Right, but without the gig economy jobs they'd have less possibilities for income.
This is a major debate in West at the moment, and in the UK it's synonymous with the term "zero-hour contracts": is it somehow OK to suppress unemployment figures by nominally employing more people but giving each one a smaller share of all the labour, and so, wages?
If the gig economy unsustainably employs people at cut-throat rates, then the statistics look good, and that spins the public opinion. Why would workers complain that they can't pay the bills if there are so many jobs out there? In fact, employment for peanuts is worse than no employment at all, because it is a lie perpetuated to try to avoid having to really deal with the issue of job poverty.
> What if...
Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
Fixed term contracts are allowable, because taking that thinking to the extreme would mean never being able to terminate a worker, even in cases where their employment becomes obsolete.
The issue revolves around "technically being employed" - having a contract which doesn't entail consistent or sufficient hours, and then not even having the choice to work enough to get by. This unfairly pumps employment figures for companies and the government, who can say that they have X workers, while denying an honest representation of how much people are actually able to work.
My original question was - is there an example of a job which could justify these kinds of fluctuations in working hours and subsequent income?
Painter, they can only work on days it's nice out. Kinda hard to paint when it's raining, and you can't get the day back.