look at the economist' advocates of laissez-faire immigration who influenced Margaret Thatcher.
And here is the quotes from the capitalists who influenced Thatcher
Sir Keith Joseph, a key intellectual force behind Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies, was a staunch advocate for free markets, including in the realm of labor. While he wasn’t a professional economist like George Reisman, his views were heavily informed by thinkers like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, whom he admired and popularized in British politics. Joseph’s take on free markets in labor specifically comes through in his speeches, pamphlets, and policy positions during his time as a Conservative MP and Thatcher’s mentor, particularly in the 1970s. Here’s what he said and believed, based on his public record:
Joseph argued that free markets in labor were essential for economic vitality and individual freedom. He saw government and union interventions—like wage controls, restrictive labor laws, and union monopolies—as distortions that stifled productivity and job creation. In his 1976 pamphlet Monetarism Is Not Enough, he emphasized that controlling inflation (via monetarism) was only half the battle; the other half was unleashing market forces across the economy, including labor. He believed wages should be set by supply and demand, not artificial floors like minimum wages or union bargaining power, which he thought priced workers out of jobs.
On trade unions, Joseph was blunt. He viewed their dominance in 1970s Britain—where they could shut down industries with strikes—as a tyranny over both workers and employers. In a 1974 speech in Preston, kicking off his “conversion” to free-market ideas, he lamented how union power had crippled British industry, driving up costs and unemployment. He argued that a free labor market would break this stranglehold, letting employers hire flexibly and workers compete on merit. This wasn’t just about economics; he saw it as moral, freeing individuals from collectivist shackles to thrive through their own efforts.
Joseph tied labor market freedom to broader economic recovery. In his 1975 Upminster speech, he criticized the post-war consensus for fostering “overmanning”—excess workers kept on payrolls due to union pressure or subsidies—which he said sapped competitiveness. A free market, he argued, would force firms to shed unneeded labor, reallocating it to more productive uses, thus raising real wages over time through efficiency, not mandates. He echoed Hayek here, insisting that spontaneous market adjustments outdid top-down planning.
He also addressed unemployment, a hot issue as it soared under Thatcher’s early policies. In Monetarism Is Not Enough, he acknowledged short-term job losses from dismantling controls but insisted they were a necessary purge of unproductive roles. A free labor market, he said, would eventually absorb these workers as businesses, unshackled from regulation, expanded. He rejected Keynesian job creation schemes, arguing they propped up dying industries—like coal or steel—delaying the shift to a modern economy.
On specifics like child labor or working conditions, Joseph didn’t delve as deeply as Reisman, but his principles suggest a similar stance: markets, not laws, would improve them. Higher productivity and wealth from free competition would let workers demand better terms naturally, as he implied in his 1976 Stockton Lecture, where he praised capitalism’s historical uplift of living standards.
Joseph’s influence on labor policy was practical, too. As Secretary of State for Industry (1979-81), he began dismantling industrial subsidies that propped up inefficient jobs, and later, as Education Secretary (1981-86), he pushed market-oriented reforms. His ideas fed into Thatcher’s union-busting laws—like the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts—which curbed strikes and secondary picketing, aiming to restore labor market fluidity.
In essence, Joseph saw free markets in labor as a liberation—from union coercion, from government meddling, and from economic stagnation. Wages should reflect real value, not bargaining muscle; jobs should flow from enterprise, not edicts. His rhetoric was less technical than Reisman’s but fierier, blending economic logic with a moral crusade against socialism. If you’d like exact quotes from a specific speech or pamphlet, I can hunt those down further—let me know!
What did Alan Walters: Say about free markets Specifically in labour
Alan Walters, a British economist and Margaret Thatcher’s chief economic advisor during key periods (1981–1983 and 1989), was a vocal proponent of free markets, including in the labor sphere. While he’s best known for his monetarist stance—emphasizing money supply control to curb inflation—his views on labor markets were equally critical to his economic philosophy and his influence on Thatcher’s policies. Walters didn’t produce a single seminal work solely on labor like George Reisman did, but his writings, interviews, and policy advice reveal a clear stance, rooted in neoclassical economics and a distrust of intervention. Here’s what he said and believed about free markets in labor, drawn from his public record and context.
Walters argued that labor markets, left free, naturally find equilibrium where wages reflect productivity and supply meets demand, maximizing employment and efficiency. He saw government and union distortions—such as wage controls, minimum wages, or restrictive labor laws—as barriers to this process. In his 1986 book Britain’s Economic Renaissance, Walters critiqued the UK’s postwar labor rigidities, particularly the power of trade unions, which he believed artificially inflated wages in some sectors, priced workers out of jobs, and fueled inflation via wage-price spirals. He wrote that “excessive union power distorts the allocation of labor,” pushing unemployment higher than it needed to be.
On unions specifically, Walters was scathing. He viewed their ability to monopolize labor supply—through closed shops or strike threats—as a drag on the economy. In a 1981 memo to Thatcher, later referenced in his writings, he argued that union-enforced wage hikes in industries like coal and manufacturing didn’t reflect market realities, leading to overstaffing and uncompetitive firms. A free labor market, he insisted, would break this cycle: employers could hire at market rates, and workers would shift to growing sectors, not cling to dying ones. This aligned with Thatcher’s union reforms, like the 1982 Employment Act, which he supported as steps toward market freedom.
Walters tied labor market flexibility to his broader monetarist goals. In a 1989 interview with The Financial Times, reflecting on his second stint with Thatcher, he noted that tight monetary policy alone couldn’t fix inflation if labor markets remained “sticky.” Freeing them up—by curbing union power and reducing regulations—would let wages adjust downward when needed, easing pressure on prices without mass unemployment. He saw this as a contrast to the 1970s, when union-driven wage demands thwarted monetary discipline, a point he made in his 1990 book Sterling in Danger.
He also addressed unemployment, a sore spot during Thatcher’s early years when it topped 3 million. Walters didn’t flinch from the short-term pain of market adjustments. In a 1982 lecture at the London School of Economics, he argued that high unemployment partly stemmed from “real wage resistance”—workers and unions refusing pay cuts despite economic shifts. A free market, he said, would reset wages to sustainable levels, spurring hiring as firms regained profitability. He wasn’t callous; he just believed the alternative—propping up jobs with subsidies or controls—delayed recovery, echoing Keith Joseph’s view but with a sharper statistical edge.
On practical policy, Walters influenced Thatcher’s push to deregulate labor. As advisor, he backed cuts to employment protections and resisted wage councils (which set minimums in low-pay sectors), seeing them as relics of misguided intervention. In a 1983 paper for the Institute of Economic Affairs, he praised the US labor market’s flexibility—lower unionization, fewer rules—as a model, contrasting it with Britain’s “sclerotic” system. He didn’t focus much on specifics like child labor or hours, but his logic implied markets would sort these out: rising wealth from free competition would let workers demand better conditions organically.
Walters’ take was less ideological than Joseph’s fiery crusades or Reisman’s theoretical depth—he was a nuts-and-bolts economist, obsessed with data and outcomes. He saw free labor markets as a pragmatic fix: they’d boost efficiency, tame inflation, and adapt Britain to a global economy. His clashes with the Treasury (like the 1981 Budget row) often hinged on this: he wanted faster, purer market reforms, including in labor, than the establishment tolerated.
In short, Walters said free markets in labor meant wages tied to productivity, not power plays; jobs driven by enterprise, not edicts; and an economy nimble enough to thrive. Unions and rules were the enemy, flexibility the cure. If you want a deeper dive into a specific text or moment—like his 1989 spat with Nigel Lawson over labor policy—let me know!
Hayek on Free Market Labour
Friedrich Hayek argued that free markets allow for better coordination of people's actions through the price mechanism, which conveys information about supply and demand for different goods. This enables individuals to make economic decisions as if they had a conscious understanding of these factors, even if they do not have detailed knowledge about them. In the context of labor, Hayek believed that free markets facilitate the efficient allocation of resources, including labor, by allowing prices to signal changes in supply and demand, thus helping to coordinate economic plans and reduce unemployment caused by misallocation of resources.
Hayek also emphasized the limited nature of knowledge and argued that central planners cannot have access to the dispersed and local information that market participants possess. This makes it difficult for central planners to make informed decisions about resource allocation, including labor, as effectively as the decentralized market system does.
Hayek was particularly critical of organized labor and trade unions, which he saw as vested interests that could disrupt the spontaneous order of the market. He argued that such organizations could interfere with the free market's ability to allocate resources efficiently, including labor, and proposed that combating these vested interests could be necessary to protect the liberal market order.
Hayek's views on labor and free markets were part of his broader critique of central planning and his defense of free-market capitalism, which he believed fostered creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship necessary for societal prosperity.
Milton Friedman on Free Markets
Milton Friedman was a strong advocate for free markets, including in the context of labor. He argued that free markets would lead to more efficient outcomes and that government intervention often led to inefficiencies and unintended consequences. In his book "Capitalism and Freedom," Friedman discussed the role of government in labor markets and argued against various forms of government intervention
https://search.brave.com/search?q=What+did+Milton+Friedman+Say+about+free+markets+In+labour+specifically&source=web&summary=1&conversation=b213b874489ea8541d1114
George Reisman, an economist and advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, argued strongly in favor of free markets in labor, emphasizing that they naturally improve wages, working conditions, and overall living standards without government intervention. His views are rooted in his broader defense of capitalism, as detailed in works like Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics and various essays. Here’s what he specifically said about free markets in labor, distilled from his writings:
Reisman believed that in a free market, wages rise due to increases in labor productivity, not through coercive measures like government mandates or union pressure. He argued that as businesses and capitalists invest in capital goods—tools, machinery, and technology—they increase the output per worker. This boosts the supply of goods relative to labor, lowering prices and raising the purchasing power of wages, or "real wages." In his view, this process is the natural mechanism by which free markets elevate workers’ living standards over time, far more effectively than artificial interventions.
He contrasted this with government or union efforts to raise wages, which he saw as misguided and harmful. For instance, he criticized minimum wage laws and union-imposed wage hikes, asserting they disrupt the market by forcing wages above their natural level, leading to unemployment. When wages are set higher than what productivity justifies, employers hire fewer workers, pushing some into joblessness or lower-paying fields, thus creating artificial inequalities and reducing overall economic efficiency. In a free market, he argued, wages adjust to reflect supply and demand for labor, ensuring maximum employment and fair compensation based on contribution.
On working conditions, Reisman contended that free markets incentivize improvements without regulation. As real wages rise, workers can afford to prioritize safer, less grueling jobs, even if they pay less. Employers, competing for labor, respond by offering shorter hours or better conditions to attract workers, especially when it becomes profitable to do so—like shifting from two 12-hour shifts to three 8-hour ones at adjusted pay. He saw this as a voluntary, market-driven process, not one requiring laws like “shorten hours or we’ll kill you,” as he mockingly characterized the interventionist approach.
Reisman also addressed child labor, a frequent critique of unregulated markets. He argued that free markets historically ended child labor by raising parental wages, reducing the need for children to work. As productivity and wealth grow, families can afford to keep kids out of the workforce, a trend he credits to capitalism’s progress, not prohibitions. He viewed laws banning child labor as unnecessary in advanced economies, though he acknowledged their intent in poorer contexts.
His critique of labor unions was particularly sharp. He saw them as anti-labor in effect, despite their pro-worker rhetoric. By restricting labor supply—through tactics like apprenticeships or licensing—and pushing wages above market rates, unions reduce jobs in their sectors, displace workers to other fields, and depress wages there. This, he argued, lowers real wages across the economy by curbing productivity and raising prices, the opposite of free-market outcomes.
In short, Reisman’s take was that free markets in labor, unhampered by government or unions, align wages with productivity, maximize employment, improve conditions organically, and historically liberate workers from exploitation—like child labor or long hours—through wealth creation. He saw intervention as a distortion that ultimately harms the very workers it claims to help, a point he hammered home with economic logic and historical examples in his writings. If you’re curious about a specific quote or context, let me know, and I can dig deeper!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iizrwurkmgc
