I know this thread is offered as sarcasm, but, the morality of slavery aside, it is true that from a strictly economic standpoint based on demographic information, slaves in America had a much better standard of living compared to agricultural workers in Africa and South American and many parts of Europe. See Edwin J. Perkins, "The Economy of Colonial America," 108-109 (Columbia University Press, 1988).

However, Perkins' summation of the impact of slavery is very poignent:

"Unlike whites, however, slaves had no opportunity to reap additional benefits from their own productivity. After 1670 they had no hope whatsoever of acquiring land and improving their economic or social status, irrespective of individual effort. Nonetheless, the greatest tragedy of slavery was not the everyday treatment of its immediate victims; rather it was the reality that all future generations could look forward to nothing other than dependency, humiliation, and subjugation. In sum, the second largest group of workers in North America contributed greatly to the exceptional prosperity of the colonies, yet they had permanent and perpetual limitations placed upon their participation in it material rewards." Ibid., at 109.

Lincoln challenges the "benevolent" slavery theory nicely in this excerpt for his "Fragment on Pro-Slavery Theology:"

"...But, slavery is good for some people!!! As a good thing, slavery is strikingly perculiar, in this, that it is the only good thing which no man ever seeks the good of, for himself.

Nonsense! Wolves devouring lambs, not because it is good for their own greedy maws, but because it [is] good for the lambs!!!"

Roy Basler, ed., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Vol. 3, p. 204-205 (1953).