>> Both employment and slavery are by degrees. I think they can be compared, but "employment = slavery" is obviously wrong.
> That's like comparing rocket motors to lettuce.
No, they're clearly not that different. Both involve laboring for others (usually members of the ownership class), under some degree of compulsion. Though the nature of that compulsion can be different (e.g. using the threat of the whip vs. using the threat of starvation).
The benefit of "being able to change jobs" is often significantly overstated and highly contextual. It's not like anyone can just pick any job they like: they have to pick what they're offered. For some people, that can be highly restricted, to the point of being serf-like.
Tens of millions people are in literal slavery today, whether sex slaves, child labor or other forced labor. Reading about what they endure, it seems disingenuous at best to claim slavery and employment are "clearly not that different" by reducing it to the nature of the compulsion behind it. It's like claiming a bullet and a tennis ball clearly aren't that different; they both involve projectile motion through the air under some degree of momentum, though the nature of that momentum can be different.
For things to be "not that different" implies they are interchangeable to an extent. I'd certainly be interested to know the result if you surveyed a random sample of 100 employed people and asked if they'd be willing to forego work to enter slavery.
Your entire comment is based on a misunderstanding. In this context "not that different" means not as different as "rocket motors" and "lettuce." I even explicitly quoted that context, so it was pretty hard to miss.
Your entire comment is based on semantics and avoiding the actual topic at hand - everyone's explicitly calling you out for this, it's pretty hard to miss.
