would the adjustment of 'most employment is inherently slavery' satisfy your pedanticism? economic enslavement is ubiquitous and not at all how it must be.
I mean, look, one could perhaps make such a claim, and make a reasoned case for it. The article doesn't do that. It doesn't even try. It merely defines work to be slavery, and quotes some people who agree. That's not proof, not evidence, and not very convincing. It's just rhetoric.
So the author dogmatically makes an assertion. That and a buck will get you a Coke at McDonald's. If you want me to listen, though, you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
[Edit: The article did give some reasons. They're dogmatic generalizations that are so far removed from my experience of work that I completely dismissed them as mere rhetoric.]
The article lays out a perspective. You dont have to agree with that perspective but you sure need to do better than keep saying its not true.
To SOME. available to SOME.