I have been reading a book about the escalating forms of slavery throughout
the world and its relationship to the world population crisis and global
capital.
*Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy* by Kevin Bales,
Bales estimates there are now 27 million people in forms of debt bondage, and
contract slavery mostly in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, some Arab
states, Brazin, but virtually everywhere in the world. The numbers are rising
rapidly, in agriculture, mining, factories, sex trade, domestic service.
"Government corruption, plus the vast increase in the number of people and
their ongoing impoverishment has let to the "new" slavery. For the first time
in human history there is an absolute glut ofpotential slaves. It is a
dramatic illustration of the laws of supply and demand; with so many possible
slaves, their value has plummeted. Slaves are now so cheap thaat they have
become cost-effective in many new kinds of work, completely changing how they
are seen and used. Today slaves cost so little that it is notworththehassleof
securing permanent, "legal" ownership. Slaves are disposable.
Today most slaves are temporary; some aare enslaves for only a few months, it
is simply not profitable to keep them when they are not immediately useful,
medicine costs money, and it's cheaper to let them die.
Although slavery has always existed, Bales distinguishes between the historic
more paternalistic, "old" slavery and the "new" slavery conforming to modern
global capitalism.
Old Slavery: legal ownership asserted
high purchase cost
low profits
shortage of potential slaves
long-term relationship
slaves maintained, medical care given
ethnic differences important
New Slavery
legal ownership avoided
very low purchase cost
very high profits
surplus of potential slaves
short-term relationship
slaves disposable
ethnic differences not important
In Tailand a girl between twelve and fifteen can be purchased for $800 and the
costs of running a brothel are relatively low. The profit is often as high as
800 percent. This kind of return can be made for five or ten years, when she
becomes HIV positive she is thrown out. Agricultural bonded laborers, after
an initial loan of $50 (for food, medicine, etc.)
generate up to 100 percent net profit for the slaveholders.
Bales estimates the total yearlyprofit world wide at $13 billion directly,
but the "indirect value is much greater". Slavery lowers a factory's
productioncosts, these savings can be pased upthe economic stream, ultimately
reaching shops of Europeand NorthAmerica as lowerprices or higher profits for
retailers. And slavery as an international economic activity reverberates
through the world economy in ways harder to escape. Workers making computer
parts or televisions in India can be paid low wages in part because food
produced by slave labor is so cheap. This lowers the cost of the goods they
make, and factories unableto compete with their prices close in North America
and Euorpe. Slave labor (which corrupt governments support) threatens real
jobs everywhere.
Michael Gurstein wrote:
> One thing seems to be overlooked in the "end of work" argument--both
> pro and con. While the evidence is still unclear as to whether
> there is a net positive or negative impact of technology on the number of
> jobs, there seems little doubt that technology is having a significant
> impact on the manner and form of work and in this way on the nature of at
> least some jobs.
>
> How much impact and how many jobs are so impacted isn't, it's true, clear
> but the old industrial work structures with master/slave authority
> systems, repetitive and clearly definable/delimitable tasks, continuity of
> work organization, stability of job content, and so on and so on has for
> many disappeared and is for very many others disappearing. I won't put an
> evaluation on it... for many it is an improvement for many others it's a
> step back but for most it appears inevitable.
>
> I have a feeling, in response to the "End of Work" argument, that we may
> only be seeing the end of "jobs" as we have known them and not the end of
> "work" and in fact, the transformation in the nature of "jobs" may be such
> as to increase the number of those "employed" while decreasing their
> security, stability, continuity, and so on.
>
> If this is the case, then the End of Work argument is not only a bit of a
> red herring but also a diversion from the task of determining how the new
> type of "employment" can or should be regulated, and what sort of safety
> net/transition programs makes sense in the context of rapidly emerging
> fluid, speedy, contractual, self-defining, skill/knowledge intensive,
> job structures.
>
> Mike Gurstein
