Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984

[Missouri Mule]

Pretty impressive.
===================
Oct 30, 8:54 AM (ET)

By JEANNINE AVERSA

WASHINGTON (AP) - The economy grew at a scorching 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers spent with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new evidence of an economic resurgence. (SNIP)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031030/D7UGHGD02.html

[allan]

I saw that in the Post this morning. That's great news, now lets hope the growth continues, and job creation occurs.

[Missouri Mule]

I've seen this coming for some time. It just took its sweet time. I have a friend in the trucking business and she told me many months ago that the volume of shipping had increased markedly. She also forecast the slowdown as well. This would be a good leading indicator of where the economy is going. These things feed on itself.

Right here in little old P-Town where I live they are building a brand new 110,000 sq ft Lowe's home improvement center. That will cost many, many millions of dollars. About 200 jobs right there. That increases the local money available to other business and the mulitiplier effect will be felt across the board. This is the true "trickle down" economy.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule

Right here in little old P-Town where I live they are building a brand new 110,000 sq ft Lowe's home improvement center. That will cost many, many millions of dollars. About 200 jobs right there. That increases the local money available to other business and the mulitiplier effect will be felt across the board. This is the true "trickle down" economy.

Sort of...here's my problem with this scenario. The Lowes opens and provides 200 jobs, 195 of which pay $6-$8 an hour. In the meantime, the factory down the street is closing down (this is a hypothetical factory), so the people at the factory who were making $10-$15 per hour are now making 35%-50% less. This pattern is occurring across the country, we are replacing decently-paying manufacturing jobs with low paying service jobs (generally these service jobs also have no or crappy benefits).

So yea, it is trickle down...but necessarily in the way you meant ;).

[Missouri Mule]

The truth is that there aren't a lot of those $10-15 hour jobs where I live. It is a trade-off. I chose to retire to this community because I like small towns and the laid-back atmosphere and hate to deal with heavy traffic of the larger cities. It is possible to make a pretty decent living waiting on tables at the restaurants here. Wal-Mart doesn't pay all that well but I suspect that Lowe's will pay more. The more competition for labor will mean that there will be upward pressure on wages in order to attract the best help. It is simply not good business practice to recruit out of the bottom of the barrel.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
The truth is that there aren't a lot of those $10-15 hour jobs where I live. It is a trade-off. I chose to retire to this community because I like small towns and the laid-back atmosphere and hate to deal with heavy traffic of the larger cities. It is possible to make a pretty decent living waiting on tables at the restaurants here. Wal-Mart doesn't pay all that well but I suspect that Lowe's will pay more. The more competition for labor will mean that there will be upward pressure on wages in order to attract the best help. It is simply not good business practice to recruit out of the bottom of the barrel.

Sure, but they are not going to rise to the level of a "professional" worker -- someone who can make enough money to support a family. Whereas factory work has traditionally been that, fulltime work where an employee makes enough money to support a family.

[Missouri Mule]

That's true enough but many people living here are retired or self-employed. They do just fine. If I were younger, then I would be forced to move to Tyler, some 47 miles up the road. There are many jobs up there paying good money and it was ranked as the #3 small city in America. So we have choices. No one is locked into their economic circumstances.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
That's true enough but many people living here are retired or self-employed. They do just fine. If I were younger, then I would be forced to move to Tyler, some 47 miles up the road. There are many jobs up there paying good money and it was ranked as the #3 small city in America. So we have choices. No one is locked into their economic circumstances.

You are if you don't have a college degree and the manufacturing jobs keep disappearing at the rate they are. That was my whole point. as a country, we are losing manufacturing jobs at a horrific level. Those jobs, which have been the cornerstone of the middle class are being replaced with lower wage service jobs or temp jobs -- both traditionally lower paying jobs.

[Missouri Mule]

"You are if you don't have a college degree"

That's not true at all. I know any number of people without degrees that are making money hand over fist. There are trades to get into and if you do it well you can make a bundle. Look at the pay of a certified welder for example. An auto worker can make up to $100K a year. Building tradesman can make a bundle. My builder makes so much money the banks can't hold it all. Of course he works eight days a week.

A college degree will help get you in the door. Sometimes it is an impediment to necessary filler jobs until the right one comes along. As Nixon said, anyone with an iron butt can get through college. I've known people with college degrees that couldn't find their rear end with both hands.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule

That's not true at all. I know any number of people without degrees that are making money hand over fist. There are trades to get into and if you do it well you can make a bundle. Look at the pay of a certified welder for example. An auto worker can make up to $100K a year. Building tradesman can make a bundle. My builder makes so much money the banks can't hold it all. Of course he works eight days a week.


Statistically it is true. On average people with college degrees make more money than those without a degree. There are exceptions to every rule and you are absolutely right it is possible to make a good deal of money without a degree, but the majority of people make more money with a degree.

[Missouri Mule]

Well, I agree with you on that point. No question about it. But you said "not without a college degree" which was all inclusive, was it not?

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Well, I agree with you on that point. No question about it. But you said "not without a college degree" which was all inclusive, was it not?

It was a generalization, but you are correct I could have been less specific ;). Although, in fairness to me my full quote was:

"You are if you don't have a college degree and the manufacturing jobs keep disappearing at the rate they are." Two of the examples you gave would be affected by a continued loss of manufacturing jobs.

[Missouri Mule]

Building tradesmen would be affected? If I am not mistaken, new housing starts is near or at an all time high. Everywhere I look something new is going up. I would think a certified welder would always be in great demand at a very high pay level.

No one really has it made. Middle managers often have real rough sledding if they lose their jobs.

I've often wondered if the federal government wanted to do something worthwhile we ought to have a national database of jobs where anyone can access it to fit their job skills. It has been my experience that when one realizes they have other options their mind opens wider and optimism floods in to replace all of the negativism that is a natural result of being without gainful employment. I've been in some of those low troughs in my lifetime, having been fired three times. But you can't let it get you down. You just have to pick yourself up and go forward.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule

I've often wondered if the federal government wanted to do something worthwhile we ought to have a national database of jobs where anyone can access it to fit their job skills. It has been my experience that when one realizes they have other options their mind opens wider and optimism floods in to replace all of the negativism that is a natural result of being without gainful employment. I've been in some of those low troughs in my lifetime, having been fired three times. But you can't let it get you down. You just have to pick yourself up and go forward.

You've been fired three times, with your sparkling personality I find that hard to believe :D :D :D.

[Missouri Mule]

Yes, I had a habit of speaking my mind. One learns to keep one's thoughts to oneself later on in life.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Yes, I had a habit of speaking my mind. One learns to keep one's thoughts to oneself later on in life.

Had the same problem when I was younger, got me in more than a little trouble ;). Now, I know when to pick my battles and when to mutter under my breath ;).

[Missouri Mule]

Later on I supervised an office of 65. One of the things that irritated me were those who bellyached to others about things even though I had an "open door" policy all the time. I would discuss anything and everything and never turned anyone away. But people let issues fester and personality problems erupt in the workplace and it can get rough.

My issues usually had to do with inefficiencies and poor management. I was also naive about office politics. Live and learn.

[Catch 22]

So the GDP went up and the stock market went up. *shrugs* It doesn't really matter if the economy is "growing' if all it means is that rich people are making profits from tax cuts they invested.

As for the walmartizing of America it's a major problem. GM used to be the largest employer in the US where a person could earn 25 bucks an hour plus benefits, now the largest employer is wal mart where you make 7 bucks an hour without any type of benefits. This is a 2 sided problem here, because not only does this shift severely impoverish the working class but it also undermines America’s last real economic tool, buying power. Without buying power the World will have no real reason to use the dollar as a reserve note. It's a surprise sometimes why they haven't already. The Us has no trade surplus, no currency reserve, and no real vital resources.

[Missouri Mule]

"and no real vital resources."

We have hundreds of years of coal reserves and potentially many, many years of natural gas reserves. It is always odd that whenever the price of oil goes up that supplies go up, or is it?

[Catch 22]

we have coal and oil reserves but those are mostly by saving it in a little piggy bank. We don't have the capacity to get them from our own lands all too easily.

It is odd but oil pricing has always been odd. I mean it's based mainly on the opinions of a few third world nations.

[NetxMan]

I am not rich and I got tax cuts. Just thought I would bring that up.

Something else I would like to mention. You don't get a "TAX CUT" unless you pay "TAXES", I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. Is that understandable? Thanks for understanding.:o

[Catch 22]

Originally posted by NetxMan
I am not rich and I got tax cuts. Just thought I would bring that up.

Something else I would like to mention. You don't get a "TAX CUT" unless you pay "TAXES", I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. Is that understandable? Thanks for understanding.:o

well it's kind of dumb to give tax cuts to people who already have plenty of money. I'm sorry if you're loosing part of your salary to the goverment but at least you can pay part of your salary to the government.

[Missouri Mule]

"we have coal and oil reserves but those are mostly by saving it in a little piggy bank."

I believe the record will show that we have hundreds of years supply of coal. Out west in Wyoming for example you can see train loads of coal stretching for miles. It is relatively easy to extract.

If we want energy independence we could do it by increasing the price of energy resources. We could plow that money into useful projects and simultaneously cut down the use of inefficient energy use. That's sensible energy policy. In real terms we are actually paying less than we paid in the 50s for gasoline.

[allan]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
"and no real vital resources."

We have hundreds of years of coal reserves and potentially many, many years of natural gas reserves. It is always odd that whenever the price of oil goes up that supplies go up, or is it?

Don'y forget about corn, solar, and wind power.

[Missouri Mule]

It takes energy to grow the corn so I don't see the sense of that but sure, wind, water and solar are fine. Whatever works. We can do a whole lot better than we have. I've been a big fan of these hybrid vehicles. The new Toyota Prius gets about 60 mpg in the city. Ford was SUPPOSED to have a hybrid Escape coming out in 2004 but that has been pushed back because they are not yet up to speed on this technology. GM expects to have its big trucks in hybrids by 2007.

[gopman]

The problem with hybrid cars is this: The electric energy is created in plants where the same amount of fossil fuels are burned as would be in the cars. It is possible that this "point source" pollution is worse, because it is more likely to open a hole in the o-zone. As for consumer benefits, it is possibly more convenient to fill up your tank less often, and you save $3000 in gas every few years, but then you have to go buy a $3000 battery. I don't think that hybrids are worth it yet. I'll wait for the hydrogen cars.

[Missouri Mule]

Well, actually they are a little more than that. The gasoline engine operates over a more efficient RPM range. And they also recover energy from braking. And, even at 6'6" tall I was able to sit comfortably in the Toyota Prius. They are here to stay, IMHO.

[up2date]

Originally posted by gopman
The problem with hybrid cars is this: The electric energy is created in plants where the same amount of fossil fuels are burned as would be in the cars. It is possible that this "point source" pollution is worse, because it is more likely to open a hole in the o-zone. As for consumer benefits, it is possibly more convenient to fill up your tank less often, and you save $3000 in gas every few years, but then you have to go buy a $3000 battery. I don't think that hybrids are worth it yet. I'll wait for the hydrogen cars. That's a problem with electric cars. With hybrid cars, the car's own internal combustion engine constantly charges the battery. Plus, those engineers are pretty smart. They take things like the heat generated by breaking, and convert that to usable energy as well. If you buy a Prius, for example, you will never have to charge the battery.

[up2date]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Well, actually they are a little more than that. The gasoline engine operates over a more efficient RPM range. And they also recover energy from braking. And, even at 6'6" tall I was able to sit comfortably in the Toyota Prius. They are here to stay, IMHO. MM types faster than I do. :(

[Missouri Mule]

It's that good old IBM keyboard I have.

[Catch 22]

good point about the coal I forgot about that. But then again coal is about as clean as sewage.

The best way to solve America’s enrage problem shooed probably be heavy investment in the alternative fuel sector and aggressive legislation to increase fuel efficiency standards and to provide tax incentives and penalties for efficient and inefficient cars. No offense to SUV lovers but if you can afford to waste that much money on gas I think you can take a tax penalty. If we really tried America could be independent of oil within 30 years.

[Missouri Mule]

Originally posted by Catch 22
good point about the coal I forgot about that. But then again coal is about as clean as sewage.

Coal can be converted to natural gas and it can be "scrubbed" in the power plants where it is primarily used.

[Catch 22]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Coal can be converted to natural gas and it can be "scrubbed" in the power plants where it is primarily used.

Converting it to natural gas is rather expensive or inefficent isn't it?

[Missouri Mule]

I can't say offhand. I've not studied it in depth but I know it can be done. We have enormous supplies of coal. I know, because I've seen the seemingly endless trains coming out of Wyoming coming back east. It is easy to get at, very little enviornmental problems and of fairly high quality if I recall correclty.

In the energy business virtually everything revolves around the price of energy. If we were to increase the price of gasoline to say $2.50 per gallon tomorrow, oil wells would be drilled everywhere because it would pay to do so. Even where I live, I see a lot of new wells being drilled and old ones pumping because the price of Texas oil has increased as much as it has.

Bottom line. There is no shortage of energy and don't believe anyone who tells you differently. If you don't believe me, ask none other than Ralph Nadar who said in congressional hearings that we are "swimming in oil." That's good enough for me.

[Blueangel]

One industry that you should never take for granted is coal mining.
I live in an area that was one of the biggest coal mining communities in Europe, until the Miners Strike of 1984-85.
The Beast, Maggie Thatcher (and I make no apologies for that statement) hit the industrial heartland of Britain harder than any British leader in history. Note, in the linked article, that Thatcher even utilised MI5 to supress, infiltrate and spy on the Union leadership and strikers.

http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/UK_miners_strike_1984_1985_.html

These days, the only coal production is from rather small pits in Nottinghamshire and most of our solid fuel is imported from Poland.

As for petrol/gasoline, Britain's taxation system means that we pay far more than our European counterparts and about 10x more than the U.S.
Bear in mind, Britian has extensive drilling operations in the North Sea and a few in the Irish Sea, and should, by rights, be totally self-sufficient in this area.
We are at the point where it makes good economic sense to take a trip to the continent just to fill our cars with fuel!
How crazy is that?!

I'd be curious to know what (if any) government subsidies your coal mining industry has in operation?

[Missouri Mule]

I don't know about the subsidies although I will look into it. But I seem to remember that the coal miner's unions virtually wrecked Britain's economy.

Most of the coal mining out west is strip mining. They use large cranes to get the coal out, then after the coal is extracted, they cover it over and replant the area.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I don't know about the subsidies although I will look into it. But I seem to remember that the coal miner's unions virtually wrecked Britain's economy. I hate to think of how it was reported in the U.S. At the time, Reagan and Thatcher were hand in glove with each other and I doubt that people in the U.S. were truely aware of how despised Thatcher really was.
I'll go so far as to say, at least half the country cheered when the I.R.A. bombed the Brighton hotel she was staying in...and that's not like us. Many of us were gutted that she survived.

To those of us who saw it on our streets every day, it was the act of a megalomaniac dictator in a flowery dress, to oppress the unions throughout industry. The leader of the miners union made a fatal error in taking strike action without going through the proper balloting procedure.
A knee-jerk reaction that partially led to the downfall of the industry.
We're talking 20,000+ bread winners were actively denied any form of financial support for almost a year!
20,000+ proud working men, unable to support their families at all!

They were fighting for their jobs and refused to lay down and play dead. At the time, there were no alternative jobs for them. The local economy couldn't support such a large influx of job seekers. It was literally, fight for the job you already have or spend the rest of your working life scraping by on benefits.
They took a chance...and lost.

Having said that, can you imagine how U.S. miners would react if your current administration said it was closing down nearly all of your operations and importing 90% of your solid fuel from Russia instead?

[Missouri Mule]

I suppose our perceptions differ markedly. Margaret Thatcher was to many Americans, including me, a true heroine. As I recall, England was seen to be the "sick man of Europe" before she finally took over. You should also remember that the British voters are the ones who finally had enough of the extortionist policies of the unions. When Reagan was confronted with the air traffic controllers he fired them and set the tone for the rest of his administration that he wasn't going to roll over for that nosense.

As far as how I might feel. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be in the least affected. If I were in a coal miner's family I would probably feel differently. No one would ever say that this isn't a tough and dangerous job. But no union or organization should have the power to bring a nation to its knees.

Let me give you an example of what happens when a union has too much power. The UAW (United Auto Workers) for years got bought off by the "Big Three" American auto manufacturers. They earn too much, work too little and have too many benifits. As a result these American auto manufacturers are losing so much money that it is unlikely they will survive. By contrast the Japanese do not have these huge pension overhanging their balance sheets and are constantly pushing the market share of the U.S. manufacturers down from about 85% in 1980 to about 59% today. Who loses when unions have too much power? Everyone. Those pensions will go the way of buggy whips when those U.S. companies are forced into bankruptcy.

Americans, by and large, are not terribly sympathetic to unions. Unions are seen by most to be corrupt and a drag on the economy, fostering inefficient work rules and the like. And the union membership keeps going down, down, down with the only increases coming in government unions.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I suppose our perceptions differ markedly. Margaret Thatcher was to many Americans, including me, a true heroine. As I recall, England was seen to be the "sick man of Europe" before she finally took over. You should also remember that the British voters are the ones who finally had enough of the extortionist policies of the unions. Your first sentence in this statement scares me. I'm truely shocked that a foreign national has seen Thatcher portrayed as a heroine.
Outside of London and the South East of England, she is, and will always be seen as a villain. She is despised with a venom I have never witnessed before or since for a party leader, never mind a Prime Minister.
Even the Queen is known to have referred to Thatcher as "that woman!". There was no love lost between them at all.

As for the nation voting for her...her aides manipulated the election results to the point of changing constituency boundaries prior to the general election to ensure success. This led to a massive cry for proportional representation.
It's despicable when 15,000 Conservative votes equals a seat in Parliament, yet 100,000 Labour votes only equalled 1 seat.

[Catch 22]

I don't know about swimming in oil mule. Sure we can still find more but the numbers indicate that even with new wells we're finding fewer and fewer new sources every year. Don’t know exactly but I'm pretty sure that by around 2020 we'll be out of major new oil finds. That's not good.

Coal itself burns dirty and even converted probably is rather costly. Otherwise wouldn't we just power everything via coal converted natural gas? It's cleaner, and safer than gasoline ever is. Moreover I don't really think coal mining is good for the environment. Hacking up the countryside doesn't always work well.

In my opinion it would be a great idea if the US subsidized solar and wind power so as to make it cost comparative to oil. I mean if we spend hundreds of billions on farm subsidies why not stop impoverishing farmers overseas and instead start paying farmers here to set up solar farms or wind farms.

[Missouri Mule]

"Your first sentence in this statement scares me. I'm truely shocked that a foreign national has seen Thatcher portrayed as a heroine."

Without question, most Americans looked upon Margaret Thatcher as a strong leader and someone to be admired. I certainly did. She was a terrific motivator and has in the past given motivational speeches here in the U.S. My wife attended one of those in K.C., MO. Very impressive.

Look at the progress that England has made since she came along. You were going down the tubes, much the same way that France and Germany are now heading. The government was bloated and held hostage by the labor unions. That is a dead end and certainly not a road to prosperity for the nation as a whole.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Look at the progress that England has made since she came along. You were going down the tubes, much the same way that France and Germany are now heading. The government was bloated and held hostage by the labor unions. That is a dead end and certainly not a road to prosperity for the nation as a whole. :eek:This only goes to show the power of propaganda!
Thatcher steered Britain into the worst recession we'd known since the 1930's.
Over 3million unemployed. I was one of them.
From leaving college, I spent 4years on and off the dole, only able to get rubbish short term jobs that led nowhere. And it wasn't for want of looking. I was 23 before I got a job less than 20miles from where I live.
My brother graduated with an excellent Law degree yet was unemployed for 18months. He couldn't even get a job as a bin man (refuse disposal).
My dad's family were life-long Conservative voters...they switched to Labour in an effort to get rid of her.
Millions of people had there homes repossessed.
Interest rates shot through the roof.
And don't forget...at the end of the day, her own party ousted her. Even they had got sick of her.

I sincerely hope that woman burns in hell for what she did to the people of Britain.

[Missouri Mule]

Let me ask you this then. Other than her policies directed against the unions, what of her policies contributed to the problems you refer to? Did she have a tight money policy? What exactly was wrong with her policies? That is to say, Thatcher didn't just wake up one morning and proclaim that she wanted high unemployment. There has to be more to this story.

[Missouri Mule]

Margaret Thatcher

Champion of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY PAUL JOHNSON
She was the catalyst who set in motion a series of interconnected events that gave a revolutionary twist to the century's last two decades and helped mankind end the millennium on a note of hope and confidence. The triumph of capitalism, the almost universal acceptance of the market as indispensable to prosperity, the collapse of Soviet imperialism, the downsizing of the state on nearly every continent and in almost every country in the world--Margaret Thatcher played a part in all those transformations, and it is not easy to see how any would have occurred without her...


http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html

[Blueangel]

I feel any further discussion on this matter will lead us nowhere.
You clearly have your opinion which I must respect. It is your own and based on your own beliefs.
I lived through her reign as Prime Minister, thus, I have my own opinions from personal and life changing experience. I was denied a university education that I was more than qualified to pursue.
Why?
The simple answer was...because my father had died two months previously and her policies excluded me from receiving an education grant.
And you say she was a champion of free minds?

When you have the time, I suggest you check out the laws that were brought in under her administration.
It was the closest modern Britain has ever known to living in a police state.

There is nothing on this planet that will ever make me feel anything but absolute hatred for Thatcher and her cohorts.
I am not blinkered. I'm not in denial of any good she may have done.
I was one of her millions of victims and I come from a area that was decimated by her policies.
Nothing will ever wipe that away from my mind.

It is best that we agree to differ.

[Missouri Mule]

It's your call but I was just wondering about what specific policies you disagreed with. We'll let it go at that.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
It's your call but I was just wondering about what specific policies you disagreed with. We'll let it go at that. A good place to start would be the 1981 Nationality Act.

One of the most abhorrent examples of institutionalised racism I've known.

I'll leave it there.

[Missouri Mule]

The Falkland Islands?

[Blueangel]

It was nothing to do with the Falklands.
It's most offensive premiss was that being born in Britain was no longer a guarantee of nationality.
Basically, the children of immigrants had no right to British citizenship.

I find that extremely offensive and an example of thinly veiled racism.

The idea that two people could come to the U.K. as small children, be brought up and educated here, yet be told that their offspring have no nationality?!!

[Missouri Mule]

Well, I had googled that and the Falklands did in fact come up in the FAQ section so I thought that might a motivating origin of the act.

I assume that there must have been some rationale for the act. Was it to discourage unlimited immigration? We have somewhat an analogous situation here where illegal immigrants will come into the U.S. to birth their children. By law, these children are U.S. citizens even though the parents aren't. As such they have all the rights of American citizens and consequently pose an additional burden on the taxpayers in the form of welfare and medical care benefits.

[Blueangel]

The Falklands War was 1982.
The Nationality Act was 1981.

Again, I feel there is a basic cultural difference between us here.

I'm not au fait with U.S. immigration policy, but I am aware that there has been a problem with illegal immigrants.

The difference is, in the 1950's and 60's, Britain actively encouraged and aided immigrants from Commonwealth nations in the West Indies and Asia. It was a similar idea to that of the Australian government offering a £10 package to immigrants from the U.K.

At the time, Britain had full employment and was experiencing difficulties filling more menial jobs.

Yet when we hit the height of the recession in 1981, Thatcher threw everything back in these peoples faces by making it law that the children of these immigrants were not entitled to British citizenship.

To my mind, that was horribly wrong.

It's one of the acts that led to riots in most of Britain's major cities in the summer on '81.
Add to this, the introduction of the Poll Tax and Thatcher's blatant support for Pinochet, and you get a very disenchanted and restless society.

[Missouri Mule]

I've exchanged a good number of e-mails with a lady in the UK who has a different take on the matter. She pointed out that in some major cities there that the cultural makeup has completely changed from what England used to be.

Do you subscribe to unlimited immigration and that there can be no changes to provide a disincentive for new immigration? Where do you draw the line?

When we first began discussing this you made reference to your economic situation and implied that Thather's policies were to fault. You have discussed her social policies. I'm not entirely certain how her economic polices impacted you exactly. For example, did she tighten the screws on money creation to fight inflation, perhaps? How did her standing up to the miner's union impact you personally? Should a union be able to bring a nation's economy to ruin?

I'm just trying to understand the situation from your perspective.

[Catch 22]

Mule thatcher was rather well evil. The woman had open rioting during her tenure. Moreover her authoritarian rule essentially put the nail in the coffin for Britain's Conservative Party. Now it's nothing but a bunch of race baiting losers. Then again labor isn’t all to much better.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I've exchanged a good number of e-mails with a lady in the UK who has a different take on the matter. She pointed out that in some major cities there that the cultural makeup has completely changed from what England used to be. Of course it's changed!
What's wrong with that?
If a government actively encourages immigration, which Britain did for quite some time, the cultural make-up of a nation is bound to change.
To a degree, I'm also an immigrant. Though my ancesters have lived here for over 100years, they originally came from Ireland, Scotland and Germany. The latter branch were refugees of prejudice on the continent.
Anyone who holds with the idea of 'England for the English' has little knowledge of their own countries history and is, to my mind, nothing more than a racist.
Many ethnic groups have lived in England for about 300 years.
Immigration has been commonplace since the time of Elizabeth I.

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Do you subscribe to unlimited immigration and that there can be no changes to provide a disincentive for new immigration? Where do you draw the line? Britain has a responsibility to refugees and asylum seekers as part of our constitution.
We also have a responsibility to members of the Commonwealth.
Only today, Rememberance Sunday, many representatives of Britain's ethnic groups, laid wreaths on cenotaphs all over the country, in memory of the contribution of our Commonwealth allies who gave their lives for Britain. Many of these nations were under no direct threat, yet they came to the aid of Britain at our darkest hour.
To treat these people and their descendants with anything but the utmost respect and dignity, is sheer ignorance and abhorrent to anyone who prizes their freedom.

Immigrants fall into many catagories. It is up to the government of the day to decide what level of immigration is appropriate and sustainable.
Thatcher's Nationality Act denied basic rights to the offspring of legal and established immigrants. That is nothing more than institutionalised racism and cannot be defended on any grounds.

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
When we first began discussing this you made reference to your economic situation and implied that Thather's policies were to fault. You have discussed her social policies. I'm not entirely certain how her economic polices impacted you exactly. For example, did she tighten the screws on money creation to fight inflation, perhaps? I'm unsure of the exact policies surrounding this as I was still at school when they came to be. All I can relate is the impact I witnessed and the extent to which it affected my generation.
Firstly, I saw my brother graduate with an excellent Law degree and not be able to secure any form of employment for 18months.
I left school at 16 with a good education and many qualifications.
My parents supported me through college to the age of 18.
My father died three weeks before I left college. Even though I had been accepted for a further education course, I was informed that no grant was available to me to take up my course, because of the timing of my father's death. I was further advised, that it would be up to two years before I was able to secure any form of grant.
My only alternative was to find work. I worked a bar in a night club for 4 months and was appointed bar manager within 4 weeks of starting (not bad going for an 18year old in her first job).
When this temporary job ended, I was unemployed for a solid two years. I applied for 1,000's of jobs and was not at all selective which jobs I applied for. I couldn't afford to be. My qualifications were enough to justify me being on the books of two major employmant agencies in London...I had interviews in London and Brighton, yet nothing came of them.
I was one of 'Thatcher's Millions'.

My only way out of the unemployment trap was to become self-employed two days before my 21st birthday.
I worked from home. 16hour days were the norm and if the work was there, I often didn't sleep for days.
After a year, I was in profit, and had a full order book for the next 6months.
Then the crunch came...
My mother had to sell our home as we couldn't afford the rates increases imposed by local government.
The only accomodation my mother could secure, was for a single person, but luckily, various friend's took me in, almost on a rota basis.
After repeated applications for business premises were refused, I had to close my business.
So much for the 'Spirit Of Free Enterprise'!

I followed this by taking on a job that required me to commute, whilst I was technically homeless for 8months.

Under Thatcher, all the government incentives for small businesses were put in place.
This was only exceeded by the record number of businesses that collapsed.
Record numbers of home repossessions.
Record numbers of unemployment.
Record numbers of homelessness.

If that's the model for a successful government, I would hate to see a bad one.
Originally posted by Missouri Mule
How did her standing up to the miner's union impact you personally? Should a union be able to bring a nation's economy to ruin? It didn't impact on me personnally. It decimated the community I come from, as it did with many others. It wasn't a battle for a wage rise or better working conditions...It was a battle for the right to work and the right to preserve an entire industry.

I'm a trade unionist, but I'm Liberal through and through not Labour. I often look at the old way of Unionism and recognise it's faults.
Since the introduction of ACAS, the governments negotiation council, it's impossible for any union to hold the nation to ransom, regardless of how the government of the day and the press would care to report it.

[Missouri Mule]

Sorry I didn't respond but I'm just now back on the internet. I can almost hear you from your description. I applaud you for your passion. Let me respond later as I get caught up here.

[Blueangel]

No worries MM.
Let's say you've hit a raw nerve with this one and I've had to reign in the full force of my passion.

The true irony is I'm good at what I trained to do...very good.
I was commended by my peers in the industry whilst I was still a student. My burning ambition was to follow in the footsteps of Robert Capa.
It didn't happen and I'm not alone in that by any stretch of the imagination.

What I didn't expect, was to be put on a government blacklist at the age of 25, as most trade unionists were.
Under John Major, I moved up a rank. I was viewed as subversive :D
I took great delight in knowing that my 'cohorts' were some of the leading businessmen, intellectuals and broadcasters in my country. I was just lil ole me doin my job.

Conservative paranoia breeds contempt of intellectual freedom.

[EntImp]

On Thatcher and Reagan first.
I saw a great sketch on a political satire shore show in the UK many years ago. Spitting Image.

Reagan and Thatcher are saying there goodbyes after some summit. They shake hands. Thatcher turns and heads off to a British Airways jet to fly bacak to London.

Reagan turns to the camera with dreamy eyes.
"Great Lady! Shame I am only only screwing her country!"


Laugh, I nearly died!

[EntImp]

Thatcher was for me an evil woman too for quite a few reasons.

Falklands war: This war should not have happened the way it did. Many people died needlessly for empty reasons. It's a bit of land with a few sheep and even less people. Prior to the war no one had even heard of the Falklands in the UK.

Over 300 sailors died when she ordered that the Argentinian battleship General Belgrano be sunk when it was outside of the 200 mile exclusion zone. The ship was outside the so called theatre of operations and thus the sinking broke accepted conditions and conventions of war. All the mass press here were shocked and appaled at the action... she had no remorse for the actions.

Many people now think that this was a war of conviniance and that Maggie had could do nothing but gain from such a conflict. It is also well documented that discussion was not an option for Maggie... she wanted a war to seal her next election victory.

[EntImp]

The Poll Tax.

Another of Maggies great ideas.

The Poll Tax was introduced as a way of collecting finaces for local council spending. In essence it was a great idea. That every person is responsible for the provision of services afforded to him/her. So why shouldn't everyone pay for it?

Well we were doing so already. The local rates (taxes) were collected per household. So a house of 2 people were paying the same rates as the next door neighbour with 6 paying adults for example. Seems unfair and I think so too. So a tax that was set down to charge individuals was perhaps a good idea that went very wrong.

Maggies idea was that she could cripple opposition party areas buying making their residents pay more and thus vote them out at the first chance. It was an accepted myth that Labour controled areas spent more than Conservative ones. This was true in one or two inner city areas but not the big picture.

I was living in one of these areas. Camden in London. For the first year of the poll tax (1990 I think) I was 19 and starting to earn. I was hit for £700 for the tax and earning about £6000 before income tax. You do the maths... that was an introduction of a ~12% tax for me... on top of about 15% income tax.

You show me a leader that could do that today?

But it got worse.

Maggie funded and manipulated her own areas to an extent so that she could force home the differances between her party and that of the others.

So to re-cap before I go on.

I am paying £600 a year for my local ambulances, stree cleaners, libraries etc etc etc... Ok I can just about deal with it.

But... 2 streets away and no more than 3 minutes walk is a different council area. A council area that could use the services of my area and vice versa.

This council had the nerve to charge £50 pounds a year? This council also had a higher earning demographic. It made me sick!

During the 3rd year that council had the nerve to payout a rebate whilst mine still charged £400+.

All this to push a few votes around to her corner of the camp.

She wrecked families, imprisoned elderly people who refused to pay, and typically showed herself to be a callous old witch who was more about supporting the haves instead of the have nots.

[EntImp]

Other things Maggie was responisible for:

'Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher' stopped all children in the UK getting free milk to save a few pennies. Thus destroying a huge section of the dairy industry and preventing some of the nations poorer and deprived children some angle on a bit of healthy nutrition.

She scrapped the minimum wage allowing greedy fat pigs pay whatever they felt like to employees and let them espcially take advantage of young workers. She was however all in favour of letting failing big companies pay millions to their directors.

She did more than anything to destroy the manufacturing industry in this country than anyone else before her.

She spent more on the millitary then was ever needed whilst sucking funds out of education, social provision and health. Another 5 years of her and the UK would have been on its knees.

Maggie Thatcher regards Pinochet as the "strongman" saviour of Chile from socialist barbarity and chaos. I don't know what Maggies supporters on this forum think of Pinochet but I hope it would only go to show what an evil bag of S%%T Maggie was at the end of the day.

She was not interested in anyone but herself and her rich croonies. If American People love her then you are welcome to her... just dont send the witch back... even in a box.

I for one would like to see her be charged with all sorts of crimes against humanity.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by EntImp
Maggie Thatcher regards Pinochet as the "strongman" saviour of Chile from socialist barbarity and chaos. I don't know what Maggies supporters on this forum think of Pinochet but I hope it would only go to show what an evil bag of S%%T Maggie was at the end of the day.

She was not interested in anyone but herself and her rich croonies. If American People love her then you are welcome to her... just dont send the witch back... even in a box.

I for one would like to see her be charged with all sorts of crimes against humanity. :clap:

[Missouri Mule]

The vehemence of the animus toward Thatcher reminds me of the situation that happened after our Civil War. This is an imperfect analogy but let me say it anyway. From my perspective I believe she was a great leader, but that is speaking as an American. After our civil war it took well over 100 years for the South to become truly part of America. It was seen as full of racist "rednecks" with all that entails. It was never quite like that of course but most "northerners" (like myself) dreaded getting thrown in a southern jail as we passed through. But that was our perception.

Many southerners hated the federal government not so much because of slavery as because of a resentment that they had been beaten so badly in the Civil War. In fact Sherman's March across Georgia was a war of complete and utter devestation to bring the South to its knees. It was also a war to kill off the gentry and change the mindset about slavery. One of the reasons that the South was so long in coming back was that the "best and the brightest" were killed. It was a stated objective of at least one of the Northern leaders. This, of course, didn't apply to the "little guys" but they were the ones who bore the brunt of the aftermath of the war with the "carpetbaggers" and the rest.

My point here is this. England was, in my view, in a bad way prior to Thatcher coming along. She broke the back of the union's stranglehold on the public mind in England. They had gotten too big for their britches and Thatcher took them down quite a few pegs and they have never recovered. If you will look at the Labour Party of today it is substantially different that what it was before she came along. And why is this? Because of Thatcher. She changed the dynamic of politics in England and consequently, whether you want to giver her credit or not, England is a far better country, economically and otherwise had she not done something as draconian as she did.

You won't agree with me because you are too close to the action. But I'll bet the farm when the history books are written 50-75 years from now and assuming England is still doing well that Thatcher will be seen in the same way that we view Abraham Lincoln, who most historians regard as our greatest president. (at the time he lived he was villified as few presidents were)

My $0.02.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
And why is this? Because of Thatcher. She changed the dynamic of politics in England and consequently, whether you want to giver her credit or not, England is a far better country, economically and otherwise had she not done something as draconian as she did.

You won't agree with me because you are too close to the action. But I'll bet the farm when the history books are written 50-75 years from now and assuming England is still doing well that Thatcher will be seen in the same way that we view Abraham Lincoln, who most historians regard as our greatest president. (at the time he lived he was villified as few presidents were)

My $0.02. The essential facts that you seem to be missing here are...
Thatcher was deposed by her own party because she had become too extreme and was a liability.

Thatcher is a racist.

Her husband was a rather vocal racist. I would provide quotes, but they wouldn't get past the censor.

Thatcher is a war criminal who publically supported and befriended one of the worst despots of our time.

Personally, I refuse to see how anyone so openly racist can be admired in any way whatsoever.

She single-handedly caused more racial tension than anyone since the likes of Enoch Powell and Oswald Mosely.

[Missouri Mule]

I'm rather dissapointed in your reply. Perhaps your definition of a racist differs from mine. A racist is one who has a prejudice toward someone because of their race. Thather's policies were designed to stem out-of-control immigration. All nations have a legitimate right to control their borders and immigration when it becomes a burden on society. We don't permit Haitians into this country unless they are political refugees. We turn away economic refugees. One could argue, and many have, that this is a racist policy. It is also a practical method of controlling immigration when it is not in the nation's interests. Most Americans believe our immigration policies are out of control. I concur.

[Blueangel]

I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about my reply.
I believe our definition of racism would concur.

I will leave you with the following links. It took me mere seconds to search these and they are but three of hundreds of hits.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/hag-a03.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1578377.stm


I would like to warn that the following link contains racist comments that I feel are totally reprehensible and unacceptable. They are being linked to make a point and I don't wish to cause offence to anyone.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicsobituaries/story/0,1441,985414,00.html

[Missouri Mule]

"Although a non-political figure in public, Sir Denis was thought to harbour hard-right views. In 1984 he told the Swiss president at a dinner: "Keep Switzerland white."

============
Anyone notice anything wrong about this? Firstly it is reported by the "Guardian" and I believe it must be conceded it is of the liberal bent. But leaving that aside, let's look at the statement. It does not state who he allegedly made this statement to. Was it the Swiss president and he reported it to the newspaper/media? Was it an overheard conversation? Was it a misunderstanding? Was it out of context? Was it even said?

Obviously no transcript exists to prove or disprove this alleged statement. In American courts such a statement would be inadmissable because it is reported by a third (or in this instance maybe the 100th person) who may have heard this story. I don't have a clue whether or not Mr. Thatcher was a "racist" or not. I do know that the gentleman is now deceased and unable to defend himself of this charge.

I'm not going to defend the statement. On the surface it appears to be tinged with racism. On the other hand, it might be a frank assessment that Switzerland ought to guard its cultural past and not open the borders to immigration for whatever reason. One might make a moral case for a more moral immigration policy but I believe it also might be said that no legal case could be made to change the policy if the citizens of Switzerland want to retain the identity that is Switzerland.

[Blueangel]

Believe what you want!
You're obviously a dyed in the grain Thatcherite and nothing anyone can say will make you see anything bad about her. Ignorance is bliss eh?

I'm sorry that you feel that way.
As for this comment being reported in the Guardian, if you care to search, you will find it also reported right throughout the spectrum of British media.

I find any form of racism deplorable and undefendable, but I'm relieved we've managed to ship one over to you.
I will reiterate EntImp's remarks...
Keep her! We don't want the witch back...not even in a box.

By the way...
Nixon was an honest man and Clinton was a virgin. ;)

[Missouri Mule]

You seem to be saying that while you cannot or will not debate the analysis I did on the Guardian piece that there are yet other sources that would confirm the alleged incident. Is that what you are saying?

I'm trying to reason with you. It's called critical thinking. Yes, I said I did admire Thatcher but am willing to listen to a different point of view. You provided something that I looked at, pointed up the deficiencies and you take exception to that. So who is being closed minded now?

Reading your rebuttal you remind me of the old Soviet technique of reporting the "news" by beginning "As is well known." Your rebuttal: "you will find it also reported right throughout the spectrum of British media." Sounds much the same.

Am I wrong?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
Reading your rebuttal you remind me of the old Soviet technique of reporting the "news" by beginning "As is well known." Your rebuttal: "you will find it also reported right throughout the spectrum of British media." Sounds much the same.

Am I wrong? Yes.
You are very wrong in your assumption

Firstly, I am unfamiliar with the old Soviet style of reporting so it's outside my frame of reference. Thus, such comparisons are purely from your experience and have no bearing on me.

Secondly, my training is in negotiation skills (by the biggest government approved body) and I'm trained to know where my opinions are falling on deaf ears or being contested for the sake of arguement. In this situation, my instincts tell me to back off before I lose my rationale and assess the debate from a different angle.

You appear to have a bias against The Guardian and believe it to be liberal in it's reporting. My assertion remains that you will find the same topic and the same quotes reported equally throughout the political spectrum of British media. Whether it is The Times, the Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail, etc or any of the television corperations, this particular incident was reported and condemned.

It's extremely difficult to debate with someone whose opinion is so contrary to my own experience.
Granted, you could come to the U.K. and find an enclave of people who would beatify Thatcher...but for every one of them, you would find a hundred who feel as I do.

Only yesterday, 12 years after she was deposed from power, Thatcher was voted as being one of the three worst Britains, alongside Blair and a media, attention-seeking model called Jordan.

Finally...
The 'Keep Switzerland White' quote was said by Dennis Thatcher to the Swiss President, it was reported by many independant witnesses and I believe it was also captured on film.

I ask you again...
Is it right and fitting for someone with racist beliefs to be the leader of a country?

[Missouri Mule]

Where to begin,

The fact that the "Guardian" is a liberal newspaper is not important. I only made reference to it as a matter of information. My point was entirely in the way it was stated. There was no attribution to anyone. Now we have sloppy reporting in the U.S. but frankly I find the British newspapers to be little more than tabloidish in their reporting. Sensationalism seems to be the order of the day. Look, this could simply have been handedl this way. Lord Whateverhisnameis was standing beside the minister and Mr. Thatcher said that "Switzerland should remain all white." See, problem is solved.

Secondly, even if Mr. Thatcher was a dyed in the wool racist to the core, is there a British law that states the spouse cannot hold high office? That would be unusual to say the least. I've already spoken to the possible origins of the law and as I stated any sovereign nation has the perfect right to take steps to maintain its independence and cultural identity. Goodness gracious, go to Quebec and they will throw you in the slammer for speaking English (a little hyperbole.)

"Only yesterday, 12 years after she was deposed from power, Thatcher was voted as being one of the three worst Britains, alongside Blair and a media, attention-seeking model called Jordan."

What poll? Who conducted it? Were they grinding a political ax? Who did they ask? Was it "push-polling?" Again, there is no attribution of sources. I am just supposed to accept this as a given and not question the source. This is not critical thinking. It is lazy thinking. Just as I don't accept the Biblical account of Noah's Ark either I'm not going to accept something that is not sourced properly.

And finally the Soviets were master propagandists. Since their whole system was built on a lie, they just made up stuff as they went along to support their lies. I only brought that up to juxtopose next to your statement to show the similarities in the hopes you would understand my points a little better.

[EntImp]

The Gaurdian is probably one of the best papers in the UK if you want news and not bull.

As for the grey area on what Maggie was or wasn't... let me assure you that there is no grey area. It is black and white regarding who she is and what she represents.

[Simon666]

Mule like Tatcher because he hates unions. People sticking together for their rights, that sounds dangerously close to democracy. Mule is not in favor of vocal employees and would rather give them no rights. England did worse under her, and this may horrify you Mule, she accomplished something what would be equivalent to your worst nightmare: that conservatives (<->republicans) for probably decades would be an insignificant opposition party.

[Missouri Mule]

Why would you say such things about me? I have never espoused those sentiments. Please stick to the issues and to the facts - please.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
You were going down the tubes, much the same way that France and Germany are now heading. The government was bloated and held hostage by the labor unions. That is a dead end and certainly not a road to prosperity for the nation as a whole.
Why I would say such things about you? Why would you say such things about France, Germany and labor unions in the UK? You stick to the facts.

[Missouri Mule]

My goodness gracious. Look at the statistics. The facts are there for anyone to see.

[Simon666]

As has been said already, the UK under her was on the road to depression, not to prosperity, except perhaps for the already rich. And France and Germany doing bad is not only nor even mainly due to labor unions, it is more complicated than that.

[Missouri Mule]

"And France and Germany doing bad is not only due to labor unions, it is more complicated than that."

They can no longer support the generous welfare states they have created. They have a demographic time bomb and are not competitive in the world market.

When I go to Wal-Mart or virtually anywhere I am seeing products that are mostly made in China or other former third world countries. Neither France nor Germany can expect to pay their employees $35 per hour (as in Germany) and expect to compete with Chinese wages. The French have a 35 hour work week and they take off like six weeks in the summer. I know some Americans who NEVER take a vacation, even when asked to do so. France and Germany are bumping along with near 0% GDP increase while the U.S. is about 4-5 % and sometimes higher. Our economy is already five or more times their combined size and in absolute terms we are moving still further ahead. Of course China's % is higher but they also have some economic problems to sort out before they are home free.

Schroeder's approval ratings are down in the low 20's. You have some western Germans who are refusing to pay anymore to lift up eastern Germany. It's a mess. And what I have read of France they are in a national mood of depression over the direction the country is going.

Regardless it doesn't matter where we live. Every government must follow sound economic principles and speak plainly to its citizens about the economy and their place in the world. It may not always be pretty but it is the price of democracy.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
They can no longer support the generous welfare states they have created. They have a demographic time bomb and are not competitive in the world market.
That is not an argument against welfare states, this only says that welfare states in its current form cannot survive bad demographics. If adapted they could. About not being competitive in the world market: neither is your country. Nobody can pay the wages they pay in China over here as noone can live here from that amount of money. This shows to me that the form of capitalism now preached by all those shouting free trade is the answer to all problems cannot survive in its present form either.

For the rest, you correctly point out that in case of Germany, East Germany is part of the problem, and not all due to unions or whatever. This also explains a bit of the problems of France as Germany used to be the economic motor of Europe.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
My goodness gracious. Look at the statistics. The facts are there for anyone to see. I would remind you that Britain is the birthplace of trade unionism and I would urge you to not compare British unions with their American counterparts.
There is a marked difference.

In Britain, the unions work together with government to ensure the rights of the employees and the prosperity of employers.
I was part of a government initiative called P.I.P.(Partnership In Progress) and was trained by a T.U.C. representative who is the former union advisor the the Department of Trade and Industry.

Parnership is a flagship concern of the government. It unites the unions and industry in a common cause...to ensure prosperity and security for all. It's also one of the best agreements that has ever been struck Worldwide in trade unionism. It's a real innovation and change to working practice.

I'm sure the likes of General Motors in the U.S. and Mercedes in Germany, would benefit from such working practices.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
The French have a 35 hour work week and they take off like six weeks in the summer. I know some Americans who NEVER take a vacation, even when asked to do so. France and Germany are bumping along with near 0% GDP increase while the U.S. is about 4-5 % and sometimes higher. Now I know that your working knowledge of European economics is seriously flawed or out of date.

Are you at all familiar with the European Working Time Directive?

This is currently implemented throughout the E.U. though it has not been accepted in it's entirity in Britain as yet(but will be law within a few months).

As for your reference to Walmart...that's a dirty word over here.

[Missouri Mule]

"Are you at all familiar with the European Working Time Directive?"

No, I'm not familiar with it. Please tell me.

[Blueangel]

The following link describes the Directive in detail.

http://www.incomesdata.co.uk/information/worktimedirective.htm

I don't know your occupation, but if you trade with the European Community, it may be of assistance to you.

This is probably the biggest overhaul of employment law in the last 20 years and a very welcome one.
The primary changes became statute in Britain about 4 years ago, but we have dragged our feet in adopting the whole package. Industry had to be convinced of the benefits, but the whole Directive will be law in the New Year.

The main change has been that it is now illegal for any employer to force an employee to work more than 48 hours a week. Up until the New Year, the employee had the right to opt out of this by signing an 'Opt out Contract'.

In my last employ, it had been common practice for management to pressure employees to work excessive amounts of overtime. 60-72 hour working weeks were common place.
As a union rep and first aid officer, I saw the effects of excessive working far too often. Sick leave rocketed, I attended two strokes and three heart attacks and accidents were caused by exhaustion. Only 5 months ago, a colleague collapsed and died within an hour of finishing an overtime shift in temperatures of 100+ degrees.

[Missouri Mule]

That's interesting but when I made my first post regarding France I specifically referred to the 35 hour week as non-competitive. Does anyone dispute this as factual? The law cited above indicates that certain employees were abused and overworked. Does not appear to me as being connected.

My overall point was the competitiveness of the European worker compared to the rest of the world. They do as they wish but the statistics showing growth in the economy would appear to show this policy as self-defating.

[EntImp]

I would rather see 16 year old working a 35 hour week instead of being screwed over by big fat cats for pennies and 60 hours a week.

We have one of the most stable economies in the world, working time directives, trade unions, a huge welfare state, free health, and an almost free university education... go figure?

[NetxMan]

And the government controls your life. O, yeah baby just what I want big government controlling my life.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by NetxMan
And the government controls your life. O, yeah baby just what I want big government controlling my life. Oh! Such grim irony coming from an American :p
Where's the control?

All the measures stated here are specifically designed to improve standards of living and working.
Britain is far from being a nanny state and I doubt you'll find a country on the planet where the citizens are more at liberty to express their approval or disapproval of the state.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Blueangel
Oh! Such grim irony coming from an American :p Where's the control?
Just a standard phrase those types make when they see a law they don't like. Something tells me he/she has no objections to laws that actually are designed to control people like the Patriot Act.

[gopman]

"We have one of the most stable economies in the world, working time directives, trade unions, a huge welfare state, free health, and an almost free university education"

So do we, and all the jobs are headed to Singapore.

[Missouri Mule]

Originally posted by EntImp
I would rather see 16 year old working a 35 hour week instead of being screwed over by big fat cats for pennies and 60 hours a week.

We have one of the most stable economies in the world, working time directives, trade unions, a huge welfare state, free health, and an almost free university education... go figure?

We have a saying in this country. It is like the law of physics. Universal. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

[Missouri Mule]

Note the effect of Margaret Thatcher. It didn't used to be this way when the UK was the "sick man of Europe." That title now belongs to Germany with France close behind.
==========================
The UK, a leading trading power and financial center, is one of the quartet of trillion dollar economies of Western Europe. Over the past two decades the government has greatly reduced public ownership and contained the growth of social welfare programs. Agriculture is intensive, highly mechanized, and efficient by European standards, producing about 60% of food needs with only 1% of the labor force. The UK has large coal, natural gas, and oil reserves; primary energy production accounts for 10% of GDP, one of the highest shares of any industrial nation. Services, particularly banking, insurance, and business services, account by far for the largest proportion of GDP while industry continues to decline in importance. GDP growth slipped in 2001-02 as the global downturn, the high value of the pound, and the bursting of the "new economy" bubble hurt manufacturing and exports. Still, the economy is one of the strongest in Europe; inflation, interest rates, and unemployment remain low. The relatively good economic performance has complicated the BLAIR government's efforts to make a case for Britain to join the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Prime Minister has pledged to hold a public referendum if membership meets Chancellor of the Exchequer BROWN's five economic "tests." Scheduled for assessment by mid-2003, the tests will determine whether joining EMU would have a positive effect on British investment, employment, and growth. Critics point out, however, that the economy is thriving outside of EMU, and they point to public opinion polls that continue to show a majority of Britons opposed to the single currency. Meantime, the government has been speeding up the improvement of education, transport, and health services, at a cost in higher taxes. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq involves a heavy commitment of British military forces, a commitment that will affect economic developments in 2003.
GDP: GDP:
purchasing power parity - $1.52 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
1.6% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $25,300 (2002 est

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#Econ

[Missouri Mule]

Economy - overview:

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,600. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 saw the end of boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery took place in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.45%. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. The war in March/April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq shifted resources to military industries and introduced uncertainties about investment and employment in other sectors of the economy. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $10.4 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
2.45% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $37,600 (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

[Missouri Mule]

Economy - overview:
Germany's affluent and technologically powerful economy turned in a relatively weak performance throughout much of the 1990s. The modernization and integration of the eastern German economy continues to be a costly long-term problem, with annual transfers from west to east amounting to roughly $70 billion. Germany's ageing population, combined with high unemployment, has pushed social security outlays to a level exceeding contributions from workers. Structural rigidities in the labor market - including strict regulations on laying off workers and the setting of wages on a national basis - have made unemployment a chronic problem. Business and income tax cuts introduced in 2001 did not spare Germany from the impact of the downturn in international trade, and domestic demand faltered as unemployment began to rise. Growth in 2002 again fell short of 1%. Corporate restructuring and growing capital markets are setting the foundations that could allow Germany to meet the long-term challenges of European economic integration and globalization, particularly if labor market rigidities are addressed. In the short run, however, the fall in government revenues and the rise in expenditures has brought the deficit close to the EU's 3% debt limit.
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $2.184 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
0.4% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $26,600 (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html#Econ

[Missouri Mule]

Economy - overview:
France is in the midst of transition, from a well-to-do modern economy that featured extensive government ownership and intervention to one that relies more on market mechanisms. The Socialist-led government has partially or fully privatized many large companies, banks, and insurers, but still retains controlling stakes in several leading firms, including Air France, France Telecom, Renault, and Thales, and remains dominant in some sectors, particularly power, public transport, and defense industries. The telecommunications sector is gradually being opened to competition. France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare. The current government has lowered income taxes and introduced measures to boost employment. At the end of 2002 the government was focusing on the problems of the high cost of labor and labor market inflexibility resulting from the 35-hour workweek and restrictions on lay-offs. The government was also pushing for pension reforms and simplification of administrative procedures. The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe. The current economic slowdown and inflexible budget items have thrown the government's goal of balancing the budget by 2004 off track.
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $1.54 trillion (2002 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
1% (2002 est.)
GDP - per capita:
purchasing power parity - $25,700 (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html#Econ

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
We have a saying in this country. It is like the law of physics. Universal. "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Who said anything about a free lunch?
I fail to see your logic in this.

The whole principle is...you take the work load and spread it evenly across an enlarged workforce.
Thus, you end up with a healthier organisation from the top to the bottom. The quality of everyone's life improves. if the workforce is hit by illness, there are enough people left to share the load. The benefits work both ways.

This method is always going to be better than taking a smaller workforce and working them into an early grave.

[Missouri Mule]

"Free" connotes there is no cost to a social benefit. This is patently absurd.

I know of very few people in the U.S. who are being worked to death. We, for the most part, put in our 40 hours, go home to our families, pay the bills and try to live responsible lives in a free and prosperous land with a minimum of government interference in our lives.

[Blueangel]

MM
As both your posts are from a C.I.A. source, I reiterate...

I'M SO THANKFUL I DON'T LIVE IN THE U.S.A.

[Missouri Mule]

I posted it because the CIA is above all else a fact gathering agency. It does no one any good to create a propaganda sheet as you are implying.

I could say something but I'll try to restrain myself.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
"Free" connotes there is no cost to a social benefit. This is patently absurd. All British working people make contributions at source to the National Insurance system.
Thus, the more people in work, the bigger the coffers of the National Insurance.
This pays for state benefits, the National Health Service, etc.

Every day that we work, we pay for the safety net and unlike taxation systems, most people would gladly pay a little more to National Insurance.

[Blueangel]

Aww. Darn it MM!
I was hoping you'd say that you're glad I'm not American :D

It would be something we could agree on.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
I know of very few people in the U.S. who are being worked to death. We, for the most part, put in our 40 hours, go home to our families, pay the bills and try to live responsible lives in a free and prosperous land with a minimum of government interference in our lives.
So why all the fuss about a 48 hour maximum? :rolleyes:

[gopman]

Some people need or want to work longer. Why should the government be allowed to stop them?

[Missouri Mule]

Who is fussing? I am talking solely about the lack of competiveness of the big European economies and I posted the CIA statistics showing why this is such a serious matter.

BMW and Mercedes now build motor vehicles in the U.S. because it is cheaper than building them in Germany and shipping them here. This offsets some of the price disadvantage they previously suffered from from domestically produced vehicles.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Some people need or want to work longer. Why should the government be allowed to stop them?
Originally posted by blueangel
The main change has been that it is now illegal for any employer to force an employee to work more than 48 hours a week. Up until the New Year, the employee had the right to opt out of this by signing an 'Opt out Contract'.
You read it wrong. It says an employer can't force an employee to work longer than 48 hours, not that people who voluntarily work can only do 48 hours. I somehow think you misread deliberately.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Missouri Mule
BMW and Mercedes now build motor vehicles in the U.S. because it is cheaper than building them in Germany and shipping them here. This offsets some of the price disadvantage they previously suffered from from domestically produced vehicles. This is where your information is, again, seriously flawed, and/or doesn't represent the whole picture.

It would stand to reason that increased shipping costs may be a prime concern in relocating their U.S. operations and is no reflection on the employment costs in their home country.

I've spent a lot of time in the 'German corner' of Austria, about 30miles from the biggest Mercedes plant, and I can assure you that a top of the range Mercedes or B.M.W. is cheap as chips round there. In fact, if you call for a taxi in Salzburg, it will more than likely be a brand new B.M.W. or Merc.

Part of my dad's business was importing Ford cars from the continent and selling them to the public in Britain. Each transaction saved the buyer at least £2,000 on Ford's U.K. prices.

[Missouri Mule]

Thee is no question whatsoever that those plants were put here because of the high German labor costs. Their total labor costs are about twice that of the U.S.

BTW, a lot of those BMWs and Mercedes in Europe are not certifiable to be sold in the U.S. You're comparing apples and lemons.