Margaret thatcher died

[Foxfyre]

[

The worker does not have to make a profit. The worker's interest is in earning a wage doing work that doesn't suck in conditions that don't suck. In the past unions were the voice of the worker to improve working conditions, wages, and address safety issues to EVERYBODY's advantage including the employer.

But when the unions no longer are interested in working with an employer but rather assume a right to whatever the employer has with no concern for consequences, the unions become thugs, tyrants, and destructive to the process.

The worker does not put his savings and working capital at risk in a new venture. The worker does not lose anything but future earnings if a business goes under. It is the employer who is responsible for the infrastructure, overhead, liability risks, insurance,....

I've seen too much bad behavior by employers to break out the violins for them.

The country worked a lot better when we had strong unions. That was before the wealthy bought our government and got Free Trade and Right to Work and all the other stupidity.

"The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists... they're too damned greedy"- Herbert Hoover.


Exactly.

The country worked a lot better when we had most able bodied Americans working and paying their share of taxes; when 50% of Americans were not on some sort of government benefits.

The country worked a lot better when most children were born into two-parent homes and benefitted from having a mom and dad.

The country worked a lot better before government became the enormous, bloated, ever expanding, ever more intrusive monstrosity that it has become.

The country worked a lot better when unions understood that companies have to make a profit in order to exist and did not demand more than the employers could pay and still make a reasonable profit.

The country worked a lot better. . . .we could go on and on.

But you still can't get around the fact that unions demanding ever more from a failing or struggling business is a fool's venture and it will be far more likely that it will be the union that will hurt the worker and not the employer.

 

[peach174]

You really think the UK is better off for THatcher, most Brits don't think so.

Yes they did, that's why they voted for her 3 times.
She ticked off the socialists, but it had to be done or the UK's economy would have gone bye, bye.

And then her own party threw her out as leader.

One would argue that the British economy went bye-bye under her.

No it didn't.
Margaret Thatcher saved Britain from economic disaster, says her former adviser Patrick Minford - Wales Online
Their Socialism was failing and she turned it around.

 

[Papageorgio]

And then her own party threw her out as leader.

One would argue that the British economy went bye-bye under her.

Your claim is most Brits don't think the UK is better off for Thatcher, now you are at one could argue. Interesting shift.

Is this more of your silly sophistry, because I really don't have time for it this morning.

Opinion on Margaret Thatcher remains divided after her death, poll finds | Politics | guardian.co.uk

The defining Thatcherite mission of taking on trade union power was always controversial, but on balance it remains popular too: by 50% to 34% it is deemed to have worked. The independent nuclear deterrent is another battle which the prime minister who pushed ahead with Trident is deemed to have won, by 40% to 28%.

Beyond this, however, the Thatcher prospectus holds less appeal today. Despite suggestions from today's Tory backbench that conflicts with the continent lead to popularity at home, only 38% of voters look back and judge that Thatcher's habit of picking fights with Europe can be said to have worked, as against 39% who say it did not.

On the economic front, the record is mixed – but mostly negative. Her overall shakeup of the tax system splits the country down the middle – the 38% who support the Thatcherite move to increase VAT in order to fund income tax cuts are matched by 38% who say this fiscal switch didn't work.
It's a different story at the top end, however. The sweeping 1980s cuts to top tax rates were sold as unleashing the energy of wealth creators, but they are today judged to have failed by a substantial 47% to 28% margin.

And amid a fresh slump even deeper than that of the 1980s, the Thatcherite macroeconomic mix – namely, putting lower inflation first, and considering unemployment only second – is rejected, by a 41% to 33% margin.

Even more striking is the retrospective rejection of the archetypal institutional reform, the privatisation of utilities such as gas and water – by 49% to 35% Britons say this did not work. Last, and perhaps least surprising, there is the flagship on which Thatcher went down – the poll tax, or more properly the community charge. It is deemed a retrospective failure by a 70% to 14% margin.

I provide a poll with hard numbers, you come up with the oped piece.

At least I know you aren't serious.

 

[peach174]

Women in Chicago aren't mailing themselves off to other countries...

Women in the country you live in, do. I also understand the Czech sex tourism trade is doing quite well...

Point is, guy, you sold these folks a bill of goods about how big companies were going to make their lives better... and they haven't.

I think you may be thinking of the Ukraine and Russia. But anyway, women in Chicago would need to use surface mail to send themselves off, I mean who could afford flying that kind of tonnage around. After all, there's only one who they can haul around on the Air Force 1 747s.

Okay, guy, why do I get the feeling you've never been here, or you wouldn't be talking that kind of shit.

For the record, though..people are moving TO Chicago, not away from it...

U-Haul Ranks Pittsburgh as 2012 Top U.S. Growth City -- PHOENIX, April 12, 2013 /PRNewswire/ --

More people are moving out of Chicago.
According to the US Housing and Urban Development and the US Census Bureau, the data confirms that more people are moving out of Chicago than in to Chicago.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The country worked a lot better when we had most able bodied Americans working and paying their share of taxes; when 50% of Americans were not on some sort of government benefits.

I'd be happy to go back to the 1950's tax structure. The wealthy paid a top marginal rate of 93%.

[
The country worked a lot better when unions understood that companies have to make a profit in order to exist and did not demand more than the employers could pay and still make a reasonable profit.

You don't think unions don't understand this? The problem isn't what employers can pay, it's what they are willing to pay.

Case in point. Hostess. The workers kept making concessions while the HEdge funds kept reaping bigger profits, taking out more risky loans, paying the CEO's bigger salaries.

[
The country worked a lot better. . . .we could go on and on.

But you still can't get around the fact that unions demanding ever more from a failing or struggling business is a fool's venture and it will be far more likely that it will be the union that will hurt the worker and not the employer.

Bullshit. the thing was, in 1980, a CEO made 40 times what a line worker makes. In 2012, it's 400 times. Japanese CEO's make only 10 times what a worker makes, and their unions have a say in who gets to be CEO.

The Japanese have been beating the pants off us for decades.

 

[Katzndogz]

Absolutely - yes.

Another labour government would have totally destroyed the UK.
The unions would have been in effective control of everything.
Workers' commitees would have had effective control over industry.
Benn wanted to dismantle the armed forces, starting with the nuclear subs but stripping everything to the bone.
Britain had already been borrowing from the IMF but labour wanted to spend even more in a pointless attempt to borrow and spend their way out of debt.
NATO membership would have gone as would the EEC when we defaulted on IMF loans.

In a nutshell - a ruddy mess.

Workers actually having a say in the jobs they work in?

THE HORROR OF IT ALL!

Somehow, I don't think that maintaining the ability to beat up on Argentina makes the UK Great.

I ran a small business.
I worked for crazy hours to get it running
I put my money into the risk of starting a business.
Profits are for me as are any and all decisions regarding the direction the business took.

Workers were there to help me make a profit, not take over and run the thing for their benefit.
Their jobs were they because I risked my money and gave my time so I get to decide what happens with the business.

Sod the workers' rights, their right is to get paid for what they do, nothing else.

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

 

[Meathead]

[

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

Could be. Or it could be they want to succeed. Not an easy concept to comprehend, I'm sure?

 

[Foxfyre]

[

The country worked a lot better when we had most able bodied Americans working and paying their share of taxes; when 50% of Americans were not on some sort of government benefits.

I'd be happy to go back to the 1950's tax structure. The wealthy paid a top marginal rate of 93%.

[
The country worked a lot better when unions understood that companies have to make a profit in order to exist and did not demand more than the employers could pay and still make a reasonable profit.

You don't think unions don't understand this? The problem isn't what employers can pay, it's what they are willing to pay.

Case in point. Hostess. The workers kept making concessions while the HEdge funds kept reaping bigger profits, taking out more risky loans, paying the CEO's bigger salaries.

[
The country worked a lot better. . . .we could go on and on.

But you still can't get around the fact that unions demanding ever more from a failing or struggling business is a fool's venture and it will be far more likely that it will be the union that will hurt the worker and not the employer.

Bullshit. the thing was, in 1980, a CEO made 40 times what a line worker makes. In 2012, it's 400 times. Japanese CEO's make only 10 times what a worker makes, and their unions have a say in who gets to be CEO.

The Japanese have been beating the pants off us for decades.

So move to Japan please and enjoy their unions to your hearts content. But be prepared to find the attitude of the average Japanese worker to be much closer to my point of view than yours. Most Japanese owned manufacturing plants in the USA are NOT unionized and those that are are done so via the Japanese model which is why they can beat the pants off American companies that are.

Further Japanese management helps in the organization of unions for the mutual benefit of both. And Japanese workers, rather than their union bosses prohibiting them from doing anything other than their job description, busy themselves helping out elsewhere if they don't have anything to do at their assigned station at the moment.

. . . .In America, unions are not organized by company, but are instead organized broadly through many companies, such as the UAW (United Auto Workers). At the height of their power, they had elaborate work rules, over 100 job classifications (for which workers were not allowed to switch tasks or help out in other areas even if currently idle in their own areas), and an antagonistic attitude toward management. . . .

(Meanwhile at the Mazda plant
. . . .What was happening here, was that rather than focusing on wages and benefits, as American unions do, this union was focusing on keeping the economy strong in order to protect the job security of union members. “The Japanese union believed it had a responsibility to help increase Mazda’s productivity, and improve its competitiveness.” (Fucini, p. 21)

“Under this philosophy, the union and management were not adversaries, as they were in America, but partners, each working to create a successful company.” (Fucini, p. 21) The difference was that all Japanese autoworker unions are company unions; thus, their fortunes are linked absolutely to those of the automaker.
how American and Japanese labor unions differ | Intercultural Meanderings

 

[JoeB131]

[

Workers in closed shop unions( you probably don't know what that means) working in NATIONALISED industries and government jobs, under a labour government in which all profits were transferred to payroll, demanding pay increases of 36%above inflation that would create negative profit margins for the NATIONALISED industry, do you still not understand that?
How about mountains of trash in the streets?
Bodies piled up in morgues because government employed grave diggers went on strike?
That was the reality of the UK before thatcher.

Yawn... somehow, I doubt it was as horrible as you make it out to be. Sounds to me like the government should have settled the strike, then.

[
How did the UK "beat up on Argentina"?

Argentina invaded the UK, killed British citizens, behaved terribly toward women and children, rape and violence were common.
War crimes were comitted, they placed artilliary next to schools and hospitals using children and the sick as human shields.

The UK military, smaller and with inferior equipment, counter attacked and sent the invaders back to Argentina.

You should get a book, one that explains freedom, though I doubt it would help you. Argentina was a fascist military dictatorship. Lefties love those.

Actuallly, only three civilians were killled in the Falkands conflict, three women killed by friendly fire. So much for the "murdering" Argies.

So as much as you guys are out there whining, the real blame lies with Thatcher turning a non-issue into a major war that killed 1000 people unnecessarily.

 

[JoeB131]

[

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

Could be. Or it could be they want to succeed. Not an easy concept to comprehend, I'm sure?

Well, if they did, you'd have a point.

You know, the Douchebag,the one who fired me for medical bills, the ones who cured me of ANY fucking sympathy for managers, bosses or business owners.

that guy put in long hours. The early days, we'd get these 15 minutes ranting voice messages on our phones about how he didn't understand something in a report... then he had to sheepishly admit he got it wrong.

I'm done feeling bad for manangers, CEO's, and businessmen. I could care less about their problems than they care about mine. Pay your fair share in taxes and treat your employees decently... period.

 

[Indofred]

[

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

I'd sack you.
Commie ideals have no place in business....or anywhere else.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

I'd sack you.
Commie ideals have no place in business....or anywhere else.

It ain't about me, man.

Just pointing out the obvious.

Putting in long hours does not make you a good manager. It usually means you are a bad one.

First company I worked for out of the Army, the people who ran it paid mimimal salaries, and pretty much tried to cheapshot the employees at every turn. As a result, they had awful turnover and pilferage and orders that never got filled correctly because people didn't care.

They went out of business.

My mistake was not seeing that is really how most capitalism works. The greedy run things badly, blame you for their bad leadership.

 

[Toro]

[

I've run several small businesses. Very very seldom would the employees have any say in how I ran my business. Usually they wanted more money for less work. It was okay for them to work less, because this was a small business and I had to make up any deficiency. The employees never minded at all that I put in 20 hours a day, it was my business after all.

That doesn't impress me.

It just tells me as a manager, you suck at delegating. Mangers who put in long hours are usually the worst managers they are, because they have an inflated view of their own importance and they don't have employees with enough loyalty to carry some of the weight.

And you getting fired over medical bills tells me you suck as an employee.

I'd have no problem paying an employee's medical bills. The employee would have to be really, really bad for me to even consider not paying.

 

[Foxfyre]

The one who is resentful of American enterprise and who hates the success of American innovation and initiative and who thinks the worker should have all the say in how business should be run, is not likely to even acknowledge, much less appreciate when his arguments are taken apart one by one.

Those workers who understand that their employer's prosperity is the only way for the worker to prosper and put their full ability behind making that happen; those who understand that a strong economy of prospering American enterprise is the way for the most people to prosper. . .such employees are worth far more than those who gumble and bitch and resent their employers.

And they are also great citizens and Americans that best benefit from the freedoms and superior opportunities that a free market system can provide.

Maggie Thatcher understood that concept whether in America or in the U.K. or Japan or anywhere else. Union thugs usually don't.

 

[Synthaholic]

Margaret Thatcher's Death Party



Margaret Thatcher's Death Party | VICE United States

 

[Katzndogz]

Every time I wanted to teach my employees a lesson, I would not show up for a day or two. That was usually enough to put the fear of God in their hearts. Without any of them, I would hire someone else, without me, none of them would have a job.

 

[Meathead]

Margaret Thatcher's Death Party



Margaret Thatcher's Death Party | VICE United States

Check out the scum! Seriously, I would be proud if that caliber of people celebrated my death. It would be testament to my accomplishments.

 

[Foxfyre]

Margaret Thatcher's Death Party



Margaret Thatcher's Death Party | VICE United States

Check out the scum! Seriously, I would be proud if that caliber of people celebrated my death. It would be testament to my accomplishments.

Exactly. Union thugs who seek to profit themselves at the expense of their employer are willing to weaken that employer, weaken the economy, and hurt everybody so that they can get theirs. And then they call their employers the greedy ones.

And we have a generation of young people who have been conditioned to think they are entitled to what everybody else earns whether or not they contribute to the economy, whether or not they work a lick. And they self righteously point to a Maggie Thatcher who saved the economy and opportunities for them as the mean witch.

We have far too many people who are unwilling to accept any pain whatsoever to correct what is wrong and who condemn the doctor or statesman who they see as responsible for the pain. They never seem to have the intellect to blame the illness or the policies that created the situation that made the pain necessary to correct it.

Or they blame what caused it and use that as a justification not to do anything to correct it.

Either way they are the problem and not the Maggie Thatchers of the world.

 

[peach174]

It's disgusting.

If she would have been a lefty they would be celebrating her for her accomplishments.
Like being the first woman prime minister, breaking through a Parliament that was run by a sea of men.
She changed the lefts ideas of socialism and they have never done the same type of policies ever since.
Even they admitted it.