Being adjusted on

When the British government says that employers “will need to adjust” to the lack of immigrant labour we would do well to consider what this means in practice. Most obviously, it means that workers will need to adjust. Because that’s what happens when employers are forced to adjust. They pass the stress of adjustment on to the workforce.

So, what might be the nature of this adjustment? Logic would suggest that if one source of labour is no longer available to be exploited another source must be found. Assuming the business continues to function doing the same thing as it was before, it will have the same need for labour. How might this be sourced? In mechanistic models of the economy a shortage of labour acts like a scarcity of any commodity – it forces prices up. Or, in the case of labour as a commodity, it forces wages to increase.

It rather goes without saying that the typical employer has a strong dislike of increasing wage costs. They will look for other solutions. And they will demand that the government facilitate these solutions. They will insist that the government act so as to assure them of the labour they require at the lowest possible cost.

One way in which the government can do this is by increasing benefits; effectively subsidising labour. It rather goes without saying that the typical British government has a strong dislike of increasing benefits. They will look for other solutions. And they will demand that the cost of the solution should fall on the politically and economically weak. Because being politically and economically weak they’re just asking to be exploited.

From the perspective of the government and its clients – definitely NOT the politically and economically weak – the ideal solution might be to reduce benefits and/or make benefits more difficult to access and easier to forfeit. Thus increasing the supply of low-cost labour by increasing the number of very hungry people who are disinclined to turn to crime in order to feed themselves and their dependents.

Meanwhile, both government and employers, and all the independent experts they can afford – which is a lot – extol the advantages of more flexible working arrangements. Et voila! As we’ll no doubt shortly be prohibited from saying, you have a source of labour to replace the source that has been lost at no increase in cost and with the same benefits that accrue to exploiting people who can’t defend themselves because they are politically and economically too weak.

The ‘optics’ of this is good because the British media can be relied upon to give the figures the appropriate spin. Unemployment rate down! Employment up! More women in employment! More young people with jobs! Immigration down! Profits up! What’s not to like?

Everybody knows the ugly truth behind this spin. But few complain. Either they depend on the system or they profit from it. Or they are too economically and politically weak for their opinions to carry any weight.

When the British government says that employers “will need to adjust”, the economically and politically weak have two choices. They can get a hat and wellies in the hope of protecting themselves from what’s trickling down to them. Or they can stop being weak.



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

11 thoughts on “Being adjusted on

  1. I guess we can look forward to negative-hours contracts where you must work a certain number of hours for free before you qualify for the upgrade to a zero-hours contact. The media can sell it as a Job Pre-qualification period.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. It’ll be ignored. Quite possibly it’ll be deleted. I believe somebody else already had a question censored out of existence. Asking Wishart questions on Twitter just got me blocked.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well that didn’t take very long for

        Peter the Deleter

        to remove your comment too.

        My suggestion for oor Pete would be that he find someone with some political nous to proofread these ill thought out and scarcely worked up ‘first draughts’ before he inflicts them on his unsuspecting constituents.
        He might provoke less ‘unappreciative’ responses that way.

        Just a thought PeteW – if you are reading here do feel free to contribute!
        The ‘debate’ you are instigating seems to be flowing only one way.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. Another ‘wizard wheeze’ from the Boris would be to carry out his promise to set up freeports all around the coasts – you know the kind of places frequented by Captain Kidd and the like – where anything goes. Adaptive employers can then move their businesses into them and voila! No shortage of cheap labour from Africa, Asia or wherever. We can work there as well for pennies if we choose or just go without.
    Job done, National Conservative Party style.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’m waiting for Priti to suggest that Israel send to us the cheap Palestinian labour they dont need to work on our fields. Problem solved for both countries.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.