3 ms·

> I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in

> I find all these slavery comparisons in poor taste. Across history you will find slaves that were treated well, accumulated wealth, were educated and held in high regard - yet they still legally were the property of another person. The fundamental distinction with slavery is not a bad paycheck. "Poor taste"? Seriously? I didn't say this is slavery, did I? I compared 19th century slaves' wages with these factory workers' wages. Somehow I can't do that because... why, exactly? Because you don't like it when people compare the working conditions of slaves with those of modern workers? And it's not like I cherry-picked some well-off slaves here. $100 is the minimum slave wage numbers I could find—even the page said it was for unskilled labor. And to add insult to injury, those numbers appear to be NOT adjusted for (15x?) inflation! (Probably worth double-checking this part, but see: http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361-4EEE-E0FADE75507425B7 http://lestweforget.hamptonu.edu/page.cfm?uuid=9FEC4E79-B361...) > In this case, the distinction wasn't a bad paycheck either. The compensation was fine on paper, The average Indian factory worker earns ₹330,000/year or $371/month. https://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Job=Factory_Worker/Hourly_Rate https://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Job=Factory_Worker/Hour... The engineers here hired for $286/mo and had their pay "on paper" reduced to $163/month ($109/month for non-engineers). I don't know what your standard for "a bad paycheck" is, but I suppose, given how you were fine with this being equal to actual slaves' wages, I shouldn't be surprised that less than half the average salary for a person who build products for the world's richest company isn't bad enough for you.

loeg 6y ago
Thanks for elaborating here. Your original post was low on analysis or context and left readers to draw their own conclusions about what relationship was implied between this scenario and slavery, which is probably why GP responded the way they did.
incrudible 6y ago
> "Poor taste"? Seriously? Yes, seriously. No need to get defensive. > I didn't say this is slavery, did I? No, you're just pointing out that some slaves across history have been paid better than some modern workers. This is of course factually true, but also factually irrelevant. On an emotional level however, it sounds like "Apple pays its workers less than slaves". Saying it plainly like that would be too obviously disingenuous, so you're going for the "I'll just leave these numbers here!" kind of middleground. Again, that's not wrong, that's just in poor taste (for me). > I don't know what your standard for "a bad paycheck" is, but I suppose, given how you were fine with this being equal to actual slaves' wages, I shouldn't be surprised that less than half the average salary for a person who build products for the world's richest company isn't bad enough for you. I don't actually know what these engineers were expected to earn in their respective market, but considering that they voluntarily entered into these contracts assuming to actually get paid that much, it must've been the best offer they have received. Consider that gatekeeping can keep earned wages high while simultaneously leaving a lot of otherwise qualified workers out of a job entirely. If that salary is lower than whatever certain slaves may have earned at some point in history, that may be unfortunate, but again, factually irrelevant.

loeg 6y ago

Thanks for elaborating here. Your original post was low on analysis or context and left readers to draw their own conclusions about what relationship was implied between this scenario and slavery, which is probably why GP responded the way they did.

incrudible 6y ago

> "Poor taste"? Seriously? Yes, seriously. No need to get defensive. > I didn't say this is slavery, did I? No, you're just pointing out that some slaves across history have been paid better than some modern workers. This is of course factually true, but also factually irrelevant. On an emotional level however, it sounds like "Apple pays its workers less than slaves". Saying it plainly like that would be too obviously disingenuous, so you're going for the "I'll just leave these numbers here!" kind of middleground. Again, that's not wrong, that's just in poor taste (for me). > I don't know what your standard for "a bad paycheck" is, but I suppose, given how you were fine with this being equal to actual slaves' wages, I shouldn't be surprised that less than half the average salary for a person who build products for the world's richest company isn't bad enough for you. I don't actually know what these engineers were expected to earn in their respective market, but considering that they voluntarily entered into these contracts assuming to actually get paid that much, it must've been the best offer they have received. Consider that gatekeeping can keep earned wages high while simultaneously leaving a lot of otherwise qualified workers out of a job entirely. If that salary is lower than whatever certain slaves may have earned at some point in history, that may be unfortunate, but again, factually irrelevant.