Full employment: an unattainable ‘holy grail?’

By Peter Barnard

In 1951, unemployment stood at just 188,000, representing just 0.8 per cent of the population registered as available for work. In 1964, there were 349,000 unemployed: 1.35 per cent of those ‘available for work.’

These are numbers that we can only dream about these days. The ‘post-war settlement’ following the Beveridge report accepted ‘full employment’ (the removal of ‘idleness’) as a pillar of economic policy. The Conservative manifesto in 1979 was silent on ‘full employment’ and, as far as I am aware, Labour manifestos since 1997 have also been silent on ‘full employment.’ In other words, both Conservative and Labour since 1979 have abandoned full employment as an economic objective for the country that we live in.

The 1950s and 1960s are two much maligned decades by neo-liberal economics commentators. However, the general condition of the people was probably more improved in those twenty years than in any twenty year period before or since. Many an economist refers to the period as ‘the golden years.’

I happen to believe that full employment in a full range of occupations (‘proper jobs’) is a much required foundation for a decent society. And yes, the men who come round to collect our rubbish every week have ‘proper jobs’ that should be respected for what they do: the maintenance of public health.

I also happen to believe that decent living wages should be paid for all ‘proper jobs.’ Indeed, full employment should automatically lead to ‘decent living wages’ for all as employers compete for labour, rather than the situation of the last thirty years in which labour, in the aggregate, has competed for jobs.

For thirty years now, we have seen levels of unemployment that were unthinkable in the 1950s and 1960s and this leads me to four questions:

* Is ‘full employment’, as it was understood to be for twenty and more years after 1945, a realistic objective?

* If it is, how do we achieve that objective?

* If it isn’t, how do we manage the consequences?

* Do leaders of either the Labour or Conservative parties still believe in full employment, as it was understood in the 1950s and 1960s?