In the world of economics, the scenario is always given with the following words, “with all things being equal”. There is nothing equal about one man owning another man. It is a false connotation when it comes to labour power and how it was conceived. Those who loathed for power, craved it, and aspired to beat everyone else with the same goal became extremely rich. Those who only wanted to get by, with food in their stomachs and a roof over their heads became poorer. The fine line between the poor and the rich became very evident from the beginning of time. I am here to argue that ‘slave labour’ is not more profitable than ‘free labour’. Those who were oppressed had nothing to live for, to motivate them. Their drive to meet quotas were very
…show more content…
However, from an economic stand point, he believed that ‘free labour’ would be a more efficient way to maximize utility than ‘slave labour’. Instead of forcing one to work in horrid conditions, allowing them to have an option will motivate them to work under your supervision. This, he believed would save money in the long run because one must hire many leaders to fulfill a job to overlook the slaves while working. Smith believed that the relation between the owner and the slave was crucial in running a successful business or land at that time. By communicating and agreeing with the pay would benefit both parties because they would gain what they are striving …show more content…
By using the making of pins for example, it shows that by dividing the labour tasks results in a qualitative increase in productivity. This is due to the ability that human and physical capital is matched to the task. In times of slavery, most often than not men were seen doing more demanded tasks than women. Though both sexes received different tasks, the same amount of labour was produced. Men would be responsible for collecting the cotton, as well as women, but women would be expected to make the cotton into clothing, and males would be responsible for tending the
However, from an economic stand point, he believed that ‘free labour’ would be a more efficient way to maximize utility than ‘slave labour’. Instead of forcing one to work in horrid conditions, allowing them to have an option will motivate them to work under your supervision. This, he believed would save money in the long run because one must hire many leaders to fulfill a job to overlook the slaves while working. Smith believed that the relation between the owner and the slave was crucial in running a successful business or land at that time. By communicating and agreeing with the pay would benefit both parties because they would gain what they are striving …show more content…
By using the making of pins for example, it shows that by dividing the labour tasks results in a qualitative increase in productivity. This is due to the ability that human and physical capital is matched to the task. In times of slavery, most often than not men were seen doing more demanded tasks than women. Though both sexes received different tasks, the same amount of labour was produced. Men would be responsible for collecting the cotton, as well as women, but women would be expected to make the cotton into clothing, and males would be responsible for tending the