In the past, the conception of slavery was widespread, as many nations benefited from free labor. Traditional slavery, which is commonly referred to as chattel slavery, is one of the ways one person has total ownership of another (“My children are just tied down here,” 1863). The other type of slavery is wage one, which is also a form of exploiting free labor (“Elevate us to a free and independent position,” 1831). In this essay, an explanation of why contemporary slavery can be considered the wage one will be provided.
Why Modern-Day Slavery is Akin More to the Wage Slavery
Nowadays, researchers compare the modern-day dependency on financial resources to slavery. Indeed, people fulfill their working duties for only one purpose, to earn resources that maintain their existence. In case those resources obtained are enough only to meet the basic needs, such as food, shelter, security, and others, there is no substantial discrepancy between modern-day and traditional slavery (“My children are just tied down here,” 1863; Zietlow, 2018). In contrast, any human being cannot be legally purchased or sold. Such activities are banned, and an individual cannot be someone’s property by definition (“Elevate us to a free and independent position,” 1831). It makes contemporary slavery to be closer to a wage-related one rather than a chattel one.
In the contemporary world, there is no legal slavery in any form. However, the modern dependency on financial resources makes it evident that most human beings are close to slaves than to independent individuals. It is not possible to buy or sell a person, but they can be given a minimum wage that is enough only to survive. An established state of affairs makes it evident that modern-day slavery is akin more to wage slavery.
Elevate us to a free and independent position. (1831) William J. Brown Looks for Work.
My children are just tied down here. (1863). Washington Spradling Discusses the Condition of Free Blacks in the South.
Zietlow, R. E. (2018). Slavery, liberty, and the right to contract. Nev. LJ, 19, 447.