How many slaves would be sold in a major slave market in a day Veeky Forums?

How many slaves would be sold in a major slave market in a day Veeky Forums?

The largest slave auction which ever took place in the United States was 436 slaves in two days. Work your way down from there, as medieval societies had much lower populations.

Would they really get that much daily business? Most people can't afford more than a few and most don't need that many. And they last for quite a while.

It'd likely be more sales in concentrated auctions, when the large-scale slaveowners come through town.

Slaves can be imported though for example in ottoman istanbul a large part of the city consisted of slaves shipped in from all the areas bordering the empire.

about three fiddy

It depends on if said slaves are used for basic farming, or for things like 'digging in a strip mine until they die' or 'carrying crippling weights up and down mountains'.

Essentially, the harder and more deadly the labor, the higher the demand for new ones.

Also, this should be weighed against how industrialized the society is as well. The better the technology, the less slaves will be needed.

This guy gets it. You're probably looking at maybe one to two major sales a year, unless you're at a specific slave trading hub, which is going to be more wholesale purchasing by slave traders

Is that really true? Factory jobs, user

If we average it out over a year, probably half a dozen
Slaves are useless for that user. Factory jobs require at least some level of skill/training and requires a lot more people than farming. Slaves are very expensive.

Well, some Germans got together for one day and decided killing them outright was not efficient usage.
So, let's say
>six million
Give or take a few million.

>Factory jobs
Wage-slaves are cheaper

Exactly, the scale from how much they are the machinery to how much they are just sitting their baby sitting the machinery adjusts how many you need. You need many of them if they are your machinery, and a few of them if they are just baby sitters for the machines.

Slave labor is inherently less efficient than voluntary labor. Slaves will do the bare minimum required to not get punished, you have to directly pay for all their survival needs, you have to pay people to monitor and inflict punishment on them when necessary, as well as people to go and catch them when they inevitably escape, and probably also additional security measures to try to minimize escapes in the first place. A factory using voluntary laborers will annihilate a slave-factory in a direct competition.

So why is human trafficking, ie slavery, experiencing such a big boom right now?

Because some people are assholes and have fucked up outdated cultural practices.

They aren't being used for factory labor.

As OP could tell you, one doesn't need training to suck cocks.

Prostitution

Robots cant give good blow jobs and analyet

Really russels my jimmies that you use artwork of a rakdos being arrested and associated it with slavery.

I don't want to derail too much, but they're commonly used for jobs we think of as being minimum wage drones. Nail salons, crop harvesting, and those door to door magazine companies are some of the big offenders. Also prostitution.

Don't forget the extra cost for each time a slaves "accidentally" drops a spanner in to the gears or the machine mysteriously has an oil line leak, and the like. You have to pay those repair costs and hire extra security to try to prevent sabotage. Slaves are not a good fit for mechanized production facilities.

Most slaves these days are in domestic work, and/or sex slavery. You could make a good case for construction work as well (in countries like the UAE, where the foreign workers have their passports held by their "employers").

The U.S. government fucking around in Libya and the Middle East by funding ISIS and other shitty practices.

t. lifelong U.S. citizen

Genoa had about 200 to 300 hundred sold per day at the height of its trade in slave. But it was THE market for that good in northwest Italy plus for the French Navy.

19th US had a rather low population density when compared with Medieval Europe. This goes extra when when you factor out the northeast because that part did not have slaves in that part of the US.

>And they last for quite a while

Thar rather depends on what you are using the slaves for. Slaves on 17th century tropical plantations would last for 3.6 years before dying. I know the Guy who figured out that number btw. Galleys slaves would need to be replaced about every 6 years. Note replaced not they died, a fair number were resold for easier work. Galley fleets needed a lot of manpower.

People also forget that in slave-owning societies the cost of the slaves was often subsidized by the government. A big example of this was the American south, where the cost of catching escaped slaves was almost entirely paid by the taxpayers (remembering that only 5% of white southerners owned slaves). Not only that but participating in slave-patrols was a mandatory public service (which, of course, the rich plantation owners always seemed to be exempt from), and not reporting escaped slaves was illegal, so the 95% of the population that didn't own slaves was still forced to be complicit in it or face legal punishment.

All that would have been required to end slavery in the South would have been the government being merely neutral on the matter, the plantation owners could not have possibly independently paid for the legion of bounty hunters that would have been necessary to capture all the escapees.

>An SS paladin casting Aryan magic on a Slavic barbarian