The Gig Economy Is a Big Nothingburger

As you know if you’re a faithful reader of this blog, the “gig economy” is largely a myth. So how did two prominent researchers, Alan Krueger of Princeton University and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, manage to screw up so badly, predicting in 2015 that gig employment was rising rapidly and was poised to change the American economy permanently? To their credit, they have now published a working paper that digs into where they went wrong:

First, the gig economy appeared swollen largely because the labor market earlier this decade was so weak for so long in the aftermath of the recession. Rather than heralding a permanent shift in the relationship of Americans to employers, a lot of gig-economy activity was odd jobs that people took up to make ends meet. As the economy returned to normal, they returned to more familiar work arrangements.

Second, Messrs. Krueger and Katz conclude, the surveys used to measure alternative work arrangements remain riddled with flaws, and the Labor Department does a poor job of accounting for people with multiple jobs.

Here’s the explanation in chart format:

Roughly speaking, the Current Population Survey stopped asking about contingent work arrangements in 2005, so in 2015 Katz and Krueger teamed up with RAND to produce a more current estimate. They tried to weight their results similarly to the CPS surveys, but that’s hard to do and they ended up overestimating things. When the Labor Department itself produced a new figure for 2017, they found that contingent work was about the same as it had been in all the previous surveys going back to 1995.

These things happen. Just as a personal observation, though, I think the enthusiasm about the gig economy sprang from two sources:

  • A disconnect between elites and the working class. A sizeable portion of the working class has been engaged in contingent labor forever, but somehow a lot of smart people have never really understood just how common this is in their lives.
  • A belief that if your contingent job is based on notification from an app rather than a phone call from a supervisor, it’s somehow fundamentally different. It’s not.

Plus there’s the very slow recovery from the Great Recession, which caused a lot of otherwise sensible people to look at things like work arrangements and conclude that they were permanently worse than they had been. Time will tell about that, but in the short term we just needed to complete the normal recovery process. We mostly have by now, and sure enough, the nature of work is now back to about where it was ten years ago.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend