Can you argue that I was vulnerable and my original company took advantage of the situation? Perhaps. But nobody else was hiring me so in my eyes they were the company that treated me the best at the time.
When you have no connections, no resources, no work history in the field, dependents to support.... Shit $42k was still more than I was making in the career I came from. I took it then and people are still taking that stuff now. They aren't wrong to do so either, but the ones exploiting them in this way are wrong to do it.
Sounds like you took a job at roughly the market rate (for what you're offering), not below market rate.
Just because some developers earn a lot, doesn't mean all developers should immediately earn that much or otherwise consider themselves underpaid.
Having connections, resources, experience, education etc. makes you more valuable and therefore increases the value of what you're offering.
In other words, don't compare apples and oranges just because they're both fruit.
Most of the country, in my research, will pay 40-60k for a junior developer, but won't own you either (giving you time to find/ build a family, friends, hobbies, etc)
Companies aren't paying someone with references more because of luck.
They're paying that person more because that person has less risk and hiring the wrong employee is incredibly expensive.
Effectively, they're amortizing and rebating the dollar value of that person's risk reduction into their salary.
Hint for new/first job seekers: this is why (non-predatory) internships are win/win, the company is able to ascertain your risk (in lieu of references or a track record) and therefore make you and offer and hire you for a higher (de-risked) salary.
Analogizing with another crime against a person's freedom to do as they please, consider "kidnapping." It includes forcibly restraining a person or moving them some place they'd like not to go, and in the eyes of the law the duration doesn't matter; people have unsuccessfully defended kidnapping charges for minutes of detainment. If you agree that the fees in question do rise to the level of indentured servitude (which seems plausible at least), then the fact that it's only for 4% of your working life shouldn't be a relevant consideration.
Big difference is I'm getting money.
I've wasted over a decade (thanks health care in Europe, you stinky garbage!), so I don't get your last point.