This definition of slavery sounds a lot like capitalism.
To delve into the macabre, you can pay people less than the cost of maintaining a slave to do the same work, and those people are not a capital expenditure but an operational one, i.e. you don't take a loss if they happen to starve, get sick, or quit, you just hire someone else.
Kudos on your last point though. The overreaction on this thread needs to be brought back to that reality.
Agriculture itself must have felt like slavery to hunter-gatherers - work the fields, or get killed by those who do.
Only if you are denied choices you are entitled to, like running away, through negative reinforcement. Slavery is not simply the state of needing to work to survive. Such a definition would stigmatize all poor people in developing countries as slaves, and anyone employing them as a slaver. It would imply that the natural state of man, where he must hunt and gather to survive, as slavery. That would obviously be inconsistent with what the word means in common parlance.
This was kinda how I summed up the paper actually, the amount of side effects on any large scale deployment is mind boggling.
I wouldn't worry about it though. If it ever gets tried on a large scale it'll be a hilarious disaster of unexpected second-order effects that will lead to the program's cancellation long before the whole crow species is subjugated.