Which also makes the work easier

Slaves are the properties of the owner so assumign they would have been kept to the house or confined to the property. Better treatment and conditions is a moral argument for it? Given that the other option for them to be to find work which they wont.

It is a moral arguement indeed

I dont disagre

But it is unrelated to the effect the slaves have on the economy

Whether or not they are fed and housed better or worse

They still work

The slaves have a positive effect on the economy because the loss of capital in prodiving employment is not there giving you more profit.

Isn't that the argument from economics perspective

I never mentioned employing slaves

Or

Turning slaves into employees

But where you are not offering a wage you are paying for their upkeep. Paying a wage waivers responsibility for food or housing.

Again you are trying to relate a moral arguement to an economic one

To summarise

Im not im telling you that the morality is not an argument at all here because of the principles of economics being involved.

Free Labour

No wages

It’s not free. That’s not point.

Let me loop this back to your original example

Owning a slave comes with the requirement of feeding them and housing them or just leaving them in the farms

You argued that if less poverty is an arguement for capitalism then better welfare for slaves is an argument for slavery

Doesn’t having slaves cause a negative effect on innovation as slave labour is cheap and there will be no drive on inventing labour saving technology.

In this case

There is no such thing as free labour. Unless you have a constantly supply of new slaves you do not pay for who you can expend without feeding or housing, it is not free.

The welfare of slaves

Is a moral concern

The economic standing of the impoverished

Is an economic concern

Its an economic concern. You want your slaves to be fit right?

to work hard

Not necessarily

Yes and no.

Slaves can be made to work hard with a whip

you don't want them to be fit from the goodness of your heart

A slave barely able to get through the day and just about survives is one who can’t rebel after work.

A really fit slave is capable of rebelling.

If i owned slaves i would feed them the bear minimum to survive and would simply coerce them to work through threats of violence, this is the cheapest and most economically efficent. Say your arguement about slave welfare was an economic one then better treated slaves would cost more to own and likely do less work

So are 1000 weak slaves against one master

That isnt the arguement

How will they be likely to do less work?