Squeezing labour from agriculture could work only if resources were put into agriculture in order to increase its productivity. This could be very expensive. But the alternative was that the provision of food for the growing urban population and raw materials for industry would suffer, creating working class discontent and bottlenecks in accumulation. And eventually there was little in the way of spare labour power left in the countryside to provide for the needs of industry as the peasantry shrank in numbers.
Migration from the Third World was a very cheap way of getting labour power. The advanced country had to bear none of the costs of rearing and educating this part of its labour force-effectively, it was getting a subsidy from the immigrant workers' country of origin.38 The new workforce was usually younger than the "native" workforce, and demanded less in the way of health care, old age pensions and so on. And its members were usually more prepared to tolerate low wages, harsh working conditions, rigid discipline and so on-in short, to be super-exploited. The pool from which this new labour came was potentially limitless.
Yet there were practical limits. As migrant workers became accustomed to living and working in their new home, they demanded conditions closer to those of established workers; they wanted decent accommodation and welfare benefits. The state had either to increase its expenditure on these things-or to see growing social tensions that could lead to either intensified class struggles (to a considerable extent the revolt in France in 1968 was a revolt of such new workers) or to "racial" clashes between old established and newer workers. Unable to afford the social expenditure needed to head off such sources of social instability-and eager to deflect discontent away from itself-the state usually reacted by imposing controls on further immigration.
The wholesale entry of married women into the workforce also demanded a certain level of investment by the state. Means had to be found to ensure that it did not lead to the neglect of child rearing-the socialisation of the next generation of workers-or a breakdown in the provision of food, shelter and clothing for the male workforce. Many of these means could be provided, at relatively low cost, with the application of new technology. The refrigerator, washing machine and vacuum cleaner, the replacement of the coal fire by electricity, gas or oil heating, the popularisation of frozen foods, the spread of fast food outlets, even the television set-all had the effect of reducing the amount of effort needed to ensure the reproduction of both present and future labour power. And they usually cost not a penny to the state or capital, being paid for by the family out of the enlarged income it received as the wife took up paid employment. Caring for young children while both their parents worked created greater difficulties, since the provision of nursery facilities could be costly for the state-even if these costs too could often be recouped from the wage of the working wife.
The Long Boom
173