This is the older viewpoint. The newer one is that no one would consensually agree to sex work unless they were coerced. I am not in a position to opine on that viewpoint, but if it's true, then every sex worker is being exploited regardless of any laws or regulations.
"No one would consensually agree to [insert other menial job here] unless they were coerced."
I can't speak for everyone or everywhere, but we definitely have documentries in the UK where women claim to do sex work because it afford them a specific lifestyle and they'd rather be there than a supermarket.
In fact, I've met such woman and the suger baby approach is fairly popular with students nowadays. They're not doing it for basic food and warth, they're doing it for chanel and gucci.
I'm not sure that moralising their ability to consent away from them is the right thing to do, but it's also probably true that cost of living rises and advertising budgets have contributed to this.
Making children work in a factory, forcing slaves to work under threat of violence, or even paying consenting adults to work grueling hours in dangerous jobs without medical recourse is bad. Paying employees to do something that's menial or boring is not.
The standards of what is acceptable or not certainly change over time, but conflating coercion and acceptable remuneration is a silly equivocation.
Edited to add that this is discussed explicitly in the article, as it mentions for instance the migrant sex worker collective Red Canary Song.
Also 'trafficking' is a term that needs a precise definition as it means different things to different people.
A lot of the dangers to sex workers is because of these protections forcing them to go underground and work with shady exploitative dealers and trafficking.