When some historian looked at it they found that on average a serf of a French baron say 700 years ago worked less than 40 hours per week on average. Perhaps even less than 30. And there was no commute. David Graeber in his «Dawn of everything» discussed that.
David Graeber is the one who wrote this:
"Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other’s garages"
And I'm guessing his knowledge of what happened 700 years ago is going to be much less accurate than his knowledge of times he lived through.
I’m very good friends with a medievalist professor. Something they said to me recently was interesting. Today, most medievalists don’t really like the term “feudalism” and instead see serfdom as an extension of Roman slave systems. Not chattel slavery, but definitely not a mutually agreed upon and beneficial economic relationship. I’m not so sure that “serfs didn’t actually work all that much” is aligned with current consensus.
You think that saying “I’m a modern day slave” will garner you sympathy. In reality it makes you look like a muppet.
There’s actual slavery and human trafficking still happening today by the way. These people aren’t helped in any way by you clawing for sympathy.
"You’re not compelled to offer your services to any particular employer." But you are compelled to offer your services to an employer, whose ways of working are almost all similar to each other. And it's not like you have infinite choice.
Is it really a choice to move alone somewhere else just to find a decent employer, but sacrifice friends, family, and so on?
Is it really a choice not to work and become homeless, a social outcast?
Is it really a choice to be an entrepreneur, in such a competitive environment that most startups fail, and you need considerable savings to sustain yourself in case of bad times?
Is it really a choice to find such a unicorn of employer that fits a modern day humans needs for privacy, sense of autonomy, sense of progression, good work-life-balance, good compensation, good responsible manager who doesn't micromanage (...), when most employers (have to) follow the same corporativistic mindset to get as most profits as possible out of employees in order to survive in an extremely competitive enviornment?
Is there really a choice when you have children to take care of, a mortgage and are just too tired or barely have any time whatsoever to look for jobs or invest time into your own startup?
Should I continue?
Where is the choice? Where is it?
People are not bound by physical means with the threat of death. Sure. But if you can't see other more subtle and equally powerful binds, then you're blind.
So yes, this is the modern equivalent slavery, in short - modern slavery - and please you stop.
And it still exists, so the modern equivalent of slavery is still slavery.
What you are talking about is the social obligations of being part of civilization. Yes, there is no free lunch. We must all work to live unless someone else is willing to foot the bill for us. But if that is slavery, then literally everyone in the world with a job is a slave and the word loses its meaning.
If a situation fits for 80% and there is no other single word that better describes it, i see you would just do nothing and leave a clearly wrong situation in confusion and undefined. People need a word and a clarity of meaning to rally behind it. Slavery fits really well, even if some things don't fit the historical original definition of it. If you can come up with a better fitting word, be my guest, otherwise please don't stand in the way while people are trying to raise awareness for the tragic lack of freedom that so many of us experience.
What I understand from your post, is that you want access to opportunities without making any sacrifices. It's an interesting discussion topic on its own. But the opposite of it is not slavery.
With how your health insurance depends on employment in the US, I kind of have the opposite impression that people actually do work under threat of physical harm; or violence, in other words, not unlike the working conditions of a slave.
You want some things that are available for money and need a way of getting money. That is very far from slavery. Every day you can choose to with or not, and what you want to work on.
1. You want to not be compelled to do any work to meet your daily needs.
2. You aren’t prepared to be self sufficient so you also want others to render goods and services to you, for presumably no charge.
Are these contradictory? If work was optional for everyone, why would they work and give you goods and services for free?
Sure maybe in future everything can be automated away but right now do you think it’s reasonable to want to do no work and also not want to be self sufficient?
A strong word better carry a stronger metaphor. No matter the framing, you are
- it is a choice to move alone somewhere, that is a chocie many make for college and post-college work
- it is a choice to be homeless. Not a comfortable choice, but a choice to make
- it is a choice to TRY to be an entrepreneur, but success is never promised when your job is to convince other people to give you money (which is THEIR choice).
- it is a choice to spend your time expecting perfection. Again, you are making a choice contingent on someone else's choice, success is not guaranteed.
- it's not an easy choice, but children can be given to others if you cannot provide care, and mortgages can be sold if you cannot afford payments. You not having the time/money to make your own company (which is a RISKY endeavor, and always has been) does not entitle you to free money.
I don't see how any of these relate to being a slave. Or even a minority/woman 100 years ago in the US. They didn't even have the option to work most places, let alone start up a business. homes would deny them for not being white or not having a man to backup expenditures. Still a step up from slavery, but still very much restricted because of who they are, not due to life factors they want to maintain (they had few to begin with).
So no, I don't see the slavery metaphor here as a valid one to make. There is more than one type of slavery, but we're in an american website. so you would basically need to very specifically frame your form of "slavery" if you're going outside what people commonly associate it with.
But if you do not participate in the system of employment, you will either be left to the mercy of others or die of starvation. Even if you own land which you farm and make all of your own stuff, hunt your own food - you will still have to work for someone else by selling them stuff you farmed, made or hunted yourself so that you can pay property taxes.
Modern capitalism is a world-encroaching system of slavery, made necessary by scarcity (mostly of land).
Capitalism is the opposite of slavery, you control who you sell to, work for, buy from.
But I do agree property tax is theft. Less taxes, smaller government, more capitalism.
To continue the analogy, isn’t the jailer/warden also a prisoner? He too is stuck in the prison, perhaps for different reasons but stuck nonetheless.
Choice is what prisoners and slaves don’t have, and we have plenty of both.
This reminds me of unvaxxed people pinning yellow stars to liken the situation that they cant visit cinema to holocaust
Focusing on the context of this article specifically, what makes you think that workers of a company worth 1.78 trillion dollars are slaves?
Here's what modern day slavery looks like: "Harassed, insulted and raped – that is everyday for thousands of women working in tomato and strawberry fields of Spain, Italy and Morocco. The vegetables and fruits they harvest are sold in German supermarkets and all over Europe".
The word cannot either have been misused as people have subsequently expended great energy defending its use.