It’s not uncommon to see many protestors pop up at large companies during earning seasons when financial results are announced and expected business outcomes are predicted. This was evident outside of Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters last week, when citizens — carrying colorful pickets in hand and a firm list of demands — protested the greater issue of income inequality.

Usually massive profits and growth incite the anger from anyone — including those spurned through layoffs — to environmentalists who’ve seen their beloved mother nature die at the expense of corporate greed.

A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek stated that not only is Occupy Wall Street still alive, but suggested that the movement was doing well in asking questions that people had not previously ventured to verbalize.

Unfortunately, most of the 99 percent versus 1 percent debate centers around wealth redistribution. I’m all for increasing opportunity and furthering equality, but a massive transfer of wealth is neither productive nor possible without bloodshed.

That’s why it is pretty interesting to see protesting at a company that’s not making a profit (in other words, Twitter).

While people were celebrating the much-anticipated launch of Twitter’s initial public offering, at the same time, others protested income inequality right outside the very gates of the behemoth of a company.

Their words were different. They feared not the cash the company had generated, but rather the implications of growth. While news clips labeled the citizens as merely upset about Twitter not sharing the wealth, their signs and purpose pointed toward a higher yet slightly more subtle demand — accountability.

Protestors came to address rising rent and property taxes. They wanted not handouts, but adequate protection. As more millionaires sprouted up, the cost of housing rose dramatically — soon making it hard for regular residents to maintain their standards of living.

There is a formal term for this: It’s called gentrification. Commonly associated with residential displacement in communities of color, gentrification formally refers to more wealthy people moving into a new neighborhood. This raises prices and affects the landscape in terms of the type and make up of stores and services.

While praised by many city governments as a positive thing bringing an inflow of cash, there are many unintended side effects.

As poorer individuals suffer with climbing costs they have two choices: accept the higher prices or move out. False comparisons are sometimes made referring to poorer people moving into a wealthy neighborhood which allegedly will even things out. However, the wealthier residents will always have the option to move away.

For those who remain, it may be a matter of simply cutting back, but for the ones forced to move, things are much grimmer.

For those with children in a new zip code, they may find that there is a lower school quality due to a smaller tax base. Still, others may find that they need new jobs if they are now unable to commute to their original jobs. In either case, these factors may turn a former tax contributor into someone relying on governmental support.

Ultimately, this is important because as the gaps widen between the wealthiest and the poorest, there will be a continued drag on the economy. At some point, those now young will be picking up the tab.

The solution begins with conversation. Questions should not revolve around how much wealth we redistribute, but how we can hold both companies and people accountable. Living and barely surviving should not be used as synonyms.

Fran Walker is a senior finance and accounting major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at fwalke01@syr.edu.

Published on November 11, 2013 at 1:16 am