What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

There are more slaves today than 4 centuries of trans-atlantic slave trading (1 Viewer)

msudaisy26 said:
Not that staggering considering there are like 6.5 billion more people on the planet now. 
Click to expand...
27M isn't staggering? That's like the entire state of Texas (our 2nd most populace state) being slaves. In the year 2017.

Or every single person in New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose and Austin.

 
GroveDiesel said:
27M isn't staggering? That's like the entire state of Texas (our 2nd most populace state) being slaves. In the year 2017.

Or every single person in New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose and Austin.
Click to expand...
And according to some, the entire NFL

 
GroveDiesel said:
This statistic is mind-blowing, horrifying and crushingly sad. Obviously, overall population is a lot larger today, but it's shocking that there are 24M people who are SLAVES in the year 2017.

If you somehow thought slavery was eliminated, you were very very wrong.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
Click to expand...
And 40 million US citizens live in poverty. 

The republicans freed the slaves... and then the slave owners became republican when they realized employees cost less than owning slaves. 

 
Ilov80s said:
Could you oversimplify that a bit more?
Click to expand...
Employees that do the type of work slaves typically do cost little to nothing to hire. If they get sick or die, they cost little to nothing to replace. Thus the employer has little to no reason to care if they're paid enough to afford food, shelter and healthcare. 

Slaves on the other hand cost money to obtain. Given the investment to obtain them, owners have motivation to make sure they are fed and housed so they're ready to work every day. If they get sick, the cost of getting them well may be worth it to them given the cost of obtaining a replacement slave. Thus the slave owner has good reason to make sure they get food, shelter and healthcare. 

Yes, slave owners treat slaves like animals. And that's immoral. My point is an owner of an animal has more motivation to treat the animal well than the employer of an employee has motivation to treat the employee well. In other words, paying employees less than they need to afford food, shelter and healthcare is more immoral than owning slaves. 

When the slaves were freed, the country actually did slave owners a financial favor. That's why in the years following employment laws, like minimum wage, workers comp, etc, etc... have been enacted to address their immoral employment behavior. But politicians have neglected the laws such that inflation has made these employment laws ineffective. The employers are once again back to being more immoral than the slave owners were. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Employees that do the type of work slaves typically do cost little to nothing to hire. If they get sick or die, they cost little to nothing to replace. Thus the employer has little to no reason to care if they're paid enough to afford food, shelter and healthcare. 

Slaves on the other hand cost money to obtain. Given the investment to obtain them, owners have motivation to make sure they are fed and housed so they're ready to work every day. If they get sick, the cost of getting them well may be worth it to them given the cost of obtaining a replacement slave. Thus the slave owner has good reason to make sure they get food, shelter and healthcare. 

Yes, slave owners treat slaves like animals. And that's immoral. My point is an owner of an animal has more motivation to treat the animal well than the employer of an employee has motivation to treat the employee well. In other words, paying employees less than they need to afford food, shelter and healthcare is more immoral than owning slaves. 

When the slaves were freed, the country actually did slave owners a financial favor. That's why in the years following employment laws, like minimum wage, workers comp, etc, etc... have been enacted to address their immoral employment behavior. But politicians have neglected the laws such that inflation has made these employment laws ineffective. The employers are once again back to being more immoral than the slave owners were. 
Click to expand...
We likely agree more than disagree on a lot of this. I just thought it came off as a sloppy shot at Republicans. The issue historically has involved both parties. 

 
GroveDiesel said:
This is so beyond disgusting and insulting to those caught in actual slavery.
Click to expand...
To be clear the part I agree with from what he said is that for many slaves, conditions did not improve much in the post-reconstruction South. Immigrants and the poor living in cities also often faced deplorable conditions working brutal jobs for brutal hours and making only enough money to just survive in squalor on. We have come a long way in the post-Progressive Era and post-New Deal world but not far enough. 

As for the international slave trade that you posted about, it is so very sad and seems almost impossible to attack. It's so big. How can we combat it? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my last books was about Catherine the Great.  Serfs in Russia through 1860 were slaves - about 90-95% of the population, or 50 million.   I never knew the control the priviledged few had over their serfs (absolute).  

Not that this changes this conversation, but it changed my view of life in Russia at that time.

 
Ilov80s said:
As for the international slave trade that you posted about, it is so very sad and seems almost impossible to attack. It's so big. How can we combat it? 
Click to expand...
http://lastradainternational.org/ This is an organization I've donated to a few times. They combat trafficking in Eastern Europe. Locally any support to a groups that supports prostitutes trying to get out is combating slavery. We have this group in Vegas. https://www.childrenofthenight.org/

 
Politician Spock said:
And 40 million US citizens live in poverty. 

The republicans freed the slaves... and then the slave owners became republican when they realized employees cost less than owning slaves. 
Click to expand...
Pretty dumb comment.  Why are you trying to reach so far in such a lame attempt to make this a Republican-thing?  It was a perfectly good topic but now it belongs in the cesspool forum.  

 
jon_mx said:
Pretty dumb comment.  Why are you trying to reach so far in such a lame attempt to make this a Republican-thing?  It was a perfectly good topic but now it belongs in the cesspool forum.  
Click to expand...
Here, read it without "republican" in it, and my point is still intact 100%:

And 40 million US citizens live in poverty. 

When the Union freed the slaves... and then the slave owners became part of the Union again they realized employees cost less than owning slaves. 

Better?

 
Politician Spock said:
Here, read it without "republican" in it, and my point is still intact 100%:

And 40 million US citizens live in poverty. 

When the Union freed the slaves... and then the slave owners became part of the Union again they realized employees cost less than owning slaves. 

Better?
Click to expand...
At least those in poverty have a chance of getting free of it

 
BassNBrew said:
Yup. But slaves have zero free will. Several of your points are strong but I do think you downgrade total loss of freedom. 
Click to expand...
Free will?

Sure.... to the extent that they can now chose who holds the whip over them. 

As for the free will to break out of poverty, very few do. And not because they lack the will or effort. But simply because what they have to offer the free market isn't in demand. Only those born with exceptional skills and talents have something to offer the free market that provides them a compensation that breaks them out of poverty. These people are the exception, not the norm. And it's easy to say they can learn skills and talents. But that's a micro solution that's being inappropriately applied to a macro problem. Sure, you can find examples of individuals who learned a skill or talent and as such had something to offer the free market that provided them a compensation that breaks them out of poverty. But if every single person in poverty were to go to college to learn skills or talents with similar hopes, you'd end up with a bunch of people still in poverty, still working minimum wage jobs, but now also have the burden of college loans to pay off. The problem is not that these people can't pull themselves out of poverty. It's that employers CREATE poverty by paying those at the bottom of their payrolls too little. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Here, read it without "republican" in it, and my point is still intact 100%:

And 40 million US citizens live in poverty. 

When the Union freed the slaves... and then the slave owners became part of the Union again they realized employees cost less than owning slaves. 

Better?
Click to expand...
No, because your facts and spin are ridiculously twisted.  The poverty in the US is not as bad as most other developed countries which have far more progressive policies than us and all the slave rhetoric is just silly.  Chew on the article a bit. 

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe

10/16/2015 Ryan McMaken

In this week's debate, Bernie Sanders claimed that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty. CBS reports that Sanders said: "We should not be the country that has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country and more wealth and income inequality than any other country,"

As even CBS notes, according to UNICEF, which is probably the source of Sanders's factoid, the US has lower childhood poverty rates than Greece, Spain, Mexico, Latvia, and Israel, all of which are OECD countries or regarded as peer countries. The US rate (32.2 percent) is also more or less equal to the rate in Turkey, Romania, Lithuania, and Iceland. See page 8 of this report.

So, while Sanders probably doesn't even know what he means by "major country" it's clear that the US is not an outlier among OECD-type countries, even by UNICEF's own analysis.

We get much more insight, though, once we have a look at what UNICEF means by "poverty rate." In this case, UNICEF (and many other organizations) measure the poverty rate as a percentage of the national median household income. UNICEF uses 60% of median as the cut off. So, if you're in Portugal, and your household earns under 60% of the median income in Portugal, you are poor. If you are in the US and you earn under 60% of the US median income, then you are also poor.

The problem here, of course, is that median household incomes — and what they can buy — differs greatly between the US and Portugal. In relation to the cost of living, the median income in the US is much higher than the median income in much of Europe. So, even someone who earns under 60% of the median income in the US will, in many cases, have higher income than someone who earns the median income in, say, Portugal.

Here are all the median incomes (according to the OECD's household income comparison statistic called "median disposable income.") When adjusted for purchasing power parity, the statistic allows us to make incomes comparable across countries that use different currencies and have different costs of living. This takes into account taxes, and social benefits paid to households. So, let's use it to compare (the Y axis is in "international dollars"):

We see immediately that income is higher for US households than most of the other countries. What about that high poverty rate, though? Well, we find that the poverty level in the US is still higher than numerous countries' median income level:

The green bar is the US income at poverty levels. So, this tells us that a person at 60% of median  income in the US still has a larger income than the median household in Chile, Czech Rep., Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and several others. And the poverty income in the US is very close to matching the median income in Italy, Japan, Spain, and the UK.

 
jon_mx said:
No, because your facts and spin are ridiculously twisted.  The poverty in the US is not as bad as most other developed countries which have far more progressive policies than us and all the slave rhetoric is just silly.  Chew on the article a bit. 

The Poor in the US Are Richer than the Middle Class in Much of Europe

10/16/2015 Ryan McMaken

In this week's debate, Bernie Sanders claimed that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty. CBS reports that Sanders said: "We should not be the country that has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country and more wealth and income inequality than any other country,"

As even CBS notes, according to UNICEF, which is probably the source of Sanders's factoid, the US has lower childhood poverty rates than Greece, Spain, Mexico, Latvia, and Israel, all of which are OECD countries or regarded as peer countries. The US rate (32.2 percent) is also more or less equal to the rate in Turkey, Romania, Lithuania, and Iceland. See page 8 of this report.

So, while Sanders probably doesn't even know what he means by "major country" it's clear that the US is not an outlier among OECD-type countries, even by UNICEF's own analysis.

We get much more insight, though, once we have a look at what UNICEF means by "poverty rate." In this case, UNICEF (and many other organizations) measure the poverty rate as a percentage of the national median household income. UNICEF uses 60% of median as the cut off. So, if you're in Portugal, and your household earns under 60% of the median income in Portugal, you are poor. If you are in the US and you earn under 60% of the US median income, then you are also poor.

The problem here, of course, is that median household incomes — and what they can buy — differs greatly between the US and Portugal. In relation to the cost of living, the median income in the US is much higher than the median income in much of Europe. So, even someone who earns under 60% of the median income in the US will, in many cases, have higher income than someone who earns the median income in, say, Portugal.

Here are all the median incomes (according to the OECD's household income comparison statistic called "median disposable income.") When adjusted for purchasing power parity, the statistic allows us to make incomes comparable across countries that use different currencies and have different costs of living. This takes into account taxes, and social benefits paid to households. So, let's use it to compare (the Y axis is in "international dollars"):

We see immediately that income is higher for US households than most of the other countries. What about that high poverty rate, though? Well, we find that the poverty level in the US is still higher than numerous countries' median income level:

The green bar is the US income at poverty levels. So, this tells us that a person at 60% of median  income in the US still has a larger income than the median household in Chile, Czech Rep., Greece, Hungary, Portugal, and several others. And the poverty income in the US is very close to matching the median income in Italy, Japan, Spain, and the UK.
Click to expand...
This is a really sick and twisted justification for the problems employers are creating in this country.

Then again, slave owners said similar things to justify slavery. So at least you've got consistency. 

 
Politician Spock said:
This is a really sick and twisted justification for the problems employers are creating in this country.

Then again, slave owners said similar things to justify slavery. So at least you've got consistency. 
Click to expand...
What is sick and twisted is comparing today's business owners to slave owners.  You are way way off the deep end.  

 
Politician Spock said:
This is a really sick and twisted justification for the problems employers are creating in this country.

Then again, slave owners said similar things to justify slavery. So at least you've got consistency. 
Click to expand...
Yes, working two jobs or only making $8 an hour at McDonalds is almost exactly the same as being literally locked away at night, being beaten to death with no repercussion, being thrown off of a hotel balcony because you didn't dust well enough, getting sold to 10 different brothels over 2 years where you're raped on a daily basis, etc.

Your agenda here is total garbage and only serves to minimize the grotesque suffering that actual slavery causes. This type of absurd propaganda is exactly the refuse sold and used by every communist tyrant.

There are absolutely deficiencies and injustices in our economic model, but to compare it in any way to slavery is ridiculous and outrageous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel said:
27M isn't staggering?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

It's about 0.36% of the world's population. That means 99.64% of the world's population aren't slaves, which is probably pretty good compared to much of history and my assumption is tha the number is trending in the right direction. But, to your point, still work to be done. I'm guessing those 27M are fairly concentrated in a few parts of the world?

Similarly, there are about 700m people today living in extreme poverty (<$2/day). That certainly sounds staggering. In 2010, that number was about 1b, which is about the same number of people in that situation as in 1820. Of course, in 1820, that was over 90% of the world population. Basically, everyone lived in poverty back then. In 2010, it was about 15% and today it's under 10% who live in extreme poverty.

 
Politician Spock said:
Employees that do the type of work slaves typically do cost little to nothing to hire. If they get sick or die, they cost little to nothing to replace. Thus the employer has little to no reason to care if they're paid enough to afford food, shelter and healthcare. 

Slaves on the other hand cost money to obtain. Given the investment to obtain them, owners have motivation to make sure they are fed and housed so they're ready to work every day. If they get sick, the cost of getting them well may be worth it to them given the cost of obtaining a replacement slave. Thus the slave owner has good reason to make sure they get food, shelter and healthcare. 

Yes, slave owners treat slaves like animals. And that's immoral. My point is an owner of an animal has more motivation to treat the animal well than the employer of an employee has motivation to treat the employee well. In other words, paying employees less than they need to afford food, shelter and healthcare is more immoral than owning slaves. 

When the slaves were freed, the country actually did slave owners a financial favor. That's why in the years following employment laws, like minimum wage, workers comp, etc, etc... have been enacted to address their immoral employment behavior. But politicians have neglected the laws such that inflation has made these employment laws ineffective. The employers are once again back to being more immoral than the slave owners were. 
Click to expand...
I wonder if your theory holds up if we look at these present day slaves? I wonder how much access to food, shelter and healthcare they have... For example, after they are raped, do you think they get checked out by a physician? Thoughts?

 
Politician Spock said:
This is a really sick and twisted justification for the problems employers are creating in this country.

Then again, slave owners said similar things to justify slavery. So at least you've got consistency. 
Click to expand...
This is ridiculous.  Ask yourself this, would you rather be poor in the US in 2017 or a slave in the US in 1860?  If you don't take an impoverished life in today's society than you need to read a few books.

Stop being so ridiculous.  We get it, poverty in the US is a problem and you blame corporate greed.  Dragging it into this thread muddles the issue at hand and takes our attention off of solving a very different and real problem of modern day slavery.

 
Politician Spock said:
In other words, paying employees less than they need to afford food, shelter and healthcare is more immoral than owning slaves. 
Click to expand...
Wow.

I know you have a point to make, but statements like this don't help make it.

 
Jayrod said:
This is ridiculous.  Ask yourself this, would you rather be poor in the US in 2017 or a slave in the US in 1860?  If you don't take an impoverished life in today's society than you need to read a few books.

Stop being so ridiculous.  We get it, poverty in the US is a problem and you blame corporate greed.  Dragging it into this thread muddles the issue at hand and takes our attention off of solving a very different and real problem of modern day slavery.
Click to expand...
It's easy for Americans to do something about our 40 million in poverty. But we don't. We ignore it, or worse we deny that it's a problem.

It's very difficult for Americans to do anything about 27 million is slavery in other countries. And if we do do something, like go to war to free them, aren't we just going to have 67 million in poverty?

In 150 years will still haven't solved our own problems from slavery. We need to solve our own problems first before we can solve the same problems in other countries too. 

Note: this reply is a reply to everyone quoting me. I'm not going to respond to every post.

 
Politician Spock said:
It's easy for Americans to do something about our 40 million in poverty. But we don't. We ignore it, or worse we deny that it's a problem.

It's very difficult for Americans to do anything about 27 million is slavery in other countries. And if we do do something, like go to war to free them, aren't we just going to have 67 million in poverty?

In 150 years will still haven't solved our own problems from slavery. We need to solve our own problems first before we can solve the same problems in other countries too. 

Note: this reply is a reply to everyone quoting me. I'm not going to respond to every post.
Click to expand...
What is it that you do to stop this problem? What can we all do? Legitimately interested. 

 
jon_mx said:
Pretty dumb comment.  Why are you trying to reach so far in such a lame attempt to make this a Republican-thing?  It was a perfectly good topic but now it belongs in the cesspool forum.  
Click to expand...
There is no relation between the political parties of the 1860s and those of the present.   Claiming offense at this is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

The rest of that wage slave argument is absolute nonsense, but this seems like a strange thing to latch on to.

 
TheFanatic said:
What is it that you do to stop this problem? What can we all do? Legitimately interested. 
Click to expand...
Pressure employers into paying all employees who need a livng wage, a living wage. And if they don't, regulate them into doing it.

The employers, and the elected officials, won't do this while public sentiment thinks minimum wage work isn't worth a living wage. The public sentiment has to change. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Pressure employers into paying all employees who need a livng wage, a living wage. And if they don't, regulate them into doing it.

The employers, and the elected officials, won't do this while public sentiment thinks minimum wage work isn't worth a living wage. The public sentiment has to change. 
Click to expand...
So what do you do to make this happen?

 
Wasn't John Ashcroft mocked for bringing the slave trade to light? I remember the mockery of him, IIRC, plainly. 

Shame on everybody. 

 
TheFanatic said:
What is it that you do to stop this problem? What can we all do? Legitimately interested. 
Click to expand...
Nada. The horse is out of the barn. Our institutions - governmental & corporate - are too bloated & moribund to turn any corner, never mind that of reform. Democratic capitalism will crash.

We should start learning for next time around, though, and quickly. If the science of economics weren't so busy being the whore of business it would have started long ago. There are no black & whites anymore, so equilibriums should be calculated for everything - what is the optimum tax burden, at what size does corporate entropy begin, when and how does regulation and pursuit of alternatives become counterproductive to the public interest, what does the healthiest economic spectrum look like, how much and what kind of innovation do we need to keep up with advances in productivity, when does relief become self-defeating? Democratic capitalism was the best the human race has ever had it, but we allowed it to become a path to thievery - corruption, "assured" markets, private control of government, marketing over innovation, financial instruments, discarding of basic trusts. If we don't want the same thing to happen on our next chance to rebuild, learning the lessons of our upcoming failure will be key.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the rover said:
There is no relation between the political parties of the 1860s and those of the present.   Claiming offense at this is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

The rest of that wage slave argument is absolute nonsense, but this seems like a strange thing to latch on to.
Click to expand...
His argument was against today's GOP and saying they are yesteryear's slave owner and in comparing them in his view even worse than the past Slave-owners.   And double-downs and includes business owners and posters on this board which he specifically points me out early.  But you are the one completely missing his point and ironically calling me ignorant. 

 
jon_mx said:
His argument was against today's GOP and saying they are yesteryear's slave owner and in comparing them in his view even worse than the past Slave-owners.   And double-downs and includes business owners and posters on this board which he specifically points me out early.  But you are the one completely missing his point and ironically calling me ignorant. 
Click to expand...
That's certainly his argument, which is both ridiculous and offensive.  Looking back at the actual post, you'll see Ilov80's took it the same way you did, and then PS explained what he was trying to say.  I can see how it could be interpreted either way.  It's just a very badly written statement.   

 
Politician Spock said:
Post on message boards full of people who are the problem.
Click to expand...
If that is all you are doing, then I have to say, you are committing quite the sin here. Educating others to a cause you believe in is admirable, but doing nothing but educating is a disservice to the cause. It's actually much worse than that, but I don't want to get into it. 

 
wikkidpissah said:
Nada. The horse is out of the barn. Our institutions - governmental & corporate - are too bloated & moribund to turn any corner, never mind that of reform. Democratic capitalism will crash.

We should start learning for next time around, though, and quickly. If the science of economics weren't so busy being the whore of business it would have started long ago. There are no black & whites anymore, so equilibriums should be calculated for everything - what is the optimum tax burden, at what size does corporate entropy begin, when and how does regulation and pursuit of alternatives become counterproductive to the public interest, what does the healthiest economic spectrum look like, how much and what kind of innovation do we need to keep up with advances in productivity, when does relief become self-defeating? Democratic capitalism was the best the human race has ever had it, but we allowed it to become a path to thievery - corruption, "assured" markets, private control of government, marketing over innovation, financial instruments, discarding of basic trusts. If we don't want the same thing to happen on our next chance to rebuild, learning the lessons of our upcoming failure will be key.
Click to expand...
What is our next chance to rebuild? The Dow topped 23,000 yesterday. It seems like corporate greed and profits are limitless right now. 

 
TheFanatic said:
If that is all you are doing, then I have to say, you are committing quite the sin here. Educating others to a cause you believe in is admirable, but doing nothing but educating is a disservice to the cause. It's actually much worse than that, but I don't want to get into it. 
Click to expand...
There's not much more I can do. I have only one full tine employee, and yes she is paid a liveable wage, despite being in an industry where all my competitors overwhelmingly use minimum wage workers. She wouldn't get anywhwre near what I pay her at any of our competitors. But thanks for the attempt to claim i'm doing nothing. How but you? Do you employ anyone who needs a liveable wage but isn't getting it from you?

 
Politician Spock said:
There's not much more I can do. I have only one full tine employee, and yes she is paid a liveable wage, despite being in an industry where all my competitors overwhelmingly use minimum wage workers. She wouldn't get anywhwre near what I pay her at any of our competitors. But thanks for the attempt to claim i'm doing nothing. How but you? Do you employ anyone who needs a liveable wage but isn't getting it from you?
Click to expand...
I have a handful of people that do work for me. Not employees. More like contractors. A couple of them have been with me for years because I take care of them very well, but I am by no means their chief source of income. I tend to pay more than what they ask me to pay them, because I want to make sure they feel appreciated and want to stay with me for a very long time. I've been extremely blessed to have them and their skill sets in my life as it has helped me start a second career, a side hustle if you will that is rapidly becoming my main hustle. 

Still, to feel that the current socio-economic system we have is worse than slaver of the 1800's and yet the only thing you do is take care of one employ and preach to a bunch of dolts on a football message board seems a bit off. That's a massive injustice by your words. Seems like you should be doing more. 

 
Is this the thread where we throw out dumb comparisons?

College athletes should get paid.....it is practically slavery!

On topic: I was surprised by the number, you would figure every government in the world would be strictly opposed to slavery and committed to stamping it out. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top