I must confess (no, no, not that!) to being unimpressed on 11th November, when reading a story about Spearmint Rhino. However, upon reflection, I have adjusted my thinking. As with most things about the UK economy, supermarkets are at the heart of the issue.
What made me smile a couple of weeks back was the business section in the Sun, and a piece on job creation. It was reported that SR plans to help hard-up Britain - by hiring dozens of "English Roses". Apparently it wants to do its bit to prevent a double dip recession by creating 60 jobs across the country.
Now, far be it from me to put a negative spin on things, but sixty jobs? Sixty? Is that somehow going to make any fucking difference to the UK economy? As for helping the economy, frittering away stupid sums to watch lap dancers might be fun, but it will lead to a shortfall somewhere else along the line; something has got to give in one's housekeeping, if Spearmint Rhino's new dancers take money.
Now let's consider another type of announcement, one with meatier numbers. Rather than pick on a specific announcement, let's for a moment accept the generic "XXX supermarket has announced that 1500 jobs will be created through the opening of three new stores in XXX". Such a statement is not uncommon, and the expectation is that we'll all feel a bit better - good news, for a change! Actually, NO.
Yes, at face value, 1500 new jobs sounds good. But hang on - how are we managing without those 1500 people gainfully employed and working to serve us? We are managing because there are enough supermarkets already, and if we need something, we go to one of them and buy shit. Sometimes we are mildly put out by having to shop at a place that's an 'independent' retailer. Spooky, eh? But wherever we do shop, we shop. So, back to the 1500 people gainfully employed (1300 of them probably part-time, by the way). They are in fact depriving someone else of a job, or helping another business to hit bad times and close. The thing is, there are no new jobs in the world of supermarkets. There are enough shops to serve us food. If we have more of them, then the existing ones will be visited by fewer people, or other shops will be killed off (and jobs lost). The only way the growth can be warranted is through immigration, and population growth at a ludicrous level.
So, if a supermarket wants to announce that it has truly created jobs, then it would require substantiation by a survey of the local area to establish that a surge in the number of shoppers, arising from immigration, has caused a demand. If this is not true, then other jobs are being lost during the onward march of the big four supermarkets. I suspect an 80/20 split, with immigration driving the 20% not the 80%.
Back to Spearmint, then, and the 60 new jobs planned. At least we can say that they are unlikely to be depriving other dancers of a livelihood. They may be dubious roles in life, but it's not as if we are all "shopping elsewhere" at the moment, and SR will be needlessly spreading itself - hmmmmm, hold that thought. The American boss, Mr John Specht, even invited ministers to see his growth plans. Also, the article noted that one banker had spent £28,000 on dances the week before. Well there you have it, a perfect comparison. Supermarkets nick an existing shopper and redirect the spending. Meanwhile, instead of a lap dancer taking money from the earnings of another lap dancer, and the punter spending the same amount regardless, we have new trade of an opportunistic nature, with a banker being fleeced - for a change. In effect, one cunt is taking money from another cunt, so to speak.
Cracking!
...
No comments:
Post a Comment