Wage labor is a form of slavery that helps to maintain and perpetuate classism

Many apologies to my opponent for missing the last round - it's been very busy with the holidays! I agree with many of Pro's points, and find most of them to be irrelevant to this debate. I will expand on the arguments which are relevant such as arguments # 3, 6 and 7. 1. I agree that there are different forms of slavery. 2. I agree that wage slavery is not the same as chattel slavery. 3. Pro writes that a contract requires a "meeting of the minds" and both parties must agree to the terms. He explains, "In the example I've given... both parties would have to agree on items such as the applicant's job duties, the salary that he/she would receive (which is usually subject to negotiation between the parties), the amount of annual vacation he/she would receive, etc. For these reasons, an application is totally one-sided, and it cannot be considered a contract." While a job application is not a contract, an employment offer and subsequent employment contract (which the employee signs and agrees to in accepting the position) absolutely IS a contract, making this an entirely moot point. An employment contract is a written legal document that that lays out binding terms and conditions of employment between an employee and an employer. An employment contract generally covers job responsibilities, salary, benefits, paid holidays, paid vacation, etc. [1]. As such, my opponent's argument is not only null but in my favor. Regardless of the salary one receives, by agreeing to the terms of employment the employer has laid out, they have voluntarily participated in a "meeting of the minds" and accepted the contract. It qualifies as such by the very standards my opponent has laid out. 4. I agree that chattel slaves were paid. 5. I agree that a serf is a slave. 6. I vehemently disagree that a worker is a slave if they aren't paid a "livable wage" or "paid just enough" to continue working and providing sustenance. First, because standards and values are subjective, there is a huge gap regarding what is actually a livable wage. Some people live in very cheap vs. expensive parts of the country. Others are extremely frugal and able to stretch a dollar far, such as those featured on the show Extreme Couponing who spend very little money on food [2]. Additionally many people get help from the government, and live in Section 8 housing or receive welfare. In that case, they may require less wages to live than those who do not receive government aid. More importantly, not everybody who works needs their job to survive. For example teenagers or people living at home and with the support of their parents might not need their wages to live. A partner with a spouse who earns enough money for both of them might not need their job to live. These people may choose to work because they want to, not because they have to. However, even if they had to work to support themselves, voluntarily agreeing to the terms of an employment contract is a free choice. After all, they could have negotiated the terms or even denied the terms and worked somewhere else. A slave is FORCED to work somewhere against their will. An employee receiving minimum wage (or even less) voluntarily agrees to work at a certain place and under particular conditions. A true slave has absolutely no choice regarding who they work for, and relinquish all of their rights including their right to autonomy upon being the property of their master. Often it is considered legal to rape slaves specifically because they are your property [3]. An employee is NOT considered property in any way whatsoever. Not only do employees, even low wage employees, maintain all of their individual rights which is contrary to actual slaves, but they are free to quit at any time as per the conditions of their employment contract [4]. Pro says that wage "slavery" qualifies as slavery because employees are "forced" to sell their labor. That is a fallacious bare assertion. It is absolutely not true that people are "forced" to work; they CHOOSE to work because they might need money and don't have any. They could always choose to not work and either live off other people, live off the land, accept homelessness or poverty in general, marry rich, etc. Pro manipulates the debate by misusing the word "force" when it does not apply. Just because somebody's choices are limited or not ideal does not mean their choices are mandatory. 7. My opponent states, "A person can be deemed a slave if expected to perform tasks that the agreed upon wage did not include or have no control over when and how long they will be laboring." That is somewhat false. If your employer demands that you do something not included in your employment contract, you can refuse to do it. You can quit your job and go to work for someone else - proving my opponent is entirely wrong in this debate and I don't even have to argue further. I agree that if someone had no control over when and how long they will be laboring, that they are in fact a slave. However we have no reason to accept that a wage laborer had no control of their employment terms. In fact Pro admitted that in a job application, an employee OFFERS their labor in exchange for pay; their labor isn't DEMANDED of them or FORCED upon them once again proving that wage laborers are not slaves. Pro continues, "It is my position that wage labor or wage slavery was created as a means of maintaining and perpetuating the lifestyle of the upper class after the legal abolition of chattel slavery." First, let me point out that while Pro continuously refers to "wage slavery," he has NOT actually proven that it is slavery - that's the purpose of this debate - so that is a fallacious misnomer. As such it is inappropriate to keep repeating the phrase for emphasis. Second, Pro has not proven that this is true. Third, even if the upper class did create employment terms to keep them ahead, it still wouldn't make the laborer a slave for the reasons I've explained. My opponent insists that wage slavery "guarantees" the concentration of capital among the wealthy elite. This is another false claim. While class hierarchy definitely exists, it is not guaranteed or necessarily permanent - yet another difference between wage labor and slavery or serfdom. Pro has tried to compare wage laborers to serfs, but serfs were serfs for life [5]. People who work for low wages are NOT necessarily working in low paying jobs forever. Not only do employees receive bonuses, raises and promotions (unlike slaves!), but they often graduate to better, higher paying jobs. For example I worked for minimum wage when I was in high school, but now I receive much higher pay. If my wage labor made me a slave, not only would I have been forced to accept my previous job (I wasn't) but I would have remained in that role for as long as my employer wanted me, not for as long as I wanted to be there which was actually the case. For many or even most, wage labor is a short stop in an otherwise long career path. Pro suggests that the voluntary nature of employment is not actually voluntary because of economic necessity. Nobody is inherently entitled to food, shelter or any other supplies one might need to survive or live comfortably. If one chooses to survive and live comfortably, they are free to seek employment in satisfying their desires. Nobody should be forced to accommodate their demands and desires; to suggest otherwise would essentially make the other person (receiving the demands) the slaves. Pro writes, "The wealthy elite [post slavery] used wages as a means of maintaining control over the land and resources while assuring control over labor." However those who agree to work for certain wages did not have to accept the terms. If they did not supply their labor, the capital class (setting the terms) would not receive any of their labor/production and thus would cease to earn profit. In fact this is the entire basis of negotiating and using collective bargaining. Unions operate under the premise that since employers NEED labor in order to profit and continue earning their money, that there has to be a middle ground where an agreement is reached between employer and employee. As such, while it's true the capital owner is going to try and maximize his return, the same is also true for the laborer who is in a worse off position. By agreeing to employment terms, even if someone is in a lower or worse off position, it is still a voluntary agreement with mutual benefits. This is another contrast to actual slavery in which only the capital owner benefits. My opponent states "Though Con has suggested that wages are determined by the market, I assert that wages are arbitrarily determined by this elite group or what has become the corporatocracy." Because I don't have the character space to negate this concept entirely in this round, I will note that this is another bare assertion from my opponent, as there are multiple and competing theories about how wages are derived [6]. In the next round, I will explain how wages are in fact determined primarily through market forces. The collusion between government and corporations is relevant, but not to this debate. Note that Pro has not included any economic analysis to support his claims, but simply buzz words and catch phrases that mostly appeal to emotion. Pro concludes by posting a completely biased quote/article riddled with logical fallacies. Because this is a 5 round debate, I have plenty of time to expand on why the claims made in the article (and repeated by Pro) are not true. [1] http://humanresources.about.com... [2] http://www.tlc.com... [3] http://www.pbs.org... [4] http://www.ncsl.org... [5] http://edtech2.boisestate.edu... [6] http://economics-exposed.com...