If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves

Rationality Con opens with a circular argument. He claims that the demand is not always rational, because the demand is not always rational; therefore people are not always rational. Based on the assumption of irrationality, Con concludes that “the demand could be small but it will still be there as long as the costs of acquiring those resources aren't too high.” As I’ve already pointed out in my previous round, the cost of acquiring a single slave was equivalent to purchasing a house. Slaves were not cheap, and they were not something that you would purchase on a whim. Con also claims that slaves could be purchased for sexual services; which are a service in their own right. Light skinned female Slaves were sometimes purchased for sexual services, but this does not negate from my argument. Prior to the civil war, prostitution was a legal profession. It was not until the 1870’s that the government began regulating prostitution. [1] Slavery during a labor surplus Con claims that slavery can exist during a labor surplus, because slave labor is cheaper than wage labor. To support his claim he provided an example of illegal wage labor below the minimum wage, and he falsely labeled the wage labor as slave labor. Con’s own source says that they were paid a wage of $200 per month. Paying people for their labor is the very definition of wage labor. There is a difference between slave labor and wage labor. Slaves are not paid, because they are considered livestock. A wage below the minimum wage is still a wage. A minimum wage places the lowest legal wage above the equilibrium, thereby creating a labor surplus. When a worker is paid below minimum wage, it does not make them a slave, it makes them an illegal worker. A slave would be paid below the equilibrium wage, which requires a labor shortage. The initial cost of a slave was 4 times the annual per capita income. [2] In addition to the initial cost of a slave, the slave owner also had to feed and house their slaves. Because slaves were forced into bondage, runaway slaves were a financial liability for the slave owner; even if the slave was eventually caught. Lower wages A labor shortage occurs when the demand for labor is greater than the supply of labor. A labor surplus occurs when the demand for labor is less than the supply of labor. A labor shortage can occur either by a wage cap or by an insufficient labor supply. Con claims that even if wages were low, that there would be a market for slaves, because slaves would serve as a status of wealth. The status of owning a slave was not inherent in slave ownership. Slaves were a sign of socioeconomic status because slaves were expensive. Just as today a Mansion or a private jet is a sign of one’s socioeconomic status, slave ownership indicated that an individual was wealthy. The average cost of one slave was equivalent to 4 years of wages. Only the wealthy could afford slaves. People did not buy slaves just for appearances. If someone bought a slave they could not afford, the slave would be repossessed due to the owner’s debt. [2] Summary Con’s arguments don’t hold up. His entire argument relies on the assumption of irrationality and fiscal irresponsibility. He equates illegal wage labor with slave labor, and assumes people will spend 4 years of income simply to enhance their image. 1.) http://prostitution.procon.org... 2.) http://www.measuringworth.com...