payments.. see, they aren't poverty stricken, they don't get that free hand out.. that is the another part of the this economy that needs to be fixed. Those who have something, but not enough do not qualify for any help..those how have nothing get all..

 

[A Mickeyfan]

Most time blue collar guys are not trying to get wages to compete against white collar guys. they are trying to get wages TO LIVE. So if you're job is sewing at a machine which may be extremely back breaking work and then you don't get paid enough to buy aspirin, I would say you are not compensated fairly.
and many blue collar jobs are just as specialized and need just as much training as white collar job.

I think the point is more about the ability to live decently than it is about who gets more than whom.

Actually, some of the blue collard jobs are more important than the white collard.. Think about Vera Wang.. where would she be without those people behind those sewing machines sewing her designs... or the CEO of the GMC, where would he be without those men/women on that assembly line... they are all a team, yet the bottom level is treated like dirt... Without their work on that assembly line, that CEO would be up the creek without his finished product.... Where are their huge bonus checks.. instead, they are the ones laid off... benefits are cut.. and the higher ups are allowed to stay on....
Just another little bit to help explain OWS

 

[leahjade]

Bush bailed them out and he is no longer President.. he started the bailouts... we aren't voting on him anymore..

But I bet 90% of those protesters will vote for Obama again even though he pushed many more bailouts through. Guess some people don't learn from history.

 

[JDUCKY]

This is a heated and controversial subject and it's interesting to hear so many varying points of view. My take on the whole thing is that it boils down to this. You work hard, you earn a decent living based on the job/career you have. Not all jobs are created equal so not all salaries should be either. America is a capitalistic country that allows for these variances. We are not socialistic or communistic and therefore there is no reason to expect that everyone earn similar wages. What then becomes the question is as Americans do we earn a "fair" wage? Of course we do! By and large people earn what their employment position should pay. If you pump gas all day long, put in 12 hours a day, you are working very hard and exhausted by day's end. Nonetheless you are still just pumping gas. A bank exec works hard all day long too but he's been to college and climbed the corporate ladder to make a success of himself. Should he not be rewarded for his efforts?

This whole idea of "fair" wages is not rich vs. poor, employed vs. unemployed, it's a group of people who want to chastise the rich for being rich and blame them because they themselves are out of work or poor. Yes the corporations and banks do get tax breaks and their top execs get outrageous pay, but those same companies and execs also donate millions of dollars to charities and educational institutions so they are giving back.

US companies are sitting on over $2 Trillion in cash. Their profits are still going strong (due to the devalued dollar so they can export their goods overseas). The "1%" has seen income rise 275% from 1979 - 2007 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-20125589/cbo-top-1-getting-exponentially-richer/) while the average person's income rose 40%. Compared to inflation, the average person's wages have fallen. That's why it's hard to keep a family out of poverty making even twice the minimum wage.

The OWS movement is not about class warfare. That's been waged by the wealthy for about 30 years (ever since 'supply side economics' went into effect). No, the OWS movement is about stopping greed for the sake of greed. It's about stopping corporations from exerting their will onto the government. It's about stopping corporations from treating their labor as expendable items. It's about getting corporations to provide at least basic healthcare for their employees (although a national single-payer healthcare system would be best - something like this: http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_bill_final.pdf ). It's about getting corporations to play by the rules and safeguard the environment and their workers instead of destroying and abusing them.

Let's not forget Hollywood. If you want to chastise someone for making an outrageous salary, how about a movie star who makes 20 million a picture? He works for 3 months making a movie and rakes in the dough. It's not fair and yet we still watch their movies and tv shows, buy their cd's and attend their concerts. I imagine they have the same tax breaks and tax shelters as the corporate bigwigs and yet the Occupy movement doesn't even mention them. They march through their parks with their Ipod's on listening to the music they've paid to download making the rich richer!

Completely apples to oranges. A Hollywood actor or actress is not able to manipulate the system. Look at "banks" like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. They hold a HUGE unfair advantage over anyone else via their HFT (High-Frequency Trading) algorithms that, effectively, allow them to manipulate the markets to their advantage. If an actor wants $20 million but the studio says "tough", well, the actor doesn't really have a choice.

As for your last comment on the iPods, well, that again shows how you don't understand the movement. It's not a movement against capitalism completely. Just against the abuse of it!

 

[leahjade]

Actually, some of the blue collard jobs are more important than the white collard..

Maybe better spelling skills would help you get a higher paying position. Most manufacturing jobs are a thing of the past - if you want higher wages, go back to school or learn a trade.