If only the authors of the article thought of that. Then they might have written this:<p><i>Work requirements, however, should not unfairly punish people who are physically or mentally unable to complete gig economy jobs. The gig economy can often provide flexible work for those previously considered unable to work, but exemptions would still be available as needed.</i><p>Why not read the article to see what it actually advocates rather than criticizing some unrelated idea no one advocated for?