I strongly disagree with this position. Yeah, sure, supporting people at the brink of poverty is one of the government's responsibilities, but taking away one of the few options they have goes in the opposite direction. Most of these gig-economy jobs differ from a regular job in that they're much easier to get, at least in most parts of Europe. If you meet a few basic requirements you're in. For people at risk, mentally ill people, and plenty of other segments of the population this is a real lifeline that they're not getting from anywhere else. This is keeping a roof over they head and food on the table.
Obviously, they're doing it because they can't get a better situation. Taking this option away is making them a lot more vulnerable, and doing them a lot of harm. It's not like they don't realise they're being exploited.
Sure, they should be supported etc. But that's just "shoulds", policy is difficult. For many, this gig-economy is an actual lifeline, that exists right now.
See the hospitality industry for an example. They have tips, so they don't get minimum wage.
The US government is famously bad at protecting people who need it. Anything which disguised that fact, even a little, should be removed.
If somebody is capable of providing for themselves, why "should" they be dependent on government services?
They have tips, so they don't get minimum wage.
Employers are required to make up the difference if tips don't reach minimum wage.
Anything which disguised that fact, even a little, should be removed.
Should be ban inexpensive food because it's just disguising how bad the government is at taking care of hungry people?