Global Slavery Index 2014

http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/

by elleferrer • 12 years ago

70 53 12 years ago

josu2• 12 years ago

The definition of slavery according to them:

Modern slavery involves one person possessing or controlling a person in such as a way as to significantly deprive that person of their individual liberty, with the intention of exploiting that person through their use, management, profit, transfer or disposal.

I would like to know what significantly means. Were African slaves in America "significantly deprived" or just "deprived".

smutticus• 12 years ago

I think your question is fair and don't understand why you were downvoted.

I also question their definition of slavery. Are US prison inmates forced into labor also slaves?

Slavery is not an easy thing to define.

jobu• 12 years ago

Slavery is not an easy thing to define.

People also do a good job of rationalizing slavery into something else. The Swiss verdingkinder (child contracting) program existed until into the 1970's and some people still don't believe it was child slavery: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/opinion/slaverys-shadow-on...

nickff7• 12 years ago

It appears that inmates in modern US prisons are forced to work, though they are often incentivized to do work.[1]

Your question is still a good one though, and I would be interested to know whether penal labor would qualify as 'slavery', and whether the conditions of the facility, or the reason for incarceration would be taken into account in this judgement.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#United_States

Abraln• 12 years ago

Agreed, what about communities where marriage is extremely strict or are arranged? -they essentially cannot leave -they must work or can be beaten -they cannot go out alone -money is often exchanged in the marriage process This meets all the listed criteria for slavery. No black and white (pun not intended, but it works) definition that can be used, so any quantification is subjective. On the subject of prison labor, just after the civil war many southern states used trumped up charges to essentially enslave the newly "free."

brixon• 12 years ago

Significant to me would include:

- inability to change employers

- inability to travel off site

- inability to make more money than the employer charges for fees/housing/...

- inability to quit

- fear of harm from employer

Similar to the workers in Abu Dhabi

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/22/abu-dhabi-migra...

vixen99• 12 years ago

You should qualify 'inability'. I would have thought that 'inability to change employers'. applies to millions of people particularly older ones where if they are sacked the chance of getting another job may be non-existent.

api• 12 years ago

"inability to make more money than the employer charges for fees/housing/..."

You could argue that America has this as a de facto result of real estate speculation. In any given region, real estate has a tendency to inflate until it sops up all excess earnings. Getting "above" real estate is only possible if you can save up a large down payment, etc., and get ahead of it... essentially like how old Roman slaves could purchase their freedom if they could save enough.

The announcement of feudalism's demise was premature.

recycleme• 12 years ago

http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/terminology/

Just in case people are wondering where you got that from.

DanBC• 12 years ago

African slaves count as slaves under this definition.

I'm not sure why you brought that up - that's not controversial.

They include significant to cover cases of bonded labour or trafficked workers. In theory a woman traffiked from one country to another and forced to work as a prostitute is free to go the that country's police forces to report the crime but we know that they don't actually have that freedom.

See also people who are transported to another country and have heir passports taken from them.

Here's a gruesome article about bonded labour in India.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27486450

vacri4• 12 years ago

Were African slaves in America "significantly deprived" or just "deprived".

Taken away from their homelands by force to a different continent, using a technology that they couldn't replicate to get back? Forced to work in specific locations, and if they ran away, they were hunted down and brought back? Sold as objects for labour?

Is this a serious question? How much more 'significant' does it need to be before it reaches your theoretical bar? What's the gray area that you see that means they might not be defined as slaves?

josu2• 12 years ago

Oh, no, I guess I didn’t express myself properly. It is obvious that they were slaves. I was asking if the significant would actually be necessary in that case. And if it wouldn't be, what is significant implying in this definition? Does current slavery allow for more personal liberties that old fashion slavery.

random_pr• 12 years ago

An issue with problems like this, that are obviously bad, is that only positive examples are tested, or only examples that would increase the estimate of the scope of the problem. I doubt the 'Walk Free Foundation' has tested equally for negative examples, and would look for ways to lower their estimates (as one has to do to fit reality).

WiggleYourIndex2• 12 years ago

The abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass initially declared, "now I am my own master", upon taking a paying job. But later in life, he concluded to the contrary, "experience demonstrates that there may be a slavery of wages only a little less galling and crushing in its effects than chattel slavery, and that this slavery of wages must go down with the other".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

naturalethic• 12 years ago

But taxes aren't right?

zenogais3• 12 years ago

Taxes are a bit different from wage slavery or even slavery, and shouldn't be confused with them. Taxes and wage slavery, however, do have a mutually re-enforcing relationship.

Wage slavery is a system in which a person can only subsist by exchanging their labor for money - essentially forcing them to work for others for a living in exchange for means of subsistence.

Taxes, in a democracy at least, are intended to be merely a yearly collection to pay for products/services used in common with a state managed agency typically overseeing the apportionment of those funds.

However, if taxes are extracted through coercive means (as they are in most present-day states), then they can be viewed as coercing individuals into a choice between either wage slavery or poverty. In that way taxes and wage-slavery are two ends a coercive system.

WiggleYourIndex2• 12 years ago

And here's one more part of this: a great letter by a Southern pro-slavery philosopher, about 1830's, was written to a capitalist abolitionist Northern philosopher. And the pro-slavery owner said,

Look, we would be very happy to give up all our slaves if we had the same conditions you have up there. Because slave ownership is only the optimal economic choice under very specific land-ownership conditions.If you have not very many people on a lot of land, the only way you can get them to work for you is at the point of a gun. Because access to land means self-sufficiency. If, on the other hand, you have a lot of people, and you've got land title all tied up, they have no choice but to work for you for whatever pittance. So, frankly, I'd rather have it like you do, because you don't have to pay for them when they get sick. You don't have to pay for their food when they're infants. You don't have to pay for them in their old age. So, frankly, you can offer them whatever pittance you want, and if they don't take it, you'll hire somebody else.

It made a lot of sense to me. Access to land is everything.

And, by the way, land ownership doesn't exist. I don't own this land here. What actually happens is, my mom owns a piece of paper that we all agree means that she owns this land. But she doesn't own any land, Warehauser doesn't any land. Sierra Pacific doesn't own any land, the US government doesn't own any land. They have pieces of paper that we all agree mean that they own the land. But what there is, is there's land, and there's starving people, and there's people who are paying money to live on land that other people have pieces of paper that say that they own, but it's all a shared hallucination.

http://www.davidsheen.com/firstearth/interviews/jensen.htm

lukasm• 12 years ago

I'm sceptical of the score. How did they calculate that?

notahacker• 12 years ago

Methodology here: http://d3mj66ag90b5fy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014...

The TLDR is: they surveyed broadly representative demographics of nine countries on whether any family members had ever been forced to work, and kept in that position by coercion. They also used some secondary sources for ten other countries.

They extrapolated the figures for the rest of the 167 countries based on averages of countries considered to have similar characteristics, with some largely subjective country-specific adjustments.

As an example, the score for China, which they note has few confirmed reports of widespread slavery was (average proportion of slaves in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan).9 + (average proportion of Qatar, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia).1

Worthy as the objective behind the research may be, it's difficult to understate how speculative these estimates and the percentages reported to a ludicrous number of decimal places actually are.

happyscrappy• 12 years ago

I find it hard to believe that close to one percent of Russians are slaves.

sgt2• 12 years ago

I think there's a reason why they use the term enslavement rather than people being slaves. Enslavement implies modern slavery - which is far off from the chains and whips of a by-gone era. However it's still a form of slavery and quite a serious problem globally.

sgt2• 12 years ago

Today I learned there are 23 enslaved people in Iceland.

spacefight• 12 years ago

So it's about damn time to free them. Then the next country, until we're done.

alex_h• 12 years ago

Figures for Iceland were actually extrapolated from figures for Britain. In all the index is pretty seriously flawed. Some countries are being ranked in the complete absence of any slavery data to justify a ranking.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21631039-interna...

mseebach2• 12 years ago

It's mindblowing that something so statistically illiterate gets published. There is no way they can have the data to distinguish 23 from 0 (or 50) to any degree of confidence without actually enumerating the victims.

RivieraKid• 12 years ago

Nice, we have 37k slaves in the Czech Republic.

WildUtah2• 12 years ago

Twenty-three slaves in the country? They should publish their names.

mseebach2• 12 years ago

The Economist had a pretty scathing tear-down of indicies in the issue week before last. One article specifically criticises the Global Slavery Index, another is more satirical, but still well worth a read:

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21631039-interna...

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21631025-learn-ruses-i...

lifeisstillgood2• 12 years ago

Also worth listening to the More Or Less podcast on BBC r4 where they interview the Economist journalist involved.

Specifically they found that the NGO behind the slavery index had taken some countries where there was no data and simply assumed that country had as much slavery as a similar country (nearby, similar population etc)

Then they ranked countries. And named and shamed.

It was not good statistics.

backprojection• 12 years ago

got a link?

WildUtah2• 12 years ago

I'm disappointed that the USA didn't get credit for the vast world historical illegal/undocumented immigration levels the government has been inviting for decades. Millions work for less than survival wages with no legal rights and the government does nothing to discourage migration or employers.

Simple employer sanctions have proven effective in ending this kind of migration but US gov't imposes almost none.

Heck, even legal professional immigrants (H/L visas) don't have the right to change employers or resign.

If we had credit for all those millions, we'd be at the top of the league table here. Time for a recount. (We're number one.)

shawabawa3• 12 years ago

This claims 60,000 "enslaved" in the US, however many people would argue it's much more thanks to forced prison labor

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit...

gaius• 12 years ago

Men, tho'. So no one cares.

Global Slavery Index 2014

Related Stories