Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you raise the cost of employing low skill workers then many of these business models cease to exist. At risk of getting into a discussion about UBI and tax doctrine, is that a bad thing? The business doesn't have a right to exist. If it can't operate without paying its staff below-subsistence wages, why should it (or the VCs who provide it funding) expect the state (read: other taxpayers) to subsidise that? Rega…
I think it is a bad thing if a useful service could not exist - and people who voluntarily chose to be employed by that service cannot have access to those jobs. I think it's better to be employed and increasing your value/skill set in the job market than living off welfare. You can't move up the ladder if you don't develop skills.
Alleging that people "voluntarily chose" to work in gig economy jobs ignores both the significant anti-welfare rhetoric from politicians and (perhaps particularly in the West) cultural push towards employment ("protestant work ethic"), and your own/the GP's points that a number of the people working there are doing so through a shortage of alternatives.
On the other hand, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; a push (in the UK, the Labour party have been particularly vocal) to ban zero-hours contracts has risks to the ability of people who need the flexibility (students being the obvious example) to find work which suits.
> I think it's better to be employed and increasing your value/skill set in the job market than living off welfare
They're not mutually exclusive; in this case both happen (although it's debatable to what extent Deliveroo et al develop anyone's skill set). Equally, the money spent topping up the wages of the low paid could be redirected to providing education.