You're missing the point that people are making when they say "they have a choice". They're not saying their lives are not rife with hardship and very difficult

You're missing the point that people are making when they say "they have a choice". They're not saying their lives are not rife with hardship and very difficult choices. They're saying that their lives are not being made worse by some employer somewhere offering them a bad job. You can't place the burden of providing them with a living income on the first person who hires them. It's just an immature way of assigning blame and responsibility, that resorts to first association thinking. It's not rational/correct. It's also economically wrong thinking. It's almost tantamount to thinking vaccines are a conspiracy by Big Gov/Pharma, in rejecting standard economics as some kind of conspiracy by the establishment to keep The Man down. Prohibiting bad jobs does not cause good jobs to appear to substitute them. It eliminates bad jobs and replaces them with nothing. You're not doing anyone any favors by reducing their employment options. Finally, it hurts industry, and encourages outsourcing, which hurts workers in the country. It also reduces the performance of those industries that can't be outsourced, because the micro-economic incentives to perform are eradicated. An advanced economy is an extremely complex system, and it only works as well as it does due to bottom-up order created through a vast interplay of self-interested action, motivating individuals to generate value. To think that it will work just as well with collections of workers attaining monopolistic control over their company's hiring decisions is being blinded to reality by idealistic/emotional thinking. The casualty of this kind of economically unsound and ideologically motivitated thinking is the worker, who sees their wage growth stagnate, because the industries their wages depend on stagnate or contract.