"The entire Gig Economy is based around paying the workers as little as possible"

Remove the word "Gig" from that sentence and you're on the right track. There is a bizarre tenancy for people to proscribe the worst attributes to these newer corporations when the big old corporations have being doing this and vastly worse for literally generations.

Would you support Uber hiring all the California drivers, and then forcing them to only drive on their platform? If so, do you think that would be better or worse for the drivers and consumers?

when you put it that way, i'm not too sure it's specific to the gig economy..

What is the best argument for why this intervention is necessary? If workers don't like the pay, they can quit. Given that workers can always quit whenever they want for whatever reason (with the exception of certain high level jobs) how much regulation of the business/worker relationship is really necessary? Safety regulations, sure, but regulating hours and pay rates etc etc? Does this actually benefit anyone?

edit: oh no my fake internet points!

Don't forget externalizing risk and fixed costs to "non-employee" workers.

>> The entire Gig Economy is based around ... the companies tak[ing] as much as they can.

This isn't true. Almost all these high flying gig economy companies are running huge losses because they're not charging customers enough.

Also, it's unclear whether AB5 will result in workers getting paid more. Uber/Lyft may simply lower their hourly wage even more to make up for the required taxes and benefits. The only clear winner here is the government since they'll be collecting employment-related taxes. The most worker friendly solution is to create a new class of contractor that requires a livable wage and benefits, but doesn't require companies to pay employment related taxes.