Two Percent Occupancy

The Assemblies Formerly Known as Occupy Wall Street (TAFKOWS) began with what appeared to be a reasonable delineation... people who's income falls within the 99th percentile and people who's income falls above the 99th percentile.  In terms of American incomes, that mark occurs at just over $506,000.  This is a very arbitrary cut off - the median income (50th percentile) in the US is just over $50,000 and it seems to me that many people making the median income are likely to live their lives in ways that parallel people making over $500,000.  Both are likely to live in houses, own their own automobiles, have access to most amenities and live with little concern about finding their next meal.  America's 50th percentile - that $50,000 threshold - equates to the 93rd percentile worldwide.  Even the poorest Americans - those in the bottom two percent - are still in the top half (62nd percentile) globally.

But identifying income level as a measure of a person's quality of life is a poor match.  Dictatorships and other oppressive regimes punish dissent and disallow the people the opportunity to provide for themselves, regardless of whether self-provision includes income.  In other words, Americans are largely free to grow their own food, should they desire to, and thereafter to store it as a hedge against hard times.  Such freedom, even if executed, rarely is considered in the calculation of incomes.  The opportunities for people to choose their own careers, to pursue education and to provide for their own families has inherent value that does not obviously contribute to household income.

The reason that TAFKOWS chose 99% instead of 50% is the drama, the contrast, the apparent inequity of it.  It presents a false contrast by suggesting that the 99 percent are inherently and drastically different than the remaining 1 percent.  It presents a false sense of righteousness by herding people together for no other reason than a factor as arbitrary as amount of income while ignoring all other variables that may unite or divide groups of Americans.  The division might just as well be between those who have no more than 99% of their natural teeth compared with those who have maintained 100% of their teeth.  The point is to divide us with an overwhelming majority on one side versus a tiny (and somehow unfairly benefited) group on the other side.

My observation of TAFKOWS have lead me to the conclusion that they truly represent only two percent; but I am not delineating by income.  Using David Logan's theory on Tribal Leadership, there are five categories, or "tribes", that can be used to classify all organizational leadership.

• Stage One typifies street gangs who collectively view their lives (and the lives of ALL people) as being lost and without value.  The theme for their outlook is "Life Sucks" and without respect for private property they are inclined toward violence as their primary mechanism to make a difference.  Stage One tribes constitute 2% of organizations.
• Stage Two tribes recognize that human life can have value, but not their own lives.  The theme for their outlook is "My Life Sucks" and they will look upon others with jealousy and complain about inequity.  Stage Two tribes constitute 25% of organizations.
• Stage Three tribes differentiate between their own personal performance and the performances of the other members of their tribes.  They compete against their coworkers or other members of their profession.  The theme for their outlook is "I'm Great but You Suck" and constitute 49% of organizations.
• Stage Four tribes recognize the value of other members and see themselves positively as a unified team in competition with opposing teams.  The theme for their outlook is "We're Great but They Suck" and constitute 23% or organizations.
• Stage Five tribes pursue the greatest good in all people and drive to improve their own lives as well as the people around them.  The theme for their outlook is "Life is Great" and constitute less than 2% of organizations.

TAFKOWS, in my opinion, tend to attract largely Stage One and Stage Two participants.  The Stage One people readily use violence while the Stage Two people shy away from violence but actively voice their complaints and demand that others resolve their perceived inequities.  At the very most TAFKOWS constitute 27% of the American population, but when limited to the hard-core membership, that number dwindles to 2%.  Collectivism guides their philosophy, meaning that they seek a one-size-fits all solution that does not respect diversity or individual freedoms.  The extremists in the movement advocate for confiscation of private property (with the odd assumption that once it is redistributed, they will somehow manage to regain the right to hold their own private property).  The moderates - the stage two members - see that they are disadvantaged and in the name of fairness they should be compensated for their disadvantage by those who enjoy significant advantage (but they are hard-pressed to identify the multiple advantages that they might already enjoy).

Taxed-Enough-Already Patriots (TEAPs), on the other hand, seem to live within the other three stages (and perhaps largely within the upper two stages) of Tribal Leadership.  TEAPs believe in the possibilities of individual freedom and work against the shackles of collectivist solutions.  They organize to pursue benefits that they are ready to step forward and contribute toward rather than demanding that only others sacrifice for the common good.  TEAPs within the upper three stages are not tempted to use violence as a means to their ends and thus pose minimal risks to the people around them, even to detractors from the lower tribes who confront and challenge them.

Logan suggests that members in any given tribal stage can only readily perceive and adopt the arguments of adjacent stages.  In other words trying to convince Stage One Tribe members that Life is Great will serve no purpose except perhaps to anger them.  Instead such a person must be cajoled into believing not that "Life Sucks" but that merely his Life Sucks.  It seems to be a cruel and slow process because only from Stage Two it is then possible to enter the plurality position - the 49% of Stage Three tribalism - where the person acknowledges personal ability and success but still refuses to acknowledge that possibility in others.  Only after accepting the principles that "I'm Great but You Suck" can the person be lead to the more uplifting and productive existence in Stage Four - "We're Great but They Suck."

So while TAFKOWS seek to pull the 49% down to join the ranks of the 25% in Stage Two (and likewise to pull the 25% down to the 2% of Stage One) TEAPS seek to pull the 49% up to the 23% of Stage Four and maybe even a few to the top 2% of Stage Five.  It begins with respect for private property (the boundary between Stage One and Stage Two), expands with the recognition of individual achievement (Stage Three), and continues into true respect for diversity of abilities and talents (and thus diversity of rewards - Stage Four), and culminates in recognition that there truly are no elites on the planet - no group deserving of any more or less than any other group; instead there are individuals who may choose to cooperate rather than compete (Stage Five).

Which tribe are you in?  Which direction are you moving?