Your points are valid, but I was talking about non-competes specifically, which companies try to apply outside of America too, even if they are not legally bind

Your points are valid, but I was talking about non-competes specifically, which companies try to apply outside of America too, even if they are not legally binding (I'm Swedish and I've signed a non compete in the past, knowing fully well I could choose to ignore it because that specific clause is illegal here, but still) My point was more that most people can't afford to not work in the industry they've spent years building competence in, and therefore a no-compete clause makes them very vulnerable to poor practices from the employer. The employer might (in theory) treat their employees poorly knowing that they cannot leave the company, and the employees will be forced to put up with it because leaving employment with a non-compete deal means they can't pay their mortgage. Calling it slavery is hyperbolic to be sure, but non-competes are undeniably a step in that direction.