And it was forced to slavery by the same people who took that job out of seas. Greed has no bottom.

Exactly. What you need are systems architected in such a way to stop greed and its nasty effects.

Yeah but just think of the value being created for shareholders and consumers! /s

And remember, the company only has a duty to its shareholders to be more greedy!

If you call indentured servitude slavery, you're not helping - it just lessens the dynamic range of language.

It sure doesn't help actual slaves.

> If you call indentured servitude slavery

You’re being perfectly accurate; indentured servitude is consistent with both historical understandings of slavery and modern legal definitions; it was certainly distinct from the particular form of chattel slavery that was popular for a few hundred years and fell out of fashion in thr 19th century, and it is useful to be able to distinguish them since they overlapped in time and space, but that particular form of slavery was not the historically dominant form, itself, and it doesn’t make sense to narrow the definition to that particular form.

While, certainly, that form of chattel slavery was the most immediate concern for, say, American abolitionists, I think they would see it as badly missing the point and not actually abolishing slavery if indentured servitude had been restored to replace chattel slavery.

Yup, not the dominant form.

However I found a curious tidbit the other day; the 1619 ship had indentured servants not slaves. Not to belittle their plight, as they were de facto slaves as soon as they got on the ship.

American abolitionists very much understood that chattel slavery wasn't the only form of slavery. The text of the 13th amendment indicates as much.

Words have meaning, and the meaning of "slavery" is not "a bad situation". Slavery is alive and well in the world, but this story has nothing to do with it.

They appointed him as a forced custodian and imprisoned him on a boat for 4 years by way of forcing him to be its guardian. That is slavery. Could he quit? Did he have any rights or freedoms while in his situation?

American manufacturing was shipped overseas because, i.e. after, American labor was unable to compete. I'm not sure what "corporate trade agreements" means either; corporations don't make "trade agreements".

I'm also not sure why everyone takes for granted that America not having as many manufacturing jobs is a bad thing...

You mean paid labor couldn’t compete on price with slaves? Color me shocked.

Yes, but also the standard of living in the US that American labor can't really compete on price with anyone.

Manufacturing is like a ladder. When you outsource the bottom, it’s no different than cutting the rungs of a ladder beneath you. Manufacturing is essential to the wealth and prosperity of any nation.

Source? Reasoning? No? So we're back where we started, thanks.

The Source is WW1 and WW2. Germany was the world powerhouse in production not population. Their ability to out manufacture their neighboring countries lead to some pretty horrible things.