AskHistorians

So if I'm understanding this correctly, while servants may be more expensive long-term, slaves are a larger upfront investment that only upper class had the money on hand for, like renting a house is (often) ultimately more expensive than buying it. That would make sense to me.

(As the other commenter said, it's icky doing the comparison with objects but that's what slaves were thought of as and I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind choosing servants vs slaves)