What was the objective problem with slavery, excluding all kinds of muh feelings arguments and moralist crap...

No it isn't. Minimum wage doesn't cover housing and food in many cities. Many people are forced to rent or live with family when working min wage.

Granted gentrification plays a role, it's against the law to build affordable housing for turbo peasants.

Also, using this for sex slavery would be extremely lucrative, because you could afford to charge patrons like ten dollars a lay.

The kind of housing slaves would have is equivalent to a homeless shelter, not an apartment.

And "food" in many cities is generally a much higher quality than slaves would get, which is pretty much just the human version of what you'd give livestock

Slavery was abolished to create a consumer market. No use in having an industrial revolution if people don't buy your stuff.

Well these days at least any work (except sex) that slaves are suited too is done cheaper and more effectively by machines

Notice that sexual slavery is the only kind that is still widely practiced

You spend a fuckhuge amount of effort in survelliance, beating some sense in the slaves, and making sure they don't usurp you.

Which means you can't have a proper aggressive foreign policy because have to police the slaves, an enemy within your state, instead somoewhere else of the world, where the enemy without is.

The bigger your State, the bigger this enemy within becomes, and the bigger the cost and effort to control it.

Sparta, despite boasting about their superior infantry, given that all the work was done by the Helots while the Spartiates could train as much as they wanted, had a very conservative and unaggressive foreign policy compared to Athens, where masters and slaves worked on the field together, hoplites were farmers, and there was never a slave revolt.

Today it's much more effective to have an education system and a private entertainment industry to produce workers that, unlike slaves, are qualified, obedient, think themselves free and lack the motivation to rebel.

From such a stock of people you can recruit your determined, patriotic world police and engage in world domination projects.

Note that this isn't even touching mechanization replacing unqualified labor.

But we shouldn't forget that
>In September 2003, National Geographic reported that “there are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”
>Trafficking in Persons Report, 2006.

Somehow we have more slaves today than the world has ever seen.

Explain sweatshops.

They arent slaves. You could argue they are LIKE slaves, but thats not the same thing

>You spend a fuckhuge amount of effort in survelliance, beating some sense in the slaves, and making sure they don't usurp you.
No you don't, slaves aren't hardened convicts, they're just people. Most people would probably adapt in a year tops, and if you start breeding them then those who grow up slaves don't know any other life and would be even less likely to revolt.

Masters didn't work with their slaves in Athens. Sure, plenty of freemen worked fields, but not the sort who could afford a part of the massive slave demographic. Masters in the field served a supervisory capacity at the most, and even that they generally paid someone else to take care of it. No, Athens didn't have any slave revolt, but they had a massive revolt of the lower class freemen who owned little or no property, which is what brought about Athenian democracy.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying they are cheaper than slaves? And if not, then you must be saying it would be cheaper to have automation doing their work, right? And if you are saying that, then why isn't domestic automation being used instead of outsourcing?

They're externalities. And we know how much corporations love externalities. They don't have to pay for the cost of housing directly and can farm it out to their own employees. Where with slaves you have to do all the work and costs of feeding, clothing, housing, and teaching them yourself.

Even if you exclude the idea that it's cheaper from an accounting perspective of paying the minimum necessary for sustenance and reproduction of the worker, corporations also don't have to pay an expert on deciding where to live or to negotiate price an all that. Saves on overhead by subtly convincing people to be their own overseers.

It also give flexibility. If a corporation suddenly decides they want to move or modify operations in numbers they can just eject local workers and not have to worry about all the externalized concerns of housing and whatnot. It's the workers problem to live and die with. With slaves you would either have to eat the cost of investment in the entire cradle to grave slave or pay for their new arrangements all yourself. Maybe not a problem if you're a static plantation owner, but if you're running a machine tool business with global factory placement things might be different.

With slaves you have to convince them they are inferiors to their very soul and they could and should never rise up. A tough proposition that historically always fails given a long enough time frame. With low wage workers you discipline their demands through ever reliable fear. With no guarantee of home or food you can play workers off each other in competition for jobs, telling them if they get too defiant or demanding they'll be the one fired and John will get the job. With a slave they'd know they always have a use and would always have their shack no matter how angry the master is. He would have to make good on threats and physically attack them if they called the bluff. With wage workers you don't have to ever actually do it, just fire them.

Workers given the money to buy their own housing, food and clothing, will always be more expensive than providing it to them in bulk, far more expensive.

>With slaves you would either have to eat the cost of investment in the entire cradle to grave slave or pay for their new arrangements all yourself
Or you could just sell them

>With slaves you have to convince them they are inferiors to their very sou
No you don't, you just have to get them used to the routine and life.

It's not a requirement that you give them that much money. If dirt cheap housing and food were available, they'd be purchased.

Theoretically, you could have a warehouse with 70 8 stack bunkbeds with lockers along the walls and have the citizens sleep with winter clothes on to avoid a heating bill.

>slaves aren't hardened convicts
Becauser a convict needs to be convicted, while a slave can be born as such.

>they're just people
Of a different species, according to the propaganda you tell the master's children to explain their inequality and misery.

>those who grow up slaves don't know any other life and would be even less likely to revolt
See So many of the Helots never lived like free men until foreign powers would liberate them.

>No, Athens didn't have any slave revolt
That's because they did the exact opposite of what you're suggesting it should be done to make them not rebel.

You suggest to even breed them separately, apartheid style, while in Athens Pasion became a free man and a most successful banker.

>Masters didn't work with their slaves in Athens.
I'm going to listen to professor emeritus Donald Kagan here and his colleagues, and ignore what this Christ- I mean, SLAVERY apologist is saying.

>Sure, plenty of freemen worked fields, but not the sort who could afford a part of the massive slave demographic.
>even that they generally paid someone else to take care of it
They owned 1 or 2 on average, the massive slave demographic was in Sparta.

Hoplites, able to afford the panoplia, were farmers, too. It was the cavalrymen that lived like proper aristocrats those days.

You should abandon this internet slave driving, and stick to Christianity.

Sex slavery is a great example, why slavery is inefficient. It is very difficult to explain, how to do a good job. Unless the submission is a source of pleasure in itself, you'll do better either inspiring somebody to do the job, or, if you can't inspire anyone, you're still better off offering a good price and inviting the "service providers" to compete against each other in offering a good service.
Same is true about your food, your education, your clothing, not even mentioning cars and airplanes where I would feel a little uneasy if I new that my life totally depends on a slave doing a good job.

>Workers given the money to buy their own housing, food and clothing, will always be more expensive than providing it to them in bulk, far more expensive.
Maybe in the grand scheme of things, but on an individual selfish level it might not necessarily be so. Let's consider the institution of training, one of the most expensive parts of a worker. Someone somewhere has to pay the costs of education, books, unproductive time, teachers, etc. But is it necessarily the wage paying corporation? No, the parents of the wage worker and maybe the state with tax money is paying for all that. The parents corporation is paying the bill of education for years. With a slave you cant shove that off to anyone. No one is paying to teach your 10 year old slaves to read.

In the grand scheme money must be payed some way, but a canny or lucky firm can shrug off the costs of training onto some other sucker and end up paying less.

>Or you could just sell them
You could try but then you're subject to the slave market to make a major business decision. It's still less flexible. Let's keep in mind in almost any society wage workers will be a bigger and more varied pool than slaves which kind of demand a culture of extreme stratification (like they're all africans in a non-african society that can only do very simple heavy labor). The slave market will be much stiffer (people might not want your shit slaves you're trying to unload for a reason) than the labor market which is everywhere you go.

>No you don't, you just have to get them used to the routine and life.
This is just wrong. I don't know what else to say, you don't know human nature. History is full of cases of slave revolts. Slaves are usually very local and all it takes is one night of braveness "we just crush the master's head with a rock and do things our way from now on" and shit goes down. Sooner or later, it happens. No one actually likes being a slave so eventually they test the limits.

>What was the objective problem with slavery

It's innefficient and uneconomic.
Slave labour was practised globally because there were no alternative forms of workforce for certain labour, like mining in hazardous caverns etc.

Even after said alternatives were put to practise slavery was still used, but only in very narrow, niche industries, such as work on tobacco -and sugar plantations.

It takes tremendous amount of time, energy, resources, manpower and plain effort to capture, procure, train, feed, enforce and simply guard slaves. It's more cost-efficient to just hire people to do certain things, using salaries (which can be ridiculously low) as a proper stimulant.

This is one of those things where you'll say "it's okay as long as it's not me."

If it weren't for slavery, there would be no blacks in America.

Don't confuse America style slavery with a 'slave class'?
The helots were more like the lowest rung on a hierarchy with (mostly) no chance to leave thier class. I would say thy wern't really slaves in the sense a lot of people think of the word slaves. The galleys prisons were far worse.

>what was the problem with this immoral thing disregarding moralist arguments
nothing