There seems to be a choice between a lot of poverty-level jobs (with low consumer prices) and fewer living-wage jobs (with high consumer prices) and it's legiti

There seems to be a choice between a lot of poverty-level jobs (with low consumer prices) and fewer living-wage jobs (with high consumer prices) and it's legitimate for a government to opt for the latter with something like this ordinance. The problem comes that switching requires those jobs to go away. Even in the best case that's going to be very painful for the workers that lose their poverty-level job and have nothing. But what this article is highlighting is even worse - because of the way gig job works there isn't even a switch to fewer jobs livable-wage jobs, just less work spread between the same people. Hopefully that's temporary but it's not clear cut. I think this is an example of a very painful policy choice. It might be the right decision long term but still can be a damaging transition.