Consider the following:
1. Tenure-track (or other long-term, full benefits) faculty jobs are expensive, while contingent and adjunct faculty are cheap. Georgetown pays adjuncts a much better rate than most universities do, but paying an adjunct to teach 3 courses costs Georgetown about 1/10th what it costs them to hire a tenure-track assistant professor in the business school. Even if universities were to stop using adjuncts, but instead double the total amount of money they dedicate to faculty salary and benefits, they would not be able to hire all the adjunct faculty as permanent, high-pay, full-benefit faculty. Instead, a minority of professional adjuncts would get cushier jobs, and the majority would get kicked out of academia permanently.
2. Most professional adjuncts are highly skilled people, with very high IQs, with impressive resumes. They could get good jobs with benefits and good pay in some other sector of the economy. They could easily learn other skills that would be of great value to employers. (Social justice warriors: note the use of the word, “most”.) But, they chose “academia out of a love of scholarship and teaching”. This indicates that they prefer B) working as contingent faculty with few benefits and low pay, and participating in an exploitative and corrupt system, to C) getting a different kind of job with better pay and better benefits in a less corrupt sector of the economy. Of course they’d each prefer A) having a permanent, TT or equivalent job with good pay and benefits in the academy.
This means that if the Adjuncts’ Rights Movement succeeds, it will tend to undermine the revealed preferences of most professional adjuncts. They prefer A to B to C. If the Adjuncts’ Rights Movement succeeds, it will deliver the most-preferred option A to a small minority of adjuncts, but leave the majority with their least-preferred option C.