The Price Of Slaves

[AlexanderHowl]

The problem with that it does not take into account the historical economics of slavery in the US South, where slave owners invented machines to whip slaves to work even harder and allowed slaves to starve if they did not feed themselves. After the invention of the Cotton Gin, agricultural slavery became quite profitable (and quite cruel) and, as the South became more industrialized, industrial slavery became even more profitable (and even cruelest than before). It was so profitable that one of the economic motivations behind emancipation was to prevent Southern slave factories from putting Northern factories out of business.

[aaron819]

AtE 2 says a healthy slave is between $4,000 and $6,000, depending on physical attributes.

[malloyd]

Historical slave prices varied all over the place (and the economics of slavery is full of mythology both for and against how profitable it was at those prices too, that one about the high profit margins of slave factories for example).

Yeah, 5 years income is high, but not orders of magnitude high.

Roman slaves went for about a year's laborer's wage, or a couple months for a craftsman or centurion (in currency it varies a *lot* because Roman coinage was steadily debased by up to a factor of 100 or more...), though pretty girls could fetch 10 times that. Medieval Irish law codes set the value of a slave girl about equal to a cow, or an ounce of silver, both of which were a good deal more valuable then than now, several months wages but probably not a year's. Slaves in the US went for $200 to $800 contemporary, which is a modern $5000 to $20,000 on purchasing power equality, but 1 to 4 years average wages (very little stuff you'd pay $5000 or more for in the modern world is after all even *available* in 1800 to use in computing the purchasing power equivalent). Modern southeast Asian sex slaves go for a couple hundred dollars US, but that's a price in a peasant and illegal economy only tenuously tied to world markets (rural Thai incomes are somewhere around $1200/year even in government estimates, so it's probably not all that much less than year's income, given that people desperate enough to be selling their daughters are likely quite a bit worse off than average)

[Rupert]

Also note that in the sex slave industry many of the slaves are not paid for when they enter the system, because they are kidnapped, or are conned into paying for their entry into the system themselves - they think they're merely going to be house maids or the like.

The price a slave might bring is limited by how much the purchaser is going to make off that slave compared to hiring a free worker, and what they can expect the rate of return on investments in general to be.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Roman slaves went for about a year's laborer's wage

Note that if you base the cost on wages after upkeep, that would be well over a year.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Also note that in the sex slave industry many of the slaves are not paid for when they enter the system, because they are kidnapped, or are conned into paying for their entry into the system themselves - they think they're merely going to be house maids or the like.

I suspect someone still needs to be paid - it's just the money goes on paying the traffickers and bribing border officials rather than on a straight payment to a dealer.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The problem with that it does not take into account the historical economics of slavery in the US South, where slave owners invented machines to whip slaves to work even harder and allowed slaves to starve if they did not feed themselves. After the invention of the Cotton Gin, agricultural slavery became quite profitable (and quite cruel) and, as the South became more industrialized, industrial slavery became even more profitable (and even cruelest than before). It was so profitable that one of the economic motivations behind emancipation was to prevent Southern slave factories from putting Northern factories out of business.

Being someone cynical, I doubt the plantations of the American South differed much from the mines and latifundiae of ancient Rome.

Originally Posted by Joe

I'm not an expert on this, by any means, but my understanding is that there was very, very little "slave breeding" in the classical world, precisely because raising new people from birth is incredibly labor intensive (in fact, it's one of the most labor-intensive activities in any society - something that people trained in conventional economics sometimes tend to overlook, since the majority of that labor takes place in the home, without any kind of wage, etc. But I digress...) Instead, classical slave systems relied on a constant supply of new prisoners of war - and indeed the whole system tended to falter when the POW supply dried up.

I recall a difference of opinion amongst Roman writers as to whether slaves should even be allowed to breed - none that I can recall seemed to even entertain the idea that it would be a good business idea.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

I suspect someone still needs to be paid - it's just the money goes on paying the traffickers and bribing border officials rather than on a straight payment to a dealer.

Indeed, but they only need to be paid a fraction of a month's income (though it's likely several people will need to be paid) plus something to cover the expense of keeping the girl for a little while. That's a great deal less than you need to pay someone if they expect a profit on raising the slave.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

I recall a difference of opinion amongst Roman writers as to whether slaves should even be allowed to breed - none that I can recall seemed to even entertain the idea that it would be a good business idea.

Between Rome's constant wars and commoners selling off their surplus children or even themselves to avoid starvation there were more economical ways to replenish the supply.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

I recall a difference of opinion amongst Roman writers as to whether slaves should even be allowed to breed - none that I can recall seemed to even entertain the idea that it would be a good business idea.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Between Rome's constant wars and commoners selling off their surplus children or even themselves to avoid starvation there were more economical ways to replenish the supply.

Yup - "slave breeding" is a (somewhat?) common fantasy trope, but historically speaking it's very much the rare exception rather than the rule.