The fact that you have to work in order to be able to live doesn't mean that you're a slave. You might as well say that "life is slavery".

This is all quite insulting to the plights of people who were slaves throughout history, and those who still are slaves today. Please don't equate the first-world gripes of people who are unprecedentedly well-off to actual slavery.

This is why I criticize using the term "wage slave". People actually think the lives of people who literally didn't have any human rights and were bought and sold as property are comparable to people who work under poor conditions.

The author mentions that she earned $60 a day after taxes.

> This is why I criticize using the term "wage slave".

But "slave" != "wage slave", as explained in the Wikipedia article linked above.

> But "slave" != "wage slave"

Exactly my point.

You have no point. The term wage slave has been around since the industrial revolution and has a very well understood meaning.

> What if the wage earns you only enough to live on? Some slaves were provided with sustenance and not much else. What's the difference?

Are you kidding?

Slaves are owned, like property (in fact that is the definition of slavery). That's a huge difference.