Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lyn Farel]

Since the fact that the Caldari find the practice of slavery inefficient economically has been added to PF, it seems that a lot of Caldari players and more generally a lot of players use that as a fact.

I am far from being an economist so I may be mistaken here, but I do not really understand what makes them believe so. How is a slave less efficient than a paid worker ? I say, it can be less efficient, but it can also be more efficient. Why would we still be using slavery in a lot of countries IRL if that was not efficient ? Why would the previous ages, from Antiquity to XIXth century, resort to it as well, and so widely ? Religion is not the only factor at play, and has not even been considered by some civilizations still widely using it.

I have rarely seen the argument that slaves do not participate in the market since they do not have the power to consume products and thus, do not take part in the global economy. But they still have to be paid for their living, like any worker, by their masters. Their masters consume for them. Some might say that slaves barely need a couch and a few bits of food so that's not much compared to the needs of a paid worker. And yet, a lot of paid workers do not have lives more comfortable than slaves themselves, so their buying power is not really better. And we also have rich slaves, or slaves living in luxury, in the equation, that may account for a lot of money like any rich worker does.

But when you want to be efficient as an employer, you generally don't pay your average base worker much, the same way low end slaves are only afforded the bare minimum to live. Honestly, I have a hard time seeing the difference in terms of efficiency.

I would argue that it's even more efficient to have slaves (like in Antiquity) when you just need basic manpower. If you need more manpower because your own is limited in number, you go invade your neighbors and abduct what you need.

So, yes, I am a little confused about that PF bit.

[lallara zhuul]

The Caldari find the practice of slavery inefficient economically.

That is a subjective point of view that does not make it an objective Truth.

The Gallente find slavery objectionable because of moral reasons.

The Minmatar do not like slavery because they are the ones being enslaved.

I think the Caldari point of view on slavery comes from the idea that automated production is more efficient than one where there is an actual workforce doing the production.

What this point of view does not take into account is the fact that you need serious infrastructure in place to create the automated production facilities where ever you build them.

Slaves are a very mobile workforce that adapts into any situation without the need of creating complex infrastructure to sustain them.

Where a factory needs massive amounts of power, technology, education and resources to build, a workshop full of slaves pretty much runs on food, beds and guns.

[Lyn Farel]

Well yes, that's a good answer I think. That's just not really explained in PF, thus my question in the first place.

[Jev North]

It's really quite basic; slavery fails economically because it's a zero-sum game; one person becomes richer literally to the amount he can extract labor from another. Fair economic exchange is a non-zero-sum game.

Which do you think can generate more value - a thousand laborers under the whip, forced to minimize their own consumption, or a thousand people each trying to maximize their own happiness? Even if nine-hundred-ninety-nine end up being day-laborers with barely more production or better conditions, if even one of them has a bright idea or talent she can use to make some money by saving the rest time, effort or hardship, they will be collectively better off.

[Lyn Farel]

The fair economic exchange is still done between non slaves.

[Jev North]

Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.

[Gesakaarin]

I think it's because the Caldari methods of production focus on maximum automation of their manufacturing. It is in fact more efficient just to have an automated factory mass producing and assembling products with a small crew of engineers overseeing the process and acting as redundancy in case of failure. Why hire five thousand people for a factory when you can just have an automatic assembly line and hire five people to take care of it? This works in the State because it has a small population (Need to maximize the potential productivity of every citizen to keep up) which is generally well educated (They have to be in order to maximize their potential productivity) and which has built up the infrastructure required to support the sort of high-tech industry the State is engaged in.

What it doesn't take into account is that such factories are extremely expensive to build and the initial investments can be huge (Some of the microchip factories today cost from billions to tens of billions to build) and if they fail because no one buys the product the company can take quite a hit to its bottom line.

What slavery offers the Empire I think is lower initial costs to produce goods than in the State or Federation since instead of throwing money at the problem you can just throw people at it. That industry is probably also far less centralized without the sort of "Mega Factories" State or Fed companies invest in so there's less breakdowns in the supply chains in case of a failure in one part of its industrial web since they're likely spread out in small to medium size factories dotted all over the Empire.

Where that system fails however is that you can't throw slaves at problems in industry requiring real knowledge, expertise and training up to a point, and that's why the Empire finds its relationship with the State so fruitful because they are purchasing that knowledge, expertise, and training required to stay competitive technologically and industrially against others in the cluster.

Something like that I guess.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

I seem to recall a classical Roman writer objected to slavery because free men would disdain useful occupations as being "slave's work" and beneath them. He felt that slavery encouraged idleness amongst the plebians, not to mention a lack of work for them.

I'm not enough of a classical scholar to know who he was though.

[Lyn Farel]

Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.

Yes but no in my opinion, since slaves are mostly taken from neighbors (Reclaiming, etc). Which means they are technically not part of your base demographics, much like in non slaver entities where automation is needed for such tasks when possible.

Of course though, this has changed heavily since the Amarr Empire can not take slaves outside anymore. Which makes the slavery situation a lot less... profitable, indeed. Which could incidentaly explain also why the Amarr are eager to buy technology from the Caldari for example, to compensate that lack of base labor manpower.

Not sure with the New Reclaiming if that's back to the old days or not, though.

I think it's because the Caldari methods of production focus on maximum automation of their manufacturing. It is in fact more efficient just to have an automated factory mass producing and assembling products with a small crew of engineers overseeing the process and acting as redundancy in case of failure. Why hire five thousand people for a factory when you can just have an automatic assembly line and hire five people to take care of it? This works in the State because it has a small population (Need to maximize the potential productivity of every citizen to keep up) which is generally well educated (They have to be in order to maximize their potential productivity) and which has built up the infrastructure required to support the sort of high-tech industry the State is engaged in.

What it doesn't take into account is that such factories are extremely expensive to build and the initial investments can be huge (Some of the microchip factories today cost from billions to tens of billions to build) and if they fail because no one buys the product the company can take quite a hit to its bottom line.

What slavery offers the Empire I think is lower initial costs to produce goods than in the State or Federation since instead of throwing money at the problem you can just throw people at it. That industry is probably also far less centralized without the sort of "Mega Factories" State or Fed companies invest in so there's less breakdowns in the supply chains in case of a failure in one part of its industrial web since they're likely spread out in small to medium size factories dotted all over the Empire.

Where that system fails however is that you can't throw slaves at problems in industry requiring real knowledge, expertise and training up to a point, and that's why the Empire finds its relationship with the State so fruitful because they are purchasing that knowledge, expertise, and training required to stay competitive technologically and industrially against others in the cluster.

Something like that I guess.

Yes, I agree and have a similar view, however we should not forget that even the Amarr Empire or the Minmatar Republic have their own high tech and mass production plants. I really doubt that Imperial Armaments, the Imperial Navy, Carthum and Viziam build their ships only with the bare hands of their slaves, Goa'uld style. They should also have their own expensive production factories. Maybe not as automatized as a Caldari or especially a Gallente one would tend to be, but still with a lot of robotics and :productionstuff:.

I also am pretty sure that the Amarr Empire is only realizing that their technology used in everyday lives could use some of what they can find in the neighborhood, like the Caldari state. Thus why they invest heavily in it.

But they are not backwards either. They have their own military high tech, their leading companies on implant tech, etc.

[Jev North]

Yes, and that's lovely, but it still means that you're in a worse situation than one in which everyone was doing it.

Yes but no in my opinion, since slaves are mostly taken from neighbors (Reclaiming, etc). Which means they are technically not part of your base demographics, much like in non slaver entities where automation is needed for such tasks when possible.

Well, yes; if you view slaves as a resource, rather than a part of your society. Which, from an economic point of view, is akin to thinking the minerals you mine are free; technically true, but does not take into account the fact that you could be more wealthy, individually and as a whole, if you'd organize things differently.

Another angle may be helpful - which group of people would you think would be more productive as a whole: one of two thousand where everyone is free to contribute or consume as best they can manage, or one of a thousand slaves and a thousand freemen, where there's a fifty percent chance for everyone that no matter your talents or preferences, you'll be pickin' cotton?

[Lyn Farel]

That's precisely where I do not agree. Taking into account that the average worker and the average slave produce the same wealth, then be it 1000 free workers contributing and consuming, or 10 slavers with 100 slaves each, the 10 slavers contributing and consuming, that is more or less the same to me. Since the 10 slavers will have the cumulated wealth of 100 each.

I would tend to agree if the slaver was alone and had nobody to trade with.

[ArtOfLight]

I'm by no means an expert on the issue, but I would echo the automation thing as being probably the first and foremost reason.

Another thing to consider would be task force specialization. In an employment model, an individual can pursue employment suited to their aptitudes and interests, in a slavery model the position of the slave is determined by the will of the overseer and the need of the "business." The individual placed into such a position may not be the best to fill the position. You then have the fact that one person (the Holder) is in charge of overseeing all production and task assignment, which is inherently less efficient than letting individuals pursue their own strengths.

[Jev North]

That's exactly what I'm getting at, Malcolm; the point is that people aren't completely interchangeable. If there a slave around who's moderately better at gold-filligreeing cathedrals than the Amarrian commoner who holds the job, and that commoner'd be about as efficient picking cotton as the slave - that's waste, right there.

On top of that, you get the overhead of controlling slaves - dismissed earlier as "cheap," but even a few percent of overhead are killing in that regard -- someone who is guarding slaves, where from an economic perspective those could as well be low-paid workers needing no more encouragement than a paycheck, is literally wasting their life.

On top of that, you have the problem that austerity tends to decrease total wealth and productivity, rather than the other way around. Slaves eating gruel and not being allowed any luxuries means there's a lot of potential Amarrian toy-makers and restaurant chefs out of a job.

[Horatius Caul]

Hmmm... interesting topic.

I think the Caldari economy is structured around the vast majority of the population being able to spend its own money. When new technological gadgets or premium holo-channels are launched, there is a massive middle class that can spend money on those things, giving profits to the companies and letting them turn a profit. Even the lowest of classes in the State will be gambling and buying drugs, feeding a peripheral economic system. That's not the case with the Empire.

If a massive chunk of the Empire's working population doesn't have purchasing power, there may never be much of a mass market economy developed. If the only people with the money to buy computers and cars are nobles, there will never be a push to create more efficient and cheaper computers and cars - only bigger and more powerful ones. That means that entire sectors of technological development simply never enter the economy.

There's also the "trickle-down economy" problem, in that it doesn't work. Wealthy people don't spend money - that's why they are wealthy. If you give $100 to a poor family they will spend it - they have to spend it, because they probably have bills to pay. If you give $100 to a rich family, they might just put it in the bank. It's more expensive to be poor, because you can't afford things that last. You can't afford credit, and you can't afford insurance. That means that you become an excellent market entity - spending every dime you earn, feeding the economy. A person who buys a pair of $70 boots that last for 10 years will contribute less to the economy than someone who has to buy a pair of $10 shoes every year.

A slaver might take 99% of the wealth his slaves produce, but he's only going to spend 50% of that.

A Caldari employer might take 20% of the wealth his employees produce, but not only is he going to reinvest most of that, his employees are also almost guaranteed to spend their 80% buying things.

Also, reliance on slavery forces you to stick to simple outdated methods of labour simply because they are easy to oversee and measure, and in denying a large amount of people education you are potentially missing out on brilliant scientists and engineers who could spur invention (which in turn drives the economy).

tl;dr: Slavery favours the rich elite who do not necessarily drive the economy, whereas a free market with high purchasing power in the populace puts more money into actual circulation. It also spurs other fields of technology and innovation, which will stop the economy from stagnating.

PS: the irony is, of course, that it was the Empire that had to bail out the State when it ran out of money.

[Gottii]

Part of the problem is the inherent problem of people not wanting to be slaves.  Puts a limit on the kinds of work a slave can do, and the kind of skills a slaveholder would want to teach a slave.

If you train a slave to be technically savvy and literate, youre often training a future insurgent, not a slave.  Its not by accident that teaching a slave to read was a crime in many slave holding countries.