This topic sprung up out of an other thread. Contrary to what people may think, it is hardly a settled topic. I am no expert, but I do have a link supporting my contention that slavery was not integral to America being successful. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.html "... there is a difference between slave labor being "efficient" for the slave owner and its effect on society as a whole. Of course slavery was profitable to slave owners. This government-supported system helped them confiscate the fruits of the slaves’ labor. But since slave labor is inherently less efficient than free labor, and since so many resources had to be devoted to enforcing the system – most of which were the result of government interventions such as the Fugitive Slave Act, mandatory slave patrol laws, and laws that prohibited manumission – the system imposed huge burdens ("dead weight loss," in the language of economics) on the rest of society. Free laborers and non-slave owners in the South (at least 80 percent of the adult population) were the primary victims of these government-imposed costs, and would have been a natural political constituency for their eventual abolition. As Hummel concluded, "In real terms, the entire southern economy, including both whites and blacks, was less prosperous" overall because of slavery. " That's just one link I found. I found others with opposing viewpoints. It's an interesting topic.
Dang what is wrong with the edit function? Title should read: "Slavery and the Early American Economy"
Don't mean to derail your thread, but I have a story on this subject. I was doing a summer job on campus in college where I was paired with this Korean guy who talked a lot. At one point, he asserted that America's greatness was primarily due to the labor of slaves. I told him he was overstating the case, at least, in giving slavery so much credit. In arguing with me, he said, "ask a black person that and see what he says." It was silly of him to think a black person would somehow be an expert on the subject because of their heritage, but I suppose he wanted to shame me into conceding. So, later that day, we're in the elevator leaving the boss's office and there is a black woman in the elevator with us. So, he asks her if America's greatness was primarily based on the labor of slaves. She said she didn't know. He also asked if she felt the country owed her reparations (another facet of our conversation) and she said no. I said nothing at all. Later in the day, we find out that she went to her office crying and told her boss that she felt racially intimidated by my coworker. He caught some heat, but, being a summer job, he was allowed to play out the string (despite additional missteps, like alienating all his coworkers, taking the company van to go to dinner on the other side of town, and trying to covertly undermine one of the department's major functions).
There's absolutely no way America becomes the world power it is without riding on the backs of slaves for 200 years. No way. That's 200 years without pay, without benefits, without any say in the system. Two hundred years of free labor, inflated profits and unfair competition tends to inflate economic progress, especially when compounded over 20 decades. Just look at today's market: companies scramble to find the lowest wages, whether they're in Texas, Mexico or China. It was no different back then. They just didn't have to look elsewhere for cheap wages -- they had slaves to do all the work for no pay while they pocketed all the profits. It was a capitalist's wet dream.
interesting never talk religion or politics in the office. . . .. I can understand how she felt . . .'put on the spot' esp. if she and he were not particularly close [considering it was a summer thing . . . .] I'd have been looking for the candid camera Rocket River
In a parallel argument, do any of you think that America's economic prowess today is attributable to those earning minimum wage? I didn't think so.
Those people to whom you attribute our success would be doing even better without a minimum wage. In fact, thanks to NAFTA, they are. Just like you to downplay the value of people who work hard and don't even earn a living wage. If you'd been around back then, I'm sure you would have opposed the concept of a minimum wage or an 8 hour work day or really any labor laws whatsoever.
Then raising the minimum wage is a good idea? If low wages have nothing to do with economic prowess, then higher wages wouldn't hurt. Right?
Actually, American power is due to it's rise as an industrial nation, and it's proximity to natural resources. So, child labor is more responsible for our rise to power then slavery. Sad as that statement is.... DD
There is no concrete answer to this question. While slavery was definitely an inefficient institution by the time world war II came around, it was definitely a profitable institution in the formation of America. What changed everything. Probably the industrial revolution. The cotton gin pretty much eliminated the need for slave labor in the cotton fields. Slavery never extended to the northern manufacturing sector of America, so that argument is null and void. But when America made its money off of Tabacco and other farming products, and the the South American Colonies were making there money off of Sugar production, how can free labor not give you an advantage. Can you imagine having to pay 100's of people to work in a sugar field, what do you think that would do to the price of sugar, it would have shot through the roof when the industry was so labor intensive. Same thing with tabacco or cotton, those industries would not be viable economically without slavery or machinery. The industrial revolution killed slavery.
Interestingly enough Pgab.....it is kind of what China and Mexico are doing now, in paying such low wages. Will they benefit in the future, like the USA? Or is it too late? Interesting to think about though. DD
This makes me wonder about the future of the country. If jobs keep being shipped over seas so that companies only have to pay people a dollar more than a slave makes an hour, eventually, wouldn't all or nearly all manufacturing jobs be taken out of this country? When that day comes, what will those american workers do? Even if they opt out of unions and we abolish minimum wage, there's no way that american workers can compete with the cheapness of foreign labor. Where do those people go from there?
Ahh yes, the race to the bottom, the dirty little secret that nobody really can be bothered to care about.
Oski, You move to a banking and informational economy.... We can not force the rest of the world to pay their people a decent wage...and if we tried, by tarrifs etc....The American people would not stand up for the rise in prices. The dirty truth is that we don't care where that DVD player was made, as long as it is affordable and works well.... People are inherently selfish, and we are just lucky to have been born in the USA..... It is all a lottery... DD
AHHHHHHHH!!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!! The answer to your question is that the US will transform itself into a services based economy, something it did a long time ago.
