This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024, JAB wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:36:29 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
There are advanced and profound economic papers that prove that the slave
owners would in fact be better off without slaves, and with workers.
that prove
Bullshit comes in many dialects, but previous US southerns would
oppose this view.
===========
They were not very good economoists.
AI Overview
Yes, slave owners profited from the slave trade and slavery in the
United States:
Wealth
Enslaved people were the most significant investment for Southern planters, and the bulk of their wealth. The profits from slavery made
the South the most prosperous region of the country
I did not say they did not profit, I said they would have been better off
with salaried workers than with slaves.
Economics proves this.
Even your own friendly AI agrees.
Analysis of Economic Viability: Salaried Workers vs. Slavery on Southern Plantations
To determine whether southern plantation owners would have been better off
with salaried workers instead of slaves, we need to analyze several
economic factors, including productivity, costs, labor incentives, and the broader economic context of the antebellum South.
1. Cost Structure of Slave Labor vs. Paid Labor
The primary advantage of slave labor was that it provided a source of
unpaid labor. Plantation owners did not pay wages; instead, they incurred
costs related to the maintenance and control of enslaved individuals.
These costs included food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and
enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance and productivity. However,
these costs could be substantial over time.
In contrast, salaried workers would require regular wage payments. While
this might seem like a higher immediate cost compared to slavery, it is essential to consider the long-term implications. Paid workers typically
have greater incentives to work efficiently since their compensation is directly tied to their productivity. This can lead to increased output per worker compared to enslaved individuals who may lack motivation beyond
fear of punishment.
2. Productivity and Incentives
Economic theory suggests that paid laborers are often more productive than enslaved workers due to intrinsic motivation and personal investment in
their work outcomes. Free workers are motivated by the need to provide for themselves and their families, which can lead them to work harder and more efficiently than slaves who may only respond to external pressures.
Moreover, innovations in agricultural practices during the 19th century
were beginning to favor more skilled labor that could adapt quickly to new techniques or technologies—something that enslaved individuals were less
able or incentivized to do due to their status.
3. Technological Advancements and Economic Context
By the mid-19th century, technological advancements were changing
agricultural practices significantly. The introduction of machinery in
farming required a different skill set that paid workers could provide
more readily than enslaved individuals who had limited opportunities for
skill development.
Additionally, as noted by various economists and historians studying this period, the economic landscape was shifting towards a capitalist model
where wage labor was becoming increasingly dominant in the North. This
shift indicated a broader trend where reliance on slave labor was becoming economically untenable in comparison with free labor systems that were
emerging elsewhere.
4. Long-Term Sustainability
From an economic perspective, relying solely on slave labor posed
significant risks for plantation owners in terms of sustainability. As
societal norms began shifting towards abolitionism and as economic
pressures mounted from both domestic and international markets favoring
free labor systems (e.g., Northern states), plantation owners faced
potential instability.
If plantation owners had transitioned earlier to a system based on
salaried workers or sharecropping models (which emerged post-Civil War),
they might have mitigated some risks associated with social upheaval while
also adapting more flexibly to changing market demands.
Conclusion: Comparative Economic Viability
In conclusion, while southern plantation owners initially benefited from
the low direct costs associated with slavery, modern economic theory
suggests that they would likely have been better off transitioning toward
a system based on salaried workers due to enhanced productivity
incentives, adaptability in agricultural practices through skilled
laborers, and long-term sustainability within an evolving economic
landscape.
Thus, southern plantation owners would likely have been better off with salaried workers instead of slaves, considering both immediate
productivity gains and long-term economic viability.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)