Are you making an either or proposition? People either need to be well treated slaves or oppressed free people?
I have to hope there's a third way in there somewhere. An economy where wealth is distributed not equally or fairly (noting that the two are not the same), but humanely. That everyone has the dignity we all want, regardless of their social position or job.
That's an awfully pessimistic view. I don't know that I can dissuade you of it as it's more of a mode of thinking than a view that can be proven or disproven, but I don't know that I could continue to live in a world in which I thought that was the case.
I guess I see it like this: despite the various ups and downs we in the first world see, there is more equality and a higher median standard of living today than there ever has been in the history of the world. I can only hope that the trend is generally upwards over time. It has been so far.
And you forget that your "first world" was built on slaves, colonies, cleansing of ethnic races who were living there originally? Mostly that is where the "higher median standard of living" that you refer to has its foundations, that was the launchpad. So, yes, to you your world looks equitable.
Fair enough, but the third world was built on the same things. It's not as if the Asians didn't commit genocides or Africans didn't sell other Africans into slavery and Native Americans didn't wage brutal war on each other. I don't need a white man's guilt when there's plenty of guilt to go around. History is what it is, I don't hope to recreate it but I wouldn't be able to change it even if I had a time machine. Fact remains that even if the world isn't always better off today than it was yesterday, it's generally better off than it was 100 years ago.
I have to hope there's a third way in there somewhere. An economy where wealth is distributed not equally or fairly (noting that the two are not the same), but humanely. That everyone has the dignity we all want, regardless of their social position or job.