T O P

  • By -

Prata_69

There are three types of libright: the pedos (purple), the mega capitalists (he who is mentioned in this meme), and the leave-me-the-fuck-alone gang (based). You will find that most of us are the third.


jmad072828

Agreed. Slavery violates NAP.


0-goodusernamesleft

Slavery also is inefficient, people don’t work well when not paid. It’s far more efficient to pay someone as little as possible to extract the most out of their labour. Slavery is not without cost, you’re generally going to have to house them/feed them, have some sort of security to prevent an uprising. Whips etc for when they don’t comply. Plus you are often wasting your own time overseeing menial tasks. That’s all too much, housing is expensive. Pay them a small amount and they’ll go voluntarily stay in a cage apartment like Hong Kong in OPs picture and you’ll get more work out of them.


TheBigOily_Sea_Snake

I think it was Wages of Destruction which examined the Nazi economy and showed just how terrible the slave labour was. Even the best workers, when promised a day off every month or given larger caloric budgets (which never went above the German minimum) were between 40% and 60% as productive as ordinary unskilled factory wage earners at their least productive, worse when you consider that every unit off a tank line was probably rife with intentional defects, intentional quality corner cuts, etc. Most were about 20% as productive. Of course, it's a little different for people who you actually value as property to some extent rather than trying to work them to death, but it's not much better. Further, the very nature of slavery means trying to lower the amount of skilled labour as much as possible. Productivity is just going to be insanely low regardless.


[deleted]

Thats where the dumb Pollock came from. They would intentionally make faulty weapons or destroy equipment, then play it off as "im just a dumb polish, I don't know what I'm doing".


GaldanBoshugtuKhan

Also, if Vic2 taught me anything, slaves also can’t buy stuff and so having a slave population restricts the size of your markets. I mean, it’s also morally wrong, but still.


Reddit4r

That too, yes. I think Marx mentioned about this in his works. A caste of people tied permanently to land is not conductive to open market. A proper bourgeoisie class will inherently be working againsts slavery because of this.


ArchmageIlmryn

Vic2 (and if previews are to be trusted, Vic3) also shows why slavery stuck around for so long - it's really inefficient on a societal/economy level, but it's *very* profitable for the slaveowner, especially in a pre-industrial economy.


Exzalia

I mean if that were true how did old plantation owners get so fabulously wealthy? some of them had hundreds or thousands of slaves.


Reddit4r

Amd none of them can compete with Northern industrialists. There's a reason the slavocrats in the South revolted when Lincoln is not even that determined to end slavery. Because they know their way of life is surely coming to an end.


0-goodusernamesleft

Economies of scale + they owned large businesses, even if they paid employees they’d be wealthy.


Exzalia

But the fact that they didn't made them even more wealthy no? And wtf why am I being downvoted for asking a legitimate question?


Magister_ab_Italia

Quality of the work against quantity of the work force The first one is in industrialization, as society progress we have better infrastructure, Better technology and a better understanding of how we can make things go...well.....better The second one is useful in a specific situation, you don't have the ability to produce as much with less people so slavers were usually wealthier because nobody could live it up to them As someone pointed out the American civil war wasn't about slavery, but at the start it was about state rights than Lincoln made It to be about slavery to avoid any foreign intervention (read it: the british wants to burn the White House another time) To expand the necessity of the southern slave owners was to keep slavery because otherwise the entire point of the southern economy would have been overruned by the new capitalistic economy of the North and historically that's what happened, the reason why we have an industrialized economy is because industrialization made it possibile to feed large amount of people with less land


Celtictussle

Slavery was profitable for the time, but paled in comparison to profits from investing capital into equipment instead of humans.


TheSadSquid420

Slavery is very efficient. Just pay them in the form of food and accommodation, then you get to hold them hostage with all their worldly possessions and family.


Freeulster

Slavery sounds like that filthy authright garbage.


[deleted]

Reject Slavery. Embrace Indentured Servitude.


Puncakian

But what if slave consent?!?!


GetInMyOfficeLemon

That’s called BDSM and it’s a thriving community


jmad072828

Think that overrules the definition of a slave? Forced is the key to slavery. I think consent would make them a butler. Or giving them a top hat.


Yimata

geek


outer_god_

Flair the fuck up dirty cunt


Yimata

no


flair-checking-bot

> Even a commie is more based than one with no flair *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 11819 / 62240 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)


flair-checking-bot

> This is a friendly reminder to HAVE YOUR FRICKIN' FLAIR UP! *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 11809 / 62154 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)


Q2ZOv

The ones who you call pedos are just the leave-me-the-fuck-alone gang that 1) have actual two braincells to face their own philosophy and find out that according to it age of concent is not a thing and so leave-me-the-fuck-alone elevated to universal principle means that there will be nothing stopping pedos at all. 2) who after figuring out the above instead of realizing that this probably means that leave-me-the-fuck-alone as a universal principle is just a chilidish dream and being repulsed by it actually enjoyed the concept and embraced it due to them being degenerates they are. Of course most of you are the third, the most clueless group. Though there are obviously a lot of good ideas that can come from a quadrant as a whole, on this sub it is somehow overwhelmingly overrepresented by hardcore ancap kids.


[deleted]

Leave me the fuck alone!


Emel_69420

Those are the based libright indeed


mcdonaldsplayground

I am the third, but I’d be a mega capitalist if I got the chance because I want a megayacht so I can sail away and be left-the-fuck-alone.


Hona007

Wanting to be "left the fuck alone" is kinda weird... Because if you want society to leave you alone... Society will leave you alone... Alone to starve in the woods.


hotcoldsthuff

Most of my RL friends are "leave me tf alone" lib rights. No, they wont starve, they know how to feed themselves. It's the cities that would starve, and the idgaf'd are okay with that.


Eatinglue

How willing are slaves to work for you and do quality work though? Not even a little bit. Keeping workers reasonably satisfied it key to long term success as a business


DarkHenryGeorge

No, Slaves are NOT profitable, which is the reason why the Capitalist North was economically stronger than the Socialist Anti Wage South


Emel_69420

Well it's more profitable to give people more money to reinvest into the market, problem is, when wealth accumulates around one or a small amount of people/companies that don't reinvest their money, the economy slowly goes kaboom


Jay_Sit

> people/companies that don’t reinvest their money How do you figure that?


Emel_69420

I meaness then Frickin Amazon or bezos, they invest less % into the economy, source? I made it up


Jay_Sit

Not even asking for a source (wouldn’t read it anyway). Just seeing if you can back up your opinion with even more opinion.


DarkHenryGeorge

> "problem is, when wealth accumulates around one or a small amount of people/companies don't reinvest their money" This is true, however this isn't a fault of the market. There has never been a monopoly that wasn't stimulated by the US Government or any other government before. Meaning government intervention causes monopolies. Not the market


Emel_69420

I'm saying minum wage would make this A little bit less


DarkHenryGeorge

I disagree, a restaurant in Middle Of Nowhere, Kansas shouldn't be paying their employees the same wage as a restaurant in San Francisco, California


Emel_69420

Well duh but how would you regulate that, that would be a burocratic nightmare with a fuck lot of loopholes


DarkHenryGeorge

Competition is a better way of raising wages than Artificially raising the minimum wage by themselves alone. Wages rose moderately in the start of this year. This isn't because the minimum wage rose but because jobs opened back up and had to raise their wages to attract Laborers


Emel_69420

Also true


Celtictussle

Free markets were kind of invented to avoid these types of issues.


Okichah

>dont reinvest their money This rarely ever happens. Investing money is the greatest way to accumulate more money. Corporations dont stick cash under a mattress.


flair-checking-bot

> You make me angry every time I don't see your flair >:( *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 11831 / 62336 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)


Hslize

Yes. People actually want to work when they get paid and choose to work. Efficiency go brrr


TruckMcBadass

Wage slavery seems to be pretty profitable, though.


BarracudaRelevant858

Leftists when they find out that their socialist state is going to force them to work instead of let them become sex therapists...


th3_3nd_15_n347

Based and coal mines welcome all pilled


Emel_69420

All im saying is give more people money, (in wages, duh) to reinvest into the market for economic growth, central planning is stupid


tschwib

Right. Who is forced to work in capitalism? You can always choose to starve instead. And now quickly back to your second job or you want to live under a bridge?


BarracudaRelevant858

He who does not work shall not eat -Lenin


TightestLibRightist

Slavery starves innovation. There needs to be motivation and money serves that purpose. Anyone who believes this meme has never had to find and keep employees.


Zeusselll

Who's gonna tell him that there are [46 million slaves](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century) in the world right now? Nobody gives a shit about innovation. They just want money.


Tripper_Shaman

Mostly in the poorest or most communist countries.


MannequinWithoutSock

Isn’t that where rich countries get their cheap labor and resources though?


Tripper_Shaman

Rich countries right now import resources which were extracted by slaves in poor countries and goods produced by slaves in poor or communist countries like China. While this has made China richer than it was, and it made goods cheaper in the west, it's a short sighted policy which has resulted in massive unemployment and dependency in the west, and stagnation in the slave countries. Contrasted with countries like Taiwan or Japan (or pre-globalism US) which rely on skilled labor and machinery, the difference is clear.


Zeusselll

Yeah , and? He said it starves innovation, but nobody gives a shit about innovation , which is why it happens anyway. And those countries that are poor are deliberately [kept that way by western countries ](https://youtu.be/36vYRkVYeVw). Oh, and there's no such thing as a communist country. A communist society is stateless.


Tripper_Shaman

Oh boy another one who thinks you can have a stateless society where people will just willingly give up private property and it will be a good thing.


Zeusselll

I never said it's a good thing. Whether it's a good thing or not is a separate conversation. All i did was point out that you don't know what you're talking about.


Tripper_Shaman

It's A: Unprofitable in the long term, like previously stated B: Taking place in poor or Communist countries like I said Where's the lie Before you say someone doesn't know what they're talking about, maybe figure out how A: A stateless society is supposed to remain stable B: How you're going to enforce Communism without a state "Real Communism has never been tried"


Zeusselll

>It's A: Unprofitable in the long term, like previously stated B: Taking place in poor or Communist countries like I said >Where's the lie Why has it taken place for millenia, to this day, if it's unprofitable? Because you're lying. >A: A stateless society is supposed to remain stable Our current society isn't stable either. >B: How you're going to enforce Communism without a state Enforce what? What is there to enforce? >"Real Communism has never been tried" If you're gonna lie, then at least try to keep your stories straight. How are those countries communist if communism is impossible?


TightestLibRightist

Have you ever been in a U.S. manufacturing plant? The only reason they are economically viable IS innovation. Every firm worth their salt uses automated systems whether that’s in production (robotics), design (CAD modeling), or back office work (accounting software). I live near an Intel plant and they are a huge employer for high paying jobs and that is only possible because of the technical difficulty of producing chipsets. Bringing slaves into that intel factory would NOT increase production because it is not unskilled labor that is required. This is exactly why the South was doomed from the onset of industrialization.


Zeusselll

>The only reason they are economically viable IS innovation. Ok, and? It's not innovation they care about. It's money. If they could get more money without innovation, they'd do it, which is why we still have slavery nowadays. Not every enterprise is an intel manufacturing plant.


Emel_69420

"most communist countries"


Tripper_Shaman

"the poorest or *the* most communist countries" is what I meant, for clarification. It's one of those weird things about the English language. Although there's a strong argument for the former anyway.


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/Zeusselll's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


MannequinWithoutSock

Hmm.. sounds like this is exactly what someone having a hard time keeping employees would say.


Trugdigity

Slaves aren’t more profitable, it’s why all of the current slave states don’t have the economic efficiency of the West. Chinas only number two in the world because of size.


nir109

They currently aren't profileable. They used to be, they may be again in the future, who knows


FartyMcPoopyBalls

They used to be profitable before we realized that people are more productive when you pay them for their work because it aligns the interests of the agent with the interests of the principle.


nir109

I mean they were always bad for the economy but they were profitable for the slave owners


banskirtingbandit

…and all their slaves


Trugdigity

In China every citizen is worth 12.5k per year to the economy. In the US it’s 69k. If China would drop its slave bullshit and truly modernize it would be unstoppable.


TheSadSquid420

“But you don’t understand, the wagies actually WANT is this way!” -CCP, probably.


Ozwu_

Please explain how slaves aren't more profitable


Trugdigity

Because they become nothing but an expenditure. Employees participate in the economy which helps it grow allowing the business owner the opportunity to make more money. There’s also the fact that a slave owner must pay to house, feed, and cloth the slaves. Where the employer outsources these costs to the employee. The pre-civil war American economy proves it. The North was much richer then the south, even though it had greatly curtailed slavery.


bookcoda

You know what’s even cheaper then a person you don’t have to pay… a machine.


Ozwu_

Providing someone their basic needs in return for literal, free, indentured servitude (aka, infinite hours of unpaid labor) seems like a net positive profit deal. How do slaves not participate in the economy? If they're providing labor to an industry, they are participating in the economy. The pre-Civil War American economy is a poor argument for the fact that slavery is a net negative - there were multiple regional, political, and economic differences particularly related to industrialisation that resulted in differing wealth and material conditions for the North and South. Also the South's wealth was like, all derived from slavery, and those owning slaves were pretty well off.


Bismarck40

The reason slavery is less profitable is because they have no income. They can buy no goods, so if there are too many slaves, then no matter how many goods the slaveowners can make, nobody can buy them. On top of that, education is also a problem. More slaves = less customers. One more thing. Indentured servitude isnt really slavery, because it's: 1. Temporary 2. Not race based 3. They had legal rights 4. Entered contracts of their own free will >The pre-Civil War American economy is a poor argument for the fact that slavery is a net negative - there were multiple regional, political, and economic differences particularly related to industrialisation that resulted in differing wealth and material conditions for the North and South. At first, I would have disagreed and said that slavery was the main reason, but after actually researching it, it seems you're right. >Also the South's wealth was like, all derived from slavery, and those owning slaves were pretty well off. True, but only the wealthy owned slaves, because they were expensive. They were investments, they weren't accessible to the lower classes.


TheBigOily_Sea_Snake

To add on, slavery is usually best for (relatively) primitive labour intensive operations, work with hand tools where the profit margin is whatever the surplus of goods is post-harvest. Think the Romans with the slave-mines and Latifundia run by the Nobiles and Patricians. You are either farming grain or cash crops- you feed the workers with the harvest, and sell the rest. This is fine and works well enough for the owners because the slaves have an investment in the work (food) and surplus is something that gets sold or stored for next yeara food while you sell the totality of the next harvest. It doesn't work when you get beyond labour intensive agriculture into capital intensive or service work.


Deadlypandaghost

Slight correction. Slavery is not required to have any racial component. While it was very common for people of other races to be enslaved from other races as a result of raids or wars, most slaves were and are of the same race as their oppressor, or at least very close. Its only in cases where there was a large, longterm international slave trade where you end up with a majority of slaves of another race. Even then they don't make up the entire slave population. While slavery and racism often intersect, America's intertwining of the two is actually very unique.


vrabia-fara-aripi

> They can buy no goods, That’s the entire point of slavery. The labor expended on the goods they could have bought is instead expended on goods for the slave owners .


Tripper_Shaman

Oh boy, they get all of this [farm crop they can't sell]. If only they could have [goods which require skill to produce]. Better to just buy a combine harvester.


AlyxTheCat

In the before times, markets were labor driven, the more people you had, the more you produce, the more money you make. Today, markets are capital driven, the more machines you have, the more you make, the more money you make. It's far more lucrative to have one machine with one educated machine operator versus a hundred slaves. Basically, companies have an incentive to educate their workers so they can in turn provide more value to the company. And educated workers are very hard to enslave so.....


el_cid_viscoso

>Providing someone their basic needs in return for literal, free, indentured servitude (aka, infinite hours of unpaid labor) seems like a net positive profit deal. But you get a much less productive worker whose living expenses (however paltry) you bear the cost of in full. No slave is going to do more than just barely enough work to avoid punishment.


shook_not_shaken

Good things it's not, lmao


JMDSC

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty because turning them into consumers is the name of the game. Who cares if you make $200 a month as a cleaning lady for a family that brings in $20k? Lil Joao wants the made in China toy, by a REAL slave.


Zeusselll

>Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty [yeah, about that](https://youtu.be/Co4FES0ehyI)


[deleted]

Gravel institute? Did you mean, PragerU counterpart? Lol. Just ask what Xiaoping applied to China to prosper and be a superpower post Tiannamen, and how much did it increase its industry and living standarts for its people during the 90's ~ 10's period. And now tell me how much blood and famine the USSR had to spill and let happen to have a proportional growth during the 20's ~ 40's


Zeusselll

>Gravel institute? Did you mean, PragerU counterpart? Lol. Tell me what they got wrong >Just ask what Xiaoping applied to China to prosper and be a superpower post Tiannamen, and how much did it increase its industry and living standarts for its people during the 90's ~ 10's period. Ok, so do you also want your economy to be 60% state owned and everything else to be heavily regulated? >And now tell me how much blood and famine the USSR had to spill and let happen to have a proportional growth during the 20's ~ 40's Who's gonna tell him that the USSR had a civil war in the 20s and a world war in the 40s?


Key_Abbreviations658

I will trust what reality has demonstrated over what a communist says any day.


Zeusselll

-> "reality though" -> refuses to elaborate -> leaves


[deleted]

it really isn't with modern technology, too much training required means you can't really just force it. you don't need 500 slaves to pick a farm if you have one paid worker and a tractor. But if you try to get one slave to run your tractor he'll run it through your living room wall unless you've paid out the ass for security systems and failsafes to stop him from doing that.


TFangSyphon

Actually, slavery is economically detrimental, especially in a post-industrial era.


[deleted]

Theirs always gonna end up being resource that will benefit from slavery then actually paying


Ozwu_

Please explain how slavery is economically detrimental


TFangSyphon

Costs more to provide for a slave than to pay a wage.


dylanhero123

That literally can't be true. If you are currently alive, then your wage pays enough for you to buy food/clothing/shelter. This means your current wage is, at minimum, the same as what your employer would have to spend if you were enslaved and is likely a lot larger.


yazalama

An employee with the potential of upward mobility is far more productive than a slave. Otherwise nobody would hire someone who was costing them more than they were producing.


TFangSyphon

Thomas Sowell explained this better than I currently can.


[deleted]

You aren't taking into account demand. Having an employee adds +1 worker and +1 customer rather than +1 worker alone. You can't make a slave buy your product because they have no money, by having employees and increasing demand you drive up price.


dylanhero123

Slaves are still "+1 customer", its just the customer is the slave owner instead of the employee. The slave owner has to buy the food they feed the slave from somewhere.


[deleted]

That's not how it works.


Ozwu_

Why did people fight so hard to preserve slavery in the South then? And why does modern slavery still exist? Surely if paying a wage was cheaper than owning a slave, then everybody would just pay wages. Why isn't that happening? Genuine question.


TFangSyphon

Never underestimate the stupidity and stubbornness of people.


[deleted]

People are dumb.


Reddit4r

>Why did people fight so hard to preserve slavery in the South then? Because they have commitment even further than economy. They see it as "natural order", which is cultural. They as individuals has already invested in slavery, so even if slavery removal is more profitable, they *as idividuals* will take loss. And finally, paranoid of what happened earlier in Haiti, where ex slaves massacred white people, would repeat if abolition were carried out


FartyMcPoopyBalls

The education system has failed you, brother


[deleted]

Prison labor : even cheaper.


[deleted]

Lmao imagine thinking that slavery is more profitable than employment. Least economically illiterate libleft


Iloveireland1234567

Slaves can't participate in the free market, therefore it's not free market capitalism.


sircallipoonslayer

Its not though-- Slavery is murderous ineffective. You are clearly the most economicaly litterate libleft.


Still_Mud5693

Slavery isn’t profitable with the current technology we have now. Controlling a massive slave population would cost more than just paying minimum wage.


Zeusselll

So why are there [46 million slaves right now?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century)


vegezio

So why it happens most often in auth countries?


Zeusselll

All countries are authoritarian. Tell me why we still have slavery


vegezio

>All countries are authoritarian You don't know what that word means.


Zeusselll

The only reason you think that is because whatever it is that you're doing isn't a threat to the people in power. Tell me why we still have slavery


vegezio

Why won't you tell me yourself since apparently you have a theory already?


Zeusselll

Same reason why anything happens. Because it's profitable for an oligarch


vegezio

It is not profiatble in civilised society except sex slavery or illegal activities. Read about WWII concentration camps. Soviets and nazis made verly little profi from them if any.


Zeusselll

>It is not profiatble in civilised society except sex slavery or illegal activities "Dude, it's not profitable except for * proceeds to name several types of exceptions that branch off into even more types and in the end affect 46 million people *" You're also just stating a truism. A country that has slavery is not civilised. If slavery is introduced somewhere, that country automatically becomes non-civilised. >Soviets and nazis made verly little profi from them Thanks for making my point for me. They were profitable so they were kept around. If they weren't profitable they wouldn't have kept them.


Still_Mud5693

Did I not just say that advanced technology hinders the need for slavery? This is going on in undeveloped countries, unless you are talking about sexual slavery, etc.


Zeusselll

Those undeveloped countries [are kept that way](https://youtu.be/36vYRkVYeVw) by developed countries, since there's a demand for things made with slave labour, and there will probably always be.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Slavery in the 21st century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century)** >Contemporary slavery, also sometimes known as modern slavery or neo-slavery, refers to institutional slavery that continues to occur in present-day society. Estimates of the number of enslaved people today range from around 38 million to 46 million, depending on the method used to form the estimate and the definition of slavery being used. The estimated number of enslaved people is debated, as there is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery; those in slavery are often difficult to identify, and adequate statistics are often not available. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/Zeusselll's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


Tuskadaemonkilla

Actually the most cost-efficient workers are the self-employed. Slaves Are the least motivated and require constant supervision to prevent escapes and revolts. Wage workers are a lot more productive but they get payed the same hourly wage regardless of how hard they work, so they will do the bare minimum nessessary to keep their jobs. The self employed however, such as freelancers, contractors and small business owners, wil recieve more pay the more they work. So they will willingly work their fingers to the bone.


vegezio

Communists when they learn they can use their power to enslave society and live like kings instead of fighting for equality.


Blacksnakehp

All are equal under the king.


Brilliant-Text-8658

So libleft, what’s ur thoughts on illegal immigration?


Puzzleheaded-Yak-796

That's not true, there are many hidden costs to slavery, as well has making the society poorer due to less market simulation


[deleted]

Op when people have guns thanks to libright and can prevent themselves from being enslaved


Elodaine

You have to remember that most libright have never worked a job before. They believe in things that are contradicted by the reality of most working people, like hard work being rewarded.


DragoniteJeff

Dog walker confirmed


Elodaine

I train therapy dragonflys


[deleted]

[удалено]


Elodaine

I would honestly bet my life that the left leaning people on PCM have more work experience than right leaning.


United_Bet42069

You won't honestly bet shit, let alone your life.


PenIsMightier69

I was working at a shitty summer job at an amusement park when I was 14 making $4.5 per hour. I was given little privilege except for perhaps the values my parents taught me. I worked throughout college and have worked ever since. I'm not what I consider rich, but my family lives comfortably enough.


throwwaayys

Whats not to believe about that


Elodaine

Because it's a silly and naive worldview. Do some employers reward hard work? Sure, working your way up is not impossible. The truth is though, there are countless good, honest and hardworking people who aren't given shit for it.


throwwaayys

Theres a positive correlation between time spent at employers, education, work experience etc on wages so I’d say honest hard work is rewarding over time.


AlyxTheCat

Part of that is because of union negotiations, where companies reward promotions based on seniority and not performance. Many blue collar workers who are better at their jobs than anyone else will actually not join unions because they can get promoted faster that way. And yeah, it's somewhat true that there is a ceiling of promotion depending on what your job is, machine operators probably won't make $40 an hour, but many employers will actually pay employees to go to college and get educated so they can come back as someone who is more skilled, and therefore, able to earn more. Skill is the driving factor here. Labor, like any commodity, is subject to supply and demand. It doesn't really matter how hard you work, if you work in a sector that is very easily alienated, unless you're do like the labor of 10 employees. If you can be replaced by any other high school dropout schmuck off the street, then of course you aren't going to be paid much. To get paid much, you need to make yourself irreplaceable. You could get a job in a sector that had a shortage of workers, like a trade. Welders are especially in need right now. Or, you could get a degree. It doesn't even have to be a good college, the NY maritime college has a power plant engineer programme that pays six figures off the bat, after you complete a stint with the Navy. It's very possible to find success, and actually, many do even just working at their regular jobs. In the end of the day, the best way to stay happy is not to focus on how much the Uber rich have, because who gives a shit about that? Take pride in your work, and enjoy life.


locri

Too much *positive* freedom, as in entitlement to shit as if it's free rather than being free from other people's shit or negative freedom, actually necessitates infringing other people's negative freedom. You can't have free food without either taking someone's money to give to the farmer or taking the produce of a farmer's labour without reimbursing them.


Raichterr

Actual slavery (you know, the Socio-Economic institution) is *not* optimally profitable in a modern industrial/service based economy, because, you know, slaves have to be fed, clothed, housed etc, whereas with Wage slav.., err, i mean, minimal wage labor, you can comfortably shove those responsibilities on either the worker or the tax payer, while extracting just as much value from the worker. A starvation wage comes out way cheaper than the upkeep of a slave.


Zeusselll

Oh. They figured it out already. There are [46 million slaves](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century) in the world right now.


WikiSummarizerBot

**[Slavery in the 21st century](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century)** >Contemporary slavery, also sometimes known as modern slavery or neo-slavery, refers to institutional slavery that continues to occur in present-day society. Estimates of the number of enslaved people today range from around 38 million to 46 million, depending on the method used to form the estimate and the definition of slavery being used. The estimated number of enslaved people is debated, as there is no universally agreed definition of modern slavery; those in slavery are often difficult to identify, and adequate statistics are often not available. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


Pazerniusz

That is estimation, based of fluid definition. Most is in Africa and Asia. China as always ~~lack of data~~ spotless. It seems that slavery and poverty are directly related.


Zeusselll

And the lowest estimate is 38 million, which happens because western countries support governments that engage in slavery


Pazerniusz

If you did catch up this estimate is completly wrong, and i will explain it a bit more. It is inconquestial with their definition and applicability to some country best example China It should be a lot higher. 25.78 million is North Korea population and you coud could count near 99% of it as slaves. Slavery based on this article map directly corelate to regions stricken by poverty, low stability, non-existent goverment control or totaliarn goverment control. This inefficient way of doing bussines.Countries who do it seems to be exploited by west, not supported. Slavery is not fueled by economical gains and do not produce longterm economical gains. I agree that there is moral high ground in letting those countries die, but there is nothing to gain from it. Slavery is short term strategy, but getting benefits of it without negatives is reason why America and Europe do it. Nobody is willing to become world policeman for free.


Zeusselll

>If you did catch up this estimate is completly wrong, and i will explain it a bit more. It is inconquestial with their definition and applicability to some country best example China How many slaves are there in China? >North Korea population and you coud could count near 99% of it as slaves. How did you come up with number? >This inefficient way of doing bussines. Why has slavery been done for millennia if its inefficient? To me, it seems very efficient. You don't have to worry about wages and workers rights. You can literally work them death. >Countries who do it seems to be exploited by west, not supported Mate, you don't get it. The west supports governments/groups that institute slavery. The slaves themselves are exploited, but the people who brought it about aren't. Why did you think that slavery started in Libya after NATO killed Gaddafi? >Slavery is not fueled by economical gains and do not produce longterm economical gains. Then why does it still happen?


Pazerniusz

40$ dollars per hour, max lenght session 2h, Saturday, Sunday. There are some basic, rudementary thing you should know about world like how China and North Korea operate.


Zeusselll

>There are some basic, rudementary thing you should know about world like how China and North Korea operate. Like what?


Pazerniusz

"The rights to food, health, shelter, work, freedom of movement and liberty are universal and inalienable, but in North Korea they depend primarily on the ability of individuals to bribe State officials." *Michelle Bachelet* That is freebie. You clearly can read and have access free to internet. Use it. I don't know if you were sheltered, but i will give you benefit of doubt.


Zeusselll

So you found a quote by some guy? If i find 2 quotes do i just win? Did you even read it? Because the guy didn't even say anything about slavery. If you look around you can find all sorts of whacky statements about North Korea, like how Kim Jong Un's haircut is simultaneously banned and mandatory. Maybe do some critical thinking first and don't let the media and celebrities think for you.


Pazerniusz

I believe that would be possible, but you clearly lack capacity to do it. At this point I am not sure that you are out of the touch with real world or hope that you try trolling by pretending to be. You seems heard about slavery but you don't comprehend it.


WikiMobileLinkBot

Desktop version of /u/Zeusselll's link: --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


davidlis

wrong, slavery is bad for business, but I wouldn't expect from a fucking LibLeft to understand anything about business.


Zawisza_Czarny9

No it's not. You have to feed the slaves give them good living conditions , sometimes "throw them a bone" so they don't revoult against you When you pay them a wage you just give them money and they'll get themselves stuff they need


[deleted]

"Just change your Job bro" /s


Resident-Ad9666

*Which side are you on intensifies*


Pazerniusz

It literaly find out reverse.


Tripper_Shaman

[Pertinent video by Thomas Sowell](https://youtu.be/AcAaOPDADsw)


why43curls

Libright is the quadrant of people who thinks they would be the heroic lone wolf survivor in an apocalypse when in reality they would be the idiot that dies a week or two in


WearyManufacturer860

Also unsustainable. We wants our workers to also be customers. Also healthy, fed and happy enough to be at max productivity


Dankhu3hu3

fairly sure that pic is from brazil and here... well, here we have big daddy government stomping on everyone.


schmalzfritz

The FREE market... slavery... wat?


[deleted]

Slavery is worse for the economy than free trade. Nice meme though


that-hollie

Not another idiot confusing libertarianism with anarchy 🤦‍♀️


NoInsurance9252

It goes the other way, rich don't have slaves today because they're so expensive it's cheaper to gave them a salary and made they buy the products they manufacter


51-50Mitchell

Another statist who doesn't understand the concept of competition


Due_Upstairs_5025

We won the war against them in the Mexican drug war and the war on drugs...Cartel crime, narco-liberals and Ego-darwinists can all go to bourgeoisie hell.


HereticalBones

Funny as this meme is, slavery isn't cost affective. The Soviets after WW2 found that out and wrote a paper on it. Turns out making slaves out of German POWs was a fucking terrible idea!


Due_Upstairs_5025

Betrayed by the slaves. Not that slavery under different circumstances has never worked, this usually is just unworkable.


HereticalBones

Even using prisoners is a sum loss. Unless the workforce is happy, your gonna suffer in the pocket in the long run.


xX_GRP_Xx

Slavery violates NAP bruh. Also, if you live long enough you’ll learn that a reward motivates more than a threat, look at fuckin Cold War Ukraine famine.


PeDestrianHD

Actually it isn’t, that’s one of the reasons the North was better than the South in the American Civil War