We talk about slavery as if it is safely sealed in the 19th century, like a museum exhibit with good lighting and a gift shop.

But the underlying pattern never really died. It just updated its paperwork.

Today we call it “employment.” In tech we even call it “talent acquisition,” which sounds almost humane. Yet the structure is familiar: people without capital create the ideas, write the code, design the systems that generate millions or billions. The upside flows upward. The risk flows downward.

Most software engineers do not own what they build. They sign it away on day one. IP assignment. Non-competes. Stock options that vest over four years so you behave. If the company exits, founders and investors get generational wealth. The average engineer gets a redundancy package and a LinkedIn badge saying “#opentowork.”

Yes, this is not chattel slavery. No one is being whipped into compiling C++. But the economic asymmetry is hard to ignore. You sell your time because you do not own productive assets. The owners sell your output because they do.

In IT the extraction is particularly clean. Code scales infinitely. A small team builds a platform that monetises millions of users. Revenue explodes. Valuation explodes. Engineers receive salaries that look high until you compare them to the equity multiple created from their labour.

Sometimes a few are “freed” through shares. Early employees hit liquidity and cross the line into ownership. The rest remain in the wage tier, cycling between companies, rebuilding empires they will never control.

The uncomfortable question is not whether this is morally identical to historical slavery. It obviously is not. The question is whether we are comfortable with an economic model where creative and technical labour consistently produces outsized returns captured by capital, not by the people who actually built the thing.

Antoine grafted pecan trees and created an industry. The plantation owner owned the trees.

In tech, we graft distributed systems and machine learning models. Someone else owns the orchard.

That parallel should at least make people uneasy.

You point out so many problems with our current structure that are worth addressing.

But at the same time, the current system is hugely better than chattel slavery.

Western citizens and workers have gained substantial rights and freedoms over the last 100 years.

Slaves did not get paid and were involuntarily captured, transported, sold, raped, molested, etc. No employer is doing that to you. You have it pretty good compared to slaves.

No one chooses to be a slave. You chose to be in tech. You can choose to be a farmer if the current state of things doesn't work for you. A slave would never have that luxury.

I’m torn about this.

I agree that employment is “value extraction” and people without upfront capital (or risk tolerance) are selling off their IP to other people.

It’s unfortunate, but in most cases I’d struggle to even call it exploitation. So relating it slavery a bit too far and really underselling the horrors of slavery. I can quit my job or go to a new one. Tech companies aren’t running international mass-kidnapping schemes to get their headcount.

> Today we call it “employment.”

FYI, people may react poorly to exaggerated comparisons like this since Actual Slavery still exists.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...

If you think it's so easy, you can quit and start your own company and find out.

Everyone’s entitled to their opinions and more than a few people have written similar ideas. However, I find this chain of thought both offensive to what being a slave meant and ignorant. If you think being a coder is the modern equivalent to being enslaved either you’ve never worked as an entry level employer in the service industry or else have forgotten your experience.

> The question is whether we are comfortable with an economic model where creative and technical labour consistently produces outsized returns captured by capital, not by the people who actually built the thing.

You have two mistakes in your thinking.

1. You assume that people are not comfortable with this economic model, when in fact millions of people are making the choice to be on the labor side of this model on a daily basis, who could actively afford to be on the ownership side. 2. You mistakenly believe that "the thing" that produces returns is the product/service/offering when in reality it's the entire business.

Let's start with #2.

Producing and capturing value is about more than just building the offering, i.e. coding something. Millions of people have coded something "valuable" and made $0, because building something is not enough. You have to make sure people learn about the thing, and they have to find it good enough to pay you for it, and then actually pay you for it, and you have to be able to make this happen repeatedly, a sufficient number of times and at a high enough price point to sustain and ideally grow the endeavor.

This goes far behind simply building a product. It requires building a business.

And let me tell you, my friend, software engineers at FAANG companies are only building the software, not the business. The people building the business are the ones making the biggest earnings.

Creators in every industry do not like to hear this. Take the music industry, for example. Everyone who can sing or create music hates the "middlemen". The record labels and whatnot. The DJs. They hate the grind. Every creator wishes that simply creating was enough, and many naively believe that it is. But we live in the real world, which has these things called markets and people and psychology. Markets are competitive, and people and psychology are complex, and someone who works to build a business (an offering + market research + a marketing/sales/distribution process + a viable business model) is going to beat the pants off someone who only wants to create the offering and do nothing else.

Building a business is incredibly difficult, and incredibly risky.

It's more likely than not that you will lose a ton of money and a ton of time. Most people would rather not face this challenge, take this risk, or endure these losses. Most would rather learn a fraction of the skills required (e.g. just the programming part, just the design part, just the singing part, etc.), then allow someone else to do the hard work of starting the business and turning it into something from nothing.

Most people would rather sell their time and services for a comfy salary instead of trying to become an owner. Which is why there are large numbers of well-paid white collar workers who make this choice every day, rather than quitting to start a business.

This is not slavery, it's people being content with what they have and trading risk for security. (God I hate writing any sort of sentence "it's not X it's Y" because AI has ruined this phrasing.)