Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

Where you choose to store your money is ultimately a personal decision, and will rely on a number of personal factors and individual needs, but below I’ve reviewed the pros and cons of a couple NYC personal banking options.

Bank of America

Bank of America has been around for a long time, and you can’t travel far in the City without stumbling across several BofAs, making it one of the most easily accessible and visible banks in NYC. One benefit, according to many, is personal checking at Bank of America has no minimum account balance requirement. The Bank’s “Keep the Change” program (which rounds up to the dollar on credit purchases and transfers to savings) also makes it easy to mindlessly and automatically accumulate savings. Additionally, it only takes about 5-10 minutes to enroll in an account, which immediately allows you to begin depositing funds online. A drawback to the Bank is, being such a large corporation, it can feel faceless, intimidating and difficult to navigate. Many report the Bank’s customer service is not ideal (it consistently ranks very low in this category amongst consumers) and monthly charges (i.e. for debit card, maintenance, etc.) can feel like deceptive, hidden fees. Overall, based on user reviews, it ranks low in fee fairness but high in variety and satisfaction with services provided.

Chase

Chase also has a ton of locations in the City, and is a longtime, established bank. Chase provides a ton of free services for personal banking (i.e. debit card, Quickpay, etc.)—and many services in general—which banking customers consider a major competitive advantage. It’s also fairly easy to avoid the monthly service fee on a checking account, but when fees are accrued they’re higher than comparable institutions, say Chase bank users. Additionally, reward programs are not great according to customer reviews. While their interest payments are low, they do have a debit card that provides rewards similar to a credit card. Chase has also received many customer service complaints, which is to be expected with a large bank. Customers say the quality of online banking is good, even if their rates are not that competitive.

Capital One

Capital One has fewer branches than other comparable banks and has not been around nearly as long as larger institutions, though it does boast better rewards. Customers like the bank’s prompt online transactions and services, but larger deposits get held longer than at other, bigger banks. Capital One is reportedly good for customers who don’t have the best starting credit, and are looking to rebuild. Unfortunately this might mean more fees than other banks and limited benefits, resulting in credit limits not being very high. The bank’s customer service ranking has been on the climb in recent years though.

Wells Fargo

Wells Fargo recently took over Wachovia, and has been somewhat in flux in recent years. Branch and ATM locations were reportedly less widespread than other banks on the list, formerly, but since the merger, Wells Fargo is very easy to find in the City.  Online banking services consistently score high reviews, and the bank has averagely ranked financial health. Customer service at Wells Fargo ranks low, and customers report the bank is consistently changing procedure in a manner that seems confusing even to employees. Fees are allegedly high; their overdraft fee is higher than the national average, as are the majority of their other fees. Wells Fargo charges a fee for members to receive online bank statements, which many other banks do not, as well as a debit card fee. Interest rates are also ranked poorly. Wells Fargo also charges a fee to view your account balance at non-Wells Fargo ATMs.

TD Bank  

TD Bank is a good option for New Yorkers who do not foresee themselves needing more than fairly basic banking services. For one, they do not offer as many loan types as other banks. Similar to other banks listed here, however, their establishments are prevalent throughout the City. Their customer service is rated average, and also provides fewer service options than competitors. TD’s overall financial health is considered to be good. Interest rates and fees are ranked averagely compared to the national average. TD is considered trustworthy by overall customer standards, and again, a good option for those who prefer no-frills banking.

HSBC

HSBC operates out of New York City and has over 400 branches located here. At HSBC you can open an online savings account with very little money down, and transfer money between another checking account and HSBC for free on HSBC’s end. You can link an ATM card to this account, which has a higher yield than many other comparable banks. Interest rates are ranked average at HBSC, according to national standards. Some fees are higher at HSBC than national averages, but there is no fee for inactivity, and the “stop payment” fee is much lower than the national average. HSBC ranks strong in financial health. HSBC’s customer service was recently ranked very low, however.

—Compiled by Alissa Fleck

STREET ATTACK
As a 36-year-old man was walking southbound from 96th Street on Lexington Avenue on Tuesday, someone punched him from behind. When the man turned to defend himself, someone else punched him. The man suffered pain and small cuts on the inside of his upper lip and chin. The attackers, a 19-year-old and a 25-year-old, were arrested on the southwest corner of East 93rd Street.

BREAK-IN AND CASH GRAB
On Saturday evening, someone cut the security gate of Max Cleaners on East 81st Street between York and East End avenues and entered through the front door, which is usually left unsecured. The person then snatched $200 from the cash register and the establishment’s TV monitor.

LOOTING FOR LIQUOR
One Upper East Side thief raided a local eatery for a significant supply of booze early Monday morning. The person got access to La Turka Restaurant on the corner of Second Avenue and East 74th Street when he broke the East 74th Street entrance with an unknown object. Inside, the culprit grabbed $500 worth of assorted liquor bottles and fled the store in an unknown direction.

TEXTING TROUBLE
Texting while walking cost one Upper East Sider her phone this weekend. A 29-year-old woman told police that on Sunday night, she got off a city bus on East 96th Street and Lexington Avenue and began walking along East 95th Street while texting on her phone. As she walked, a man came up behind her, knocked her to the ground and snatched her iPhone, worth $300. The man then fled toward Lexington Avenue. The woman tried to chase him, but lost sight of him near East 95th and Park Avenue. When the woman used the “Find My iPhone” application, it pointed her to East 110th Street, but police canvassing of the area could not locate the phone.

EVENING GUEST NIGHTMARE
A 24-year-old man told police he was intoxicated when he brought a girl home to his First Avenue apartment near 91st Street after having drinks at the Brass Monkey Bar on West 12th Street. When he woke up, he discovered both of his iPhones, one personal and one for business, as well as his debit card, were missing. When the man contacted Bank of America, he learned that his card had incurred $6,000 in fraudulent charges. The man suspects that the woman he brought home, in her mid-20s, was responsible for both the phone robberies and the debit card charges.

FOOD CART FIASCO
One 18-year-old man’s attempt to get away with free food failed this weekend. The young man was arrested on Saturday at 4 p.m. after he attempted to grab a handful of food from a cart on the northeast corner of East 86th Street and Third Avenue and punched the 48-year-old cart vendor in the face, causing an abrasion to his right cheek.

The campaigns claim many thousands of people have moved their money out of larger institutions. Despite tales of customer losses, many of the big banks maintain that they have not been significantly affected by such movement. Still, some have bolstered community service and local outreach efforts over the last year.

Representatives at HSBC, which currently has 74 branches throughout Manhattan, said that they did not feel that the company has suffered from move your money campaigns.

“I would say that we haven’t been noticeably impacted,” said HSBC spokesperson Neil Brazil. “We have built extremely strong connections in the community.”

He added that the bank’s strategies for community outreach have “not really changed” with the economic downturn.

Heather Nesle, vice president of corporate sustainability at HSBC, said the company has expanded and bolstered its local philanthropy programs over the last few years. For instance, this year in New York City, HSBC launched Nontraditional Employment for Women, a workforce development effort that helps prepare low-income women for work in fields such as construction, transportation and facilities maintenance.

“As a company, we appreciate the fact that we’re doing something that benefits the community. I think that can only have a positive effect on our reputation and image and on our customers,” Nesle said.

And New York City Bank of America employees contributed more than 34,000 local volunteer hours in 2011, according T.J. Crawford, media relations coordinator.

“Keep in mind that many of the thousands we employ in New York City don’t just work here, they live here too, and they want to see the city and its communities thrive,” Crawford said.

Money and relationships are two things that are very dear to my heart. If you have money to spare, you are one of the select few. If you have a significant other, having low dividends can create its own headache. I, thankfully, attended college without meeting Sallie Mae, and I only hope to have a cordial relationship with her when I apply for a mortgage.

I’m in a serious, monogamous, happy relationship. When we first began dating, both of our finances were considerably low. Scratch that—we were downright broke. Love is generous, but it doesn’t pay the rent, the cable or the electric bill. But just because we were poor, we didn’t skimp on the things that brought us joy as a couple, like spending time together. We just had to get more creative in our approach. So, with great joy, I bring to you a couple of date ideas that will help you out when the bills are due.

Donate. You can incorporate this into your low-budget date by taking your significant other to donate blood, plasma, their luscious locks or their time. It technically isn’t donating if you’re being compensated, but it warrants that term because you are also saving lives. Donating plasma can get you up to $35 per weekly visit, which means couples can make up to $500 a month with regular visits. Also, if you have a head full of hair, donating it via www.buyandsellhair.com, a hair-trading website, can pay up to $100 an inch. Pay Offs: $35–$100; www.bloodbanker.com/plasma.

Focus Groups. A focus group can be a pretty lucrative dating gig. You two will simply be asked to share your opinions on an advertisement or product. Bigwig companies hire these market research companies to gain insight into their products. Most focus groups range from eight to 12 people and are no more than two hours. Focus groups pay immediately with cash or check after the survey has been completed. Pay Offs: $50–$300 an hour.

Use Your Credit Card. But not in that way: most credit cards offer cardholders special deals and discounts. For example, Bank of America grants its cardholders free access to over 150 museums on the first weekend of every month. Also, the major credit card issuers sponsor many sporting events and set aside special tickets at discounted prices for cardholders. Citibank will be selling presale tickets for the much-anticipated Jay-Z and Kanye West “Watch the Throne” tour. How about that for free culture? Pay Offs: $100-plus in savings.

Sit on Your Rump. If you are in a metropolitan area such as Los Angeles or New York, you can sign up to be a seat filler for major award shows. You may not get direct pay, but you will be rubbing elbows with celebrities at the MTV Awards, the American Music Awards and The Grammys. Also, try sitting in as part of a studio audience.

These shows can be a lot of fun, and often give you the chance to meet celebrities, get autographs, free T-shirts, CDs, posters and other giveaways. Pay Offs: $1,000 in ticket savings.

Be in the Background. Being a background actor can actually be a lot of fun. The sessions are long, usually eight to 10 hours, but you can get up to $500 for being on set. You just have to be good at taking direction and promise not to get starstruck as your favorite celebrity walks across the scene. Some advertisements are looking for a special look—I saw one ad for a frumpy, hippie chick and her frumpy friends that paid $400 a day. If you come in as a couple, you can walk away with close to a month’s rent in one day. Clients are usually compensated the day of by cash or check. Pay Offs: $200-plus per assignment

Put it Up For Sale. But don’t do it online. Nix the modern eBay and Craigslist sales, and actually hold one in your front or backyard or at your local community center. As a couple, you can spend the whole day together choosing the goods to be sold, selling them and counting the profit. The fall is a good time to put items up for sale, as many consumers are browsing for interesting holiday knick-knacks for their friends and family members, and you two are looking for extra money to do the same. Pay Offs: $10–unlimited, depending on items sold.

Risk it at the Casino. If you’re one of those high-risk, balls-to-the-wall couples, then taking a trip to the casino might be right up your alley. Mind you, you also need a substantial amount of luck on your side. And you shouldn’t risk your last dollar. But if you have a little financial wiggle room to spare, you can make some money at the casino, as long as you know when to bow out. Pay Offs: Depends on your luck.

See, it pays to be together.

A participant’s critique of Occupy Wall Street on Day 2

By Fritz Tucker

New York City’s Financial District, notorious for devious deals that crash economies, has witnessed a more harmonious set of transactions since Sept. 17. Thousands of people have come together here to share in a more democratic, dialogic and egalitarian cultural exchange than is ordinarily experienced in our society.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) represents humanity’s potential for sudden radical change. The movement, however, suffers from severe limitations that, if not dealt with, will be the movement’s demise. OWS is structurally incapable of organizing multitudes of people with myriad political agendas and has therefore struggled to articulate a basic set of principles, failed to come up with a single demand and has no way of putting into action anything more complex than basic human functions: sleeping, eating, talking and walking through the streets of Manhattan.

On Day 2, I attended the movement’s General Assembly, a meeting advertised as a leaderless, democratic forum where everybody present could participate in discussion and decide upon a plan of action. OWS however, is not the leaderless utopia it pretends to be. A core group of occupiers established the General Assembly’s process, elected themselves “facilitators” and used this power to define the terms of debate.

The main debate that night was whether to march on Wall Street in the morning. I, another young man from New York City and an older Arab professor made speeches about the need to clearly define our movement and build it in Zuccotti Park. The three of us stressed Wall Street’s insignificance to the world financial system, a fact unknown by the out-of-towners who were set on occupying that famous block. Our speeches caused people to clap and cheer, an unusual deviation from the General Assembly’s rule of expressing agreement by raising one’s hands and wiggling one’s fingers.

Whenever a plan of action didn’t conform to the facilitators’ wishes, they simply refused to put the proposal to a vote. When somebody made a particularly popular speech that the facilitators didn’t like, they reminded the crowd that each member was an autonomous individual and should act accordingly. When the leaders gave speeches, however, they stressed the importance of unity. Upon failing to rile up the crowd with rational, well-articulated arguments, the facilitators led group chants.

In spite of this manipulation, the majority of those present clearly were not in favor of marching on Wall Street. The night ended in a facilitator-led vote that undermined any sense of unity in the group, even though the need for unity was the only thing practically everyone agreed upon. Those who wanted to occupy Wall Street the next morning could march, while those who wanted to remain in Zuccotti Park could stay.

The next morning, a few hundred people marched on Wall Street. When the marchers returned to Zuccotti Park, they vacillated between anger at the injustice of the police, who had arrested six of their comrades, and elation that these arrests had brought them media attention. The thing they were most proud of, however, was the rumor that the bell of the New York Stock Exchange had rung at 9:31. One marcher bellowed that nobody could tell him his friends had been arrested for nothing—together they had disrupted the financial system, if only for a minute.

With the current state of the people’s movement, America is in for a long winter.

Fritz Tucker is a writer, activist, theorist and political organizer. A Brooklyn native and resident, he has participated in and written about people’s movements in the U.S. and Nepal. He blogs at fritztucker.blogspot.com. (Disclaimer: He is not speaking for the Occupy Wall St. movement as an official spokesperson but is offering a personal perspective.)

American Autumn Part 2: Full Length 

American Autumn Pt. 2

Occupy Wall Street: Organizing the Movement

By Fritz Tucker

Spectacle and Structure

The people’s movement grows every week, the number of participants peaking on the weekends. At the same time, the movement’s largest organization weakens, rendering the movement vulnerable to being co-opted by those who are better organized.

As of October 8, the New York City General Assembly, the purportedly democratic body of Occupy Wall Street, barely functions as a decision-making mechanism. The NYC-GA has been reduced to a “people’s microphone” for public announcements of the decisions made by “working groups,” decisions which are also posted on public bulletin boards and on the internet. So why go through all the verbal strain? The NYC-GA is one of the main attractions of the Occupy Wall Street spectacle.

And what a spectacle it is! Hourly marches; slogan chanting; free food; celebrity cameos; literature tables; the people’s microphone; the people’s library; signs and banners trumpeting everything from the end of racism to the second coming of Christ; all to the ceaseless beating of a hundred drums.  A tourist unable to read the signs or understand the chants might think that the Occupiers’ main concern is a lack of public festivals, not that our society subjugates the needs of the many to the whims of the few.

As I pointed out in “American Autumn Part One,” the New York City General Assembly is structurally incapable of dealing with multitudes of people with myriad political agendas. The consensus method used by Occupy Wall Street circumvents this diversity by atomizing the movement into tiny groups and friendship circles that ostensibly agree on everything—or at least agree to comply with the desires of the most charismatic, well-connected group members.  There are few well-known historical examples of an influential organization utilizing the consensus method.  Even a relatively small, unified group of people wields more power, in the long run, than a massive, unorganized movement.

A democratic General Assembly would be the most just way to accommodate diversity while maintaining unity.  In the absence of this, the competing organizations set to dictate the avowedly leaderless movement’s policies and goals are as follows:

The Working Groups

Because it is virtually impossible for the General Assembly—which consists of hundreds, sometimes thousands of people—to reach a consensus, everything has been delegated from day one to smaller “working groups.” Most of the hardcore occupiers—those who have spent multiple days and nights in the park—belong to one or more working group.

Unfortunately, these working groups also use the consensus model.  On Saturday, October 8, I spoke with a member of the Press Working Group.  He said that, with twenty to thirty people, the working groups were becoming too big and were finding it difficult to forge consensus.  A group that has trouble coordinating the actions of thirty people is unlikely to provide the model for an alternative society, or even influence highly structured institutions like Bank of America—which has over a quarter million employees—and the US government. .  The operations of these establishments, however, might be temporarily disrupted by the mobilization of millions of unorganized people performing simple acts in unison, like marching.

This appears to be the dominant rationale of the Direct Action Committee.

The Direct Action Committee

The Direct Action Committee is the major player of Occupy Wall Street.  The leaders of the Direct Action Committee are, for the most part, the original organizers of Occupy Wall Street: members of Anonymous, Adbusters and other full-time activists.  These people originally led the General Assembly, and used it to mobilize hundreds of people on marches during the movement’s initial weeks. Now that thousands of New Yorkers gather in downtown Manhattan to march daily, the Direct Action Committee no longer spends countless hours in the General Assembly convincing everyone to consent to these daily marches. 

The marches are completely symbolic, calculated to garner the most attention possible for the least amount of work and thought afforded.  The clearest example of the Direct Action Committee’s modus operandi is the fiasco at the Brooklyn Bridge.  On October 1, The Direct Action Committee led seven-hundred marchers onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge.  Shortly after reaching the roadway, the marchers were stopped by the NYPD.  A police officer with a megaphone shouted to the leaders of the march that, “if you refuse to leave, you will be placed under arrest.”  His voice was easily audible to the march’s leaders, even over the chants of “Take the bridge!  Take the bridge!”

According to a witness who saw the events from the bridge’s walkway—and confirmed by this police video: http://www.youtube.com/nypd#p/a/u/1/BYfti1PeDmA—the leaders of the march did not solicit a group decision on whether or not to continue the march in the face of this threat.  In fact, the march’s leaders did not even exercise their human microphone to inform the marchers that their arrest was imminent.  Instead, the leaders changed the chant to, “Show me what democracy looks like!  This is what democracy looks like!” and led the march onto the bridge’s roadway, allowing the police to carry out what looked like—judging from the dozens of buses from Riker’s Island—a preplanned mass arrest, one of the largest in American history.

This was a poor decision for several reasons.  First, this action exposed the marchers to potentially serious physical danger.  Although the NYPD exercised uncharacteristic restraint, the safety of the marchers was left to the discretion and caprice of the individual officers—not to mention the additional risks that go with occupying a bridge.  Second, it subjected everyone involved, including those who did not self-identify as “arrestable,” to the criminal justice system.  Third, it sent a message that Occupy Wall Street’s leaders—predominantly middle-class white men—are not sensitive to the challenges that involuntary arrest poses to a significant portion of the 99%: those with young children, unsympathetic employers, questionable immigration status, arrest warrants, or a reasonable fear of the police.  Finally, the strategic occupation of the oppressive forces represented by the Brooklyn Bridge proved mostly to annoy middle-class inter-borough commuters. 

This action did result in generating more attention and greater interest in the movement.  For all its faults, the Direct Action Committee’s mobilization of the populous is more participatory than the progressive movement that elected Obama.  In 2008, most progressives seemed to believe that America’s representational democracy could be reformed from the inside, through the election of the right people.  Now these same progressives are thoroughly disillusioned by our nation’s politics and strive to control their collective destiny through united action.  Every day the Occupy Wall Street movement continues, more people dream of a radically different world and make the social networks necessary—if not sufficient—to create it.

If the Occupy Wall Street movement fails to transform these networks into participatory democratic structures that can challenge the hierarchal institutions that led us into financial crises and endless wars, people will likely settle with voting for the “lesser of two evils” every couple of years, an act that bears a greater resemblance to democracy than much of what goes on at Occupy Wall Street.

Organized Labor

Many people only began to take Occupy Wall Street seriously when the labor unions joined the movement.  Labor unions control the machines and tools that are modern society’s vital organs.  Every day, labor unions make the City run smoothly; and on any day, they can choose to stop. This power—kinetic and potential—makes labor organized in its current form capable of raising the standard of living for “the 99%.

Similar to the working groups at Occupy Wall Street, however, the current organization of labor unions is incapable of shifting the paradigm to one in which there is no capital and no class differences. The hierarchal structure of labor unions provides the unity that Occupy Wall Street’s working groups lack.

American labor unions are organized similarly to bourgeois parties and corporations. Laborers elect union officials, who monopolize the organization’s administrative life. Part of this administrative work entails giving orders to the laborers, who do the work that gives the raw material its social value.  At the end of the day, the laborers have the fruits of their labor taken from them and divided primarily among the company’s owners, secondly among the union leadership, and lastly back among themselves. 

Unions keep in check owners who try to disrupt this division of profits.  Union leaders who disrupt this dialectic are kept in check by company owners, or are recalled by union members.  Union members who disrupt this dialectic can be fired either by their union leaders or their company’s owners.  In short, the hierarchy is entrenched.

If Occupy Wall Street is ever to create a world free from oppression—instead of merely mitigating the pain of the oppressed—radical elements within the labor unions must cooperate with radical elements within Occupy Wall Street and form the democratic organizations that are necessary to bring about an ever more participatory, dialogic, democratic, egalitarian society.

The Democratic Party

The power of the Democratic Party to co-opt the Occupy Wall Street movement should not be underestimated. The Democrats hold the nation’s executive branch, as well as roughly half the legislative branch. Despite epitomizing the status quo, to millions of Americans the Democratic Party represents progressivism—particularly when compared to the Republicans. Until a viable alternative emerges, the Democratic Party will be the organization most capable of benefiting from the progressive outcry of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Since the Democratic Party is allowing the Occupy Wall Street movement to continue, one might conclude that the Democratic Party does not feel threatened by Occupy Wall Street.  It may even bank on the movement’s power to mobilize the masses to counter the Tea Party, gain control of the House of Representatives, and maintain the Presidency.

This theory is bolstered by Mayor Bloomberg’s tacit support of Occupy Wall Street, and President Obama’s recent acknowledgement of the “broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” Rather than proposing a plan to end capitalism, Obama proposed “getting back to old-fashioned American values,” like “put(ting) in place financial rules that protect the American people.” During his speech he offered no criticisms of Occupy Wall Street, but did lambaste the Republicans for halting the progress of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Whatever their rationale, the Democrats will most likely wait to see how winter deals with the American Autumn.  If Occupy Wall Street can resolve its structural shortcomings and last through the winter without its core members succumbing to frostbite, the Democrats may realize they’ve been playing with fire.