Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 March 8

= March 8 =

Pickin' cotton
3 closely related questions: (1) When the first successful cotton picker first entered the market, how much was its MSRP? (2) How much would it be in 1860 dollars? (3) How would this latter figure compare to the price of a prime field hand in 1860? 2601:646:8E01:515D:D1E0:6CC9:A57C:4C96 (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An early model cost $9,500 for harvester and tractor (in 1949) . Rmhermen (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That answers question #1 (and I've already found the answer to #3 by reading the article).  Now, can anyone tell me how many 1860 dollars would equal $9500 in 1949? 2601:646:8E01:515D:D1E0:6CC9:A57C:4C96 (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * $9500 in 1949 is $3250 in 1860 comparing real price of a commodity according to this website . Rmhermen (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So this means I won the argument -- even if the South had won the Civil War, they would still have abolished slavery by the late 1940s because one of them cotton-pickin' machines would replace 40 slaves while costing only 2-3 times as much as a slave! 2601:646:8E01:515D:D1E0:6CC9:A57C:4C96 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it have been commercially viable to produce cotton picking machines if slavery continued, though? Unfortunately not a question that can really be answered here. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you need to compare TCO, not just initial outlay. And knowledge of the germ theory of disease, vaccination and antibiotics might have influenced the cost of slaves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this OR helps. The US imported price of cotton in 1860 was US 10.85¢ per pound, and in 1941 the domestic US price was US 31.93¢ DOR (HK) (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that a 1941 cotton picking machine is much more efficient than the 1860 model. You have to factor in that slavery had been abolished in other cotton producing areas worldwide, so the machinery would be developed regardless of the situation in America. Factor in too the cost of non-slave manual cotton picking. My "damp thumb estimate" is that slavery in the American cotton industry would have become uncompetitive well before the mid-twentieth century. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, who drives the cotton picker? Sure you need fewer people, but does that imply that they cannot be slaves? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As technology advances, slavery makes less and less economic sense. Also, a rebellious slave becomes better able to wreak more havoc. On a Southern plantation, he might be able to burn down his master's mansion and kill a few people, but someone trained to operate a car (a slave driver) or a train could take out a lot more people. It annoys me that a lot of science fiction depicts slavery as a viable option in industrialized societies. Lazy, sloppy thinking. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "wreak havoc" is a sound argument. With increased technology, not only does the ability of individuals to wreak havoc increase, so does the ability of society to control individuals. There may well be social reasons why this does not work. There may also be economic reasons. But its not simple or obvious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, it is a sound argument. A plantation slave just couldn't do much damage before being caught. Transportation and access to weapons were limited. Furthermore, personal weapons (or those that can be obtained and used by individuals) are much more deadly now, and people can move around more easily. A higher, more urbanized population provides two more advantages: more targets and a better chance to evade the authorities. Another aspect is that, given the modern cost of maintaining/training a slave, it only makes sense in high-value professions. Would you feel comfortable with a slave engineer or chemist? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not directly relevant to the question, but the Russians sure did. 2601:646:8E01:515D:5537:81A4:208D:1E74 (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we can look at another population, namely prisoners. There is, of course, a moral difference, but little of a practical difference - both a slave and a prisoner want to be free in a society that does not want to grant them that freedom. As far as I can tell, we have much fewer successful prison breaks now than in the past, at least in first world countries. How can a single slave improve his or her life (or his or her family's life) with any reasonably portable arsenal of weaponry? He or she would always be massively outgunned by the system. Sure, in rare cases there may be 10 or 20 or 100 mostly "innocent" victims, but how does it help the slave to become free? Only a large-scale organised overthrow of society would achieve that - and that primarily needs organisation, not guns. So maybe the internet is doing more against slavery than guns (certainly a comforting thought to this internet geek). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)