Sure it was, what makes you think otherwise? Slaves are inefficient. Actual workers generate more money for their boss. There is a reason slavery is so small today compared to 200 years ago despite the much higher wages.
You’re goddamn right your boss would pay you less, if they could get away with it. Free labor is highly efficient for the capital class. There are more slaves today than there were 200 years ago. Literally everything you said is false.
Slaves are inefficient. Actual workers generate more money for their boss.
I think you’d have to be specific about the type of slavery and the type of work they are doing.
Chattel slavery of the American South was inefficient because they didn’t modernize their agricultural process, and the Trans Atlantic slave routes were not functioning as they used too. Making it so that plantation owners had to set a new infrastructure to support and maintain their slave population.
However other forms of slavery have been and currently are still highly profitable.
There is a reason slavery is so small today compared to 200 years ago despite the much higher wages.
An estimated 50 million people are currently enslaved, in 1820 there was an estimated 40 million people enslaved.
Yea, the reason slavery is lesser now is because we fucking fought a war over making it overtly illegal… You’d have to be a moron to think it wouldn’t be around today in the US without the civil war.
There’s lots of countries that ended slavery without a war. Some via external diplomatic pressure, some via internal societal pressure.
As far as I understand it (I’m not a historian or American) the confederacy being economically weaker than the union was a significant factor in the civil war.
being economically weaker than the union was a significant factor in the civil war.
They were economically weaker because they were a one trick pony. Slaves producing cash crops was extremely effective at creating a vast amount of wealth for plantation owners, which is why they didn’t diversify their economy at all. This meant they didn’t have a manufacturing capacity anywhere near the north, but per capita had a lot more ultra wealthy individuals.
It just wasn’t an economy that was suited for war unless they could purchase outside aid. Which is why Lincoln went so hard in the paint and declaring anyone country who materially aided the south would instantly be at war with the Union.
Sure it was, what makes you think otherwise? Slaves are inefficient. Actual workers generate more money for their boss. There is a reason slavery is so small today compared to 200 years ago despite the much higher wages.
You’re goddamn right your boss would pay you less, if they could get away with it. Free labor is highly efficient for the capital class. There are more slaves today than there were 200 years ago. Literally everything you said is false.
Modern slavery still exists…
I think you’d have to be specific about the type of slavery and the type of work they are doing.
Chattel slavery of the American South was inefficient because they didn’t modernize their agricultural process, and the Trans Atlantic slave routes were not functioning as they used too. Making it so that plantation owners had to set a new infrastructure to support and maintain their slave population.
However other forms of slavery have been and currently are still highly profitable.
An estimated 50 million people are currently enslaved, in 1820 there was an estimated 40 million people enslaved.
That last sentence is heartbreaking.
Yea, the reason slavery is lesser now is because we fucking fought a war over making it overtly illegal… You’d have to be a moron to think it wouldn’t be around today in the US without the civil war.
There’s lots of countries that ended slavery without a war. Some via external diplomatic pressure, some via internal societal pressure.
As far as I understand it (I’m not a historian or American) the confederacy being economically weaker than the union was a significant factor in the civil war.
They were economically weaker because they were a one trick pony. Slaves producing cash crops was extremely effective at creating a vast amount of wealth for plantation owners, which is why they didn’t diversify their economy at all. This meant they didn’t have a manufacturing capacity anywhere near the north, but per capita had a lot more ultra wealthy individuals.
It just wasn’t an economy that was suited for war unless they could purchase outside aid. Which is why Lincoln went so hard in the paint and declaring anyone country who materially aided the south would instantly be at war with the Union.
You’re right, but that just shows how shitty the US, and humanity as a whole, still is.
People wanting to be lazy fucks exploiting others is older than history.
That doesn’t magically make slavery unprofitable: It’s VERY profitable to the douchebags exploiting it! Zero labor for profit? Are you insane?!
The selling point from a mindless shitstain perspective is obvious.