This would be true if the worker could fall back on a minimum basic income or some other humane way of surviving without the work. If the worker has only the choice between penury and working for the conditions demanded by the employer, then employment amounts to coercion.
I mean you could argue that literal slavery is a two wagy agreement because the slave always has the option of committing suicide. For most low income workers, employment can't be a market because they need it to survive and the companies have a major structural advantage.
> This would be true if the worker could fall back on a minimum basic income or some other humane way of surviving without the work.
We do, it's their family. Young people are (typically) still living at home, so most of their large expenses are already taken care of or greatly reduced.
There are exceptions, of course, but we can't fashion a society around exceptions.
> but we can't fashion a society around exceptions.
I genuinely don't see why not. And there are many people who are at or near poverty whose families are also at or near poverty. Or their families don't like them because they are gay or married someone of a different race or any number of things. I can sort of see this for young people, but lots of very poor people aren't young.
I mean you could argue that literal slavery is a two wagy agreement because the slave always has the option of committing suicide. For most low income workers, employment can't be a market because they need it to survive and the companies have a major structural advantage.