Losing your job because of a policy sure seems like being affected by it. Also, the primary mechanism isn't people actually getting fired, but rather employers being more reluctant to hire. So, the "affected" population also includes all those people who would have otherwise had jobs.

If they exclude it, then it's a preposterously biased estimate. It then means "Of those who benefit from this policy, here's how much they benefit." not "This is the net benefit of this policy." Only the latter is a relevant standard for doing a policy comparison.