> And if everyone did their research, they wouldn't accept it either at current rates.
This would be true if there were better-paying alternatives out there that were accessible to most people, but there just aren't for many.
One thing that gig companies have going for them is the (relatively) low barrier for workers to earn money in an economy that hasn't seen significant and consistent wage growth in years.
If you're struggling to get a job in the first place, doing all of the planning you've outlined could feel like premature optimization.
> This would be true if there were better-paying alternatives out there that were accessible to most people, but there just aren't for many.
Exactly this. People like to complain about low-paying jobs as if they're exploiting the workers, but the workers aren't stupid. If there were better options available they would take them.
Trying to crack down on low-paying jobs is just cracking down on the only work available at all.
That's not really true a lot of these gig jobs are replacing existing (low paid) jobs where you would have been an employee - but at a cheaper rate and avoiding the employers side of NI - effectively UK tax payers subsidise Uber et al.
The economy has seen substantial wage growth at the low end. The local McDonald's was advertising pay of $13-$17 an hour - significantly above minimum wage.
Here in the UK, there seem to be two main demographics doing "gig work" - recent immigrants who don't have the language skills or qualifications for most other types of employment, and students or semi-retired people who need some supplementary income.
These jobs ("self-employment opportunities") are a long way from ideal, but for many people they're the least-worst option. The alternative to working for Uber or Deliveroo many well be unemployment. Gig economy workers have started to unionise, which is a highly significant step - the union has crowdfunded several legal challenges and has already chalked up some victories for their members.
Sure, but with the gig economy being a race to the bottom there is a good chance that you will actually lose money on each gig you work. Better run the numbers to ensure that you really are making money.
Retention metrics should tell us something about this, right? If someone does a job for a few months to a year they should have a good handle on whether or not they've lost money.
>Retention metrics should tell us something about this, right? If someone does a job for a few months to a year they should have a good handle on whether or not they've lost money.
There are things that are more difficult to measure than just "money". For example, as a gig worker you don't really build up any good "skills" or you're not working on a "career" so to speak. In this sense you're not going up on the ladder which means that you are, in a relative sense, actually dropping down the ladder. Stuff like this is hard to measure but the effect is nonetheless real. Furthermore, think of car depreciation costs (Uber) which happens on your dime but is also hard to measure (or at least, many people don't think about it or factor it in until its too late).
These are just 2 examples but I can probably think of more examples. The point I'm trying to make is that being a gig worker might seem promising on the surface (you trade your time/labour for tangible money) but that there are a lot of hidden costs (not just hidden monetary costs).
This would be true if there were better-paying alternatives out there that were accessible to most people, but there just aren't for many.
One thing that gig companies have going for them is the (relatively) low barrier for workers to earn money in an economy that hasn't seen significant and consistent wage growth in years.
If you're struggling to get a job in the first place, doing all of the planning you've outlined could feel like premature optimization.