I don't think you are being unreasonable, people who are educated and thoughtful and concerned about the impact of redundancies and joblessness on families, and on the inequities in society, and on editing out people because of their class or accent rather than something logical like performance, contribution etc will realise how damaging a personalised fight to crush 'employees' by 'employers' was under Thatcher's guidance.
Social Science courses are one way in which people are made aware of the bigger picture, as are many of the other ways people describe in this thread.
What you ought to be asking instead is 'is it productive for a society to be kept in ignorance so that leaders can have an easy ride following a dystopian agenda of fighting within the team so that some can drink all the water on the lifeboat and cast the others out, and is this really, overall, likely to produce the best outcomes'.
You can have this debate in economics or business. My view is that allowing resource-grabbing to be equated with 'success' (i.e. we have 10 apples between us and each needs one apple to survive.. if you consider that one person ends up with all the apples that person is a success and the others are failures then you have many problems. Most obvious of which is that you have 9 people wanting to step out of the game and steal the apples by whatever means, because the game that led to all the apples going to one person has the best outcome for one, but the worst possible outcome for the majority, and for 9 individuals in the majority. Thatcher argued that the drive to get the apples back was 'stimulation of the economy' but in practice, Mr 10 apples will end up spending as much on protecting his apples to feel 'successful' as he does keeping them - which is why under tory governments we eventually have reduced means of production.
The other major disadvantage - relevant in a 'catch all' period of financial weakness across the world is that the best game of all for a country to play is the one where each person in the lifeboat gets an apple - so that the lifeboat is most likely to be rowed to safety, you can share food gathering and maintainance task to be more efficient and perhaps free someone up to do the navigation- or to put it another way, everyone pulls together, resources are shared, average self-esteem per person goes up and you have a 'winning' lifeboat against other lifeboats.. of course there is an argument for all lifeboats working with each other again... that extends to an EU analogy.
Thatcher's version, and the current administration's version is flawed because it fails to acknowledge a collective win as having any value. The logical outcome is that everyone is fighting constantly for bits of apple, the country gets insular and resentful and nasty.. people without apple for too long are resented because they are unproductive targets and stimulate annoying caring feelings in people who need to stay ruthless so they can exploit any opportunity to get a bit of apple.
That's economics, that's teamwork and that's adult survival. Childish darwinism will screw everything up. Personally I'm going to hold on to my one apple whilst pretending to be a no-apple so no-one attacks me. Go Go unproductive Britain!