26 ms·

Share of U.S. workers holding multiple jobs is rising

256 points by batmaniam 6y ago

pb7 6y ago
It's unfortunate that people have to split their time between two separate jobs but these stats never mention the number of hours worked which is the key metric. If you have a job that is only 10-20 hours a week, picking up another job with equal hours, while less ideal than holding one with twice the hours, is not worthy of the headlines.
- diob 6y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines. One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job. And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits. So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to pay any benefits. It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone else.
  - pb7 6y ago
    I agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be overstated. I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    This is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Are such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were sent home.
    - diob 6y ago
      It's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm from), there is no minimum. Link to our laws: https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/state-wage-and-hour-laws/arizona/hours-worked/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  I disagree. Generally working 40+ hours at one company brings significant benefits like health insurance or retirement plans. Working two part-time jobs wouldn't do that. Plus there's a significant cost with context switching. 40 hours at two jobs will have more overhead than 40 hours at one job.
  - pb7 6y ago
    Agreed with all points and that's likely the case for the majority of these people. But there is probably still a non-trivial number of people that are working 32+ hours at one job and 10-20 at another that would fall into these statistics that would receive benefits. More data can't hurt. Existing laws are clearly being gamed. Edit: Also, these stats will exclude people that are working just one job but still under the benefits threshold which is not good either. "Working two jobs" is just too broad of a statement to be actionable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
doggodaddo78 6y ago
It implies cheating workers out of healthcare and benefits, causing them more stress, and costs and time commuting.
- dantheman 6y ago
  Really, you're saying there are unintended consequences to laws? Perhaps instead of trying to extract as much money out of the rest of the economy we should reduce medical costs.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    I'm not sure it's fair to call them unintended consequences when this exact thing was predicted by skeptics when the law was passed.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      I mean, high-school age children were predicting this. I am skeptical that the goal was to try make things better for workers. It seems much more likely that the goal was to appear to try to make things better. At least they did something, amirite?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Or it implies skilled people who would have had under the table side gigs are getting gig economy jobs because it's so easy and turnkey even if the pay is lower. Yeah people working part time are getting screwed out of benefits, but it's hard to tell whether that's rising or more side work is moving above the table.
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  It's not always that nefarious. At a past company we had certain manual labor tasks that had to be done by end of day, so work schedules were flexible. We offered full time with benefits, but there was still a lot of demand for part-time work. There are a lot of people out there who simply want to use extra time in the day to take on paying work. You get college students looking for a few hours after work, or parents who have to work around their kids school schedules, or older people who simply want to have something to do but aren't up for full-time jobs. There are also plenty of jobs where companies simply can't afford to pay someone 40 hours per week plus benefits. Hiring someone for 20 hours per week with no benefits is arguably better than not having that job in the economy at all. I'd love as much as anyone for the US to separate health care from employer-provided health insurance, but it's not really fair to blame companies for the failures of our politicians.
glasss 6y ago
To be fair, I know a significant amount of people who work multiple jobs but they only really put in a few hours on the weekend. They are the minority though, and most 2 or 3 job workers I know do put in a significant >15 hours a week at each. I think the bigger thing beyond hours worked is commute and decompression time. I don't know anyone who, after working 6 hours on a Saturday, is ready right away to go out and have fun with their friends. Everyone wants to come home, change clothes if needed, and relax a bit before moving onto to something else. That extra hour or so, not even including the commute, is a pretty big hit to your weekend time.
mjfl 6y ago
This will certainly be made worse by raising the min wage, as suggested in the article, not helped. Contrary to the apparent popular opinion, companies aren’t bottomless pits of money and many are barely surviving. How do people get away with having this fantasy as one of the central “truths” of their universes? Many of the barely surviving companies are those that employ “vulnerable people”, think grocery stores- laser thin margins, managers that aren’t actually making much more than employees. Nuking those businesses will improve the health of the job market? are you kidding me?
- cambalache 6y ago
  I suggest to decrease the minimum wage to 1 USD/h like in Mexico. Other option is that the bosses may give the employees a tract of land in rent as payment, they can keep a small portion of their production for themselves.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    Some Nordic countries, which usually come up at some point when discussing employment dynamics, do not have a minimum wage and yet no one earns only $1/h.
    - radus 6y ago
      Those same countries have very expansive social safety nets that are non-existent in the US.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        You mean like universal healthcare for low income people (Medicaid)? Or retirement security for low income people (Social security)? What exactly are you referring to?
        cambalache 6y ago
        Free college education 4-6 weeks of mandated paid vacation Substantial paid parental leave Option to opt in for half-time working and the companies are mandated to comply Universal healthcare not related to your job situation nor to the whims of the coverage of your health policy Option to join an union with no repercussion Any other question?
mdip 6y ago
The devil's in the details. Last week, my wife started doing DoorDash. She's loving it. I accompanied her on one of the trips and I enjoyed it. I thought, ya know, I like people, I enjoyed this a whole lot more than some of the other things I do for entertainment, I'd do this with free time occasionally. Boom, second job. But then, I look back on my history as a developer. I've occasionally taken on some work. I sell things on e-bay/craigslist. I've always sort-of had a second income source, mainly to pay for things I would just go without -- phone upgrades, an extra vacation, etc. I don't need it ... well, depending on how you look at the numbers, maybe I do, but is it all that strange? I'm a bad example, though. My wife has told practically everyone she knows and many of her friends/family have decided to start doing it. None wanted a second job, though some surely needed it. None could take on a second scheduled or full time job but all had a few hours a week, a need for some extra cash, and found doing "gig work" to be a great fit. Many of them are simply making idle time more productive for themselves and they'd have never gotten a second job if it these specific types of "second jobs" (frequently first[0]) didn't exist. [0] And I don't mean that as a "tragedy", either. Though there are stories of people barely scraping by, there are areas where the pay is far higher than other unskilled jobs (and many skilled in my area).
- andrekandre 6y ago
  > making idle time more productive for themselves this may be me projecting my own sensibilities (and sorry if i am misinterpreting) but.... why cant people just hang out, take some time off and relax with friends? why does everything have to be about "productivity" ?
  - adkadskhj 6y ago
    For me everything i do is about productivity, but that's because i have more things i'm interested in than i have time or energy. My play time is 100% about maximizing my enjoyment and regeneration, to get me back to doing the things i really enjoy doing. Even my casual, lounge time is a calculated effort at that. Now hopefully i have a healthy balance. I don't work myself too hard because i don't want to burn out. I'm also less productive if i'm burning out. But yea. I just enjoy building things. It's who i am. If i had one wish it would be to not need sleep. With those extra hours i'd learn to woodwork or something physical, but still build - create. My only regret is that my ability to build (software) is limited per day, and i give a significant portion of that to the necessities of life. Aka work. It's not making me rich, nor is it things i truly want to solve. But hey, i still enjoy it - and for that i am truly fortunate. After seeing what my wife went through working retail; I can't imagine having to work retail. It was awful.
dcolkitt 6y ago
US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong growth during the Covid recession[1]. With higher compensation it makes sense that more people would trade off leisure to work additional hours at attractive pay. Including getting a second job. [1]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong growth during the Covid recession Translation: employment losses were strong at the bottom and light at the top, leaving the average wages of the remaining employed workers much higher. > With higher compensation it makes sense that more people would trade off leisure to work additional hours at attractive pay. Including getting a second job. I would be very surprised if the distribution of who is getting second jobs is consistent with that “a sinking tide lifts all boats” fairy tale rather than it being concentrated in the same segments where unemployment has gone up the most and representing instead people who would otherwise be underemployed due to limited hours available in the primary job backfilling with a second, possibly lower-paying-per-hour job.
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    Although labor market recomposition plays a role. There's a major shortage of semi-skilled blue collar labor, leading to some of the strongest wage increases of any sectors in 2020. This includes construction[1], manufacturing[2], and logistics[3]. These workforces tend to skew older, and hence were more affected by workers dropping out due to Covid fears. Unlike traditional white collar professions, these are industries where workers are likely to take a second job. Particularly during boom periods when pay is attractive. It's very likely that at least some of the increase in second jobs is driven by rising secular wages in semi-skilled blue collar jobs. [1]https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-construction-labor-shortage-where-did-all-the-skilled-labor-go/ https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-const... [2]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/manufacturing-faces-labor-shortage-as-workforce-ages.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/manufacturing... [3]https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/warehouse-worker-scarcity-crimping-us-transloading-capacity_20200813.html https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/warehouse-worker-scar...
l72 6y ago
Having multiple family members and friends that work in retail or the food industry, this is very common among them. From what I can tell, this happens for two major reasons: 1. The pay is too low, so a second job is required. If you are making $12/hour (which is pretty good for retail), that is only $25k/year at full time, which is not enough to support yourself and certainly not a family. Raising the minimum wage, providing health insurance, and paid time off could definitely help here. 2. So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for full time work. It seems like most of my family members and friends hover just under 30 hours per week. Even if they were making $15-18/hour, at less than 30 hours per week plus no benefits, this doesn't cut it. So they end up with a second job where they are also part time. And balancing two part time jobs, both with schedules that constantly change, is incredibly difficult and stressful.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I would rather work 40 hours without benefits than 29 hours without benefits and then trying to fit in an extra 11-20 at another place every week(also without benefits). What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result.
  - l72 6y ago
    I think most people would agree. The federal government had good intentions, but of course, large businesses found a way around it, which just screwed over the employees even more. But even 40 hours at $12/hour with no benefits is not something you can survive on in the long term. It's not like there are very many advancements or raises either. You might be surprised to learn, that the manager at many of these retail stores only earn about $2 more than their floor employees. So that's where you cap out, unless you some how have connections and get into regional or corporate hq. I am not sure what the government can do. It seems like any rules they make, business will find loopholes. In my opinion, retail workers and food industry workers need a union. That is the only way they are ever going to get full time work, benefits, and better pay.
matz1 6y ago
With the rise of remote working its becoming easier for tech worker to collect multiple full time salaries too.
- mnouquet 6y ago
  Strongly agree !
- tudelo 6y ago
  I hear a lot of people saying they want to do this or that they could do this but... I would love to hear more stories about how it works in practice. Like, isn't there some level of legal liability, whether justified or not, that you would be opening yourself up to by doing this? Especially if the companies are in any way related, which could probably be hard to quantify.
  - matz1 6y ago
    I know at least 1 friend doing this. Of course you don't tell the company know you are doing this. It require good time management for sure. The risk are low.
  - mnouquet 6y ago
    > isn't there some level of legal liability I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE roles, and 1 mom&pop store where I handle all but day-to-day operations (handled by the gf). To be cold bloody honest, unless you are SE for a serie-A start-up a 40h weeks is probably 20h work, 20h bs. If you were SE for a serie-A start-up, a 40h week would probably be 80h-paid-20h anyway.
    - rjbwork 6y ago
      >I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE roles, You mean to say that you are collecting two paychecks under the pretense of each company thinking you are working full time?
      - 6y ago
john_moscow 6y ago
Companies offer part-time jobs instead of full-time ones because then they don't need to offer benefits that are required for a full-time job. In other words, the current rules of the game are directly incentivizing this behavior. The incentive can be very easily removed by legislating that a part-time job would need to offer a fraction of the benefits proportional to the amount of hours the employee works per week. Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs that combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent to a full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally covered by all employers. Another option would be to crack down on monopolies and large chains. If you employ 10000 corporate drones, who are expected to follow the same corporate instructions day-to-day and can be swapped out by a fresh hire without any loss of productivity, they by definition don't have any economic leverage. On the other hand, if the same market niche is occupied by 1000 independent 10-employee companies, the overall efficiency is lower, but the leverage of each employee (and the salary they can negotiate through supply/demand) is higher. Because in a smaller company you are someone the owner trusts to delegate part of their business, and not just a line on the spreadsheet.
- grecy 6y ago
  > Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs that combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent to a full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally covered by all employers. There's actually a much simpler solution - divorce basic human rights (healthcare) from the employer.
  - FlownScepter 6y ago
    And preferably from insurance companies too.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Why not just get rid of the connection between employer and benefits? Employer pays cash, tax system allow people to manage roth/health/etc accounts based on caps and percentages of earned income. If the free market was supposed to handle the distortion of employer benefit programs, then every employee would need to monitor their employer's yearly benefit negotiations such that 10-20% of them would be giving notice on the basis of any negative benefit change. That isn't happening.
tboyd47 6y ago
> Those juggling more than one occupation earned less, on average, than people who had only one job. I would like to see a more detailed breakdown on why that is. I thought that perhaps there would be more information in the source paper, but these journalists at Reuters have shared neither the title nor the names of the authors with us. I haven't found anything similar to what's being reported on either the U.S. Commerce Dept. or the U.S. Census webpages. Where is the source paper?
minikites 6y ago
A reminder that wage theft is endemic to the types of jobs that people who work multiple jobs have. We absolutely need stronger worker protections in the form of actual punishments for business owners who shortchange workers, stronger labor union protections, and government-provided healthcare so people aren't held to their jobs at metaphorical gunpoint.
- judgemcjudgy 6y ago
  "wage theft" - I think for those jobs the wage is known beforehand. If it is too low for you, don't take it. If somebody refuses to pay you the promised wage, that would be theft and a case for the law.
  - minikites 6y ago
    >If somebody refuses to pay you the promised wage, that would be theft and a case for the law. This is in fact what happens and one definition of wage theft (there are many ways for employers to steal from employees): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft#Wage_theft_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft#Wage_theft_in_the_U... >A common form of wage theft for tipped employees is to receive no standard pay ($2.13 an hour) along with tips. >A 2009 study of workers in the United States found that in 12 occupations more than half of surveyed workers reported being denied overtime pay: child care (90.2 percent denial), stock and office clerks (86 percent), home health care (82.7 percent), beauty/dry cleaning and general repair workers (81.9 percent), car wash workers and parking attendants (77.9 percent), waiters, cafeteria workers and bartenders (77.9 percent), retail salespersons (76.2 percent), janitors and grounds workers (71.2 percent), garment workers (69.9 percent), cooks and dishwashers (67.8 percent), construction workers (66.1 percent) and cashiers (58.8 percent). >The most blatant form of wage theft is for an employee to not be paid for work done. An employee being asked to work overtime, working through breaks, or being asked to report early and/or leave late without pay is being subjected to wage theft.
  - ska 6y ago
    > I think for those jobs the wage is known beforehand. If it is too low for you, don't take it. That's not what "wage theft" means.
dotdi 6y ago
> They also noted that multiple-job holding occurred at all levels of income Ok, I LOL'd when I read this one. Of course it occurred at all levels of income, how else are some people going to pay for their second private jet if they aren't sitting in multiple boards of directors?
trts 6y ago
When I was in college and early 20s, I usually had 2-4 different jobs at any given time. There's a demographic component to this that seems missing, given that we have two big baby booms behind Gen Xers (millennials who I guess are old now) and Gen Z. Is the share of workers 20-30 today higher than the share among 20-30 year olds in 1996?
- marcusverus 6y ago
  It's also important to note that the gig economy has vastly reduced the work required to get a second job. If you want a second job at Uber, you're not a felon, and you have a car, then congratulations, you're hired.
  - minikites 6y ago
    But no health insurance from either job, so you just have to hope you don't get into a car wreck.
    - m00x 6y ago
      Don't blame the company for that, blame the 3rd world country health system the US has. This isn't a problem in Canada or in Europe.
      - minikites 6y ago
        Many companies in the USA lobby against universal healthcare for this reason. As they (correctly) see it, if employees were not tied down by healthcare, many of them would leave.
CivBase 6y ago
I wonder what the Census Bureau counts as a "job" here. Does having a monetized YouTube channel, Twitch stream, or OnlyFans account on the side count? What about monetizing a hobby you might still otherwise be doing with something like Etsy or Patreon? Driving for Uber or DoorDash on the side? A school teacher taking a part-time job over the summer? Hosting an Airbnb? Going door-to-door for the Census Bureau itself? Many of these are not necessarily indicative of economic turmoil. A data point missing from the article is how many hours workers are committing to their jobs. I'd consider that to be more important that just the number of jobs people have. The article clearly attributes the rise in multiple jobs to wage stagnation while the cost of living continues to rise - which does seem like a reasonable explanation. However, it's possible that at least some of the rise can be attributed to greater economic opportunity as people dip their toes into new markets without completely abandoning their traditional jobs which they may already have. EDIT: Others have pointed out that many employers have also stopped offering full-time work to avoid having to provide their employees with benefits. That would also contribute to a rise in multiple jobs without necessarily increasing the number of hours worked.
ryanSrich 6y ago
We do this at my startup. Instead of hiring FTEs, we hire people for 10-30 hours per week. This is great for people that want to make more money than they could as an FTE, or for people that want to work more on side projects. It helps that we have no bullshit meetings, everything is async, and we take advantage of automating almost every aspect of the business. I’ve found that hiring contract devs for say 20 hours per week yields the same output as an FTE at 40. Why? Because we don’t fill the rest of their week with bullshit.
- yonig 6y ago
  > I’ve found that hiring contract devs for say 20 hours per week yields the same output as an FTE at 40 This is interesting bc of how common it is to hear people complain about pointless meetings. Do you see a sacrifice in devs not being familiar enough with the product?
  - ryanSrich 6y ago
    Not in the 10 months we’ve existed. We’ve had a few backend devs in that time. We make sure everything is written down, and I make myself very available for questions - mostly async, but I’m not opposed to a call if it makes things faster. It helps that our tech isn’t that complicated - python/Django backend, slack app and react frontend.
    - sep_field 6y ago
      Any positions open currently?
      - ryanSrich 6y ago
        Not currently, but certainly in the future we’ll have opportunities that open up. Feel free to reach out - email in bio.
judgemcjudgy 6y ago
Isn't that statistic misleading without mentioning working hours? Maybe some of those "multiple jobs" are just one day a week. Perhaps a stay at home mother earns some extra money on Tuesday by taking her neighbors dogs for a walk, and on Thursdays by cleaning at a shop. This "multiple jobs" headline suggests people are working more than one shift every day, which may be completely misleading. Maybe some people actually do that, but if they had hard data on that, I think they would have explicitly mentioned it, instead of their suggestive writing.
thunderbird120 6y ago
I can't seem to find the report that they're referencing and the conclusion seems to be directly at odds with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly assessment of multiple job holders[1]. Does anyone have a link to the publication? [1]https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2019/08/moonlighting-in-the-spotlight/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2019/08/moonlighting-in-the-... EDIT: Here's the report https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-26.pdf https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-26.pdf. One explanation for the discrepancy seems that the number of individuals holding multiple jobs when measured on a monthly basis has been decreasing over time while the number working at more than one job at any time during a quarter has increased over time. People seem to be more likely to occasionally work a second job but less likely to consistently work a second job. The paper's authors disagree with this take but I'm not sure I find their explanation totally convincing.
dpoochieni 6y ago
"The US is a poor country." CMV
hourislate 6y ago
I'm going to shill this book again "The Price of Tomorrow - Jeff Booth", because it is so relevant to what's happening in the labor force. Technology is eating jobs and less and less people will be needed. Technology is deflationary and it's driving down the cost of labor and everything else. Just look at what's in store for the delivery sector once AMZN can use drones to deliver your package. Self driving cars to replace Uber/Lyft, automated kitchens where there are half the employees, factories where robots do the work, financial firms where software/algo's do the research and investing, software that writes software, etc. Work as we know it is changing, less and less jobs, less and less people will be needed.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  Yes, we could all go on automation enabled early retirement. Or with all that extra labor and capability we could reach the stars.
  - huntertwo 6y ago
    Or we could hire leagues upon leagues of middle management positions to prop up our employee count.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Neither of those will happen. People, whether they're billionaires or are making just $80,000 a year, resent having to take care of others, even if those "others" are without a job through literally no fault of their own. This is exacerbated by IQ, or g factor, or whatever you want to call it. A person with an 85 IQ isn't going to be able to write complex software, so "learn to code" works just fine for people sitting at maybe an IQ range of 100+. You might could be a delivery driver with an IQ around 85, but as someone said, delivery drones and self-driving vehicles are going to finish off that sector. There's millions of jobs that could be filled, but no one wants to do them because it isn't "prestigious" or some such. We need lots more electricians, welders, carpenters, etc., but good luck convincing people to go get the training to do those jobs - some of which are extremely high paid. Underwater welders can make up to $200,000 a year.
whiddershins 6y ago
How about the world could benefit from people having multiple employers, with the right structure. How about, I would prefer to lose half my income in a layoff than 100% or nothing. How about, I would love to be able to take a new job and see what it is like without putting all of my eggs in this unknown basket? The idea that full-time employment by a single employer benefits the employees is silly, it clearly gives more leverage to the employer. This is the reason health insurance being tied to employment continues. In my opinion.
- alexashka 6y ago
  +1. I've come to hold this stance as well. I'd go a step further and suggest the lack of job mobility and variety benefits no one at all and actually hurts society a great deal, because it leads to the infamous peter principle, where people move up the career ladder until they reach incompetence, at which point they do everything they can to stay there because moving would mean reduced pay, reduced status and a feeling of personal failure. The number of people who've long lost any enthusiasm for their work and yet won't give up their seat because they don't know how to do anything else is also quite frustrating and counter productive. Ah well :)
mensetmanusman 6y ago
My uncle just finished serving his jail time and has entered a world of shorter working hours due to regulations. Hard to solve for unintended consequences. Will likely be homeless soon.
- willmeyers 6y ago
  I'm sorry to hear about your uncle. I know it may not mean much coming from a stranger over the wire, but I do wish you and your family the best.
giantg2 6y ago
I actually find it hard to believe it's less than 10%. My wife has always worked .ore than one job. I have worked two jobs before (one full time and kne part time for about 60hrs+ per week). Even now, I run an LLC after my fulltime job, although it doesn't take up enough time to really count as a second job.
frankydp 6y ago
I employee numerous people at entry level jobs. I can not beg people to come work for me. I am having the majority of applicants being second jobs. This is a labor demand issue, because of federal involvement .
Itsdijital 6y ago
Interesting reading these comments. I think it is fair to say that HN is disproportionately wealthy, and the replies here seems to echo that. I'll admit I am an outsider here. I used to work 2 jobs, before the pandemic, and made $46K annually combined, typically 65hrs/wk. Mind you this is in the NYC area too. I now make $40k thanks to a raise at my full-time job (defense manufacturing, its really just a private equity racket). I can barely afford minimum living. Part of that raise also includes more responsibility, so it might even be a loss because I'm not sure I could still work a second job. I can assure you that there are tons of people in my position. Way more than there are tech workers with 6-figure salaries who are bored on the weekend. It's not pretty here on the bottom floors, and it has only been getting worse.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  I'd also wager that many on HN have never held a minimum wage job or anything remotely blue collar. The disconnect here is a microcosm of this problem. The richer get richer, the poor get poorer, and the rich tell the poor to eat cake because they fundamentally just don't get it.
  - h0p3 6y ago
    They maliciously choose to be ignorant. To whom much is given, much is required.
    - defterGoose 6y ago
      "With great power comes great responsibility" -Some dead guy
      - h0p3 6y ago
        Preach, yo. Also, my name is h0p3. It's good to meet you.
  - franklovecchio 6y ago
    That is a pretty bold wager! I'm curious as to what your experiences have been to come to it. Anecdotally speaking, most of the folks I've worked with in tech (including myself) have come from modest means and worked low wage jobs at some point (blue collar jobs aren't necessarily low wage, and what's considered blue collar can also be tech). The disconnect you speak of I think is more of a disconnect in value systems between folks, and hell even those value systems can be disparate across folks with similar incomes. I think value systems follow people as they gain wealth (more or less), and there are plenty of people at the bottom fighting for the people at the top in the USA.
Layke1123 6y ago
Uhh, isn't the solution simple? Redistribution of wealth to a more equitable level.
- minikites 6y ago
  If we took money from rich people, they might decide to be lazy instead and not work as hard, therefore depriving society of their abundant genius and benevolence.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Or just leave?
    - minikites 6y ago
      Why would that be bad?
      - refurb 6y ago
        Who needs a tax base? Or the next set of limited partners for your venture capital firm?
        minikites 6y ago
        They're already not paying taxes here, how is it a loss? And I don't mean they're cheating (although many are), I mean our tax rates are so low that it's not a big loss if they leave, which they won't. Plenty of rich people live in New York or California and they would continue to live in the USA if we raised federal taxes to appropriate levels.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Wealthy people have all sorts of ways to avoid taxes, but high income people don’t, and they pay for almost everything. I think the number is something like the top 1% pays 20% of all income tax and the top 50% pays 95% of all income tax. So it really is a big deal of high income people just leave. Poor people can’t support the country on their own.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
soheil 6y ago
It's odd to continue calling gig work as a second, third, ... job. Is putting something up on eBay a job? If not then making a few buck driving for Uber isn't a job either, at least for those who are doing it for the same reason, which may not be a small fraction of workers. Selling something you don't need on eBay and getting the extra money can be fun so why not think of it that way instead of the urge to view gig work as the last resort effort for someone to maintain their livelihood?

256 points by batmaniam 6y ago

pb7 6y ago

It's unfortunate that people have to split their time between two separate jobs but these stats never mention the number of hours worked which is the key metric. If you have a job that is only 10-20 hours a week, picking up another job with equal hours, while less ideal than holding one with twice the hours, is not worthy of the headlines.

diob 6y ago
I'm not sure I agree that it's not worthy of headlines. One of the big trends I see with those 10-20 hr a week jobs, is that they are automated in terms of scheduling to try and optimize profit. In other words, they call you in for an 1hr on Monday, but then another 2 hrs later in the day. It's so chopped up that it's hard to coordinate a second job. And part of the automation is to also ensure employees don't accidentally hit full time, to avoid benefits. So now they hold two jobs, each chopping their day into tiny bits of unusable time (commute, prep, etc.). And neither has to pay any benefits. It's a win win for companies, and a lose lose for everyone else.
- pb7 6y ago
  I agree that companies should be disincentivized/punished for doing that. The overhead of an additional job can't be overstated. I would still like to see the total hours, but ideally the hours spent at each job, to see the depth of the problem. It would also help draw attention to the exact thresholds that businesses are abusing to draw up better legislature.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  This is why Uber/Lyft were so good. They allowed people to dodge the bin-packing problem by allowing someone to convert time and an asset smoothly into cash flow.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Are such short shifts legal in the US? Last time I worked retail in Canada the law was that if you were called in to work you had to be paid for at least 3 hours even if you were sent home.
  - diob 6y ago
    It's state by state, and at least in Arizona (where I'm from), there is no minimum. Link to our laws: https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/state-wage-and-hour-laws/arizona/hours-worked/ https://www.employmentlawhandbook.com/wage-and-hour-laws/sta...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
I disagree. Generally working 40+ hours at one company brings significant benefits like health insurance or retirement plans. Working two part-time jobs wouldn't do that. Plus there's a significant cost with context switching. 40 hours at two jobs will have more overhead than 40 hours at one job.
- pb7 6y ago
  Agreed with all points and that's likely the case for the majority of these people. But there is probably still a non-trivial number of people that are working 32+ hours at one job and 10-20 at another that would fall into these statistics that would receive benefits. More data can't hurt. Existing laws are clearly being gamed. Edit: Also, these stats will exclude people that are working just one job but still under the benefits threshold which is not good either. "Working two jobs" is just too broad of a statement to be actionable.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

doggodaddo78 6y ago

It implies cheating workers out of healthcare and benefits, causing them more stress, and costs and time commuting.

dantheman 6y ago
Really, you're saying there are unintended consequences to laws? Perhaps instead of trying to extract as much money out of the rest of the economy we should reduce medical costs.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- humanrebar 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's fair to call them unintended consequences when this exact thing was predicted by skeptics when the law was passed.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    I mean, high-school age children were predicting this. I am skeptical that the goal was to try make things better for workers. It seems much more likely that the goal was to appear to try to make things better. At least they did something, amirite?
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Or it implies skilled people who would have had under the table side gigs are getting gig economy jobs because it's so easy and turnkey even if the pay is lower. Yeah people working part time are getting screwed out of benefits, but it's hard to tell whether that's rising or more side work is moving above the table.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
It's not always that nefarious. At a past company we had certain manual labor tasks that had to be done by end of day, so work schedules were flexible. We offered full time with benefits, but there was still a lot of demand for part-time work. There are a lot of people out there who simply want to use extra time in the day to take on paying work. You get college students looking for a few hours after work, or parents who have to work around their kids school schedules, or older people who simply want to have something to do but aren't up for full-time jobs. There are also plenty of jobs where companies simply can't afford to pay someone 40 hours per week plus benefits. Hiring someone for 20 hours per week with no benefits is arguably better than not having that job in the economy at all. I'd love as much as anyone for the US to separate health care from employer-provided health insurance, but it's not really fair to blame companies for the failures of our politicians.

glasss 6y ago

To be fair, I know a significant amount of people who work multiple jobs but they only really put in a few hours on the weekend. They are the minority though, and most 2 or 3 job workers I know do put in a significant >15 hours a week at each. I think the bigger thing beyond hours worked is commute and decompression time. I don't know anyone who, after working 6 hours on a Saturday, is ready right away to go out and have fun with their friends. Everyone wants to come home, change clothes if needed, and relax a bit before moving onto to something else. That extra hour or so, not even including the commute, is a pretty big hit to your weekend time.

mjfl 6y ago

This will certainly be made worse by raising the min wage, as suggested in the article, not helped. Contrary to the apparent popular opinion, companies aren’t bottomless pits of money and many are barely surviving. How do people get away with having this fantasy as one of the central “truths” of their universes? Many of the barely surviving companies are those that employ “vulnerable people”, think grocery stores- laser thin margins, managers that aren’t actually making much more than employees. Nuking those businesses will improve the health of the job market? are you kidding me?

cambalache 6y ago
I suggest to decrease the minimum wage to 1 USD/h like in Mexico. Other option is that the bosses may give the employees a tract of land in rent as payment, they can keep a small portion of their production for themselves.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  Some Nordic countries, which usually come up at some point when discussing employment dynamics, do not have a minimum wage and yet no one earns only $1/h.
  - radus 6y ago
    Those same countries have very expansive social safety nets that are non-existent in the US.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      You mean like universal healthcare for low income people (Medicaid)? Or retirement security for low income people (Social security)? What exactly are you referring to?
      - cambalache 6y ago
        Free college education 4-6 weeks of mandated paid vacation Substantial paid parental leave Option to opt in for half-time working and the companies are mandated to comply Universal healthcare not related to your job situation nor to the whims of the coverage of your health policy Option to join an union with no repercussion Any other question?

mdip 6y ago

The devil's in the details. Last week, my wife started doing DoorDash. She's loving it. I accompanied her on one of the trips and I enjoyed it. I thought, ya know, I like people, I enjoyed this a whole lot more than some of the other things I do for entertainment, I'd do this with free time occasionally. Boom, second job. But then, I look back on my history as a developer. I've occasionally taken on some work. I sell things on e-bay/craigslist. I've always sort-of had a second income source, mainly to pay for things I would just go without -- phone upgrades, an extra vacation, etc. I don't need it ... well, depending on how you look at the numbers, maybe I do, but is it all that strange? I'm a bad example, though. My wife has told practically everyone she knows and many of her friends/family have decided to start doing it. None wanted a second job, though some surely needed it. None could take on a second scheduled or full time job but all had a few hours a week, a need for some extra cash, and found doing "gig work" to be a great fit. Many of them are simply making idle time more productive for themselves and they'd have never gotten a second job if it these specific types of "second jobs" (frequently first[0]) didn't exist. [0] And I don't mean that as a "tragedy", either. Though there are stories of people barely scraping by, there are areas where the pay is far higher than other unskilled jobs (and many skilled in my area).

andrekandre 6y ago
> making idle time more productive for themselves this may be me projecting my own sensibilities (and sorry if i am misinterpreting) but.... why cant people just hang out, take some time off and relax with friends? why does everything have to be about "productivity" ?
- adkadskhj 6y ago
  For me everything i do is about productivity, but that's because i have more things i'm interested in than i have time or energy. My play time is 100% about maximizing my enjoyment and regeneration, to get me back to doing the things i really enjoy doing. Even my casual, lounge time is a calculated effort at that. Now hopefully i have a healthy balance. I don't work myself too hard because i don't want to burn out. I'm also less productive if i'm burning out. But yea. I just enjoy building things. It's who i am. If i had one wish it would be to not need sleep. With those extra hours i'd learn to woodwork or something physical, but still build - create. My only regret is that my ability to build (software) is limited per day, and i give a significant portion of that to the necessities of life. Aka work. It's not making me rich, nor is it things i truly want to solve. But hey, i still enjoy it - and for that i am truly fortunate. After seeing what my wife went through working retail; I can't imagine having to work retail. It was awful.

dcolkitt 6y ago

US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong growth during the Covid recession[1]. With higher compensation it makes sense that more people would trade off leisure to work additional hours at attractive pay. Including getting a second job. [1]https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

dragonwriter 6y ago
> US wages have reached an all-time high, powered by strong growth during the Covid recession Translation: employment losses were strong at the bottom and light at the top, leaving the average wages of the remaining employed workers much higher. > With higher compensation it makes sense that more people would trade off leisure to work additional hours at attractive pay. Including getting a second job. I would be very surprised if the distribution of who is getting second jobs is consistent with that “a sinking tide lifts all boats” fairy tale rather than it being concentrated in the same segments where unemployment has gone up the most and representing instead people who would otherwise be underemployed due to limited hours available in the primary job backfilling with a second, possibly lower-paying-per-hour job.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Although labor market recomposition plays a role. There's a major shortage of semi-skilled blue collar labor, leading to some of the strongest wage increases of any sectors in 2020. This includes construction[1], manufacturing[2], and logistics[3]. These workforces tend to skew older, and hence were more affected by workers dropping out due to Covid fears. Unlike traditional white collar professions, these are industries where workers are likely to take a second job. Particularly during boom periods when pay is attractive. It's very likely that at least some of the increase in second jobs is driven by rising secular wages in semi-skilled blue collar jobs. [1]https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-construction-labor-shortage-where-did-all-the-skilled-labor-go/ https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-const... [2]https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/manufacturing-faces-labor-shortage-as-workforce-ages.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/manufacturing... [3]https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/warehouse-worker-scarcity-crimping-us-transloading-capacity_20200813.html https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/warehouse-worker-scar...

l72 6y ago

Having multiple family members and friends that work in retail or the food industry, this is very common among them. From what I can tell, this happens for two major reasons: 1. The pay is too low, so a second job is required. If you are making $12/hour (which is pretty good for retail), that is only $25k/year at full time, which is not enough to support yourself and certainly not a family. Raising the minimum wage, providing health insurance, and paid time off could definitely help here. 2. So many companies refuse to have employees work full time. It seems like it is impossible to get a job at any big box retail or food company that will actually work you 40 hours per week. I assume this has to due with not wanting to pay out benefits for full time work. It seems like most of my family members and friends hover just under 30 hours per week. Even if they were making $15-18/hour, at less than 30 hours per week plus no benefits, this doesn't cut it. So they end up with a second job where they are also part time. And balancing two part time jobs, both with schedules that constantly change, is incredibly difficult and stressful.

missedthecue 6y ago
I would rather work 40 hours without benefits than 29 hours without benefits and then trying to fit in an extra 11-20 at another place every week(also without benefits). What a short sighted rule enacted by the government. I don't see how they didn't recognize what would invariably result.
- l72 6y ago
  I think most people would agree. The federal government had good intentions, but of course, large businesses found a way around it, which just screwed over the employees even more. But even 40 hours at $12/hour with no benefits is not something you can survive on in the long term. It's not like there are very many advancements or raises either. You might be surprised to learn, that the manager at many of these retail stores only earn about $2 more than their floor employees. So that's where you cap out, unless you some how have connections and get into regional or corporate hq. I am not sure what the government can do. It seems like any rules they make, business will find loopholes. In my opinion, retail workers and food industry workers need a union. That is the only way they are ever going to get full time work, benefits, and better pay.

matz1 6y ago

With the rise of remote working its becoming easier for tech worker to collect multiple full time salaries too.

mnouquet 6y ago
Strongly agree !
tudelo 6y ago
I hear a lot of people saying they want to do this or that they could do this but... I would love to hear more stories about how it works in practice. Like, isn't there some level of legal liability, whether justified or not, that you would be opening yourself up to by doing this? Especially if the companies are in any way related, which could probably be hard to quantify.
- matz1 6y ago
  I know at least 1 friend doing this. Of course you don't tell the company know you are doing this. It require good time management for sure. The risk are low.
- mnouquet 6y ago
  > isn't there some level of legal liability I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE roles, and 1 mom&pop store where I handle all but day-to-day operations (handled by the gf). To be cold bloody honest, unless you are SE for a serie-A start-up a 40h weeks is probably 20h work, 20h bs. If you were SE for a serie-A start-up, a 40h week would probably be 80h-paid-20h anyway.
  - rjbwork 6y ago
    >I technically have 3 jobs, two unrelated "full-time" SE roles, You mean to say that you are collecting two paychecks under the pretense of each company thinking you are working full time?
    - 6y ago

john_moscow 6y ago

Companies offer part-time jobs instead of full-time ones because then they don't need to offer benefits that are required for a full-time job. In other words, the current rules of the game are directly incentivizing this behavior. The incentive can be very easily removed by legislating that a part-time job would need to offer a fraction of the benefits proportional to the amount of hours the employee works per week. Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs that combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent to a full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally covered by all employers. Another option would be to crack down on monopolies and large chains. If you employ 10000 corporate drones, who are expected to follow the same corporate instructions day-to-day and can be swapped out by a fresh hire without any loss of productivity, they by definition don't have any economic leverage. On the other hand, if the same market niche is occupied by 1000 independent 10-employee companies, the overall efficiency is lower, but the leverage of each employee (and the salary they can negotiate through supply/demand) is higher. Because in a smaller company you are someone the owner trusts to delegate part of their business, and not just a line on the spreadsheet.

grecy 6y ago
> Ideally, there should be some sort of a credit transfer mechanism, where an employee working multiple part-time jobs that combine to 40+ hours a week could get benefits equivalent to a full-time job at one of the workplaces, proportionally covered by all employers. There's actually a much simpler solution - divorce basic human rights (healthcare) from the employer.
- FlownScepter 6y ago
  And preferably from insurance companies too.
foolmeonce 6y ago
Why not just get rid of the connection between employer and benefits? Employer pays cash, tax system allow people to manage roth/health/etc accounts based on caps and percentages of earned income. If the free market was supposed to handle the distortion of employer benefit programs, then every employee would need to monitor their employer's yearly benefit negotiations such that 10-20% of them would be giving notice on the basis of any negative benefit change. That isn't happening.

tboyd47 6y ago

> Those juggling more than one occupation earned less, on average, than people who had only one job. I would like to see a more detailed breakdown on why that is. I thought that perhaps there would be more information in the source paper, but these journalists at Reuters have shared neither the title nor the names of the authors with us. I haven't found anything similar to what's being reported on either the U.S. Commerce Dept. or the U.S. Census webpages. Where is the source paper?

minikites 6y ago

A reminder that wage theft is endemic to the types of jobs that people who work multiple jobs have. We absolutely need stronger worker protections in the form of actual punishments for business owners who shortchange workers, stronger labor union protections, and government-provided healthcare so people aren't held to their jobs at metaphorical gunpoint.

judgemcjudgy 6y ago
"wage theft" - I think for those jobs the wage is known beforehand. If it is too low for you, don't take it. If somebody refuses to pay you the promised wage, that would be theft and a case for the law.
- minikites 6y ago
  >If somebody refuses to pay you the promised wage, that would be theft and a case for the law. This is in fact what happens and one definition of wage theft (there are many ways for employers to steal from employees): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft#Wage_theft_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft#Wage_theft_in_the_U... >A common form of wage theft for tipped employees is to receive no standard pay ($2.13 an hour) along with tips. >A 2009 study of workers in the United States found that in 12 occupations more than half of surveyed workers reported being denied overtime pay: child care (90.2 percent denial), stock and office clerks (86 percent), home health care (82.7 percent), beauty/dry cleaning and general repair workers (81.9 percent), car wash workers and parking attendants (77.9 percent), waiters, cafeteria workers and bartenders (77.9 percent), retail salespersons (76.2 percent), janitors and grounds workers (71.2 percent), garment workers (69.9 percent), cooks and dishwashers (67.8 percent), construction workers (66.1 percent) and cashiers (58.8 percent). >The most blatant form of wage theft is for an employee to not be paid for work done. An employee being asked to work overtime, working through breaks, or being asked to report early and/or leave late without pay is being subjected to wage theft.
- ska 6y ago
  > I think for those jobs the wage is known beforehand. If it is too low for you, don't take it. That's not what "wage theft" means.

dotdi 6y ago

> They also noted that multiple-job holding occurred at all levels of income Ok, I LOL'd when I read this one. Of course it occurred at all levels of income, how else are some people going to pay for their second private jet if they aren't sitting in multiple boards of directors?

trts 6y ago

When I was in college and early 20s, I usually had 2-4 different jobs at any given time. There's a demographic component to this that seems missing, given that we have two big baby booms behind Gen Xers (millennials who I guess are old now) and Gen Z. Is the share of workers 20-30 today higher than the share among 20-30 year olds in 1996?

marcusverus 6y ago
It's also important to note that the gig economy has vastly reduced the work required to get a second job. If you want a second job at Uber, you're not a felon, and you have a car, then congratulations, you're hired.
- minikites 6y ago
  But no health insurance from either job, so you just have to hope you don't get into a car wreck.
  - m00x 6y ago
    Don't blame the company for that, blame the 3rd world country health system the US has. This isn't a problem in Canada or in Europe.
    - minikites 6y ago
      Many companies in the USA lobby against universal healthcare for this reason. As they (correctly) see it, if employees were not tied down by healthcare, many of them would leave.

CivBase 6y ago

I wonder what the Census Bureau counts as a "job" here. Does having a monetized YouTube channel, Twitch stream, or OnlyFans account on the side count? What about monetizing a hobby you might still otherwise be doing with something like Etsy or Patreon? Driving for Uber or DoorDash on the side? A school teacher taking a part-time job over the summer? Hosting an Airbnb? Going door-to-door for the Census Bureau itself? Many of these are not necessarily indicative of economic turmoil. A data point missing from the article is how many hours workers are committing to their jobs. I'd consider that to be more important that just the number of jobs people have. The article clearly attributes the rise in multiple jobs to wage stagnation while the cost of living continues to rise - which does seem like a reasonable explanation. However, it's possible that at least some of the rise can be attributed to greater economic opportunity as people dip their toes into new markets without completely abandoning their traditional jobs which they may already have. EDIT: Others have pointed out that many employers have also stopped offering full-time work to avoid having to provide their employees with benefits. That would also contribute to a rise in multiple jobs without necessarily increasing the number of hours worked.

ryanSrich 6y ago

We do this at my startup. Instead of hiring FTEs, we hire people for 10-30 hours per week. This is great for people that want to make more money than they could as an FTE, or for people that want to work more on side projects. It helps that we have no bullshit meetings, everything is async, and we take advantage of automating almost every aspect of the business. I’ve found that hiring contract devs for say 20 hours per week yields the same output as an FTE at 40. Why? Because we don’t fill the rest of their week with bullshit.

yonig 6y ago
> I’ve found that hiring contract devs for say 20 hours per week yields the same output as an FTE at 40 This is interesting bc of how common it is to hear people complain about pointless meetings. Do you see a sacrifice in devs not being familiar enough with the product?
- ryanSrich 6y ago
  Not in the 10 months we’ve existed. We’ve had a few backend devs in that time. We make sure everything is written down, and I make myself very available for questions - mostly async, but I’m not opposed to a call if it makes things faster. It helps that our tech isn’t that complicated - python/Django backend, slack app and react frontend.
  - sep_field 6y ago
    Any positions open currently?
    - ryanSrich 6y ago
      Not currently, but certainly in the future we’ll have opportunities that open up. Feel free to reach out - email in bio.

judgemcjudgy 6y ago

Isn't that statistic misleading without mentioning working hours? Maybe some of those "multiple jobs" are just one day a week. Perhaps a stay at home mother earns some extra money on Tuesday by taking her neighbors dogs for a walk, and on Thursdays by cleaning at a shop. This "multiple jobs" headline suggests people are working more than one shift every day, which may be completely misleading. Maybe some people actually do that, but if they had hard data on that, I think they would have explicitly mentioned it, instead of their suggestive writing.

thunderbird120 6y ago

I can't seem to find the report that they're referencing and the conclusion seems to be directly at odds with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly assessment of multiple job holders[1]. Does anyone have a link to the publication? [1]https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2019/08/moonlighting-in-the-spotlight/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2019/08/moonlighting-in-the-... EDIT: Here's the report https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-26.pdf https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2020/CES-WP-20-26.pdf. One explanation for the discrepancy seems that the number of individuals holding multiple jobs when measured on a monthly basis has been decreasing over time while the number working at more than one job at any time during a quarter has increased over time. People seem to be more likely to occasionally work a second job but less likely to consistently work a second job. The paper's authors disagree with this take but I'm not sure I find their explanation totally convincing.

dpoochieni 6y ago

"The US is a poor country." CMV

hourislate 6y ago

I'm going to shill this book again "The Price of Tomorrow - Jeff Booth", because it is so relevant to what's happening in the labor force. Technology is eating jobs and less and less people will be needed. Technology is deflationary and it's driving down the cost of labor and everything else. Just look at what's in store for the delivery sector once AMZN can use drones to deliver your package. Self driving cars to replace Uber/Lyft, automated kitchens where there are half the employees, factories where robots do the work, financial firms where software/algo's do the research and investing, software that writes software, etc. Work as we know it is changing, less and less jobs, less and less people will be needed.

dougmwne 6y ago
Yes, we could all go on automation enabled early retirement. Or with all that extra labor and capability we could reach the stars.
- huntertwo 6y ago
  Or we could hire leagues upon leagues of middle management positions to prop up our employee count.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Neither of those will happen. People, whether they're billionaires or are making just $80,000 a year, resent having to take care of others, even if those "others" are without a job through literally no fault of their own. This is exacerbated by IQ, or g factor, or whatever you want to call it. A person with an 85 IQ isn't going to be able to write complex software, so "learn to code" works just fine for people sitting at maybe an IQ range of 100+. You might could be a delivery driver with an IQ around 85, but as someone said, delivery drones and self-driving vehicles are going to finish off that sector. There's millions of jobs that could be filled, but no one wants to do them because it isn't "prestigious" or some such. We need lots more electricians, welders, carpenters, etc., but good luck convincing people to go get the training to do those jobs - some of which are extremely high paid. Underwater welders can make up to $200,000 a year.

whiddershins 6y ago

How about the world could benefit from people having multiple employers, with the right structure. How about, I would prefer to lose half my income in a layoff than 100% or nothing. How about, I would love to be able to take a new job and see what it is like without putting all of my eggs in this unknown basket? The idea that full-time employment by a single employer benefits the employees is silly, it clearly gives more leverage to the employer. This is the reason health insurance being tied to employment continues. In my opinion.

alexashka 6y ago
+1. I've come to hold this stance as well. I'd go a step further and suggest the lack of job mobility and variety benefits no one at all and actually hurts society a great deal, because it leads to the infamous peter principle, where people move up the career ladder until they reach incompetence, at which point they do everything they can to stay there because moving would mean reduced pay, reduced status and a feeling of personal failure. The number of people who've long lost any enthusiasm for their work and yet won't give up their seat because they don't know how to do anything else is also quite frustrating and counter productive. Ah well :)

mensetmanusman 6y ago

My uncle just finished serving his jail time and has entered a world of shorter working hours due to regulations. Hard to solve for unintended consequences. Will likely be homeless soon.

willmeyers 6y ago
I'm sorry to hear about your uncle. I know it may not mean much coming from a stranger over the wire, but I do wish you and your family the best.

giantg2 6y ago

I actually find it hard to believe it's less than 10%. My wife has always worked .ore than one job. I have worked two jobs before (one full time and kne part time for about 60hrs+ per week). Even now, I run an LLC after my fulltime job, although it doesn't take up enough time to really count as a second job.

frankydp 6y ago

I employee numerous people at entry level jobs. I can not beg people to come work for me. I am having the majority of applicants being second jobs. This is a labor demand issue, because of federal involvement .

Itsdijital 6y ago

Interesting reading these comments. I think it is fair to say that HN is disproportionately wealthy, and the replies here seems to echo that. I'll admit I am an outsider here. I used to work 2 jobs, before the pandemic, and made $46K annually combined, typically 65hrs/wk. Mind you this is in the NYC area too. I now make $40k thanks to a raise at my full-time job (defense manufacturing, its really just a private equity racket). I can barely afford minimum living. Part of that raise also includes more responsibility, so it might even be a loss because I'm not sure I could still work a second job. I can assure you that there are tons of people in my position. Way more than there are tech workers with 6-figure salaries who are bored on the weekend. It's not pretty here on the bottom floors, and it has only been getting worse.

jorblumesea 6y ago
I'd also wager that many on HN have never held a minimum wage job or anything remotely blue collar. The disconnect here is a microcosm of this problem. The richer get richer, the poor get poorer, and the rich tell the poor to eat cake because they fundamentally just don't get it.
- h0p3 6y ago
  They maliciously choose to be ignorant. To whom much is given, much is required.
  - defterGoose 6y ago
    "With great power comes great responsibility" -Some dead guy
    - h0p3 6y ago
      Preach, yo. Also, my name is h0p3. It's good to meet you.
- franklovecchio 6y ago
  That is a pretty bold wager! I'm curious as to what your experiences have been to come to it. Anecdotally speaking, most of the folks I've worked with in tech (including myself) have come from modest means and worked low wage jobs at some point (blue collar jobs aren't necessarily low wage, and what's considered blue collar can also be tech). The disconnect you speak of I think is more of a disconnect in value systems between folks, and hell even those value systems can be disparate across folks with similar incomes. I think value systems follow people as they gain wealth (more or less), and there are plenty of people at the bottom fighting for the people at the top in the USA.

Layke1123 6y ago

Uhh, isn't the solution simple? Redistribution of wealth to a more equitable level.

minikites 6y ago
If we took money from rich people, they might decide to be lazy instead and not work as hard, therefore depriving society of their abundant genius and benevolence.
- refurb 6y ago
  Or just leave?
  - minikites 6y ago
    Why would that be bad?
    - refurb 6y ago
      Who needs a tax base? Or the next set of limited partners for your venture capital firm?
      - minikites 6y ago
        They're already not paying taxes here, how is it a loss? And I don't mean they're cheating (although many are), I mean our tax rates are so low that it's not a big loss if they leave, which they won't. Plenty of rich people live in New York or California and they would continue to live in the USA if we raised federal taxes to appropriate levels.
        DC1350 6y ago
        Wealthy people have all sorts of ways to avoid taxes, but high income people don’t, and they pay for almost everything. I think the number is something like the top 1% pays 20% of all income tax and the top 50% pays 95% of all income tax. So it really is a big deal of high income people just leave. Poor people can’t support the country on their own.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

soheil 6y ago

It's odd to continue calling gig work as a second, third, ... job. Is putting something up on eBay a job? If not then making a few buck driving for Uber isn't a job either, at least for those who are doing it for the same reason, which may not be a small fraction of workers. Selling something you don't need on eBay and getting the extra money can be fun so why not think of it that way instead of the urge to view gig work as the last resort effort for someone to maintain their livelihood?