There are now more slaves in the world than at any point in history
foreignpolicy.com
foreignpolicy.com
It seems (to me) that any attempt to stop it would require two economic prerequisites: a value of labor high enough to support a living wage and economic apparatus that made employment gainable through a regular mechanism (like a corporation). To clarify the first point, by living wage I mean a wage that someone can live independently on, not some notion of cable TV and a Honda for all. The second point is that employment must be available in a way that normal people can find and attain it. For example, in the US I can look through want ads, interview with a corporation, and while it might be hard in a down economy it is possible to attain.
If the value of labor is such that it doesn't produce the value needed to gain a living wage, slavery becomes too easy. People won't fight it enough because they don't have another option. If a government is so corrupt and unstable, even subsistence farming can be unworkable. Likewise, depending on the land and water, subsistence farming can be unworkable. In the US, the value of labor is very high for various reasons: stable government, lots of capital goods for labor to use, good education, etc. In some places, the value of labor can be so depressed by factors like those that it becomes difficult to get an independent living. For example, if you try farming and corruption abounds, you might have your food stolen by thugs to the point that you're starving. Labor becomes something you can't subside on.
Likewise, in many places, corporations don't want to do business. There are plenty of places that aren't up to the standard of the US or Europe that nonetheless are stable enough to reasonably do business in. For example, Egypt has a pretty high corruption level, but you don't expect street thugs to dominate the economy. You can't do business in some areas unless you're willing to be a corporate quasi-governmental organization and that costs a huge amount of money. In fact, corruption really becomes a scale and as corruption rises, the value of labor drops because a lot of the value that labor produces goes into buying protection and paying bribes.
Of course, attaining both of those are hard things to do. I'm hesitant to suggest any course because I don't know that one has ever been successful. As much as we complain (wherever we are in our computer connected world) about the crap we have to deal with, we're very lucky.
* A slave is a human being forced to work through fraud or threat of violence for no pay beyond subsistence.*
What makes you think they aren't being consistent with this definition?
Note that tinkering with the definition is unlikely to change the conclusion, just because human population is so much larger than it used to be. As this World Population Clock points out, estimates of the total number of humans born since 50,000 BC are around 110 billion, and 6.7 billion are alive today. Seven percent of all the humans who have ever lived are alive now:
http://www.worldometers.info/population/
Does this make modern slavery less of a moral outrage? Not really. Those slaves really exist. You can't ameliorate the suffering of a slave just by adding more non-slaves to the population at the same time.
Say I employ someone for a week, then, come their payday I disappear without paying them. By the definition above, they're a slave. But while my behaviour would be dispicable, I don't think most people would call such a situation slavery. So I don't think the definition is a good one.
Between the sale of Haitian children for $50, the barter of teen sex slaves for used cars in Romania, and the generations of quarry slaves in India, it seems like we can put aside the argument over whether we're talking about slaves. They're slaves. Let's move on.
Therefore: flagged.
There might be a karma gain from posting this stuff over here, but really there is very little real gain.
Current reaction: if we can't flag something before it generates interesting comments, we should let it go. Seems a shame to kill an article that has already generated a discussion.
Look, I agree: this wasn't Hacker News. Not my point. There should be a "mechanical_fish" rule: if you can't kill not-Hacker-News before mechanical_fish comments, you live with the topic on Hacker News.
I like the system as it is.
I think this article was fine.
Yes, I read this article on Reddit before submitting here. But as far as your assertion:
> not quite sure how it's hacker-news material though
I disagree. One of the first questions that came to my mind, and is indeed very similar to the top comment for this article, is the following: how can the world be hacked, perhaps through startups, so that slavery becomes ineffective?
If an article inspires those kinds of questions, how does it not belong on Hacker News?
You can't solve all the world's problems with technology. And this one is also one that requires good old-fashioned human work.
You're right in a general sense: x and y aren't the solution to everything, for any value of x or y.
However, you're wrong in this particular sense: if you would've read the article, you'd have seen that groups are combating slavery by offering microloans to former slaves to start businesses. So, entrepreneurship can be a solution, in part, to slavery.