> I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will c

> I'll skip the coercion point because that requires mind-reading, plus it requires me to believe that literally anyone reads a contract ever, and people will choose poverty if they can't find an employment agreement they like and understand... You don't need mind reading, in the US what a "reasonable" person would consider the situation is all that matters. As for reading contracts, if the conditions were not made clear to you verbally and if it was hidden in a contract somewhere I see no problem in arguing that contract is void. Ok, pressure is a nice word but you can choose poverty you just don't want to. If poverty means no food and shelter then I would agree that it is indeed coercion not just "pressure". When these contracts are so widespread that it affects people's ability to find food and shelter then it is coordinated coercion, a conspiracy if you will. > You seem to think lack of opportunities equates to coercion. No, I was talking about plea bargains and actual prison. Either you risk 30yrs or you falsely admit you are guilty so you can get 5years. Extortion in any other context. I don't get your last paragraph at all.