3 ms·

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the co

by chewz 7y ago

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the conclusion that serfdom and slavery is beneficial to positive returns on landholding. Also multiple countries had been greatly improving their GDP from forced labor (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom

tstgggssg 7y ago
You left out USA
manfredo 7y ago
Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith. On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is that the pay is not worth the work. By comparison, slaves are not free and are forced to do whatever work their masters tell them to.
- chewz 7y ago
  Slaves and serf were historically also free to go if they have paid off their masters. You could also argue thst they had received some protection and benefits. "Freedom" of choice is relative term here.
  - lozenge 7y ago
    Talking about the historical situation of slaves while referring only to ancient Rome is incredibly contrived considering slavery was alive and well not that long ago.
    - somatic 7y ago
      “Slavery” doesn’t have just one configuration. It’s just a word that we sometimes use to describe certain kinds of superior-inferior relationships: master-servant, lord-peasant, employer-employee, landlord-tenant, etc. Or how about debtpeon-bank? Taxman-taxpayer... Government-citizen... State-subject... You say “slavery” and you think of “black slavery”, but do you think of the ruthlessly exploited sharecropper? How about the fresh-faced grad indentured to his debt for life? The newlywed with the mortgage on the house that cost him 10x what it cost his father? Slavery is closer than you think.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    No, slaves weren't free to go. The whole point of slaves is that they don't need to be paid so saying that they could pay off their masters is moot. There was also no requirement that theirs masters set them free even if a slave could somehow reimburse them for their initial purchase cost. They were their master's personal property, and their master could decide not to sell them if he so wished. Slaves also had next to no protection. Slaves could be killed in gladiatorial fights, and were often used to work in the most unhealthy and unsafe jobs. Masters could rape their slaves at will, or prostitute their slaves. The only "protection" they had was the fact that it was in their masters' self-interest to keep them alive so that they could continue working. I seriously cannot fathom as to how you can think that the gig economy is comparable to owning other human beings as property.
    - chewz 7y ago
      > Slaves also had next to no protection. One should not base their notion of slavery on popular culture like Game of Thrones or Gladiator but on reading historic books. Or Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > Although in general freed slaves could become citizens, with the right to vote if they were male > Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own. > Claudius announced that if a slave was abandoned by his master, he became free. Nero granted slaves the right to complain against their masters in a court. And under Antoninus Pius, a master who killed a slave without just cause could be tried for homicide.[65] Legal protection of slaves continued to grow as the empire expanded. It became common throughout the mid to late 2nd century AD to allow slaves to complain of cruel or unfair treatment by their owners. Also some slave had been administering largest empires on Earth (China, Roman Empire) or establishing empires of their own with control over lifes of milions of free people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk > Particularly in Egypt, but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517). So back to the subject. Slavery and serfdom had been complex institutions spanning thousands of years and multiple cultures and historical circumstances. And yes. I am personally convinced that bringing poor people and immigrants with limited citizenship rights into perpetuating economic relation where they cannot make economic progress and mostly accumulate debt and obligations with limited social benefits is modern version of serfdom.

by chewz 7y ago

tstgggssg 7y ago

You left out USA

manfredo 7y ago

Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith. On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is that the pay is not worth the work. By comparison, slaves are not free and are forced to do whatever work their masters tell them to.

chewz 7y ago
Slaves and serf were historically also free to go if they have paid off their masters. You could also argue thst they had received some protection and benefits. "Freedom" of choice is relative term here.
- lozenge 7y ago
  Talking about the historical situation of slaves while referring only to ancient Rome is incredibly contrived considering slavery was alive and well not that long ago.
  - somatic 7y ago
    “Slavery” doesn’t have just one configuration. It’s just a word that we sometimes use to describe certain kinds of superior-inferior relationships: master-servant, lord-peasant, employer-employee, landlord-tenant, etc. Or how about debtpeon-bank? Taxman-taxpayer... Government-citizen... State-subject... You say “slavery” and you think of “black slavery”, but do you think of the ruthlessly exploited sharecropper? How about the fresh-faced grad indentured to his debt for life? The newlywed with the mortgage on the house that cost him 10x what it cost his father? Slavery is closer than you think.
- manfredo 7y ago
  No, slaves weren't free to go. The whole point of slaves is that they don't need to be paid so saying that they could pay off their masters is moot. There was also no requirement that theirs masters set them free even if a slave could somehow reimburse them for their initial purchase cost. They were their master's personal property, and their master could decide not to sell them if he so wished. Slaves also had next to no protection. Slaves could be killed in gladiatorial fights, and were often used to work in the most unhealthy and unsafe jobs. Masters could rape their slaves at will, or prostitute their slaves. The only "protection" they had was the fact that it was in their masters' self-interest to keep them alive so that they could continue working. I seriously cannot fathom as to how you can think that the gig economy is comparable to owning other human beings as property.
  - chewz 7y ago
    > Slaves also had next to no protection. One should not base their notion of slavery on popular culture like Game of Thrones or Gladiator but on reading historic books. Or Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome > Although in general freed slaves could become citizens, with the right to vote if they were male > Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own. > Claudius announced that if a slave was abandoned by his master, he became free. Nero granted slaves the right to complain against their masters in a court. And under Antoninus Pius, a master who killed a slave without just cause could be tried for homicide.[65] Legal protection of slaves continued to grow as the empire expanded. It became common throughout the mid to late 2nd century AD to allow slaves to complain of cruel or unfair treatment by their owners. Also some slave had been administering largest empires on Earth (China, Roman Empire) or establishing empires of their own with control over lifes of milions of free people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk > Particularly in Egypt, but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517). So back to the subject. Slavery and serfdom had been complex institutions spanning thousands of years and multiple cultures and historical circumstances. And yes. I am personally convinced that bringing poor people and immigrants with limited citizenship rights into perpetuating economic relation where they cannot make economic progress and mostly accumulate debt and obligations with limited social benefits is modern version of serfdom.