slavery - why does it still exist?

Ian · 2003-04-04 16:32:36

Hi. I keep seeing reports that i'm concerned about that say that some people are trafficked into the US as slaves from other countries and I also hear that it goes on in other parts of the world. Does it really still go on?

Number04 · 2003-04-07 08:43:41

i am sure it does. Also, you could define millions of people around the world in G7 countries as cooperate slaves. But i think that's another topic.

i don't have any facts of reports, but people are mean.

Byron · 2003-04-07 09:20:29

Yeah, there are bona-fide slaves, mainly brought in from China by despicable people called "snakeheads." These "people smugglers" offer desperate people of China and elsewhere a chance to come to the US, for some exorbiant fee, which the emigree has to pay back through indentured servitude. Of course, the snakeheads make it virtually impossible for these poor people to ever pay back their debt, which essentially makes them slaves.

What's really a shame, however, our government knows this goes on, but precious little is done to go after these snakeheads and bring them to justice. On another note, many corporate "farmers" regularly bring in illegal immigrants by the busload and work them half to death for extremely low wages, and they really have no recourse as they are held under constant threat of deportation, even jail. If the feds really wanted to, all they would have to do is to visit every large farm in America during harvest season and deport every single illegal (it really wouldn't be that hard, as these people work out in the open for 12+ hours each day...and there aren't THAT many farms in the US.)

Of course, most of us know if they really did that, the crops would probably rot in the fields, as it would be extremely difficult to find full-fledged US citizens to perform that kind of work, especially at minimum wage levels and the high levels of productivity the immigrants typically perform their duties. But, really, is this right? Think about it some....the end really doesn't justify the means...or does it??

B

Palomar · 2003-04-07 12:23:15

*Some portions of Asia are notorious for the sexual slave trade; girls as young as 9 or 10 are kidnapped from villages (although sometimes sold by impoverished families) and taken to brothels in larger cities where they are repeatedly raped and abused. Older girls are often lured by slavers into believing they are going to the city to get a decent job in a factory or as a sales clerk in a store -- money they can earn to send back home and help the family.

Of course, it doesn't work out that way. And it's especially shameful that adult women work this racquet and victimize the girls along with the men involved. Totally disgusting and inhumane.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-07 12:56:14

I wonder what would be better received by the poor people forced, or as is often the case, tricked into these situations.

Better opportunity, or better wages.

Women are kidnapped, sold by families, run away for the hope of a better life, promised a job, etc.- and then forced into some rather henious situations.

Stop and ask yourself how people are able to victimize others. By and large, it comes at the prospect, or in the wrappings of "opportunity".

Families with no economic opportunity see selling their children as the only available opportunity. Women are lured to other countries with the prospect of jobs- i.e. opportunity. People make large treks, risking life and limb, for the chance of a better opportunity (compared to what they are leaving).

Enabling choices for individuals reduces the opportunity for others to exploit these same people.

It is a lack of opportunity that leads to slavery. This is what causes exploitation.

Check out Russia, or Eastern Europe- or Africa.

Ian · 2003-04-08 08:01:41

How can all this be stopped from happening on mars long after colonies get set up there?

dicktice · 2003-04-08 08:42:45

I once thought (having been brought up on Asimov's robotics sci-fi stories) that intelligent robots would serve the purpose. But a truly intelligent robot would be self-aware, right? Wouldn't it become dissatisfied--doing repetitive work endlessly like a slave--and become bored or disgruntled (even if not tired) and want time off for entertainment ... or else?

Byron · 2003-04-08 09:04:31

I can see the headlines now: Robots Stage Revolt - Demand Same Working Conditions As Humans

B

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-08 10:14:00

If I were in charge I would do two things to stop indentured servitude or slavery:

1. Eliminate the immigration laws - open the borders and disband the border patrol.

2. Eliminate the minimum wage.

And maybe a third would be to extend all civil liberties to all people no matter what country they are citizens of.

With these laws in place several things would happen:

1. Workers wouldn't be afraid of deportation if they didn't like their boss and wanted to speak out or change jobs.
2. Unemployed people could find a job. It wouldn't pay well but at least they could buy food.
3. Employers wouldn't have to use threats or import slaves to get their work done. They could just hire a bunch of unemployed people or new immigrants who wouldn't immediately demand high pay.

Now clark, don't freak out! I would do this gradually. We wouldn't all of a sudden have a rush of immigrants coupled with a sudden drop in pay.

BTW, if you're making more than minimum wage then you shouldn't worry about your income changing. If your boss already values you enough to pay you more than the mandated minimum then a lower mandate won't effect your value in his eyes.

clark · 2003-04-08 10:44:03

If I were in charge I would do two things to stop indentured servitude or slavery:
1. Eliminate the immigration laws - open the borders and disband the border patrol.
2. Eliminate the minimum wage.

Thank god you're not in charge. Your solution would not stop slavery, it would only create it under a different guise.

Free flow of labor, coupled with no minimum wage means that a buisness can shop around for the most desperate individual. It creates the situation where we, the people, compete with one another to offer our services to the buisness for as cheaply as possible.

I will paint your house for $10 a day- I have a family to feed. However, Soph is in highschool, he just needs a couple extra bucks for a new video game- he will do it for 5 dollars a day.

Now, who is really losing out in this situation? I with the family, or Soph and his video game? The business wins because it gets the job done cheaply, and can therefore make more profit.

The business makes more profit, and we kill ourselves trying to remain competitive. The problem gets worse as we age. Younger people tend to have less neccessity to work- many don't have families, or the large overhead that living life tends to engender. So they can work for less.

Welcome exploitation!

The very things you would undo are what help strike a balance and reduces economic slavery.

I applaude your effort, but I don't think this would be such a good idea.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-08 11:04:02

Clark, how much does your boss pay you? Do you really think he/she would kick you out on your rear if the minimum wage dropped? What about Mr. Noskills-Out-of-a-Job? I bet he'd rather earn two dollars a day painting a house than holding out for that magical 5.15/hr. job. By the way, all the house painters I know make more than minimum wage anyway.

But hey, here's a compromise. Since we rule the world here in cyberspace, Let's cut the minimum wage in half and see what happens. If it creates more jobs and less suffering then let's eliminate it all together. If it goes the other way then let's just double it to 10.30/hr. or heck if it works that well then let's just triple it or quadruple it. I'd like to see inflation after that. We could probably ride the 'inflation rocket' all the way to Mars!

Bill White · 2003-04-08 11:19:45

And maybe a third would be to extend all civil liberties to all people no matter what country they are citizens of.

I can agree with this especially if we also added an international minimum wage.

clark · 2003-04-08 11:20:36

Clark, how much does your boss pay you?

It doesn't work that way. It's a matter of how much *I* can demand to be paid. How much *I* can demand is based on my own perceived value, the neccessity of my desired income (which is a function of neccessary items for life), and the value of my particular skill set (which is a function of the number of people with similar skill sets).

My boss, and all bosses, pay exactly as much as is neccessary to secure *the services* I can provide, and not a penny more.

Do you really think he/she would kick you out on your rear if the minimum wage dropped? What about Mr. Noskills-Out-of-a-Job?

*I'm* not worried. I am worried about Mr. No skill, which a great number of people fall into. Those with few marketable skills, or skills that are commonly held are the extreme losers in this situation.

I bet he'd rather earn two dollars a day painting a house than holding out for that magical 5.15/hr. job.

I'm sure he would. Yet disolving the minimum wage does nothing to give him more opportunity- all it does is force him to compete with the most desperate. If there is a job that anyone can do, then the supply of labor is nearly infintie- right? Can you tell me what happens to the value of something when there is an infinite supply? Cost goes down- value is reduced.

Mr. No Skill would then be lucky to get *a* job for any amount of money- even if it is only a dollar an hour.

Now, let's think ahead- all these people with no skills, doing whatever job they can, for whatever amount they manage to get. More than likely, they will not be able to work enough to make ends meet- so the only economic choices they have are to either work themselves to death TRYING to make ends meet- OR, turn to other avenues for making ends meet, such as crime.

Minimum wage is something that engenders social stability. It allows a platform from which one can gain some bit of economic prosperity that will hopefully allow for more opportunity in the future (by perhaps saving some money for schooling).

Let's cut the minimum wage in half and see what happens. If it creates more jobs and less suffering then let's eliminate it all together.

But we don't need to in order to know what will happen. Read History, you know, all that stuff that happened before today.

This would be a step backward.

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-08 16:51:40

Ahh, clark, you're a gem. Well argued.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-09 01:30:28

So, does this mean Josh and Clark agree that strong immigration laws are necessary to keep out all the "desperate individuals"?
Well then, I think I can agree too. Helping third world countries to reach first world standards is a worthwhile (even necessary) pursuit - for our ultimate security as well as our consciences.
Allowing unfettered entry of millions of "desperate individuals" into countries like America, Australia, France, Britain etc. must cause economic chaos. In the end, the ability of the first world countries to assist the third world will be seriously undermined. Everybody will suffer.

Once upon a time, back in the seventies from memory, a think-tank headed by a rotund gentleman called Herman Kahn (IQ measurement off the scale, but believed to be well over 200) came to the paradoxical-sounding conclusion that the only way to ensure the prosperity of the world's poor was to encourage the rich to become as rich as possible!
The notion that wealth can or should be spread out evenly was dismissed as counterproductive and, given human greed, declared totally impracticable. That way lies mediocrity and universal impoverishment, they decided.
The idea they came up with was that a proportion of humanity, becoming super- then mega- then hyper-rich would be like an updraft of warm air. It pulls air up into the relative vacuum beneath it. As the cast-offs of the hyper-rich filter down to the poorer classes, they become richer too. There will always be a differential and it will be greater even than the differential we see today between living standards in America and Somalia. But the poorest of the poor will eventually reach current U.S standards of income, nutrition, education and medical care - and then, greatly surpass it.

An example was given of poor Mexicans driving 15 or 20 year-old Cadillacs. Half a century earlier, the luxury afforded by an ageing Cadillac would have been beyond the dreams of even the average U.S. citizen, never mind a poor Mexican!

With unimaginable wealth being created - even if only for the top few percent of the world's people - money becomes available for investment in new technology of all sorts. [Contrary to popular opinion, rich people don't keep their money in a large shoe-box under the bed! It's put into banks, share markets, business ventures, etc.] New and better technology is the answer to so many of our problems. Just look at what Information Technology has done in creating the global village and in making education increasingly available to children in remote and poor areas.

When the poorest people on the planet have access to a lifestyle better than current first world standards, they won't need to sell their daughters into slavery of any kind. They won't be desperately risking their lives to cross borders illegally, either - life at home will be too comfortable for that!

Well? Waddya think of Herman's scheme? It's always made a lot more sense to me than all that left-wing twaddle.

dicktice · 2003-04-09 07:07:49

Shaun: Every "self-made" rich person I ever met was penny-pinching, low-tipping, stingy and avaricious ... which of course over the years leads to becoming rich.... Inventors are always poor, no matter how much their income. Herman's scheme stinks! Otherwise, we'd be on Mars by now, mate.

Palomar · 2003-04-09 07:54:35

Shaun: Every "self-made" rich person I ever met was penny-pinching, low-tipping, stingy and avaricious ... which of course over the years leads to becoming rich.... Inventors are always poor, no matter how much their income. Herman's scheme stinks! Otherwise, we'd be on Mars by now, mate.

*Well, Dicktice, you haven't met -every- self-made wealthy person (I happen to know of a few who aren't the way you describe them).

And I think you miss the point of Shaun's post: Wealth creates wealth.

--Cindy

P.S.: Would we be on Mars by now if everyone were poor?

Byron · 2003-04-09 08:53:51

Sorry, Shaun, I have to firmly disagree with you on that one... ???

A world filled with a few trillionaires would definately NOT be a better place. For one thing, the hyper-rich would have so much money that they would be able to seize whatever power they wanted...a single trillionaire in a nation such as Australia would essentialy be able to put the national government in his or her pocket, which would lead to...what, slavery, maybe? No way, Jose... ???

I think it's time to start going in the other direction, especially here in this great United States. We need to figure out a way to raise the standard of living for the lower and middle classes, and allowing a handful of folks to become hyper-wealthy is NOT the way to go about this. We need to go back to a more progressive tax structure that would effectively limit super-high levels of income (let's say, over $10 million a year.) The minimum wage needs to be increased to a level so that working people don't need food stamps and other government assistance, and the labor laws need to be restructered so that the workers have the upper hand, not the employers.

The United States is a democratic society, which means everyone deserves to share in the resources of this country, as well has having equal opportunity to better one's self. Having a feudal-type society in which you have a few Bill Gates squared is NOT democratic at all....all these people would do is to subjugate everyone else to fulfill their limitless need for greed.

Anyone who thinks greed is an admirable trait is off their rocker, IMO, and for society to progress forward in the future, we'd better find a way to make greed a less integeral part of our society. The Mr. Herman dude is WAYYY off base, and I'm glad there's not too many people like him, otherwise, the Earth would just be better off going into an ice age or something...

Byron · 2003-04-09 08:57:11

Shaun: Every "self-made" rich person I ever met was penny-pinching, low-tipping, stingy and avaricious ... which of course over the years leads to becoming rich.... Inventors are always poor, no matter how much their income. Herman's scheme stinks! Otherwise, we'd be on Mars by now, mate.

Thank you, thank you so much. I've also never met a rich person who is truly happy either..they're too busy worrying about to make more money!

There's way more poor and middle class people then the rich. I say it's time that WE start running the show...

B

Palomar · 2003-04-09 09:22:23

Anyone who thinks greed is an admirable trait

*I don't think the point here is whether or not greed is an admirable trait.

The fact is, wealth -does- create more wealth.

Yes, it's true many rich people aren't happy. Many middle-class folks aren't very happy either, if my experience in life has been any indication...and I believe it has. Poor people sure aren't happy.

Let's face it: Many people aren't happy (hmmm...might be time to post good ol' Ben Franklin's article on "Contentment" in the 18th century Folder...)

The standard of living in the U.S. is much better today than it was 60 years ago, when most newly married couples couldn't afford even a nice apartment to rent and live alone, much less have 2 cars or 1 fairly new car, wall-to-wall carpeting, and most if not all the amenities besides.

Wealth creates wealth. I wouldn't want to go back to a standard of living like U.S.A. of the 1930s [when my father was a little boy happy to have chicken on very rare occasions besides the potatoes, potatoes, potatoes, potatoes for every meal, eating off the table itself for want of plates -- when my own refrigerator and freezer are stocked with all sorts of meat and I've got place settings for the table for every season!]. Would anyone else here? Show of hands, please?

--Cindy

clark · 2003-04-09 09:30:03

So, does this mean Josh and Clark agree that strong immigration laws are necessary to keep out all the "desperate individuals"?

I for one don't agree with this statement. There is a difference between NO immigration law coupled with no minimum wage, and strong immigration laws to keep out the 'desperate'.

I don't mind people coming to this country. I enjoy daily the benfits of immigration. However, I do not enjoy exploitation of others. I do not accept that some must be economic slaves for my prosperity.

I understand the points made in your post Shaun, however, it is a simplistc argument that ignores some serious issues.

Talk about hyper rich, as if they are able to make their riches in a vacum. How are hyper rich, mega rich, or whatever able to become 'hypen rich"?

They are able to do so becuase society is stable enough to allow them to make that money. That's why it's okay to tax the wealthy more than the poor- the wealthy gain more from a stable society, that their taxes help to create, than an unstable society.

You want to know what happens when the divide between rich and poor increases, with little middle class? Look at South America. Columbia in particular.

What we see is the rich in control of the politcal system, which gives rise to populous movements from the disenfranchised poor. This leads to violence, and a redistribution of weath. Check out South Africa after apartheid ended.

And it still boggles my mind how anyone can justify why any single individual should command several billion dollars. What does one need with all that money? For what end?

Hey, sure, I want to be a billionaire, but even then, what would I need a billion dollars for? Are we as a group better served by allowing individuals to amass wealth like this? Doesn't that lead to inequality, at least in the politcal sense within a democracy?

Bill White · 2003-04-09 10:15:28

Shaun writes:

The idea they came up with was that a proportion of humanity, becoming super- then mega- then hyper-rich would be like an updraft of warm air. It pulls air up into the relative vacuum beneath it. As the cast-offs of the hyper-rich filter down to the poorer classes, they become richer too. There will always be a differential and it will be greater even than the differential we see today between living standards in America and Somalia. But the poorest of the poor will eventually reach current U.S standards of income, nutrition, education and medical care - and then, greatly surpass it.
An example was given of poor Mexicans driving 15 or 20 year-old Cadillacs. Half a century earlier, the luxury afforded by an ageing Cadillac would have been beyond the dreams of even the average U.S. citizen, never mind a poor Mexican!
With unimaginable wealth being created - even if only for the top few percent of the world's people - money becomes available for investment in new technology of all sorts. [Contrary to popular opinion, rich people don't keep their money in a large shoe-box under the bed! It's put into banks, share markets, business ventures, etc.] New and better technology is the answer to so many of our problems. Just look at what Information Technology has done in creating the global village and in making education increasingly available to children in remote and poor areas.
When the poorest people on the planet have access to a lifestyle better than current first world standards, they won't need to sell their daughters into slavery of any kind. They won't be desperately risking their lives to cross borders illegally, either - life at home will be too comfortable for that!

Shaun, many people with comfortable material lives will struggle over issues of status and power. Some people with plenty to eat will risk their lives seeking power over others and will, at times, deny others food to enhance their own sense of power. If wealth were unrelated to power, status and prestige most of us would be content to own and drive Ford Taurus sedans and chuckle at our neighbor's Lexus or Mercedes. And young girls would rarely marry rich old geezers and cheat behind their backs.

Anyway - on to the question at hand - in my opinion an economy is strong when feedback loops are created which allow flows of wealth through commerce and (in my opinion) the middle classes are the most productive sources to balance consumer spending and capital investment. In the late 1940s, the GI Bill and government backed 30 year mortgage programs fueled the creation of a massive middle class.

Yet this middle class which now under assault as some ultra wealthy and their mouthpieces now assert that the top 1/2 percent (0.5%) can be relied upon to sustain economic viability for all. A view that runs contrary to US history over the past 50 years, in my opinion.

As for R&D spending - do not discount the role played by the US federal government in the 50 years following World War 2. Research funded with tax dollars.

As government's role is increasingly stripped away, I fear we will return more and more to the social Darwinist policies (let the poor sink so the rich can rise) which will actually inhibit continuing growth of a larger economic pie for all to share.

On this idea of seeking to create a few trillionaires would benefit all, it depends on whether this causes money to flow throughout all society of whether this wealth is captured in closed loops among privileged circles. Money cannot be accumulated, it must flow and the more people involved in commerce the faster it flows. A higher velocity of money benefits all no matter how it is distribued.

= = =

Turning to morals/ethics, in my opinion, wealth can be created three ways - -

( a ) through superior virtue - hard work, creativity, honesty, prudence, diligence, etc. . .

( b ) though inferior virtue - outright theft, duplicity in business, fraud, embezzlement, snake oil salesmanship etc. . .

( c ) through dumb luck - Heh! All six numbers match! or Aha! Now I see why grandma bought that scrub land near the proposed highway? etc. . .

Usually some combination of a, b & c is necessary.

Type (a) wealth is good for society. Type (b) wealth is bad for society. Yet 20 years (50 years?) after someone makes millions or billions, how can you tell?

Also, rich people who spend money are good for society. Miserly rich people are bad for society.

Therefore, I say invest in the middle.

Bill White · 2003-04-09 10:22:47

Talk about hyper rich, as if they are able to make their riches in a vacum. How are hyper rich, mega rich, or whatever able to become 'hypen rich"?
They are able to do so becuase society is stable enough to allow them to make that money. That's why it's okay to tax the wealthy more than the poor- the wealthy gain more from a stable society, that their taxes help to create, than an unstable society.

Thank you, clark, for saying this so simply. I agree 100%

KaseiII · 2003-04-09 11:15:33

Hi. Sorry to bring this up, but i have only read the beginning of the thread, but what i keep seeing is ELIMINATE and END. But just getting rid of something won't solve the problems. You need to think of reorganzing and redesgning. There is alot of that to be done.

Byron · 2003-04-09 11:26:24

The fact is, wealth -does- create more wealth.

Cindy, I agree with this statement in its entirity. That's why it's imperative that we distribute the national wealth of this country throughout the population, instead of concentrating it among a few super-rich. It is the middle class that has brought this country to where it is today....and this middle class was created due to the progressive policies spawned during the Great Depression, a time when the government was forced to tax the rich in order to get the country back on its feet again.

If we allow the rich class to have their way...i.e., pay an ever-decreasing share of taxes, allow them to pay workers sub-par wages, etc, then we will be going the way of countries such as Mexico and Brazil, where you have a few super-rich, and most of the rest being quite poor. Any respectable economist will tell you the best way to generate economic growth is to put as much money in the hands as many people as possible. Rich people simply cannot spend enough of their wealth to make any appreciable difference in the economy, as there is only so much to what people can buy and do with their money...once you reach a certain point of personal wealth, you basically hit a wall as far as personal consumption goes. Sure, you can invest that money, but who is the most likely recipient of that money? Other wealthy people, most likely.

Anyway - on to the question at hand - in my opinion an economy is strong when feedback loops are created which allow flows of wealth through commerce and (in my opinion) the middle classes are the most productive sources to balance consumer spending and capital investment. In the late 1940s, the GI Bill and government backed 30 year mortgage programs fueled the creation of a massive middle class.

Bill, you couldn't have said this better...thank you...

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-04 16:32:36

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#2 2003-04-07 08:43:41

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#3 2003-04-07 09:20:29

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#4 2003-04-07 12:23:15

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#5 2003-04-07 12:56:14

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#6 2003-04-08 08:01:41

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#7 2003-04-08 08:42:45

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#8 2003-04-08 09:04:31

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#9 2003-04-08 10:14:00

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#10 2003-04-08 10:44:03

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#11 2003-04-08 11:04:02

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#12 2003-04-08 11:19:45

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#13 2003-04-08 11:20:36

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#14 2003-04-08 16:51:40

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#15 2003-04-09 01:30:28

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#16 2003-04-09 07:07:49

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#17 2003-04-09 07:54:35

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#18 2003-04-09 08:53:51

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#19 2003-04-09 08:57:11

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#20 2003-04-09 09:22:23

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#21 2003-04-09 09:30:03

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#22 2003-04-09 10:15:28

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#23 2003-04-09 10:22:47

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#24 2003-04-09 11:15:33

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

#25 2003-04-09 11:26:24

Re: slavery - why does it still exist?

Board footer