Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You seem to have a dualistic view on this. Your definition of "bad" is a salt field slave being beaten or debt bondage and "not bad" is anything "better" than that. It's a low bar to set.

I agree, salt field slaves are worse off than McDonalds slaves; McDonalds slaves have the "freedom" to work for Burger King after all. There's also a slippery slope. In many 3rd world countries, people have the "freedom" to leave their farms to work in factories with poor conditions.

I define the word "slave" as someone who has freedom taken away by another person or a system. Some people are in more slavery than others. The salt field workers have very little freedom. The McDonalds workers have a little more freedom, but you or I would not want to be one.

I notice that you are a wealthy white male financial trader. It must be nice to be in a position where you have such freedom. Please have compassion for people with significantly less freedom than you, even if you don't see them as slaves. People are more than our abstractions.

Many people work hard:

You know where it ends Yo, it usually depends On where you start - Everlast

http://genius.com/Everlast-what-its-like-lyrics/

---

There are also more unpaid slaves today than any other time in history.

https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=301




I merely said that by using the word slave to describe voluntary employment, you desensitize people to it. Without reading the article, I cant tell if the article is about forced labor or just some activist whining about how bad their mcjob is.

FYI I live in one of those third world countries. I still reserve the word slave for people who are not permitted to quit.


> I merely said that by using the word slave to describe voluntary employment, you desensitize people to it.

I feel the opposite. We can look at these horrible conditions and say, "thank goodness it doesn't happen here in America" and "at least we aren't that bad". Our sense of responsibility is wiped clean because "we are better than them".

> FYI I live in one of those third world countries. I still reserve the word slave for people who are not permitted to quit.

Treating slavery as a rare anomaly encourages abuses that aren't considered "slavery". We then complain that people are "whining"; they should be grateful because they aren't "slaves". Disrespecting the "complainers" results in the "complainers" becoming marginalized and censored.

Some racial minorities have a long history of being marginalized and censored. Just because black people are no longer unpaid slaves does not wipe the slate clean and make everything ok.

The dichotomy is even stronger in India, so maybe that desensitizes the nuances of income inequality in 1st world countries. However, I don't know of too many who would want to live in poverty working in a McJob.

There's also a malaise of people who work in relatively high paying jobs they don't enjoy. This addiction to money & convenience motivates people to do strange things and to view others & the planet in an unhealthy way.


Your argument is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Something can be bad without being slavery. If the high paying job with money/convenience addiction were really so terrible, why do you need to fallaciously compare it to plantation slavery to make that case?

Also, talking about inequality completely masks the issue. India has lower inequality than the US. If you want to talk about desperately needing a job, you need to either exclude 1/6 of humanity or else recognize that the lack of rich people doesn't make open defecation more fun.


> If the high paying job with money/convenience addiction were really so terrible, why do you need to fallaciously compare it to plantation slavery to make that case?

I'm correctly, not fallaciously, using the word slave. Words are patterns with fuzziness.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slave

> One who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders to something.

I chose the word slave, because it highlights a pattern of people being marginalized and losing their freedom. It's slavery in a different form.

Think of boiling a frog with small changes in temperature. If we see words with fixed lines, like a chained slave in the 1800s south, then we fail to see people systemically losing their freedom due to economic inequality & being on the wrong side of leverage.

> Also, talking about inequality completely masks the issue. India has lower inequality than the US. If you want to talk about desperately needing a job, you need to either exclude 1/6 of humanity or else recognize that the lack of rich people doesn't make open defecation more fun.

A False Dilemma; that it's either income inequality or everybody is poor. We have more than enough resources to ensure that nobody lives in poverty. Economic competition & pooling of capital has fundamental issues, particularly with inequality & environmental problems. Cooperation, transparency, & decentralization seems likely to yield better results.

We live in a world where many people are required to waste time working in a job that they don't enjoy. Consumerism is deemed "essential" to the social well being, yet consumerism encourages environmental problems & social marginalization. Instead, we could be working to improve the environment & giving everybody freedom to act on their desires. Instead we celebrate the rich, shame the poor, consume, create wars, plunder the Earth.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: