Slavery is a legal or economic system under which people are treated as property. It has nothing to do with wages. Slaves under ancient Rome could earned wages and sometimes bought themselves out of slavery. In the U.S. for a variety of reasons, including no doubt racism, slaves were treated far worse.

The argument you're making "wage-slavery" is an old one. What is the difference between a slave and someone who earns so little and has so few employment options that he is completely dependent upon his employer?

Or, phrased another way, what good are negative rights, when pragmatically, only what you can do really matters.

Well, pragmatically, empirically, there is a tremendous difference. People allowed the freedom to chose their employment, even at very low wages, systemically tend to rise out of poverty and enjoy better lives. Look at the history of Taiwan for instance. In contrast, systems built on the philosophical underpinnings you defend have plunged people into misery and starvation.

> Slaves under ancient Rome could earned wages and sometimes bought themselves out of slavery.

Not just that, in some cases slaves could actually be better off than some free citizens at the time. Although I doubt this kind of vertical mobility was particularly common.

And of course, absolutely speaking, a first world citizen today living in poverty is still far better off than a rich nobleman a few hundred years ago. It's the unequal distribution we find unfair, not merely the individual situation.

What exactly is it that you didn't understand about the concept that just because something does not fit into your predetermined categories and classification does not make it any less the same effect or outcome. Not matter what shape, form, or process; your type of slavery, underpaying people for work..... it's all exploitation by different names and flavors.

At have been living in China for 8 years, have visited dozens of factories, speak fluently Mandarim and Cantonese, and I have never heard about someone working for 0.5 USD an hour...Actually I saw a salary like that mentioned in my Chinese Language book, but that book was written in the 70's. Vietnan is another story, they may very well work for something like that, but life is much cheap there. All considered, I think the situation in Asia, for the poorest, is much better than in my home South America, and may be better than at US ghettos (there are no guns around here, there is less domestic violence, less addiction, less bullying, less discrimination) I have seen slavery in the deep South America, but not yet in Asia.

Given that most black Africans (AFAIK) were sold into slavery by other Africans, it's not a given that their lives were better in Africa than they were later in America.

Even if that is true, that does not make the forced migration and continued subjugation of slaves in the American South through the 19th century any less deplorable. Slavery is slavery. Your implicit acceptance of the "lesser of two evils" for something as serious as slavery is disturbing. We aren't even talking about the "hidden" conditions of working poor in foreign countries, we are talking about institutions that have visible cultural, economic, and social ramifications in present day America.

EDIT: I hate to use Wikipedia [0] as a substitute for substantive discussion, but your point seems to toe the line of being a false dilemma. The power/money elite in both the 19th century and the 21st century clearly have more options then just: leaving slaves in Africa/having very bad working conditions in Asian fields and farms on one hand, and bringing slaves to America/having marginally better working conditions in Asian factories, on the other hand.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

>disturbing

Be disturbed then. It's possible, and in my view necessary, to rationally compare two non-optimal alternatives, even if an even better alternative is both possible and probable. As Aristotle allegedly said, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." And discussing a concept doesn't imply accepting/endorsing it.

While one might be able to give a fair and balanced take on "non-optimal alternatives," I frankly believe that a bad idea, or at least bad historiography, doesn't deserve a very big seat at the table of discussion. You paint the argument as a contrast of two, and walk away from the conversation: that's not a very rational, nor fair, comparison.

...while we are quoting Aristotle:

"Since then some men are slaves by nature, and others are freemen, it is clear that where slavery is advantageous to any one, then it is just to make him a slave." [0]

Clearly "entertaining thoughts without accepting them" isn't enough on it's own to lead to sound, just and fair policy-making or historical narratives.

[0] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm#link2H...

You should probably be going on more than just AFAIK. The Atlantic Slave Trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa#Atlantic_slav... was a complex issue that evolved economically as a consequence of agriculture demands.

It was also partially a race/tribe issue. White people like to forget that "blacks" actually aren't simply one big homogeneous group, especially not in Africa -- neither ethnically nor culturally. Just look at the Rwandan massacre for an example of ethnic clashes.