Controlled immigration was once a left-wing cause. It was a basic tenet of trade unionism – not to mention economics – that the number of workers in a labour market dictates the rate of pay. When more and more people compete for the same jobs, employers can cut wages.
Those who care about profits rather than wages tend to be in favour of more migration. The capitalist will always dream of importing huge numbers of workers from countries with much lower wages, knowing they can be used to drive down rates of pay and improve profits. The rules of labour supply and demand remain just as true today, but it is no longer a prominent part of Labour thinking. Immigration control is seen as a right-wing cultural issue, and the common-sense, left-wing economic case for controlled immigration mostly goes unmade.
The debate over social care staffing illustrates this point. Whenever it is suggested that perhaps our extraordinary levels of immigration should be curbed, even moderately, the response is one of indignation from the liberal establishment. ‘British people don’t want to be care workers,’ they cry.
The underlying logic here is very revealing. Many carers in this country are paid the minimum wage by private, profit-making companies. While it can be rewarding work, it is also tough, physical, often insecure, and typically offers uncertain hours. British workers end up pursuing alternative minimum-wage jobs as a result – even those who would be delighted to work in care if only the pay and conditions were better.
Left-wingers would once have argued that those looking after our older generations should be treated as the heroes they are. Trade unions would have argued that carers should be paid wages that appeal to British workers. They would have said that private companies should not be allowed to simultaneously rip off the British state and exploit developing nations by depriving them of their skilled workforce. The left might have questioned the ethics of social care being a profit-making enterprise at all.
But the default response now is to pull the lever marked ‘cheap overseas labour’. Meanwhile, those making the left-wing case for low, controlled migration are shouted down as ‘racist’ or ‘reactionary’. Support for unfettered movement of labour, to be exploited by private capital, comes down to a simple, rather unpleasant impulse: ‘Get the foreigners in to do the cheap, dirty work.’ Some solidarity, that.
Basic demand and supply principles are ignored in other areas of our economy too, as if they are somehow suspended when it comes to migration. Just look at housing. The slow rate of house-building is discussed as if it were the only culprit for ballooning house prices. The demand side is rarely addressed, particularly among the left.
The reason we need much greater supply to stop house prices from spiralling further is because demand has shot up, far outstripping the number of new homes coming to the market. Our population has increased by ten million in 20 years, driven by an unprecedented increase in net migration. This massive growth in demand has been a significant contributor to the doubling of house prices over the past two decades. The average voter understands this. It’s basic economics.
Mortgages and rents now take up a huge proportion of income, especially for the under-fifties. The result has been big housing developers scooping up ever-growing profits, as house prices become entirely divorced from the actual cost of building them. It’s yet another example of private capital benefiting from mass migration. In the process, the housing market has been totally broken, and workers who are suffering depressed wages are competing with more and more people for smaller and smaller homes.
Another economic truth is the sunk cost fallacy. Once you’ve made a mistake – or borne the cost of an action – there’s no point continuing with it when better options are open. The Labour party must recognise that commitment to mass migration is a political sunk cost. We ought to reassert ourselves as a bulwark against exploitative capitalism, ensuring that more of our country’s wealth goes into the pockets of the workers. It is the workers who create our wealth, after all, through the strength of common endeavour.
There are glimmers of hope. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary have all spoken about the need to link migration to the needs of the economy. But a fleeting acknowledgement is one thing; action is another. To avoid the working class turning their backs on Labour for good, we must start making the left-wing case for low, controlled migration, before it is too late.
Comments