Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 22 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 4/16/20

The Gig Economy: How Big, How Bad? Part I: The Numbers

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   2 comments
Author 29167
Message Frank Stricker

Part I: The Numbers

There's been much discussion about the gig economy, about whether it is the wave of the future, and whether new kinds of gig jobs are good for human beings.

The simplest definition of a gig worker is someone who is self-employed and/or an independent contractor. That means someone who is not legally considered the employee of an employer. Modern examples are Uber and Lyft drivers. Some authors focus mainly on gig jobs mediated by online platforms. But others include all kinds of independent contractors and self-employed workers. Some claim that a third of all jobholders are gig workers.

It is not uncommon for bloggers to write as though there were no gig workers until the 2010s. They may ignore retro-giggers: house cleaners who work for themselves, lawn mowers, people who regularly sell at local flea markets, people who walk dogs and house-sit for a fee, house painters who have no or few employees. And jazz musicians who don't have a steady job. (They gave us the gig-term, didn't they?) If gig workers are those who are not considered employees of those for whom they provide products and services, there have always been gig workers, and much about the gig phenomenon is not new.

But are there more gig workers than ever? Counting gig workers, old and new, is something that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau do. Together they are responsible for tons of employment data, and, most importantly, the monthly unemployment rate. But they have rarely surveyed people in "alternative work arrangements"--which includes independent contractors--and contingent jobs. The survey is called the Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS). But when neo-gigs came into view in the 2010s, there had not been a new CWS since 2005.

Princeton Economist Alan Kreuger and Harvard Economist Lawrence Katz aimed to fill the vacuum with a survey carried out by the Rand Corporation in the fall of 2015. It was called "The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015", and it is available from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Like CWS, it focused on people's main or sole jobs. Perhaps the most striking conclusions were these:

1. People in alternative work arrangements, which included independent contractors and people hired by temp agencies and labor contractors, increased their share of the work force between 2010 and the fall of 2015 from 10.7% to 15.8%. That is substantial.

2. Of all net new jobs, 94% were gig jobs. Seems like a revolution. But was it?

3. Almost a fifth (19.4%) of all job holders reported that they sold goods and services directly to customers. A minority used old-time intermediaries like Avon. Relatively few used innovative tools. For 2015, the share of the work force that found their main or sole jobs through online intermediaries was 0.5%. Not much of a revolution. K and K showed that many gig workers were not working for Uber, Taskrabbit, and similar companies. Many were in sales, health and educational services, construction, and other apparently retro jobs.

Two years after K and K's pioneering study, the Bureau of Labor Statistics was able to fund a new Contingent Worker Supplement. The results were obtained in May of 2017 and published on June 7, 2018. They showed that there was little change in the share of workers with alternative work arrangements. The category of independent contractors, including independent consultants and freelance workers, totaled 10.6 million people. But that represented a smaller share of the labor force at 6.9% than in 2005 (7.4%). So no revolution?

Careful scholars and journalists found reasons for skepticism.

-Neil Irwin, in "Maybe We're Not All Going to Be Gig Workers" (New York Times, September 15, 2019), provided a concise survey of research that suggested that the neo-gig economy was a niche arrangement in a few sectors and mostly provided a side hustle for people whose regular jobs did not pay enough.

-Irwin mentioned the research of Dmitri Koustas, who found that many people's earnings from their regular jobs fell off just before they started as gig workers.

-The Federal Reserve Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2018 showed that 3 in 10 adults engaged in a gig activity in the month before the survey, but the number who were doing things like driving for Uber and Lyft was smaller than the number who sold stuff at flea markets and about the same number as those who walked dogs for pay. The enterprise that involved the single largest share of adults--10%--was online selling. Digital, yes, but not earth-shattering. And did online selling yield much income?

-Researchers at the JPMorgan Chase Institute studied 39 million Chase checking accounts and found that 2.3 million accounts received at least one payment from online platforms between October of 2012 and March of 2018. Millions, yes, but not so many over five years. In March of 2018, the state and the city with the highest share of participators were Nevada and San Francisco, but in each case just 2.8% of the families were generating platform earnings.

-On May 15, 2018, Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute provided a clever way to measure the employment impact of Uber and similar companies. While 833,000 people drove for Uber in a year, most did not work a full week or year-round. The total hours worked by all Uber drivers was the equivalent of 90,521 full-time, full-year workers.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

 

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Frank Stricker Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Emeritus Professor of History, Labor and Interdisciplinary Studies, California State University, Dominguez Hills; board member of National Jobs for All Network.
Author of American Unemployment: Past, Present, and Future (University of (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Holidays: Arguing about Good Jobs with the Family

Republican Tax Cuts Are Not About Economic Growth or Lifting Working-Class Incomes

The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom

The Gig Economy: How Big, How Bad? Part I: The Numbers

Want to Fix Social Security? Push Democratcs to Do the Right Thing and Vote for Democrats

Happy New Year, Sure, But Why Aren't Wages Soaring?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: