I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue tha

I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue that these are currently make-work position for spouses, just like it wasn't trying to argue that only men currently get full professor status. It then went from there to show that it's still a low prestige position. If it is instead meant as a 'fun side gig', etc., for people with high paying jobs elsewhere, then when was the transition from being a low-prestige job to one that millionaires will do as a sort of charity work? The thing is, there are multiple types of adjunct positions. For example, Stephen Wolfram is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois math department. However, he is not teaching college algebra every semester. Instead, it's an affiliation where both sides get some prestige from it. I believe that your example of teaching a graduate level law class at Northwestern falls into this prestige category. But most adjuncts are not in this prestige category. > They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. Like I said, many of them are not wondering. They know why. And they are trying to do things like unionize in hopes that it will get better. To which I'll add that part of changing things is to let others know what's going on. If no one talked about it, and there were no news articles, then it would continue to get worse. > Okay, so they didn't succeed. ... then bitching about the pay. Yes, this is exactly why union start. You shouldn't be surprised about their actions when history shows it's a core part of union nature. Just like I'm not surprised about people who responds as you have done, or I am doing. > these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours. (Actually, I think every job should be able to support a person and a child. And I think we need single-payer health care, liberal parental leave policy, and free day care starting at age 2. But then, I live in Sweden.) How should I decide which jobs are meant to support a person? Does the person offering the job get to make the decision? Is there government oversight? Is that organization funded enough to ensure compliance? Is there a cap on lawsuits? Can a university require arbitration to settle problems? When do adjuncts learn enough about the law recognize illegal anti-union actions by the university? How do they fund lawsuits if there is a problem? > only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career The article started with examples of where a driver for Uber was "supposed to" be an independent contractor, but California labor regulators ruled he was an employee. And of a FedEx settlement of a similar issue in California, and FedEx loss in Kansas. And of two trucking firms who lost the same issue. I can also point to the Microsoft's settlement some 15 years of a court case by people who were "supposed to" be temporary employees. So this "supposed to" isn't always the way thing are. You can say that those people "willingly" got those jobs. But the successful lawsuits show that "willingly" and "supposed to" are not that relevant to how the legal system works or how labor responds. As you must surely know, having studied law.