Talk:Debt bondage

A person enters debt bondage when their labour is demanded as a means of repayment of a loan, or of money given in advance. Usually, people are tricked or trapped into working for no pay or very little pay (in return for such a loan), in conditions which violate their human rights. Invariably, the value of the work done by a bonded labourer is greater that the original sum of money borrowed or advanced.

Debt bondage is a form of enslavement which is both ancient and modern. On the Indian sub-continent it took root in the caste system, and flourished in feudal agricultural relationships. Following the abolition of slavery, debt bondage was used as a method of colonial labour recruitment for the supply of labour to plantations in Africa, the Caribbean and South-East Asia. Today, debt bondage is expanding through a combination of mass migration from poverty and the global demand for sources of cheap, expendable domestic labour, and cheap sexual gratification.

Bonding people through debt is one of many ways in which people are enslaved. Bonded labourers are routinely threatened with (and subjected to) physical violence, and are kept under various forms of surveillance, in some cases by armed guards. There are very few cases where chains are actually used (there have been recent reports in Pakistan), but the constraints on the people concerned are every bit as real and as restricting. [1]

I removed the section on Student Loans. To put SL's in the same category as some of these other situations where death, imprisonment, and severe physical harm to yourself or your family is possible is incredibly stupid. This was originally submitted by an anonymous author [I'm guessing a former Communications major now working a menial fast-food job.] -- clintp 02-09-2005

Remove this

While 21st century Western Civilization has no remaining formal feudal structures, some have argued that the practice has merely evolved into wage slavery, an employment relationship wherein the employer deducts from the worker's pay a battery of fees for mandatory employer services, such as required on-site room and board, that are deliberately designed to exceed, or at least financially hobble, the worker's paycheck.

Most states in the United States make it illegal for an employer to detect expenses from a paycheck without informing the worker up front about the deductions, and I really don't see how this could evolve into debt bondage without violating minimum wage laws.

My impression is that "peon" has much, much broader definition/usage in Latin America and while it may be accurate to equate "peonage" in US usage with debt bondage, I don't think there should be automatic re-directs from peon & peonage to this page. Grant65 (Talk) 02:57, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've come to expect this kind of extremism from this place, but is that last paragraph about student loans really necessary? Sure, the person has the debt until it's paid off, but no-one's forcing them to work or pay it off... --Felix the Cassowary 04:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Marxist analysis

While it's nice to know what Marx thinks about the subject, perhaps it should be balanced by some views from the other side of the philosophical spectrum. Aplomado 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try signing your snide comments, Aplomado. Based on this and your (similarly abusive) comments at talk:unfree labour and talk:truck system, I have a question for you: can you, personally, conceive of any form of labour, short of actual forced/slave labour which is exploitative? Grant65 | Talk 04:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I accidentally did not sign this comment. I am new to the "signing comments" thing so I think it is forgiveable that I forgot. I have fixed my error per your request.

No I don't think labor that is not forced is exploitative. Nor do most free market advocates. If you mutually agree on a wage, you aren't being exploited by definition. To people like you, a wage below the minimum wage would be exploitative. But then again, if the government were to enforece a higher minimum wage than your market value, you would be out of a job. The government would then say to you, "Sure, you have no job, but hey at least you aren't being exploited!" Aplomado 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I accept that you are new to this. But Wikipedia ethos asks that we assume good faith among other editors. Try as we might, we all reflect to some degree our personal biases when writing/editing articles, and accusing people of pushing a particular ideology or theory is not productive.

You misunderstand my views on exploitative wage levels, which are not about a minimum wage, which is something set by a state; my point is about wages which are below the level of subsistence. This is almost non-existent in developed countries, but it has and does occur in developing countries and/or other historical contexts.Grant65 | Talk 07:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indentured service isn't always slavery

This article equated all indentured service with forced labor. While the mechanism can be abused, using methods mentioned in the text, I don't think it is automatically equivalent to slavery. Historically, people did perform bonded labor voluntarily, fulfill the terms of the bond, and then work freely for themselves afterwards. Whether or not the system is abused more frequently in modern times to disguise actual slavery is a different issue, about which I have no expertise, but presuming all indentured service is slave labor is not balanced. I think it cheapens actual slavery and distorts the motive and behavior of past individuals. I changed the article as best I could to remove that implication.

StephenMacmanus 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddity

Olivia de Havilland successfully used an appeal to California's anti-peonage law to break her movie studio contract, which onerously imposed one-sided conditions such as arbitrary extensions, etc. Movie stars as peons? Apparently, technically, yes! Rhinoracer 12:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]