>I would distinguish between human trafficking which is illegal,

Yes, the trope of every single person in the adult entertainment world or escort world is automatically a victim of human trafficking is quite tired. Yes, it absolutely happens and should be stopped when found, but at the same time, there are people doing this work of their own volition and actually enjoy it.

And the way to stop the trafficking is to make the industry legal, and regulated and the workers in it given protection (like pretty much any other worker - OHSA style).

When you make a demand illegal, it doesn't stop that demand, but instead a black market and exploitation happens around it. Making it legal will stop the crimes, make it possible for the police to patrol and arrest people doing the wrong thing, and provide a way for those exploited to seek help without themselves being exposed to another type of danger.

"What these girls need is a union" --Officer Beatrice Russell, The Wire

Not so sure that making it legal alone will stop trafficking (not saying it shouldn't be legal though). People are trafficked to do legal work all the time, like in nail salons, laundromats, construction, canvasing, etc.

I agree, but I'd like to get back to my original point which is that we should distinguish between human trafficking and normal immigration and outsourcing.

Show me the evidence? In Amsterdam, where this is a thing, a large percentage of the girls are actually trafficked. Of course they deny it, because to accuse a pimp means severe repercussions either for herself or family back home.

I could accuse you of the same thing, if you're saying a large percentage of the girls a.k.a. a majority are trafficked yet they don't report it, how are you coming to that conclusion and getting that data in the first place?

Show me your evidence.

I’m not sure the question is whether legality completely extinguishes a black market for the goods or services in question. After all, there’s still a black market for individual cigarettes (“loosies”) in poor neighborhoods, even though cigarettes remain legal. It’s a question of whether the situation is substantially and incrementally better in those places where the conduct is lawful than where it isn’t. So if there is less trafficking, I’d say that’s a net win.

> And the way to stop the trafficking is to make the industry legal, and regulated and the workers in it given protection... @chii

That's complete horseshit...

Human trafficking isn't just applied to sex workers. Human trafficking happens with butlers, maids, housekeepers, drivers, gardeners, and other house-staff.

Human trafficking is a demand problem not a supply problem. People demand slaves, so a slave market is born; period.

Human trafficking is a: 'Humans Suck', problem. Can't stop human trafficking without curing the 'humans suck' thing.

Doesn't matter the protections in place, they're there already. Doesn't matter about exposure to the issue, we all know it's happening. Doesn't matter the legal repercussions we enact, the penalties are on the books.

Doesn't matter... Humans suck, and there are those who will pay a premium for a literal slave.

Humans suck...

Not all humans suck, obviously.

I think the solution to demand problems is better options. Tiger poaching to sell their balls as boner pills went away with viagra. Viagra worked better than fake animal snake oils.

Domestic robots will solve the human trafficking for domestic slaves as robots will be cheaper and better.

I think there’s also social progress as neither I, nor anyone I know has human trafficked to get a butler or whatnot, but 100 years ago that probably wouldn’t have been true.

I think automation can reduce the dependency on humans but it can't completely eliminate it. People don't use maids because they lack washing machines, microwaves, and food delivery services. The usage of maid service has to do with social customs than it does with actual necessity.

> I think there’s also social progress

Speaking about the US, there's a general aversion to employing people for personal service jobs. Tech workers making 300k can certainly afford a maid who makes 60k, but actively go out of their way to instead employ a variety of people through 'gig' work and 'apps' to do simple tasks. They simply don't want to be seen as employing a maid, but still get all the benefits of having one (via the errand running service).

There's nothing wrong with employing a maid or any personal assistant services.

The problem at hand is _only_ if those people are trafficked, and is not willingly being employed.

So is the grad student paying for her education by stripping. I trust some strippers are independent doing it out of their own will. That's cool, but there's no easy way to tell if they are coerced or not. Few coerced would tell so to a stranger; they obviously have a lot to fear.

So we can prioritize the protection of people forced into sex work at the expanse of willing sex workers, just like we prioritize protecting workers from forced overtime at the expanse of those that are willing to work 24/7 (and like any other work related enforcement, it should be directed at employers, not workers)

As a society we should prioritize the protection of people. I recall how the Swedish police announced at spring a few years ago that they would then stop all further investigation at construction work places because there were so many human trafficking violation at such places that just going to a single construction place would drain the budget to the point that they could do any more human trafficking investigation for the rest of the year.

I suspect the news article was a bit of subtle protest by that police department, but it kind of illustrate how low we as a society is prioritizing protecting workers. Some people in the construction industry has also came out saying that construction as an industry would not function without the cheap labor that human trafficking contribute. It should be a major alarm clock that protecting workers from the most basic of threats, ie threat of violence and/or threats by the employer to not pay the employee. Some of the enforcement should land at the consumer who benefit from the situation, which would require companies to insure against shady subcontractors.

Sweden is a great example for sex work laws: they made it illegal to consume and to pimp, but sex work itself is legal. Which fits with most labor laws: when there's exploitation of labor, it's hardly the workers' fault

Why the random pop at Dubai, one of the safest countries in the world?

I think because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_the_Unite...

Dubai is one of the main places where people from my country emigrate to for servant work. However safe it is in regards to crime, it's not really safer for the immigrant underclass who makes up maidservants and construction workers.

If you have immigrated to a country where you don't speak the language, don't share customs or culture, and your religion is illegal to practice (ergo no social safety net) then it's not particularly 'safe' for you if you have a disagreement with your employer.