To the “99%”,

Yesterday I tweeted this

“Top 1% of earners globally is anyone with an annual income of £22000 #perspective#occupyearth #occupyeverywhere http://t.co/YXh6sVMs”

I received this response

“@jumplogic Good perspective. We are the 99.99%. Stop international profiteering and private pillage of public good worldwide. #OccupyEarth”

I agree with the second half, however I have a problem with the statement “we are the 99.99%”. We cannot continue to count ourselves as poor on the global level. From this perspective we are appealing to higher authorities to do the right thing and address our grievances. Who are at the top of the 99.99% within our western society and would we readily accept them if they claimed that they stood amongst us? On the global level we are the rich complaining about the super rich and the hyper rich whilst viewing ourselves as poor. I do recognise the issue of purchasing power parity that means that being globally rich is meaningless when the costs of living absorb most of it. I recognise that among the occupy movement are many homeless and jobless individuals who do not have the good fortune of a parent capable of housing them like me. However, this still remains highly relevant to many of the occupiers and their supporters.

I think it is important that we begin to recognise we are the elite. Recognise that things are bad for you but instead of looking up and seeing those who have it better, turn around and see the greater swathes of people looking at you as the one who has it better. We are secondary exploitees, millions of people were exploited along the supply chain before it became your turn to be squeezed. We are part beneficiaries and part victims of the system we are rallying against.

I am calling for a change in perspective because re-framing the situation arms us in a great way.

Take the following views.
1. We are the 99% (disenfranchised) demanding that corporate influence and the local imbalance be redressed.
2. We are the elite using our influence and power to redress the global imbalance, caused by the hyper elite.

Now, which one is more empowering? In the second the power is of the more potent form held by members of the elite. It reclaims ownership of the moral imperative. Actions now stem from a more selfless core. The emotions are positive.

Of course all of this is irrelevant if you do not agree that a global perspective is relevant. My view is it is morally bankrupt to stop our demand with the western 1%. We, the global 1% are not in a position of exemption and must be willing to have the same demands made against us that we make upon the upper echelons of western society. Who is to say that after the global rebalance what parts of our living standard will increase and what will decrease? We may very well all be able to afford a place to live but holidays and electronic goods may become unaffordable. This is something we have to accept when we move down this line of reasoning

A member of the global 6%,
Al Razi Masri