With all due respect, the article is pretty clear here:
> …within the room, where three wooden beds have been found…
But additionally, “slave” here could describe a wide range of socioeconomic statuses. It does not necessarily mean that one was the poorest of the poor, the way a modern slave or pseudo-slave would be. Assuming that this represented the poorest housing conditions available may not be accurate.
It is theorised to have been a family which is not bad, but the room is only 16sqm for 3, and apparently doubled up as storage of sorts.
They could also have had more room than average due to their job (taking care of horses and chariots) so they got to use one of the stables’s rooms.
Looking at the floor plan at the end of the article, there are two other rooms of similar dimensions (b and d), and the horses (f) and chariot seem to have been granted a lot more space.
Historically the 16 sqm for 3 persons doesn't really sound too bad. Even currently in many places people live in less space. And little back it was even more common.
Also, I don't think they spend too much time in the room other than sleeping.
>Cage homes were initially constructed for single men coming over from mainland China in the 1950s. As poverty rose and housing supply fell, the demand for cage homes grew.
>Incredibly, the 16-square-foot cages rent for around $170-$190 USD, which if calculated by cost per square foot makes them more expensive than the most posh apartments in Hong Kong.
Modern slavery is a lot closer to home her in New Zealand. Yesterday there was a disturbing story about bottle store owners doing it. Tying residency to paid work with a specific employer is part the problem.
