: No, because they can still work,
They cant unless they become union members, even then the higher wages may have employers looking for alternatives to mass labor.
: Capitalists actually need this counter-balance, in their tendancy to drive wages down, and various factors of the market, they have teh capacity to destroy their own labourforce, and force wages to a level that cuts production, Unions in these circumstances act as a police that says 'if you cut our wages further, you will lose out'. To do so, they must fight wage cutting.
Which they can do well, without monopolising the supply of labor. This is also a simplr them v us model of work. it does not account for skilled (expensive & rarer) labor, not profit sharing or stock payments etc etc.
: Usually younger peopel, the older people were mostly scrap heaped, or broken because their last vestiges of pride were taken from them. taking averages is all well and good, but specific people,in specific instances have been badly damaged by this forced change.
If one person suffers and ten gain, should the ten be made to suffer a little for the sake of the one? (nearly slipping into utilitarianism there, but you did say that was the moral base for 'good' economics)
: Not possible, there aren't that many jobs down there, specifically not paying high enough to cover the train fares, plus its about three hours (one of my Uncles does commute from Teeside to Bolton, but...) its hardly teh basis for founding a firm community, is it? Or would you rather we all became migrant workers?
I'd rather ask why 20,000 unemployed people in a town are waiting for factory work to come along. I think there were feeble govt attempts to stimulate self employment in Britain werent there? It should require a govt.