It's a symptom of inequality. It will start happening more and more even in the first world if inequality isn't tackled and wealth continues to concentrate.

▲

argentinian 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you see inequality as the problem, instead of poverty?

▲

59percentmore 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Logically-speaking, poverty can't exist without inequality. It's a condition of "want" that requires others to "have".

Practically-speaking, inequality is insidious because it enables violations of rights and unjust denial of opportunity even when poverty has been eradicated. Cold comfort, to the middle-class family of people mowed down by a rich motorist who faces negligible jail time because the money they can spend on a lawyer is outside the scope of what the legal system is built to handle.

	▲	argentinian 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There's poverty without inequality. In some primitive tribes everyone was poor. When natural adverse conditions hit some regions, also poverty was widespread. That the justice can be persuaded in a certain direction with money is a weakness of the system. I don't think you would consider equal and just that every person could influence justice. The problem is the justice system.
	▲	slowmovintarget 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No. Poverty is not relative to what others have. Poverty is relative to baseline needs. So poverty absolutely can exist without inequality. Inequality has no moral characteristics. It is not "insidious." The fact that disparate effort and disparate circumstance lead to disparate outcomes is just that; a simple cold fact. That some people use their power or wealth to take advantage of others is a moral issue. But again, this is orthogonal to disparity of outcome. Or do you claim poor people never steal from other poor people, or that rich people never steal from other rich people? Envy is not the basis of poverty, need is.

▲

lordnacho 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most countries we are discussing are richer now than a few decades ago, yet still have domestic servants.

Those servants will be richer in a few decades but will still be in that situation.

▲

argentinian 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Then I think that terrible labor laws are the main problem, not inequality

▲

59percentmore 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The terrible labor laws exist because of the inequality. The people with servants write the laws and, in their magnaminity, don't let the servants vote.

	▲	argentinian 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are writing about democratic countries. Everyone votes. I sense that you're pointing to a different problem.

▲

RetroTechie 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Inequality is a big factor. Story says the woman in this case felt she was compensated. Like feeling 'lucky' to enjoy (some) perks of living in a rich household. If that family had been as poor as her (or her mother), that stops being true. Then it becomes hard to keep a slave from walking away without resorting to violence.

Another big factor is the victim simply not knowing any better. Not being able to read might have helped with that (and I'd guess she probably wasn't allowed a phone, to keep her isolated from outside).

Point is there's a lot of space between "whips & chains" and "paying below minimum wage". Unfortunately some people are really good at exploiting that space.

▲

argentinian 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Your first paragraph says that poverty makes people accept things they wouldn't if they had more money. Poverty is the problem there.

Education and a society's culture are certainly important too.

▲

RetroTechie 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes poverty is a factor. But inequality too - it helps to create [the powerless vs the powerful] situations. Even if those on the bottom may not qualify as poor.

> Education and a society's culture are certainly important too.

Agreed.

▲

argentinian 6 hours ago | parent [-]

In the powerless VS powerful situation, taking aside poverty, what do you mean? The powerful manipulating the justice system with money?

	▲	RetroTechie 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The powerful manipulating the justice system with money? That's a good example. Curtailing voter rights is another. And then there's money -> influence on media.

▲

aetimmes 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because exploitation is a two-actor system and poverty is a unary operator.

▲

argentinian 7 hours ago | parent [-]

That two actor system needs an poor person to exploit. You are confirming my statement that poverty is the main problem.

▲

comfysocks 4 hours ago | parent [-]

And you need a rich person to do the exploiting. The power differential is a key ingredient.

	▲	argentinian 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What's your definition of exploitation? There's is poor people who exploit other poor people. Poor people that sends children to work for example. Only the rich can exploit? You are not using the definition of exploitation from the dictionaries. A stronger or armed person has a power differential with a weaker person. A smarter and less smart person too. So, exploitation doesn't seem to be related exclusively to wealth inequality. It's a moral thing, not a matter of wealth differences. A simple narrative of "us-good VS them-bad" is reductionistic.

▲

oblio 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Because they go together.

The hallmark of developed countries is that they're even, mostly egalitarian and developed everywhere.

The hallmark of developing or underdeveloped countries is precisely the staggering levels of inequality.

Not everyone is poor in a developing/underdeveloped country. Quite a few people there live lives that would make upper middle classes in developed countries blush. Life "just" sucks for the majority of people there.

	▲	RetroTechie 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> The hallmark of developed countries is that they're even, mostly egalitarian and developed everywhere. Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_we... Developed-but-very-unequal, and less-developed-but-more-equal are a thing.
	▲	argentinian 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Correlation is not causation. Would you say USA is a developed country, considering for example Los Angeles slums? And there's a bigger inequality between Elon musk and a well paid software developer than between a poor person in a developing country and a rich politician from that country.