so fn obvious

Call me crazy but I'm thinking a loss of income hurts people with the least wealth most - and given the global nature of big business the loss of the US income stream for a day isn't gonna hurt the 1%.

Besides, a lot of the 99% work for small businesses also owned by the 99% (or for fed, state or city/county).

Sounds silly to me.

And lower cost of goods is not the point of the occupy movement IMO.

1. Why would I go on strike against my job. I'm already making good money, so I have no reason to strike. You have to know how business's work. In most large companies you work for a dept or a division and money is split up according to this make up. In a company if you have a dept or a division that is not making money, there is no other money to put into the budget. If there is no money to put into the budget then the people who work that dept are not able to get raises. They have an option then, transfer to a different division if you have the skills to work there or find another job. Most IT jobs I have worked followed this model.

2. Raise the price on goods, and people at the lower end of the pay ladder will not be able to purchase the products. This leads back to #1. If that product is not making sales then the company has no money to pay the workers their regular salaries let alone give them a raise. In order to make money on the product the company will either cut salaries or lay people off.

How about instead of striking people increase the skills they have to make themselves more marketable. I do not have a college degree, I attended a trade school to learn about computers and since then I have had to increase my skills through my own means. No further education took place since I couldn't afford it. The rest has been picked up at jobs or from reading dry tech manuals.

Legislation, cf. European goverments. Tell me everything you know about collateralised debt obligations in one word?

Well we need certain people to work certain jobs. We all cant be skilled.
But if the CEO is making a million this year whats the harm in shaving a reasonable cut off that to increase the salary of the low skilled employees to give them the opportunity to compete or even survive in the world the same CEOS created?

nothing, ur turn!

agreed that a lower cost of goods is not the intent of the occupiers, but it wouldnt hurt. and i disagree. I believe the loss would be equivocal to both parties. If, lets say, walmart lost all there employees ans went out for a week, it would hurt them just the same. And i mean all the employees and i mean non operational for this time period. It would crush them and any other corporation. They CANNOT do it without the 8/hr worker period. so they would be left with no choice but to deduct from the ceo salary and share the wealth and increase salaries proportionals

and the strike includes the 99% that also own the businesses, Because they too are being hurt by the huge prices in goods which need to be lowered. POINT 1 AND POINT 2 in the initial statement

Not sure how I feel about that one. I agree that the people who work for a company should be paid more, and I do have a problem with CEO's who fail still getting a bonus. We need to convince the people who write up their contracts to stop including a bonus for failure.

More CEO's should do like Meg Whitman is doing. Taking a $1 a year plus stock options. The stock only makes money for her if she gets it to a certain level of improvement from its current point.

my biggest problem in this situation is that these ceos cant do it at all without those employees. Its a question of humanity in that no body is any body without everybody. And there should be a better balance in it all