Race to the bottom

From an essay written in 1996 by Nicholas Hildyard, this paragraph is about the effect of the globalized labour market on British jobs:

In the UK, it is national economic policy to offer the country as a low wage, deregulated "enterprise zone" with relatively pliant workforces. In a brochure aimed at attracting foreign investment, the government's Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB) highlights Britain's "pro-business environment" and its "liberal and undemanding labour regulations". In addition, the IBB advertises "labour costs significantly below other European countries", a "commitment to reduce the burdens on business", "no exchange on repatriated profits". The brochure continues:"The UK has the least onerous labour regulations in Europe, with few restrictions on working hours, overtime and holidays ... There is no legal requirement to recognize a trade union. Many industries operate shift work, and 24-hour, seven days-a-week production for both men and women."The IBB assures potential investors that "no new laws or regulations may be introduced without ascertaining and minimizing the costs to business." The UK government is also committed to cutting back regulations that it deems to restrict enterprise. Since 1993, 605 regulations have been identified for the axe; these include measures covering health and safety, biotechnology, advertising in sensitive areas, hedgerow preservation, food standards and energy efficiency.

The conclusion of the essay is perhaps even more relevant now than it was back then:

Indeed, the time has come to question the very notion of export-led growth and enhanced corporate competitiveness as the routes to jobs and to find new ways of pressing for a different economy, one that seeks to move from specialization to diversification; that prioritizes self-reliance over trade; that adequately safeguards the environment; that produces for use rather than profit; that protects the economy of the commons rather than the economy of the corporation; and that insists on the right to protect itself precisely because it does not seek to infringe on the rights of others to protect themselves.

This paragraph from "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", Max Weber (1904) seems appropriate:

The people filled with the spirit of capitalism today tend to be indifferent, if not hostile, to the Church. The thought of the pious boredom of paradise has little attraction for their active natures; religion appears to them as a means of drawing people away from labour in this world. If you ask them what is the meaning of their restless activity, why they are never satisfied with what they have, thus appearing so senseless to any purely worldly view of life, they would perhaps give the answer, if they know any at all: "to provide for my children and grand-children". But more often and, since that motive is not peculiar to them, but was just as effective for the traditionalist [an entrepreneur acting according to tradition rather than a progressive growth-based capitalism], more correctly, simply: that business with its continuous work has become a necessary part of their lives. That is in fact the only possible motivation, but it at the same time expresses what is, seen from the view-point of personal happiness, so irrational about this sort of life, where a man exists for the sake of his business, instead of the reverse.