Replies

Oddly, the labor market is one of the more interesting aspects of the WBTS that receives little attention here at FR. Of couse, this is a political website, so I suppose it makes sense that people would dwell on those aspects.

It is fair to say that slavery was an inhibitor to capitalist economic development in the South, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. The removal of incentive for achievement for more than a third of the Southern population would have slowed economic development considerably (imo).

Labor is a commodity item, as much as we all hate to admit it. Putting aside the moral abomination, slavery would best be described as purchased labor vs labor for hire. In the latter, there is incentive for achievement (entrepenuership) on the part of the laboror, and incentive for retention of labor on the part of employers. These are missing from the slave economy, as the preclusion of betterment for the slave inhibits his willingness to achieve.

I'll readily admit that I haven't looked at this very carefully (if someone can recommend any good resources, let 'em fly), but an interesting study would be comparison of the working conditions North vs. South prior to the war. While the North operated on a market-labor principle, the influx of immigrant labor (read: disposable laborers) had caused working conditions to deteriorate significantly for unskilled workers - who comprised the bulk of the Northern workforce. Employers had no need to insure worker safety or satisfaction because for every factory worker who collapsed, there were ten more waiting to fill his place.

The influx of freed slaves into an economy that already had a surplus of labor did not aid in improving worker conditions, and the results of further expansion of an already oversupplied labor force meant continued hardship for those rail workers on the Western frontier. Now that I think about it, it's not obvious to me when the turnaround in labor supply occurred to bring about better working conditions, or what event triggered it.

A recent Nobel Prize winner at my former University, Professor Fogelman, studied the Slave labor markets. Looking for some of his writing might answer some of those questions.

Some slave systems actually allowed incentives and slaves became rich. Rome is an example. There are even examples of slaves in America developing some talent which allowed them to earn money and buy their own freedom.

However, the negative effect on the economy of the South was not limited to the slaves themselves. It also distorted the conditions under which poor whites labored since they had to compete with the slaves. Over-investment in slaves caused the capital available for non-slave workers to be severely restricted and thus, meant lower wages for them than their northern counterparts for whom there was far more capital available.

Most would agree that conditions for a minimum existence were better for slaves. Their owners had an incentive to keep them alive and, as a consequence, when dangerous work had to be done, such as draining swamps or building railroads, owners would not send their slaves to do it. They hired the expendable people, the Irish and Chinese, whose deaths would not cost them anything.

However, compared to the rest of the world, the normal condition in America was scarcity of Labor not surplus. Conditions for the poor only changed when reformers questioned the basis for Laisse faire and began to demand certain safeguards for the urban poor. Improvements in health preserving sciences also helped. Deaths were reduced by these achievements and that allowed vast improvements in life for laborers.

The greatest condition for labor forces is the confition of freedom. Some died and were oppressed but many others were able to, because they were free, improve their conditions and make a life worth living. Never forget that even when things were at their worst America was the shining light on the Hill beckoning freedom lovers from across the world.