Rob C: I was addressing my response to Robert's post, not yours.
Regarding your post, you're not correct in thinking that what's good for business is not good for workers. If businesses do good and grow, then there are more jobs, and better paying jobs. For "regular" people. You're just being cute. People understand what I'm talking about. And the people who voted for Trump understand he's a billionaire. They don't care. They voted for an outsider hoping he'll keep his word and do good by them. If he doesn't, then he won't get re-elected. No one thinks Hillary, the classic self-absorbed insider, cares a hoot and would do anything to help the economy.
"you're not correct in thinking that what's good for business is not good for workers."
Theory.
Britain lost a huge part of its industrial companies and might a couple of decades before labour-cost evolution would have taken it down anyway. How come? Simple: our dedicated, leftist unions sucked the life out of them by striking, by keeping to almost imaginary lines of work-demarcation, disputing every single decision managements made. Managements eventually gave up and owners closed down loss-making investments which, oddly enough, seemed to come as a complete surprises to the workers and unions involved. But truth to tell, nobody with any personal experience of the factory floor will issue blanket blame on workers: intimidation comes in many forms, and I have shared first-hand experience of resisting the common union-driven call to strike action. (I was lucky: all that happened was that certain parts of the company workforce refused to speak to me again, which was, if anything, quite a relief from having to keep up a false camaraderie I never felt. Anyway, within a year I was out of that world forever, and into a new career in photography.) Unions and workers are distinct animals, often with vastly different agendas. So don't rely on the theory that a successful company automatically wins loyalty or remains successful; people make odd choices and are often brought around to viewing company success as exploitation of themselves...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14972801.Festive_misery_for_travellers__as_airport_crews_vote_to_strike/?ref=ebln" For "regular" people. You're just being cute. People understand what I'm talking about."
Cute? You should have seen me when I had hair, wore dark, paisley-patterned shirts with long collars, leather jackets and purple jeans and, sometimes, Spanish-heeled (European equivalent to cowboy) boots! Cute? Mirrors fell in love with me!
Of course people understand what you're talking about; trouble is, their understanding of it may not be the same as yours, which is the whole problem (and danger) of sweeping statements and generalisations.
" No one thinks Hillary, the classic
(1)self-absorbed insider, cares a hoot and
(2)would do anything to help the economy."
If that, making such a negative relationship between 1 and 2, is not a direct contradiction between two related ideas, then I have never seen one. She is not a
poor person; she and hubby were very much wealthier when he left office than when he took it up, and the better the economy the better their own economy is going to become! Sheesh, even I can appreciate that.
Your argument reminds me of the union positions I described a few lines above, exactly reversed, so perhaps I can begin to understand your position, which just underlines the difficulty of using terms such as "regular" when writing about a broad sweep of people. Anyway, I wouldn't think of the Clints as either unionised labour or "regular" folks.
;-)
Rob
