When will slavery be financially viable again?

[shanek]

But when was this? Before the war?

The address was given on March 4, 1861. The Civil War started on April 12, 1861 when the South drove the Union forces out of Ft. Sumter. So it was a little over a month before the war. Hardly time for a radical change in philosophy.

And how does this refute the claim that Lincoln could have ended the war earlier by allowing slavery into the West and that he was unconcered with it?

It doesn't, nor was it intended to. Do try and keep up. My claim, as yet unrefuted by you or anyone else, is that slavery was not used as a major justification for the war by the Union or Lincoln until 1862.

 

[Mike B.]

It is the great Neo-Confederate strawman to say because the abolition of slavery was not policy right after Ft. Sumter that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. This ignores the preceeding 20 years of history. Nobody thought at the time that the Federal Government had the power to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. That is what that quote from Lincoln's speech is about. He was also trying to ease the fears of the Upper South at the time to try to get them to not leave the Union.

What the South hated about Lincoln and the Republican Party is that they were committed to stopping the spread of slavery into the territories. On this point Lincoln was firm:

Lincoln said this in 1860 to his firend Elihu Washburne about slavery extension:

"Private & confidential Hon. E. B. Washburne Springfield, Ills. Dec. 13. 1860

My dear Sir. Your long letter received. Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves, and our cause, by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort, on ``slavery extention'' There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again. Whether it be a Mo. line, or Eli Thayer's Pop. Sov. it is all the same. Let either be done, & immediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel. Yours as ever A. LINCOLN"

The fear at the time was that people would allow slavery to spread into the territories to appease the South.

As the war changed it did become a war of abolition as well. By 1863 any state wanting to enter the Union agian would have to abolish slavery according to his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. Lincoln ran in 1864 on a platform of Union and abolition. His Democratic opponent ran on a platform of just Union.

 

[shanek]

It is the great Neo-Confederate strawman to say because the abolition of slavery was not policy right after Ft. Sumter that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Since no one here is making that claim, it is you who is guilty of presenting a strawman.

 

[Cinorjer]

Slavery today, or in the future? An interesting thing to ponder. It can be argued that slavery in some form exists today in pockets, but it's not widespread and codified in the "This document says I own you" type that existed in the past.

The economics of widespread slavery demand a ready supply of bodies. Historically, those came from conquered neighboring tribes, cities, and states. Slavery is a tough life, and you can't really "grow your own supply" to keep up with demand. People aren't like horses, where a couple years investment in raising a newborn pays off in work. So where would we get the human cargo this time? Gotta be imported from somewhere.

Then there's the whole question of what slaves would be needed for, besides the luxury of having someone do your housework. Some farming is still labor intensive, like planting rice. But is slavery worth the bother today? Any society in the past with lots of slaves was always paranoid about slave uprisings, and it happened again and again, even if few were successful. People don't appreciate being slaves, after all.

 

[JAR]

JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.

You are correct. I am a racist, but I'm not a white supremacist. I know that you are not a racist.

 

[a_unique_person]

Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.

That just about sums up the fantasy of the free market. Why should there be a point at which the number of jobs available balances out exactly the number of people seeking work?

 

[shanek]

That just about sums up the fantasy of the free market.

Why should there be a point at which the number of jobs available balances out exactly the number of people seeking work?

If you would actually take the time to think about it for a fraction of a microsecond for once in your life, you'd see why.

If you don't have a balance, then there are only two possibilities: More jobs than workers, or more workers than jobs.

Now, if there are more jobs than workers, then that means that businesses aren't going to be able to hire the people that they need, and so they need to attract more workers; the way to do that is to raise the offered salaries. Likewise, those seeking the employment will notice the plethora of available jobs out there and select the one with the highest salary and benefits package. So businesses competing for these jobs will keep raising it, hoping to attract these workers and also encouraging more workers to seek out the jobs. Eventually, you'll hit an equilibrium and the whole thing ends up balanced out.

If there are more workers than jobs, you'll have a situation where so many workers are competing that many of them are willing to accept lower wages just to be ensured of even having a job. So it's the above situation, only in reverse, and the salaries go down until the equilibrium is found.

It's a perfectly natural thing. No one has to make it happen. And it works. Until the government comes in and starts messing around with it, that is...

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane Costello
In the future android technology may be perfected, making enslavement of humans completely moot, perhaps?

Perhaps capitalism isn't going to do it then?

 

[Dancing David]

For those interested I reccomend Many Thousands Gone it is a nice little study of the growth of slavery in the US, there are economic reason why the vast majority of slaves came to be owned by large plantations, as there was less of a frontier the economic viability of small slavery was less of an issue, cotton and indigo drove the slave trade, but then greed kept it going past it's viability.

 

[Crossbow]

Unless there is some drastic change in how the economy works, I doubt that slavery will ever be profitable again.

Slavery works best in situations where one has work a great deal of work to that does not require many job skills, is repetitive, very labor intensive, fast to learn, and easy to monitor.

While there was a vast need for that sort of work prior to the industrialization of the agrainian economy, it is really not needed any more. Decades ago, large farmers and ranchers needed dozens, or even hundreds of hands to do the work of preparing, plowing, weeding, harvesting, preserving, and distributing food. However, with modern technology, farms spanning hundreds of acres can often be productive with just a few people.

The real problem with slavery is that the slaves tend not to be motivated. Slaves quickly find out that if they do more work, then more work will always be expected of them, and that no matter how much work they do, there will be almost no chance of them ever getting a fair share of the profits. Therefore, slaves usually do just enough work to satiate their owner and any more.

However, in a modern society, one needs workers that are well trained, highly motivated, and can function reliably with little supervision. In this case, the workers know that, in most cases anyway, that the more they help their organization, the more the company will pay them.

 

[shanek]

The real problem with slavery is that the slaves tend not to be motivated. Slaves quickly find out that if they do more work, then more work will always be expected of them, and that no matter how much work they do, there will be almost no chance of them ever getting a fair share of the profits. Therefore, slaves usually do just enough work to satiate their owner and any more.

That's true, and that's why many slaveowners started to pay their slaves based on the amount of work they performed. That way, a slave could be motivated to work more and gain the amount of money needed to buy his own freedom.

 

[Crossbow]

Just so shanek!

There were many cases of the more intelligent and loyal slaves being taught to read, write, and mathematics in order to make them more valued employees.

Of course, this sort of thing rarely occurred in areas where slaves were not expected to last too long (such as the Carribbean) so the owners just tried to get as much work out of them as possible before they died.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quite a claim: will it hold up to scrutiny?

In his book

Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy

ISBN: 0520224639

Kevin Bales claims there may be more slaves than at any previous time in history -- around 25 million by his estimate.

two broad types of slavery:
The "old" slavery (exemplified for many of us by the pre-Civil War United States south) was based on legal ownership and division along ethnic and racial lines. Slaves were expensive and relationships between slaves and slaveowners were often long-term, sometimes multi-generational. The "new" slavery, in contrast, is based not on formal ownership but on other legal instruments such as contracts and debts. Slaves are cheap, even disposable, and drawn from the poor, vulnerable, and dispossessed rather than from particular racial or ethnic groups.

Bales warns
"slavery should not be confused with anything else: it is not prison labor, it is not all forms of child labor, it is not just being very poor and having few choices".

within his book are pictures of what appear to be indiginous gold miners in Brazil working under gun, anecdotes of estate slaves being hunted down and beaten or executed in Brazil when they run away. Also covered: sex workers, child prostitution.

Is applying the term slavery accurate in these cases?

 

[epepke]

We, currently, breast beat and bemoan slavery. From an historical perspective this is trendy and quaint. The question is, as technologies evolve and the edge between those that are educated (and, presumably, affluent) grows sharper with respect to the others, when will niches develop that make slavery, once again, despite the current hiatus, a viable institution. I suspect that it would not be race based as in our recent history, but economically based, perhaps even religiously based.

I doubt that slavery will ever become economically viable, unless somehow the population were to crash and almost all medical knowledge were lost.

Who would buy a human being when it's so easy to rent one and throw it away when you don't want it any more? When you buy a human being, then it's property, and you have to keep up your property. Employers don't even want to provide health insurance. How long is your slave, that you've paid good money for, going to last without regular maintenance?

Indentured servitude, on the other hand, is fairly likely. But then again, it's commonplace already.