In Off. 2. 41, after exposing the duties related to war, Cicero follows the same train of thought than in Rep., (3.34-35/36-37) and passes to deal with slaves:
"But let us remember that we must have regard of justice even towards the humblest. Now the humblest station and the poorest fortune are those of slaves, and they give us no bad rule who bid us treat our slaves as we should our employees: they must be required to work, they must be given their Dues. "
The Latin word for "employees" is "mercennarii", "those who work for a pay".
In Oec. 1344b2-4, Aristotle explains the meaning of "pay", when dealing with slaves:
"The remaining alternative, therefore, is to give them work, and a sufficiency of food. Unless we pay men, we can not control them, and food is a slave’s pay."
Working for a (low) pay (or just food) and being a slave were similar things, according to Aristotle (and Cicero).
In Spain (in Europe …?), Zapatero’s government (and in Galicia, Touriño’s government, Zapatero’s man here) are obsessed about creating new "jobs" and focus all their economical policies in favouring employers, expecting thus they will create new "job opportunities".
This economic speech seems corrupted; it also seems shameless.
I remember that, when I was sixteen, teachers explained socialism was about the state owning the means of production.
It’s difficult to understand why pretended socialist governments do not assume the task of creating succesful state-owned companies (and rule a mixed economy).
What do you mean by a "mixed economy"?
A few state owned companies, many small private companies (with no/little taxes), some big private companies, (with more taxes) … in a rather small (controlable) territory.
If they do not do that… why do they present themselves (introduce themselves?) as "socialists"?
Of course, state owned companies should be run by competent, well-paid technicians, engage in profitable business and apport benefits which would be invested in the community.