3 ms·
Because it's characterized by exploitation. The same could be (and was) argued for actual slavery in the US. "At least they have food and clothes instead of be
by lukev 15y ago
Because it's characterized by exploitation.
The same could be (and was) argued for actual slavery in the US. "At least they have food and clothes instead of being naked in the jungle." "At least now they're Christians." "They're not smart enough to take care of themselves - they do best with white guidance. It's a kindness."
Of course, it's not quite as bad as actual slavery. But it's close enough that using word "slave" isn't completely spurious.
- ars 15y agoI don't see any exploitation - they chose to work there, and they knew what the conditions were (presumably they talked to other people who worked there). If you choose it, it's not exploitation. A slave did not choose it, therefor there is no comparison at all. People do not do things voluntarily unless it makes things better for them. That means that to the employee, having this job is better than not having it.
- lukev 15y agoBut that's precisely wage slavery. It's using the threat of total unemployment (and therefore hunger and homelessness) to get away with offering shitty wages and horrific working conditions. It may be free market economics, but that doesn't mean it's morally right.
- ars 15y agoYou make it sound like there is just one employer in the area. And if there was just one, I'd agree with you. But there isn't, there are lots of employers, and people pick the best. If no one would be willing to go to the worst (or that employer only gets the worst employees) that employer would change their practices, and thus you get progress. There is a balance here that is virtually impossible to change from the outside. People get exactly the working conditions they are willing to accept. And the working conditions they are willing accept are match the living conditions they are in.
- socially-distnt 15y agojust go to where the jobs are, duh!