“Effective” slavery is when your income completely disappears back into your employers’ pockets.

In that case, I can cite many examples of literal slavery that are not effective slavery. Including examples of race-based chattel slavery in the USA.

I'm sure the revelation that they're not effectively enslaved would have heartened many of those folk.

Not to mention that consumer purchases are far from the majority or even the plurality of expenses of most working-class folk in the modern USA. But I suppose that would require a greater understanding of modern economic conditions than the one you currently hold.

Why is this such a fucking difficult concept!? I ALREADY gave you the example of company towns.

In company towns, there was no effective choice at where to spend one's money. Furthermore, company towns had deeply restrictive and abusive contracts that amounted to debt slavery; and on top of that, often paid in company script that could not be used anywhere else. When we describe historical company towns as effective slavery, it's not because of fucking regional horizontal integration.

Does your understanding of history stop at American shores?! You’re genuinely pathetic sometimes, Pug.

Funny enough, American history in particular is far from my fields of interest, but I suppose that would require having some actual familiarity with me instead of a weak attempt at an insult, lmao.