Does it cost less to "employ" someone on minimum wage, than it did to keep a slave?

Answer 1

Absolutley! Slaves were given medical care as well as housing...minimum wage earners can'r afford both. With slavery, they were considered property, and unfortunately, many treat their property better than they treat other human beings...and seek protections for their property over protection for the people. Good question!

Answer 2

No - slaves are cheaper. Ask an Arab or African. Some of them are still getting nailed here in the U.S. for keeping personal slaves.

Daily cost for min.wage laborer worked to the brink of legality: $191.25 - Let's work the fry man 365 days a year - 18 hour days - just like a slave would be worked - $69K per year.

So, take the moral argument out of it - can you keep and feed your personal slave for less than $191.25 a day? Better yet, half that amount (it is a little fierce, I don't see someone working someone 18/day/year - $95/day?

Consider:
Slave works for $0, 18 hrs/day, no breaks.

Min. wage gets 6 hours steady time off as well. (In that other 18 hours, assume .5 hours travel, .5 hours unpaid meal break. 17 hours paid - 8 @ 7.50 (WA, about to become national), 9 @ 11.25- $161.25/day for 17 hours paid.

Payroll taxes at approximately 50% of base wage set: $30

This doesn't count any benefits, and in actuality, divide the cost number by 1/2 (you really can't work a slave or a worker that much).

Answer 3

Well yes that is what brought on the civil war, the slaves were being cared far better the economic salves of the north were working conditions were very harsh with long hours and child labor. A propaganda program was started against the south in order to keep a rebellion from starting in the north, so the slaves of the north were made to feel they were much better off being just an economic slaves. This propaganda program worked and is still working.

Answer 4

It costs considerably more to keep a slave than to employ someone for even decent wages. This is why very few slaves were used in building the nations early rail system. If you kill or injure an Irishman it costs you nothing, if you injure a slave it costs you for the rest of his life!

Answer 5

Sure. can you imagine having to pay for medical, housing, food, entertainment to all these minimum wage workers? That's why only the rich owned slaves. Which is pretty close to the truth yet today.

Answer 6

First, I find it interesting that if minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it'd be over $13/hour. The answer is probably yes, as slave owners had to provide housing, food, etc.

Answer 7

much less as health care housing food, clothing all went out towards a slave, then ther is the ocassional love child from a slave one must hide and support, so minium wage is a far better deal

Answer 8

yes, because you only have to provide a slave with food and shelter to keep them alive. But minimum wage immigrants are able to live with food and shelter and also send money back to mexico.

You make a good point! Maybe we should keep illegals as slaves!

Answer 9

without getting into the morals - slaves that were well treated were not cheap to purchase or to own - the advantage was having dependable labor 24/7 that you could assign to any task that needed done

and labor slaves are still out there all you have to do to get your own is PAY MORE WAGES AND BENEFITS than your competitors

Answer 10

Yes the slave had full benefits, the minimum wage employee has none. The government didn't subsidize slavery with with health care, childcare, food stamps, etc.