According to Kevin Bales, author of 'Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy', "slavery" is defined as the complete control of a person through violence or the threat of violence for [Economic Exploitation], a situation in which the enslaved person is paid nothing beyond basic subsistence, and cannot walk away.
A "slaveholder" refers to the "new slavery" wherein one manages a person as a slave without getting caught. A "slave owner" refers to "colonial slavery" wherein one owned a slave in the legal sense before the abolition of slavery. The term that best describes new slavery is "slaveholder" because of the illegalization of slavery pursuant to Jus Cogens and other abolitionist reform efforts.
According to Bales, the criteria for excusing slavery in the colonial United States was the "otherness" referring to false constructions of race, religion, tribe, language, custom, and economic class. Further, modern slavery dismisses these constructions and uses instead notions of high profits in addition to concepts of vulnerability, weakness, gullibility, and deprivation.
Bales believes that two crucial factors contribute to the rise of new slavery, they include the rapid growth of the world’s population, and social/economic modernization. The rapid growth of the world’s population puts tremendous stress on access to the world’s resources. Consequently, people become desperate, and labor becomes cheap and/or free. Social/economic modernization often benefits wealthy-elite nations and further impoverishes poor third-world nations. Poor third-world nations often have their resources monopolized and exploited by wealthy-elite nations.
The differences between old slavery and new slavery are as follows: Old slavery included asserted legal ownership, high purchase cost, low profits, shortage of potential slaves, a long-term relationship, the continued maintenance of slaves, and an importance on ethnic differences. New slavery includes the avoidance of legal ownership, very low purchase cost, very high profits, a surplus of potential slaves, a short-term relationship, the disposability of slaves, and an unimportance for ethnic differences.
The three (3) forms of slavery according to Bales are "chattel slavery", "debt bondage", and "contract slavery". Chattel slavery is the old slavery wherein a person is captured, born, or sold into permanent servitude, and the legal term "own" applies. In chattel slavery, "persons" are synonymous with "property". Debt bondage differs from chattel slavery in that it carries a "voluntary" implication. This form of slavery involves a person pledging him or herself against a monetary loan. The length of the servitude is undefined and the labor performed by the slave does not reduce the debt. Contract slavery differs from the other two (2) forms of slavery because of its deceitful appearance. Contracts are offered to indigent persons promising them employment, money, and a better life, yet when these persons are taken to their new environments, they are enslaved. This contract labels the slave as a "worker" which combats any legal interference.
According to Bales, slavery in Pakistan, Brazil, and Thailand are similar because they fall under the categories of "debt bondage" and "contract slavery". All three (3) nations practice concentration camp-like enslavement methods wherein a large amount of slaves work in crowded, closed, and isolated environments. Additionally, the slavery practiced in all three (3) nations requires a quota (financial/profit) to be filled. Because modern slavery means imminent disposability, slaves who do not meet or exceed their given quota are denied "compensation" which translates into them not receiving the bare minimum required for their subsistence. The health risks associated with severe mistreatment is ignored since slaves in "debt bondage" can have their circumstances passed on to offspring, while slaves under "contract slavery" can be easily replaced (Bales, 1999).
The analogy lies in the profitability of slave labor. The connection between new slavery and old slavery according to Bales can be described as "It is like the shift from ownership of colonies in the last century to the economic exploitation of those same countries without the cost and trouble of maintaining colonies. Transnational companies today do what European empires did in the last century---exploit natural resources and take advantage of low-cost labor---but without needing to take over and govern the entire country. Similarly, the new slavery appropriated the economic value of individuals while keeping them under complete coercive control---but without asserting ownership or accepting responsibility for their survival." (Bales, 1999 pp. 25)
Bales believes that modern slavery "directly" contributes an estimated $13bn to the global economy. "Indirectly", modern slavery contributes much more than that. The steel produced by slaves in Brazil is used to make cars that much of the global community depends on for transportation, clothing made in sweatshop factories make the price of retail a bargain and affordable for consumers in Europe and North America. "Low costs" can’t compete with "no costs", thus "slavery anywhere threatens real jobs everywhere." (Bales, 1999 pp. 24)
There are a number of other kinds of constraints and forces (obscure) that might prevent slaves from leaving their slaveholders. For instance, there is a psychological component to slavery; this very real but obscure component is enforced through fear of violence and death. Many slaves fear that escaping their slaveholder may result in their death or the subsequent harm of their family members. Slaves may often be in a foreign land (illegally) where they don’t speak the language and the law may be adversarial to their presence or may be working in collusion with the slaveholder. In such cases, the slaves are criminalized, beaten, imprisoned, or subsequently returned to their owners where they are sure to face retaliatory violence and increased abuse. Furthermore, slaves are often dependent on their slaveholders for their survival; while they are not paid, their bleak survival and subsistence depends on their slaveholder. In this case, slaves know no one else to turn to, and usually have no way of knowing where they are or how to get back to their original homes. Lastly, physically setting slaves free puts the freer at risk of facing the violent defense/backlash of the slaveholder who may be inclined to kill or maim the freer under the legal umbrellas of property defense, intrusion and so on.
