This is a reasonable position and well-stated, but my concern is the implication that you will be vilified if you start a business that can't maintain a full time workforce with benefits.

So, let's say you're an investor. You've got the choice of:

1) invest in a business with traditional happy lifer employees

2) invest in a business that treats its workforce like disposable contractors and may eventually become an Enemy of the People's Press, but offers higher potential returns, and may be able to eke out an existence in a niche that #1 could never serve.

3) invest in some less active financial instrument alchemy that employs zero local people and threatens no publicity waves

There is (maybe) an argument that #1 is preferable to #2, but it's at least complicated. However, I think it's general agreed that both #1 & #2 are preferable to #3.

If we're already talking Unions and unfair treatment of contractors 5 years into the existence of a type 1 here, one that no one knows could even exist under traditional employment circumstances, we may very well be driving funding into the reduced hassle of #3.

That's certainly what it would do to me, though granted my "fuck it" threshold is 5-10x lower than the average person's.