Archive

Archive for the ‘Labour’ Category

Wage Slaves and Wage Thieves

 

5564579080_d27e051e29_z

There has been sporadic articles and documentation regarding the inflated salaries of corporate execs and how they dwarf the salaries of our most senior public servants. More outrage ensues. More condemnation from the liberal press pours forth as they use the previously mentioned comparison to offer some perspective on the gross inequality in pay that exists.

Seemingly, the implication here is the difference in pay within the higher, more senior brackets between public and private sectors is large, and it shouldn’t be. However, I do not want a comparison drawn between the bosses of each sector. A much more worthy comparison would be to analyse the pay and rights of an average worker against a boss.

In our post-industrial, service driven economy, we are even outsourcing jobs citizens here are training to secure. This is freezing the price (wage) of labour here, and in some cases, driving it down (considering inflation). This is not only making society unequal by killing off any social mobility, it raises the top bracket of earners higher and higher above everybody else.

The attitude which manifests is one of spite towards the fellow/future worker who demands more via protest too. This is not so much a natural reaction, but one born of helplessness towards the rubbish we have to put up with. When we hear vacuous sound bites like “we are all in this together”, we tend to think, “we’re putting up with it, why aren’t they?” The answer is simple: none of us should, because the disconnect we are all feeling about the labour we offer and the fruits of it we receive is a very real problem that deserves our utmost attention.

This is not to mention the heavy cuts being implemented by the government, which will result in 500,000 public sector job losses, 50,000 of which will be in NHS, and the abolition of the UK Film Council which has produced Oscar winning films, among other wild swings of the axe. These are not just figures. They represent lives, mortgages, families, and a quality of life being squashed from above. Employment is the lifeblood of an economy. One can argue there are many superfluous jobs that should be shed – really?

The large size of the public sector here and other Western economies has become necessary to offset the deficiencies of the private sector, which has failed to provide not just sustainable growth, but sustainable employment. Until our casino finance sector stops operating in boom and bust cycles, the public sector will remain a dependable crutch for those who do not wish to gamble with lives. This brings me to the meat of this article: the attitude which the management class have tried to foster in their workforce and its economic consequences.

This can be first illustrated quite profoundly with a personal anecdote: I know someone who has earned well over £1,000,000 in product sales in the last business year, yet was only paid £22,000 for their troubles. This represents a 2.2% return of the value to the worker who was made solely responsible to shift the goods. Of course, there are other costs to account for, such as production costs and transport, but it would be reasonable to surmise that a large chunk of the profits made its way to the pockets of the directors and shareholders.

This is not only unjust, but symptomatic of the economic phenomenon in our age of globalisation: the value of a product is not simply determined by the seller in a simple transaction with simple market forces, but monopolised by those with the financial clout to keep workers dependent and hungry, effectively prostituting their labour as they see fit, while manipulating market conditions for their own benefit. This means that a worker in a Western country, who is no longer the producer of one given good, cannot readily identify the worth of a product outside their own contrived salary.

Detachment with the labour ensues, and apathy blooms.

This apathy is responsible for the incredible tolerance of the workforce to brave the gluttony and greed of the management classes. We simply do not care about what we do anymore because the reward is miniscule and our labour is undervalued. Corporations understand this problem, and the solution to protect their interests is not to improve worker conditions, but to drive them down further, so that workers become desperate, and finally grateful for their lot in life. After all, a starving man will think a dry biscuit is the best meal he’s ever had if there was nothing else.

Of course, this policy has two outcomes – March 26th is a testament to that.

IMAG0019

Globalisation has fermented the economic shit-storm here and made it co-dependent on the labour situation in developing countries. Take the example of a £20 pair of jeans manufactured in South East Asia and sold on a UK high-street. The worker there is on slave pay and slave hours and just about gets by (if they’re not killing themselves en masse). The product is then priced according to the target market – in this case, the poor here. The poor producers create for the poor and the rich, it is worthy to note.

Keeping the example of the cheap pair of jeans: how about improving the pay and working rights for the outsourced labour? The price of the product increases, resulting in fewer sales and probably redundancies. All the while, the rich are unaffected and preserve their profit margins. The excuse is that the poor here cannot afford to purchase the now more expensive jeans, and have been priced out by concessions to labour movements elsewhere – which then effectively demonises development on these issues among local populations.

The sadly unorthodox reaction to such events is to support each other in a rather Marxist “workers of the world unite” fashion. It is starting to happen with messages of solidarity issued by those struggling for better conditions around the world. What needs to be remembered is that the consumers here are also producers, and the producers there are also consumers. We are not one or the other. We must not be only one or the other. The conditions one worker has to endure can be normalisedfor good or for worse. That is key.

If conditions improve for workers in the North China labour market, we should support them and demand similar. If the quality of life for the workers there improves, we should demand the same concessions and readjustments. In our globalised economy, isolated progression, i.e. one that is naive to the interconnectedness of the labour markets, will damage understanding of the true economic issues of our time. Moving together is fundamental to narrowing the chasm which exists between the classes.

A revaluation of labour is necessary for a successful redistribution of income. The general discord we have for many of our jobs finds solace in our apathetic approach to the opportunities and rewards we have available. If the poor worker/consumer here cannot afford those jeans anymore, they in fact should be paid more and given better working conditions. In effect, this unilateral progression of working rights will raise the bar for workers everywhere, while simultaneously lowering the astronomically high bar of the rich profiteers.

In a blog on Brazen Careerist, a hip career-based website, Whitney May Parker advises a worker to:

3. Never tell your boss “No, I can’t do that.” Obviously if your boss is asking you to do something illegal, immoral or otherwise, that’s a different case. But when it comes to professional tasks and responsibilities, bosses like to see a can-do attitude. Instead of reacting to a challenging assignment with a sigh and immediate reasons why it can’t be done, consider what resources you’d need to actually get the job done. Maybe you need an assistant, a bigger budget, more time, access to a special resources. Think of it as an opportunity to expand your responsibilities in a way that can lead to a raise or promotion at the end of the day.

The writer clearly has immeasurable awe for her superiors and its nauseating. It is almost as if a boss is to be viewed as a benevolent being, never wrong, omniscient and noble in their judgement. This kind of material is everywhere, and it all contributes to that feeling of gratitude the management class want to instil within the workforce. Workers must remember – they do not owe them anything. Labour is not free, and 100 workers have just as much value as 100 bosses. In reality, the ratio is 1 boss to 1000 workers, looking at salaries.

Of course, that cock-tease of a line always shows up: “It can be you! You can be the tyrannical boss one day!”.

But exploring even cheaper and grateful labour might very well be “the wave of the future of human resources” one CEO has mentioned recently:

People who work for free are far hungrier than anybody who has a salary, so they’re going to outperform, they’re going to try to please, they’re going to be creative

Kelly Fallis, CEO of Remote Stylist

They will definitely be hungrier. The scandal here is that they now want us to feel grateful for working for free, and many of us do – look at interns. Entitlement is the mentality of the management classes, and gratitude is the attitude they wish to foster in their underlings. It is reducible to slavery and it should inspire our deepest contempt. But universally, it doesn’t.

Divide and sell remains the mantra…

As Marx once commented on 19th C decadence in France:

"Since the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the State, had command of all the organised public authorities, dominated public opinion through the actual state of affairs and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, from the court to the Café Borgne, to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others, clashing every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, an unbridled assertion of unhealthy and dissolute appetites manifested itself, particularly at the top of bourgeois society – lusts wherein wealth derived from gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes debauched, where money, filth, and blood commingle."

Such is the state of affairs now, but magnified one hundred fold. To an almost fever pitch degree of greed and debauchery by the rich, the workers are deprived of a fair wage, reside in filth, and give their blood, all for a pittance. The saga of the wage slaves and wage thieves which has blighted modern civilisation to a now exhausted extent simply must end.

And it will only if we fight in solidarity.

The Erosion of Public Goods: Time to Rally

24/02/2011 1 comment

The Middle East is engulfed by the rage of millions. Its heartening to see so many realise their rights and finally mobilise to oust their dictatorships and demand a better quality of life sans white people, tanks and jets. Western governments are eager to piggyback on this public outrage despite supporting said tyrants for decades. This rage is not isolated.

We are inspired to take every breaking story as self-contained, sensitive to the inner dynamics of the event and the history of the town, city or country. Recent stories, such as  the protests in Wisconsin, the 50,000 projected job losses in the NHS here, and the upheaval of ancient regimes in the Middle East are all incredibly different issues, but are they?

I believe there is something more at work here, and to notice as such is considerably dependent on assessing the various strands of history which have led different populations to demand a better quality of life. The working and middle classes have simply had enough, everywhere, and are finally waking up to the possibilities of living in a democracy.

We band the word “democracy” around like its a done deal in the West – like its a product we manufacture and sell to the world with an ambiguous one-glove-fits-all instruction guide. Make no mistake, the democratic deficit in the West (see U.K) is a stark problem we have to address at length for there to be any progressive legislation which tackles gross inequality.

Therefore, we must be careful not to make “the banks” a scapegoat. No doubt, they are grossly dangerous organisations which actively promote inequality and simply reward wealth with wealth, but they, like everything which operates in society, are dependent on legislation which allows them to do what they do. Banks are simply not accountable, governments are.

The recent history in the United States regarding the two major (now homogeneous) political parties is a testament to what has befallen all Western countries to some degree or another regarding this last point. Nowhere in the world has such a metamorphosis taken place in the political arena given the strength and diversity of its culture.

During WW2, taxes were at an all time high in the U.S. During the boom of the 60’s and 70’s, this started to change because of the emergence of a strong pro-business, free market lobby. The Republicans enjoyed the attention of these lobbyists and took it upon themselves to pen friendly legislation. Nothing has changed there. What of the Democratic Party?

Back then, the Democrats relied on a strong labour movement embodied by powerful unions, who, without the vast riches of giant corporations, could still do one thing all political parties valued above all else: organise the electorate. Yet, the labour movement was soon splintered and abandoned by the Democrats.

This was because the activists on the left became disillusioned with lacklustre and unimaginative union leadership. Their usefulness spiralled into oblivion as different bodies of the movement started pulling in other directions, such as the growing anti-war sentiment, or feminism, or the environment. What was a clear mission became blurred by the broad spectrum of interests which emerged from the movement.

For big business and the Republicans, their interest was the singular goal of acquiring wealth, and therefore power – together creating a working relationship to acquire both respectively.

Thus, the cynical leadership of the left saw unions as becoming defunct, inefficient, and unable to do the one thing they wanted them to do – organise behind the party come campaign time.

This snippet of American history is vitally important to understand what happened there next, and what is happening here today.

Big business saw its opportunity to hold both parties in thrall to its financial muscle. The Democratic Party finally towed the line the corporate lobbyists were setting in order to keep pace alongside the Republicans. Taxes have steadily been in decline since the 60’s, and during the last 30 years, the top 1% of the population have been raping the income chart.

 

This is not to mention corporate tax levels, which have plummeted despite astronomical profits.

Reason? “We create jobs with that money”. Yes, you do, and pay them 185 times less than what you get (if they’re lucky). This is while co-opting the labour market by standardising that low wage amongst fellow CEOs and Gov. officials at the golf course on Sunday. Ahem, back to reasoned assessment…

 

Charts courtesy of motherjones.com – where you can find many more revolting ones to shake your fist at.

Now, to be in the American government, one has to be rich. Super rich, in fact. Campaign costs are always footed by corporate interests eager to have friends on both sides writing the law. It is a classic business model: dominate the market by controlling all production outlets – Kind of like Starbucks opening two shops on the same road. You win or you win.

The consequence in politics is that you limit choice and freedom.

The second half of the 20th Century can be remembered as the 50 years where the siege against public goods in society swayed in favour of big business. The U.S. has taught us that much, as they serve as something of a blueprint for the current government in the U.K. as it pursues increasing the wealth and prosperity for the blue-blooded upper classes.

It remains a fact that political parties don’t care about the electorate. To them, voters are an alien mass of hands and feet which somehow gives them power. What they do value is those who can organise the great unwashed into making a favourable decision at the ballot box. The policy has always been about seeking stability – at home and abroad.

That is, stability in funding for the political party, and the stability of low trade costs for the corporate friends who had bankrolled them into office.

The outrage in the Middle East shines a great fat light on this point. The U.S. and other Western governments have admitted to seeking stability over democracy in this region, and achieving neither (Condoleezza Rice in Cairo, 2005). They will want you to believe this sentiment has changed. It hasn’t.

The West are vocally supporting these uprisings not because they view democracy as an objective good, but as something contingent on the same old fashioned notion of stability. Now, they think Arabs living in oppressive dictatorships will behave better in a democracy. It has nothing to do with democracy as an idea in and of itself – it is still secondary to stability.

This is a microcosm of a larger point. The assault against the public good, as seen with its steady erosion in the U.S, the old/new Conservative ideologues in the the U.K, and flagging kleptocracies in the Middle East, and all the dictators around the world propped up by one foreign element or another – it all comes down to a great and engineered shift in risk.

Public goods are the bedrock of society. Not only do they limit the market with regulations, no access zones and such like, they give citizens a space where they do not have to relentlessly keep competing with each other economically. The key to big business strategy here is destroying all public goods and replacing them with individual and involuntary risk.

The risk element is important to understand, as seen with the recent financial crisis. Banks failed at the roulette table and the taxpayer bailed them out. This embodies the individual paying the cost vs. business undertaking risk. This is also why the wealthiest 1% have enjoyed such a grotesque rise in income over the poor over the last three decades.

When we win, they win bigger. When they lose, we lose bigger. This relationship is a relatively new phenomenon and has only been brought about by legislation enabling corporate entities to have more rights and lower rates of tax than the individual. A bank is liable to pay 1% in corporation tax on profits of £11.6bn. The individual always loses.

And the working individual must lose for big business to succeed in the way it has done. Corporate strategy focuses on keeping people collectively weak and dependent. It is a weird dynamic, because on one hand, new technology is personalising our media and simultaneously bringing people together regardless of government or corporate interests.

Yet, the same corporations depend on our weakness to organise to demand accountability in government, and better conditions in society and the workplace. They want to provide the leadership and the laws, but are creating the conditions with which we can empower ourselves once again.

It is the old capitalist joke: they would invent the only weapon that could destroy themselves if they thought they would be made supremely rich by it.

And they have.

The protests in Wisconsin are a throwback to the dogged labour movement which is steadily awakening once again. The downtrodden workers of the wealthiest country in the world remember the public good wistfully now more than ever. Sometimes when you are at your lowest, you are at your highest.

The people in the Middle East are fed up with their installed dictators, and one by one, by popular will, these dictators will fall on their swords for the public good, for better working conditions, and for a free and democratic vote – something we cannot even do here in the West given the myriad of business interests involved in a modern political campaign.

In the U.K, we are in the middle of it all, and by virtue of that and our history, we can contribute to the cause only by example.

This means not repeating the mistakes of the past by identifying a handful of leaders who will ultimately fail under the combined pressure of the entire corporate lobby with all its instruments of coercion and persuasion.

This means going after those accountable as an organised network emboldened by what democracy is capable of delivering here and everywhere it is championed. The public good is not just the street lamp, or a bench, or a park. It is workers rights, fair wages, health care and the freedom to organise.

The stories are indeed standalone, but the movement is global.

“Downsize your Dreams”, we are Told.

I have come across a podcast today on the Guardian website entitled Careers Talk – The Graduate Job Formula and I have to say, I was livid. (Predictable, yes, but I wouldn’t be writing this if I was delighted, would I?)

The podcast was conducted by four girls who chuckled more or less throughout, in what I believe was a botched attempt to take this serious matter seriously.

The situation presented is a familiar one:

Art student finishes enjoyable degree and enters the employment world ambitious, creative, full of ideas, and impatient to start working in a field he or she loves. Art student then finds most of the very few positions already filled by Oxbridge candidates or those who had the resources to undertake free work, travelling, and all manner CV building unrelated to the person’s actual ability. Art student, dejected and crestfallen, retreats into obscurity and works odd jobs until dream can be realised.

Unfortunately, the dream is often not realised because of the webs we are woven into.

These girls disagree. They say working in a call centre, for example, can be a very positive experience where many skills can be fleeced in return for some cognitive downtime.

The positives which were mentioned were as follows:

The training. Oh yes, the training. Knowing what button on the phone unit to press and how to speak to people, yes, I did not learn these things when I was a child, I must have been too busy dissecting Lego from my arse.

Understanding the legal issues. Call centres can be very challenging places to work in. A tech support call centre have an influx of distressed people with broken computers or broken lives which require real expert advice. But lets face it, you won’t be in a call centre like that because that requires years of training and probably a degree, and most importantly, some kind of passion for it. You’re more likely to be working in a sales role smiling your face off at a cold computer screen. Legal issues? Yeah, don’t swear at the idiot on the phone, which leads me nicely into…

Learning how to deal with difficult people. “We all have to deal with difficult people at some stage in our career…” was how this positive was framed. Indeed, we do. However, a difficult person being difficult about something you could not give a crumb of crap about is far different from a difficult person being difficult about something you are enthusiastic and passionate about. Chances are, you don’t care for that insurance you’re shotting, or the cable deal, or mobile phone, or whatever modern trinket we busy ourselves with these days.

And my favourite:

Future employers will know you are very hardworking. I can’t fault them here, they are right. You must be very hardworking, determined, dogged, resolute, and all of the other superlatives which also fit well with the Catholic Church’s attitude in covering up its child abuse scandal. Working in a call centre is textbook training for being another expendable entity in a system which is intent on maximising the commodification of labour, creating worker bots who simply generate wealth for the elites. Basically, your future employer will know you will do all your work, and usually theirs, without complaint or call for better treatment.

 

imageYou’ll be sitting next L9JKV811.

By the way, I’m actually a balding, pugnacious man who hates you.

 

We are told we would be “work ready” after our ordeal. Having our ambitions bludgeoned by big business, who wouldn’t be ready for the particular employment market which awaits our fall from grace?

We are told to present our experiences at these call dungeons “intelligently” on our CVs, with the assumption that we won’t naively on their minds. What else are we to do? Write down we hated everything about it to the point where we daydreamed about suicide in our breaks?

“No, be honest, it was good for you. You just don’t know it.”

These four girls, who are expanding their journalism portfolio and are, from what I can surmise, doing what they want, have the cheek to preach to recent graduates about the CV goodness of putting down “Call Centre” as past or present employment, let alone actually enduring life as a call centre agent.

This is all presuming you can freely quit whenever you want, and have little debt to pay off in the inevitable gap between jobs where you have no income.

It is remarkably patronising and counter-productive to advise arts students to “be realistic” about their career prospects without simultaneously addressing the negative, oppressive system they are graduating into. Of course, as usual, it must be the graduate’s fault, or the low income worker’s fault, or the unemployed person’s fault – wealth is out there, go get it like everyone else is. They almost want to say stop sucking at life.

It is infuriating having such short-sighted people exercise some kind of false authority in this subject when they are clearly ignoring the public mood and have no idea about the global picture—and at the same time carve a career out of it in such an important field—journalism.

The most ironic part of the whole turgid conversation had later with a Professor was when he listed the key ingredients to give your job hunt the best chance. What ranked higher than anything else, according to him, was having good contacts. How worrying it is that graduates are expected to already have contacts without being previously employed.

“Dad, who was that guy you said would be interested in taking me on for a bit?”

Plainly put, we are becoming increasingly tired of papering over cracks, of having drivel being fed to us as news, of bailing out exploitative and opportunistic banks and funding illegal wars with public money, with government forever placating corporatists, with cementing the plutocracy, and with these geriatric “experts” making us feel like they “understand”.

The more we have people like these girls telling us to see the positives in slaving away in enormous call centres for people who view you as a screw in their wealth machine, the more desperate our society will become in overhauling itself.

Where is the identification of the new workforce and what it desires to do? If a lot of people are now taking arts based degrees, for example, where is the increase of arts based jobs? We are already seeing government cuts to these kind of jobs, with the Murdoch empire hovering like vultures over the BBC and any Tory plans which may call for its downsizing.

Collectively, people should determine what they want to do, and not corporations. There is a massive disconnection with the employment “market” and what people wish to do and study. We peer out of our university gates after three years only to realise these kind of jobs “are not there” and be told “not everyone can be artists”.

Of course they couldn’t; there would be no-one left to work for the elites who offer little material reward or fulfillment. There would also be even more competition for these journalism jobs.

The “Win-Win Situation” That Destroys Social Mobility.

20/08/2010 2 comments

I sit here a bitter man. Not because I have been recovering from a bout of food poisoning which has hampered my contributions to this space or an unexpected computer virus which compelled me to format my computer, but more crucially, unpaid internships continuing with no real sign of being reined in.

Graduates gain an experience and employers gain free labour – what’s the problem?

Unpaid internships ruin the chances of graduates from poorer families gaining valuable experience during their course and after they finish university. They contribute greatly to the very real brick wall that manifests as companies look for individuals who can basically pay them for the “experience”.

What good is it graduating from university with a degree which was at least part subsidised by the state through capped tuition costs and helpful low interest loans, only to emerge looking for a job in an employment environment populated by organisations who largely offer only unpaid internships?

The result of this process is the creation of two working worlds – one for the rich and one for the poor. Both the public and private sectors are guilty of this practice.

Below is the job description of a post I have recently found.

 

jobdesc1 …and make us a coffee. Cheers.

 

Now, that seems like a decent amount of work suitable for a graduate in their second role. The above is actually a position advertised on a British website inviting graduates to apply to an internship in the heart of Berlin. To compensate the graduate, a monthly “honorarium” of 500 EUR is offered to cover costs. Clearly, 500 EUR is not nearly enough to cover rent in the heart of Berlin, let alone the flight there and living expenses (nevermind actually doing the above).

This occurs everywhere, and nobody is really that bothered. Given the saturated job market due to the number of graduates, there must be some mechanism to filter out the applicants who do not make the grade required yet(?). This is necessary in today’s working world, but I believe the practice of unpaid internships unfairly discriminates against those who cannot even apply because they know they cannot afford it.

I don’t have to go to Berlin for such an example either, there are plenty much closer to home. With Thatcher’s realignment of everything valuable being in the heart of London and nowhere else, businesses have had to “go where the money is” and set up base in London, depriving the rest of the country from outlets graduates can apply to to practice their skills.

For example, a graduate from the North East of England who wants to start his career must be able to afford an internship in London to gain a foothold in their industry of choice. They cannot compete with those who are from London because Londoners simply have more opportunities to start and grow their career through unpaid internships they can afford.

This is not meritocratic; it is basically dynastic.

There remains little incentive for businesses and organisations to offer paid internships when there are affluent graduates who can depend on their parents to subsidise the “impressive” unpaid work they can choose undertake home and abroad. This is especially true in the nigh impregnable NGO sector where elitism is rife and managers tend to “revert to type”.

Many such organisations more recently complain of the economic downturn as the reason for the cycles of free labour they employ. Plain lies. I have seen very small organisations who comply with law by granting the National Minimum Wage, and I have seen some of the largest organisations make it explicitly clear they will not even pay expenses.

None are more guilty than the United Nations. Their internship offers no expenses whatsoever, despite the requirements of a flight to New York, rent and living expenses (a quoted sum of $5,000 for the internship in total). Not only do you have to pay this hefty fee to work for them for nothing, you have to be currently enrolled in graduate study.

This means the student will just have to have the money if they want the experience, with no option of working to save up for it available given the requirement to be already in full time education. Daddy’s wallet comes into play and the affluent graduate has their edge against the competition. If this isn’t simply buying experience, I don’t know what it. How is this fair?

 

UN Internship “Thanks dad!”

 

The simple fact is this: nobody should have to pay to be employed. When someone has parted with money to gain experience, a market system is in place where none should be. Of course the demand is high for careerists to scribble “United Nations” on their CV, but the supply of that experience should never be determined by how much money the applicant has to offer.

This is why interns must be paid at least the National Minimum Wage.

The employment process has lost its integrity given its marketisation. Tuition fees are capped for a reason – so the top universities in the country cannot charge more than the smaller less established universities. This is fair because admission should be primarily based on merit, not quantity of payment. Employment should operate similarly, but it doesn’t.

Whenever there is an avenue to influence, to gain and demonstrate power, and to accumulate wealth, the rich will devise ways to segregate the population and distract us with other problems. Powerful positions are simply reserved for those who have the “material pedigree”. Social mobility is intrinsic to what a democracy actually means, but it is lying dead in the water.

It must be said, the common myth is that social mobility has been in sharp decline for the last 20 years. This isn’t true; it has merely stabilised – not improved or worsened noticeably. The sharp decline commenced because of the free-market religion created during the height of the Cold War, with the unholy alliance of Thatcher and Reagan, its two most prominent advocates.

What we’re experiencing now is a “don’t rock the boat” approach undertaken by market-speak neo-liberals who are bereft of ideas. The answer always seems to be “charge for it” if it is free, or “charge more” if it is supposedly in high demand. The only market regulation which seems to exist is to deprive the poor of the product or opportunity to maintain its value.

Fairness is must be rooted in equal opportunities. It is those first few jobs which shape our attitude to life and help us identify what we truly want to do. When opportunities are unnecessarily limited at this stage, we “settle” for things we otherwise would not settle for. Our dreams become distant and naive, and we accept exploitation as if it defined maturity.

It doesn’t; it simply defines exploitation.

An old funny tweet created to rib conservatives goes: “if you have inherited hard all your life, you should be able to pass it on to your children”. Too right; here’s a load of money, my mansion, the keys to the BMW and your first job. None of these things bother me at all apart from the last gift enabled by our “job market” – that phrase alone is turning my stomach again.