Why don't market forces intervene on behalf of slave laborers?

[Alias]

Without some type of regulatory or government intervention, wages would be left to the whim of "free market" - if there's is such thing as a self-regulating free market. If the self-policing free market truly exists, why doesn't it intervene on behalf of slaves, past or present?

Or, does it? If so, how?
Ahh!!! So then I guess government is needed to assure a FAIR market! Since the lack of government would allow a market that's not free (i.e. slavery) to exist.

But wait a minute! If it requires government oversight and regulation to maintain its mere semblance of being free, maybe the free market is only a myth!

[Rick]

If there's slavery, it's not a free market. What a stupid question.

[TheAnswerMan]

Slaves are in shackles. It wouldn't increase the slave's wages, but increase the price of slaves. I can't give you any data, but my guess is the cost of slaves went up when there weren't many left to get.

[calzrhe]

Free markets do not self-regulate when it comes to employment and inflation/deflation. Free markets do not regulate social equality either. Free markets do not feel sorry when there is a man who works without pay and is under ownership of another man. Free markets assume that all "labor" is paid for in wages, therefore, slaves meet the definition of "capital."

Freeing slaves, making sure everyone's employed and makes an acceptable level of money, making sure essential needs are affordable... these are not the goals of a free, unregulated market, but goals of society/government/etc.

If markets were completely free, eventually the highly successful will enslave the less successful. The enslaved will be completely taken out of the population of consumers. Capitalism gone wrong.

Carl - A completely free market means there is no government control over industry. If businesses use slaves, the government cannot stop it. However, not many markets are completely free in the real world, since there are governments to outlaw slavery.

[V2]

It actually did. Why do you think slavery collapsed? Do you think that slave masters just suddenly felt sorry for poor slaves?

The industrial North needed more workers for their factories. Giving freedom to slaves also meant that they will come to work in there. It was cheaper to pay a few pennies to ex-slaves and let them “take care of themselves” instead of directly feeding, housing them and taking care of old or sick.

The purpose of market is to satisfy demand. Labor is just a tool to reach it.

[Phil]

My view would be that the free market would love slave labor. Free markets mean the most competitive producer thrives (at least part of free markets is based on this theory). The producer who doesn't have to pay his workers anything beyond food and housing has the lowest cost of labor, thus his products are cheaper than those produced by paid employees.

The free market would provide little incentive to free slaves. The best I can think is the cost of a slave would tend to rise...

[Carl]

V2 & Rick are right. Free markets mean FREE! Free to work where I want. If this boss don't pay enough I have the freedom to present my skills around to different employers for the best compensation.

Phil & calzrhe don't even know what a free market is.