20,000!

When I heard that it is estimated that there are currently around 20,000 modern day slaves working in the UK I reached for the red wine and nodded sagely. Like many other listeners, I had assumed that these figures were merely a rejig, a relabelling if you like, little more than a recent addendum to today's unemployment figures. I had assumed that perhaps those Tesco et al workers struggling below the living wage, all of those interns, might have been lumped together into yet another created statistic.

But no, these 20,000 souls were in addition to the aforementioned. Mmmmm! Twenty thousand, that many? One wonders how it might be, that quite so many actual slaves might have been permitted to accumulate, in a modern day 'democracy?' Human rights, benign employment contracts, the roundly supported minimum wage, "all in it together Britain;" what could possibly have gone so terribly wrong?

Let's just sketch out a rough picture of the UK's working environment, see if we can't spot a tiny loophole, one through which a few slaves might have been permitted to slip, shall we?

Lovely links. Thanks Haya Benitez

Given that governments traditionally (that would be always these days) are far more (entirely) beholden to the wealthy business man- and it invariably is men- than the general population it's interesting to note that there are those still in denial over the issues of the minimum wage. Less interesting, or surprising, is the fact that these reality-deniers are invariably drawn from the more comfortably-off types, or otherwise the alarmingly gullible (Daily Mail reader).

Charles Orton-Jones (23rd August 2011) made the 'interesting' point that, "wages are a cost, not a benefit to firms." Already- and I have no prior knowledge regarding the 'credentials' of this man- I feel able to hazard a guess as to where young Orton-Jones slots into 'our' society. Mr Orton-Jones goes on to argue that, "wages must reflect productivity."Oh, thank the Lord above, for the insights of the 'neutral' businessman! Are you listening, George? Of course he is!

In order to counter this argument I'm going to create an imaginary scenario, one whereby I manufacture picture frames for a living; not a great living, but a get-by form of a living. Should I wish to expand the business, by upping production it would either have to be because the market for picture frames is known to be ripe for expansion, or because I have sorely misjudged the same. If it's the former then my new workforce will be helping me to tap into a viable market, and should consequently be earning a viable wage, because we will all be working towards the same goals. If the latter then the business isn't there anyway; if I still wish to employ new workers and to offset the poor market returns by underpaying my workers then it could, indeed should, be argued that there are no realistic employment opportunities on offer.

Also, Sandra Gonzalez

If I want to exploit the workforce entirely to my own ends, then outsiders should be permitted (even encouraged) to accuse me of treating my workforce little better than 'slaves.'

Of course, those in the current government-thinking camp have often been heard to argue that this tiny step 'up' from unemployment is, "the first rung on the ladder." But never are they heard to concede the fact that the market influences of high unemployment upon the job sector will often ensure that the, "first" and the last rungs might transpire to be entirely one and the same thing.

Whilst you and I are undoubtedly of the opinion that payday loan companies are entirely the work of Beelzebub- how could they not be?- George Osborne recently expressed the 'opinion' that there was, "a place for the payday loan company." The Internet may since have virtually esponged this comment from view, but we all remember watching him saying this. Also highly significant is the fact that many payday loan companies are significant contributors to Tory coffers. Why, a conspiracy theorist could have a field day; one could almost draw a convenient parallel between an economy in enforced recession and that of jolly fine business opportunities for Wonga and the likes.

Lest working individuals existing at the unacknowledged lower end of the employment spectrum should still have manufactured some sort of living standards for themselves, 'your' government has fully utilised the smoke-screen of the 'recession' in order to deter such complacency. Had we, "all been in this together," there was the option of reigning in some of those excessive rents that have been permitted to spiral, under thirty-five years of jack-bootingly rightwardly-leaning government(s).

And finally to Wendell

Sadly, Tory landlords were given priority. So instead, housing benefits were tampered with. Nobody was made homeless overnight, but benefits were capped, creating the ludicrous scenario whereby families and individuals were permitted to stay put by making up the difference between that of the newly capped housing benefit and that of rent. Thus thousands of living-below-even-the-government's-calculated-minimum-standards families were almost instantly created.

What to do? To carry on living below this adjusted poverty level or to search out new accommodation, that might not actually anyway exist?

So, slaves now, is it? As if conjured from the very aether itself...