12 ms·

Volatile pay for gig workers linked to health problems

141 points by hhs 4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago
“Not only was pay volatility related to worse health in lower-paid tipped jobs or among freelancers in the gig economy but for higher-paid professionals working in finance, sales and marketing where commissions and performance bonuses are common.”
- Spivak 4y ago
  I think this study is important because it states very plainly that stress is bad for you, and there's no such thing as "good stress." Edit: Wow you all really like your stress huh?
  - rco8786 4y ago
    I did not see anything at all in this study that said either of those things. It says "volatile pay is stressful in a bad way" but makes no claim about stress as a whole?
    - TillE 4y ago
      High blood pressure is bad.
    - cinntaile 4y ago
      The thing that is common among all those low- and highpaying jobs with volatile pay is that those are jobs where you have to deal with constant stress.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Yes and it's able to immediately explain away "oh well they're low income so that's the cause of their health issues." Nope, the same thing happens to millionaires, it's the stress.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      It says "volatile pay is stressful and affects health badly". Not about "stress in a bad way" as opposed to some "good stress".
  - winReInstall 4y ago
    There is stress that ends another stressor. If you are permant stressing about your job, your life your mortage and you boulder for the first time, you might eperience mortal fear, from falling. Which makes the other stressors less substantial, thus "deactivating" or back-queuing them. After the fear for your life, the stress bodily reflex does not return usually in full force. You relax. One good "short" stress ended alot of bad stress. There is no good stressor that is permanent. PS: Thanks to the prof at college teaching us about this. Stress is pure poison, inlcuding flooding your body with cortisols and supressing disease symptoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response Resulting in the ilusion, that stress keeps you healthy. Meanwhile disease eats you alive and re-appears once you are a wreck. If you regularly experience stress episodes for months and years, you might as well be a living corpse.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      I don't really think this is a disagreement. "Sometimes you have to do something that's bad for you to keep something worse from happening." That's just called harm reduction. The stress is still bad but short term stress that ends long term stress can be a good trade when you don't have any other option.
      - winReInstall 4y ago
        Yes, the correct response would be a behavioural adjusting of "not giving a damn" but our economic system discourages this, encouraging instead a play pretend of "unstressed" or meditate it away, aka learn to control your stress response system. Or we could mass give out calming substances like weed or alcohol, but now we get to were we actually categorize permanent stress correctly. Its a mass applied substance problem, used to extract value from people.
  - adamrezich 4y ago
    > and there's no such thing as "good stress." this is not true though. I have a close friend who comes from a very wealthy family, to the point where, if he wants to, he doesn't have to work another day in his life. it took him something like eight years to get a four-year degree. he's struggled a lot with motivation over the years, and I became increasingly empathetic toward his situation the more I talked to him about it. it's really hard to find motivation to do stuff, even stuff you tell yourself you want to do, if it takes effort, and if there's no proverbial "fire lit under your ass" to get you to actually do something ("if I don't get another job before the end of next month, I won't have enough money to pay rent", etc.). I've done some of my best creative work while under immense stress. great things rarely, if ever, get created in zero-stress environments. this idea that stress is always objectively bad is a very first-world way of thinking.
    - ls15 4y ago
      Regardless of creative or academic output, how is your friend feeling health-wise?
      - adamrezich 4y ago
        after a few dark months of largely staying at home and watching youtube all day, he's doing great now, working at a game development collective sort of thing making stuff with other creative people. I'm actually a bit jealous of his situation now, because I had to leave that career behind, but I'm really happy that he got out of the depression-hole ("bad stress") and is now actively working with other people directly (in-person, in an office!) making cool stuff and vibing with other creative minds, even despite having deadlines to deal with ("good stress"). he seems happier than he's been in years and I'm glad things have ended up working out well for him after a period of darkness (something which pretty much happened to me just a couple years ago, too).
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Your two examples are harm reduction, not of "good stress." In both cases the actual stress is still bad for you. If your friend had motivation that was not based on imminent danger that would be better. If you could do creative work while not under stress that would be better. Stress is objectively bad for your health. That's a different statement from "in certain cases I need to compromise my heath for a greater good."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- teucris 4y ago
  I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity. It certainly is a motivator, and for some it’s a good one, but overall I think we’re starting to learn that it’s not healthy.
  - techsupporter 4y ago
    > I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity. We, as a society in this country, seem to have internalized the idea that our success or failure is entirely the product of things solely within our complete control. So anyone who succeeds got there on their own merits (with no other outside influence) and anyone who fails is obviously responsible for the consequences that befell them (again, with no outside influence). This view is completely wrong, in my opinion, but because it lets us do things like short cut having empathy--obviously that homeless person is a bum because they screwed up--and frame resource hoarding as just prudently looking out for one's self, changing this view will be extremely difficult. I work in healthcare IT and this industry has done more to push me towards wanting a greater sense of collective good and supporting the commons than anything in my life, including going off to college. Day after day, I see patients (as in, I observe them, not that I am providing care for them) who got sick or had an accident or simply had a malformed gene pop up and say "now's my time to shine!" at the wrong time. They're walking towards a future that will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep them alive or bring them back to health. Few of us have the kind of insurance that will carry that entire burden and even fewer have sequestered that kind of money inside our 401k accounts.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    The lack of motivation isn't healthy, either.
1-6 4y ago
Being a worker in the tech industry during 2022, I can relate and agree that not having a constant source of income or even the fear of losing one's job can probably lead to poor health outcomes.
- itake 4y ago
  I admit this isn't for everyone, but having multiple sources of income really helps smooth over bumps. Especially if that income is 1099, where there is no withholding (and you have slightly more control over when the taxes are paid).
  - hinkley 4y ago
    I’m at a point in my life where I’d like to be semi retired. I’ve got hobbies with social implications and I’d love to be spending 15+ hours a week on them instead of 5+. But my retirement is not quite big enough and I will need boosters to fight inflation. Also my family does not do well with retirement. If someone would pay 70 year old me for 20 hours a week I’ll probably do it.
    - e40 4y ago
      > Also my family does not do well with retirement. Curious what that means.
      - hinkley 4y ago
        It means when old men in my family retire they tend to get themselves into trouble not having enough to do. My grandfather developed insomnia and started to have health problems from sitting in front of the TV all day. He ended up digging himself out of a depression cycle by building a garage and adding an enclosed porch onto the house. After that he started working part time at a hardware store in walking distance as the resident home improvement sage. People missed him on his day off, and it easily added 5 years onto his life.
    - itake 4y ago
Doubtme 4y ago
What would that universe even look like? Where corporate CEO pay is level with reality and not x10000000 their lowest worker. Is there any single 1 example of a fortune 500 that does any due diligence in treating people like humans or are we all permanently disposable until the end of time.
- c4wrd 4y ago
  This is a mischaracterization of why CEO level pay for most companies is higher than the lower skilled workers. It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, especially in tech and finance, but it’s not as simple as “they are paid more because of a title”. There’s a lot of responsibility and skill required for those positions, and most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions. I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises due to more open access to knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world where some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. I’m not arguing this is the right answer, but rather would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. Nearly all low-level workers in America have access to food, housing, water, and even cell phones, and we take that for granted.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    > It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills? > most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here. > I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though. > due to more open access to knowledge. Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so. > some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights. > would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows. > Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that. > The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy. Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.
xwdv 4y ago
I wonder when we will start to feel guilt for supporting these businesses that run exclusively on the desperation of giggers. I come close when I order food on rainy stormy nights, I sometimes think about the person sent to fetch me my meal; the risk they put themselves in and the meager pay they get for it. I tip, but just the average. I won’t tip extraordinarily because I use these services too frequently to make it practical. Indeed, it seems for us to live luxurious lifestyles, an entire class of people must be held at the edge to fulfill our whims.
- kodyo 4y ago
  Nobody's forcing anybody to deliver your teriyaki. You're paying a premium so you don't have to leave the house. Someone's freely choosing to earn some money to provide your premium service. They've decided that delivering your thing is better for them than not delivering your thing. The overthinking involved in this stuff is bizarre.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    “They’ve decided that picking the cotton is better than refusing to do so”. Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.
    - kodyo 4y ago
      Comments like this are why I don't believe in democracy anymore.
    - Wohlf 4y ago
      Food delivery is not even in the same universe as chattel slavery, they're completely incomparable.
neilv 4y ago
In "tech", it's not the same as a gig worker, because we tend to make a lot more money and have more sense of security, but I think volatility of income can also wear on us. This is one of the few things I didn't like about independent technical consulting. I preferred to focus 100% on client's problems, not worry about keeping the work funnel full, nor worry about uncomfortable financial fluctuations. At the point I abruptly had to switch back from consulting to employee -- in pursuit of money steadily appearing in my bank account faster than I could spend it, while I thought only about work -- I didn't have time to study for Leetcode interviews of my preferred FAANGs, so I sought similar high-skilled work in early startups... Early startups have related problems, with looming end of the runway, and not knowing whether you're going to get the next round (slam-dunks can disappear before they happen), especially during the last couple years. On top of the usual stress of doing something new/big/hard in a small team, where the success of the company and colleagues hinges on you executing successfully. Recently, it's not only startups. The last few months, we're seeing large stable tech companies (even the rich-kids summer camp lifestyle ones) laying off tens of thousands of people, and countless other tech people wondering about their own employment security. This coming right after the Covid-time sellers-market for talent. Our situations in tech aren't anywhere near the same as being a low-income gig worker with little safety net. But we do currently feel some insecurity that might be new/reminder to us, and it's now harder to imagine that life is a meritocracy -- put roughly, our past comfort is as much luck as effort/merit. That realization is a silver lining, and if we come out the other side, we should remember it.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Businesses hardly have a guaranteed or secure source of profit.
coding123 4y ago
How could you not get your exact expected outcome when your survey is like, did you not get paid well? Oh that sucks and how did that make you feel, poor sleep right?
DoreenMichele 4y ago
I did gig work while homeless. I was homeless because of my serious health issues. The stress in my life was rooted in serious health issues and lack of housing. For me, gig work was the only hope I had of making a few dollars under circumstances where a regular job was just out of the question. I'm not saying there aren't abuses and I'm not saying it's not stressful. I'm just saying it's probably more complex than this survey suggests and that I would like to not see people throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of our efforts to "fix" what we think is wrong with gig work punishes the very workers it is intended to help. Having too narrow a view of such issues is not a good place from which to try to improve things.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  This is something I think was really misguided about the big push to make gig workers “full employees” in various states. It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall. There are a lot of people out there for whom a regular job with a regular schedule are not a good fit for their life. The option to work when you can and not work when you can’t is a huge thing and we should be working on figuring out how to make that a more viable option rather than trying to tear it down because it can be abused. Especially when you consider that for many people in that position today all the security that supposedly comes with a regular job isn’t something they have because the only jobs they can take are minimum wage low skill jobs that usually come with no benefits anyway and will fire you the first time you call out. At least with the gig work, there’s no one calling you on the phone wanting to know where you are today and why you’re sick again.
  - slg 4y ago
    > It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall. Do people deny this? The motivation for this approach is that it is easier to write one law than totally revolutionize our entire economic system. This complaint reminds me of the people who don't tip because they think the system is stupid. Sure, the ideal system would pay people a living wage and give them benefits from the start, but that system isn't here today and likely won't be here tomorrow. People need to live in the current system and they can't afford to wait. Refusing to try to help those people until we have the political will to change our entire economic system seems heartless to me.
ROARosen 4y ago
> poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain While it's true that volatile-pay work is extremely stressful, this seems like a cherry-picked study to be able to write a flashy headline to people rightly concerned over a hot-button issue. They could have just as easily just said that volatile pay causes anxiety and stress, which IMHO you don't need a study for, just like we don't need a study saying that eating less increases hunger symptoms. Anxiety and stress itself is a well-known cause of all these above issues, and there are a multitude of other work-related stresses than just volatile pay.
steve76 4y ago
Animats 4y ago
Gig work has been an enormous win for employers. It has most of the advantages of slavery without the downside of being stuck with excess employees and housing costs. Combine that with debt, and employers have workers right where they want them. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." - Orwell
- _jal 4y ago
  I think the fully-mature form of gig work features payment in company scrip. Grubcoin or maybe Ubertherium.
  - Animats 4y ago
    That's already here.[1] It's done by paying employees by deposit to a debit card. This allows for out-of-network ATM fees, overdraft fees, balance protection fees, fees for transferring money from a payroll card to a checking account, balance inquiry fees, purchase fees, account closing fees, inactivity fees, and lost card fees. Companies issuing payroll debit cards will pay employers to use them because the fees are so lucrative. [1] https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards
jlturner 4y ago
Maybe it’s time to end variable pay and tipping in the US. It’s ridiculous that restaurant owners can pay waiters less than minimum wage and assume that tips will make the difference in salary (saying nothing of tip theft).
- booleandilemma 4y ago
  Yeah I'm tired of subsidizing someone else's workers.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  To be clear, employers can't just assume that the tips bring them up to minimum wage
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  The minimum wage for waiters where I live in the US is $15.75/hour before tips. That’s the minimum, most decent waiters make significantly more. They tried to replace tipping with a 20% service charge here and it was the workers that rejected it, because they made less money than with tipping. Your model of how this world works is overly simplistic. While variability may be stressful and I wouldn’t consider the lifestyle to be particularly healthy, many waiters consider it a feature associated with having flexible hours to do other things. If they want more hours, competent waiters can almost always pick up as many as they want and it has been a sellers market for waitstaff labor here for as long as I can remember. Even illegal migrant workers made much more than minimum wage when I lived in rural flyover areas. A chronic labor shortage will do that.
boredumb 4y ago
Become a full time employee for your mental health! The level of absolute detachment from reality you see in academics is staggering. These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times. I know personally dozens of people who have done uber or door dash in between jobs, during hard times, taking a break for a 9-5 work week and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent. You can see the same disconnect in politicians trying to force people into a full time employment contract in order to deliver food. There have always been delivery jobs at restaurants and people avoided them due to the lack of freedom. This new hyper vigilant do-goodery by people who haven't experienced a solid minute of reality outside of academia, politics and big tech is already doing more harm than good and the righteousness is ratcheting up every year. This will not end well for anyone and these same "very smart" people will be completely bewildered when the "poor" people they are trying to do good by verbally and physically assault them for the very actions they supported at the cost of every one.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  >> and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent. You keep talking about "reality", but the actual reality is that these gig jobs don't pay nearly enough to be able to cover these costs. After all is said and done, a lot of gig workers end up breaking even at best, and sometimes even losing money.
  - boredumb 4y ago
    I was talking about reality because I personally know people who have and are currently doing it and they are able to cover these costs.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    This is exactly the academic math which is the problem. If you buy a $30,000+ car exclusively to drive for Uber and have it serviced at the dealership instead of doing it yourself, you're probably losing money. But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours. People have the right to make that choice for themselves. Anyone who doesn't want it can go take any of the less flexible jobs that would be their only alternative if you prohibited these.
zwkrt 4y ago
Top comments are about how gig work can help make ends meet for people who are struggling. By some estimates 9% of adults are currently doing tech-enabled gig-work, or have done it in the past. That is too many people trying to make ends meet. That number is so high that the conclusion that /I/ draw is that about 5% of the jobs being offered on the market are gig work, and the people who are in a position to take them aren't paid well enough to make a decent living. All of this is related to hustle culture. Where instead of believing in the myth that corporations buy your labor from you, we have a new myth that we are all to some extent self-employed. That our greatest assets are our ability to push ourselves for economic gain. That our attention is for sale. That the solution to financial ruin is a side-hustle. We used to rely on the community of people around us to make ends meet and provide enrichment in our lives, but the new mythos doesn't make room for that. Friendships are monetizable. Attention is transactional. Hobbies are for improving oneself. I don't fully know where this rant is going. I don't think everyone thinks these things. But there is something about individuality and money being more important than camaraderie and material wealth that I think motivates the prevailing viewpoint that gig work is anything other than an erosion of protections our great grandparents fought very hard for.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  I have a met no small number of people who drive for Uber essentially for fun. They don’t need the money, they drive because it gives them something to do when they are retired, when their spouse travels, to buy some latest gear for a hobby, etc. The extra money might be nice but the motivation isn’t existential.
  - wyre 4y ago
    Many people can drive for Uber for fun, doesnt mean more people do it because they're destitute and without other options.
Eumenes 4y ago
Wow, great scientific research here! More like = low pay for low skill workers linked to lifestyle problems, including health outcomes. The same could be said about any hard labor. I found this strange: "Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses." Whats this getting at? Ending incentive pay? This rhetoric is tied to 'pay transparency'. Aka, everyone must be paid the same if they have the same title/job. A workers rights issues, but really an employers wet dream.
waterhouse 4y ago
The article admits at the bottom: "The study findings do not prove that volatile pay causes health symptoms, only that there is a correlation between them." Yet, in the body of the article, it says "pay volatility was less harmful to health", the wording of which implicitly asserts causation. Sigh. The null hypothesis is "health problems, and difficulties associated with health problems, cause people to take jobs with more volatile pay". It is plausible that volatile pay causes stress which causes problems, but this doesn't provide any convincing evidence of it. In fact, this part is evidence against it: "Mindfulness [...] has been shown to buffer against stress in other aspects of work and life [...] but it did not help reduce the physical symptoms associated with volatile pay." (Of course, an individual's mindfulness could also influence what jobs they'll accept and keep.) (Another mechanism comes to mind for the "performance bonuses" they mention. That could lead to some people staying up late to finish things, or otherwise deciding to stretch themselves physically for their job. But if you want to study that, you should ask about those behaviors specifically.)

141 points by hhs 4y ago

“Not only was pay volatility related to worse health in lower-paid tipped jobs or among freelancers in the gig economy but for higher-paid professionals working in finance, sales and marketing where commissions and performance bonuses are common.”

Spivak 4y ago
I think this study is important because it states very plainly that stress is bad for you, and there's no such thing as "good stress." Edit: Wow you all really like your stress huh?
- rco8786 4y ago
  I did not see anything at all in this study that said either of those things. It says "volatile pay is stressful in a bad way" but makes no claim about stress as a whole?
  - TillE 4y ago
    High blood pressure is bad.
  - cinntaile 4y ago
    The thing that is common among all those low- and highpaying jobs with volatile pay is that those are jobs where you have to deal with constant stress.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Yes and it's able to immediately explain away "oh well they're low income so that's the cause of their health issues." Nope, the same thing happens to millionaires, it's the stress.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    It says "volatile pay is stressful and affects health badly". Not about "stress in a bad way" as opposed to some "good stress".
- winReInstall 4y ago
  There is stress that ends another stressor. If you are permant stressing about your job, your life your mortage and you boulder for the first time, you might eperience mortal fear, from falling. Which makes the other stressors less substantial, thus "deactivating" or back-queuing them. After the fear for your life, the stress bodily reflex does not return usually in full force. You relax. One good "short" stress ended alot of bad stress. There is no good stressor that is permanent. PS: Thanks to the prof at college teaching us about this. Stress is pure poison, inlcuding flooding your body with cortisols and supressing disease symptoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Immune_response Resulting in the ilusion, that stress keeps you healthy. Meanwhile disease eats you alive and re-appears once you are a wreck. If you regularly experience stress episodes for months and years, you might as well be a living corpse.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    I don't really think this is a disagreement. "Sometimes you have to do something that's bad for you to keep something worse from happening." That's just called harm reduction. The stress is still bad but short term stress that ends long term stress can be a good trade when you don't have any other option.
    - winReInstall 4y ago
      Yes, the correct response would be a behavioural adjusting of "not giving a damn" but our economic system discourages this, encouraging instead a play pretend of "unstressed" or meditate it away, aka learn to control your stress response system. Or we could mass give out calming substances like weed or alcohol, but now we get to were we actually categorize permanent stress correctly. Its a mass applied substance problem, used to extract value from people.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  > and there's no such thing as "good stress." this is not true though. I have a close friend who comes from a very wealthy family, to the point where, if he wants to, he doesn't have to work another day in his life. it took him something like eight years to get a four-year degree. he's struggled a lot with motivation over the years, and I became increasingly empathetic toward his situation the more I talked to him about it. it's really hard to find motivation to do stuff, even stuff you tell yourself you want to do, if it takes effort, and if there's no proverbial "fire lit under your ass" to get you to actually do something ("if I don't get another job before the end of next month, I won't have enough money to pay rent", etc.). I've done some of my best creative work while under immense stress. great things rarely, if ever, get created in zero-stress environments. this idea that stress is always objectively bad is a very first-world way of thinking.
  - ls15 4y ago
    Regardless of creative or academic output, how is your friend feeling health-wise?
    - adamrezich 4y ago
      after a few dark months of largely staying at home and watching youtube all day, he's doing great now, working at a game development collective sort of thing making stuff with other creative people. I'm actually a bit jealous of his situation now, because I had to leave that career behind, but I'm really happy that he got out of the depression-hole ("bad stress") and is now actively working with other people directly (in-person, in an office!) making cool stuff and vibing with other creative minds, even despite having deadlines to deal with ("good stress"). he seems happier than he's been in years and I'm glad things have ended up working out well for him after a period of darkness (something which pretty much happened to me just a couple years ago, too).
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Your two examples are harm reduction, not of "good stress." In both cases the actual stress is still bad for you. If your friend had motivation that was not based on imminent danger that would be better. If you could do creative work while not under stress that would be better. Stress is objectively bad for your health. That's a different statement from "in certain cases I need to compromise my heath for a greater good."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
teucris 4y ago
I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity. It certainly is a motivator, and for some it’s a good one, but overall I think we’re starting to learn that it’s not healthy.
- techsupporter 4y ago
  > I think there’s a cultural belief in the US that the threat of destitution is a good, healthy motivator of productivity. We, as a society in this country, seem to have internalized the idea that our success or failure is entirely the product of things solely within our complete control. So anyone who succeeds got there on their own merits (with no other outside influence) and anyone who fails is obviously responsible for the consequences that befell them (again, with no outside influence). This view is completely wrong, in my opinion, but because it lets us do things like short cut having empathy--obviously that homeless person is a bum because they screwed up--and frame resource hoarding as just prudently looking out for one's self, changing this view will be extremely difficult. I work in healthcare IT and this industry has done more to push me towards wanting a greater sense of collective good and supporting the commons than anything in my life, including going off to college. Day after day, I see patients (as in, I observe them, not that I am providing care for them) who got sick or had an accident or simply had a malformed gene pop up and say "now's my time to shine!" at the wrong time. They're walking towards a future that will take hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep them alive or bring them back to health. Few of us have the kind of insurance that will carry that entire burden and even fewer have sequestered that kind of money inside our 401k accounts.
- kodyo 4y ago
  The lack of motivation isn't healthy, either.

1-6 4y ago

Being a worker in the tech industry during 2022, I can relate and agree that not having a constant source of income or even the fear of losing one's job can probably lead to poor health outcomes.

itake 4y ago
I admit this isn't for everyone, but having multiple sources of income really helps smooth over bumps. Especially if that income is 1099, where there is no withholding (and you have slightly more control over when the taxes are paid).
- hinkley 4y ago
  I’m at a point in my life where I’d like to be semi retired. I’ve got hobbies with social implications and I’d love to be spending 15+ hours a week on them instead of 5+. But my retirement is not quite big enough and I will need boosters to fight inflation. Also my family does not do well with retirement. If someone would pay 70 year old me for 20 hours a week I’ll probably do it.
  - e40 4y ago
    > Also my family does not do well with retirement. Curious what that means.
    - hinkley 4y ago
      It means when old men in my family retire they tend to get themselves into trouble not having enough to do. My grandfather developed insomnia and started to have health problems from sitting in front of the TV all day. He ended up digging himself out of a depression cycle by building a garage and adding an enclosed porch onto the house. After that he started working part time at a hardware store in walking distance as the resident home improvement sage. People missed him on his day off, and it easily added 5 years onto his life.
  - itake 4y ago

Doubtme 4y ago

What would that universe even look like? Where corporate CEO pay is level with reality and not x10000000 their lowest worker. Is there any single 1 example of a fortune 500 that does any due diligence in treating people like humans or are we all permanently disposable until the end of time.

c4wrd 4y ago
This is a mischaracterization of why CEO level pay for most companies is higher than the lower skilled workers. It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, especially in tech and finance, but it’s not as simple as “they are paid more because of a title”. There’s a lot of responsibility and skill required for those positions, and most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions. I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises due to more open access to knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world where some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. I’m not arguing this is the right answer, but rather would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. Nearly all low-level workers in America have access to food, housing, water, and even cell phones, and we take that for granted.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills? > most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here. > I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though. > due to more open access to knowledge. Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so. > some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights. > would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows. > Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that. > The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy. Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.

xwdv 4y ago

I wonder when we will start to feel guilt for supporting these businesses that run exclusively on the desperation of giggers. I come close when I order food on rainy stormy nights, I sometimes think about the person sent to fetch me my meal; the risk they put themselves in and the meager pay they get for it. I tip, but just the average. I won’t tip extraordinarily because I use these services too frequently to make it practical. Indeed, it seems for us to live luxurious lifestyles, an entire class of people must be held at the edge to fulfill our whims.

kodyo 4y ago
Nobody's forcing anybody to deliver your teriyaki. You're paying a premium so you don't have to leave the house. Someone's freely choosing to earn some money to provide your premium service. They've decided that delivering your thing is better for them than not delivering your thing. The overthinking involved in this stuff is bizarre.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  “They’ve decided that picking the cotton is better than refusing to do so”. Edit, because people share a characteristic with heavy metals: the point is that a “choice” made under economic duress is not made freely. Slavery is an extreme example used to make the point more obvious. The threat of violence used to compel people to work the fields is obviously worse than, but not necessarily qualitatively different from, the threat of abject poverty if one refuses to take low-paying insecure jobs.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Comments like this are why I don't believe in democracy anymore.
  - Wohlf 4y ago
    Food delivery is not even in the same universe as chattel slavery, they're completely incomparable.

neilv 4y ago

In "tech", it's not the same as a gig worker, because we tend to make a lot more money and have more sense of security, but I think volatility of income can also wear on us. This is one of the few things I didn't like about independent technical consulting. I preferred to focus 100% on client's problems, not worry about keeping the work funnel full, nor worry about uncomfortable financial fluctuations. At the point I abruptly had to switch back from consulting to employee -- in pursuit of money steadily appearing in my bank account faster than I could spend it, while I thought only about work -- I didn't have time to study for Leetcode interviews of my preferred FAANGs, so I sought similar high-skilled work in early startups... Early startups have related problems, with looming end of the runway, and not knowing whether you're going to get the next round (slam-dunks can disappear before they happen), especially during the last couple years. On top of the usual stress of doing something new/big/hard in a small team, where the success of the company and colleagues hinges on you executing successfully. Recently, it's not only startups. The last few months, we're seeing large stable tech companies (even the rich-kids summer camp lifestyle ones) laying off tens of thousands of people, and countless other tech people wondering about their own employment security. This coming right after the Covid-time sellers-market for talent. Our situations in tech aren't anywhere near the same as being a low-income gig worker with little safety net. But we do currently feel some insecurity that might be new/reminder to us, and it's now harder to imagine that life is a meritocracy -- put roughly, our past comfort is as much luck as effort/merit. That realization is a silver lining, and if we come out the other side, we should remember it.

WalterBright 4y ago
Businesses hardly have a guaranteed or secure source of profit.

coding123 4y ago

How could you not get your exact expected outcome when your survey is like, did you not get paid well? Oh that sucks and how did that make you feel, poor sleep right?

DoreenMichele 4y ago

I did gig work while homeless. I was homeless because of my serious health issues. The stress in my life was rooted in serious health issues and lack of housing. For me, gig work was the only hope I had of making a few dollars under circumstances where a regular job was just out of the question. I'm not saying there aren't abuses and I'm not saying it's not stressful. I'm just saying it's probably more complex than this survey suggests and that I would like to not see people throw the baby out with the bath water. Some of our efforts to "fix" what we think is wrong with gig work punishes the very workers it is intended to help. Having too narrow a view of such issues is not a good place from which to try to improve things.

tpmoney 4y ago
This is something I think was really misguided about the big push to make gig workers “full employees” in various states. It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall. There are a lot of people out there for whom a regular job with a regular schedule are not a good fit for their life. The option to work when you can and not work when you can’t is a huge thing and we should be working on figuring out how to make that a more viable option rather than trying to tear it down because it can be abused. Especially when you consider that for many people in that position today all the security that supposedly comes with a regular job isn’t something they have because the only jobs they can take are minimum wage low skill jobs that usually come with no benefits anyway and will fire you the first time you call out. At least with the gig work, there’s no one calling you on the phone wanting to know where you are today and why you’re sick again.
- slg 4y ago
  > It felt like solving the issue of “so many benefits and taxes are tied to employment when they shouldn’t be” by simply forcing the new jobs into the same bad system, instead of figuring out how to make the system better overall. Do people deny this? The motivation for this approach is that it is easier to write one law than totally revolutionize our entire economic system. This complaint reminds me of the people who don't tip because they think the system is stupid. Sure, the ideal system would pay people a living wage and give them benefits from the start, but that system isn't here today and likely won't be here tomorrow. People need to live in the current system and they can't afford to wait. Refusing to try to help those people until we have the political will to change our entire economic system seems heartless to me.

ROARosen 4y ago

> poor sleep quality, headaches, stomach issues and back pain While it's true that volatile-pay work is extremely stressful, this seems like a cherry-picked study to be able to write a flashy headline to people rightly concerned over a hot-button issue. They could have just as easily just said that volatile pay causes anxiety and stress, which IMHO you don't need a study for, just like we don't need a study saying that eating less increases hunger symptoms. Anxiety and stress itself is a well-known cause of all these above issues, and there are a multitude of other work-related stresses than just volatile pay.

steve76 4y ago

Animats 4y ago

Gig work has been an enormous win for employers. It has most of the advantages of slavery without the downside of being stuck with excess employees and housing costs. Combine that with debt, and employers have workers right where they want them. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." - Orwell

_jal 4y ago
I think the fully-mature form of gig work features payment in company scrip. Grubcoin or maybe Ubertherium.
- Animats 4y ago
  That's already here.[1] It's done by paying employees by deposit to a debit card. This allows for out-of-network ATM fees, overdraft fees, balance protection fees, fees for transferring money from a payroll card to a checking account, balance inquiry fees, purchase fees, account closing fees, inactivity fees, and lost card fees. Companies issuing payroll debit cards will pay employers to use them because the fees are so lucrative. [1] https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards https://www.classaction.org/payroll-cards

jlturner 4y ago

Maybe it’s time to end variable pay and tipping in the US. It’s ridiculous that restaurant owners can pay waiters less than minimum wage and assume that tips will make the difference in salary (saying nothing of tip theft).

booleandilemma 4y ago
Yeah I'm tired of subsidizing someone else's workers.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
To be clear, employers can't just assume that the tips bring them up to minimum wage
jandrewrogers 4y ago
The minimum wage for waiters where I live in the US is $15.75/hour before tips. That’s the minimum, most decent waiters make significantly more. They tried to replace tipping with a 20% service charge here and it was the workers that rejected it, because they made less money than with tipping. Your model of how this world works is overly simplistic. While variability may be stressful and I wouldn’t consider the lifestyle to be particularly healthy, many waiters consider it a feature associated with having flexible hours to do other things. If they want more hours, competent waiters can almost always pick up as many as they want and it has been a sellers market for waitstaff labor here for as long as I can remember. Even illegal migrant workers made much more than minimum wage when I lived in rural flyover areas. A chronic labor shortage will do that.

boredumb 4y ago

Become a full time employee for your mental health! The level of absolute detachment from reality you see in academics is staggering. These gig jobs are used by millions to be able to make ends meet during difficult times. I know personally dozens of people who have done uber or door dash in between jobs, during hard times, taking a break for a 9-5 work week and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent. You can see the same disconnect in politicians trying to force people into a full time employment contract in order to deliver food. There have always been delivery jobs at restaurants and people avoided them due to the lack of freedom. This new hyper vigilant do-goodery by people who haven't experienced a solid minute of reality outside of academia, politics and big tech is already doing more harm than good and the righteousness is ratcheting up every year. This will not end well for anyone and these same "very smart" people will be completely bewildered when the "poor" people they are trying to do good by verbally and physically assault them for the very actions they supported at the cost of every one.

enraged_camel 4y ago
>> and they enjoyed the freedom and the ability to lease a nice car while also paying their rent. You keep talking about "reality", but the actual reality is that these gig jobs don't pay nearly enough to be able to cover these costs. After all is said and done, a lot of gig workers end up breaking even at best, and sometimes even losing money.
- boredumb 4y ago
  I was talking about reality because I personally know people who have and are currently doing it and they are able to cover these costs.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  This is exactly the academic math which is the problem. If you buy a $30,000+ car exclusively to drive for Uber and have it serviced at the dealership instead of doing it yourself, you're probably losing money. But if you have an existing used car that you already need for other reasons, most of the cost (tax, insurance, time-based depreciation) are sunk and the gig can be net profitable while giving flexible hours. People have the right to make that choice for themselves. Anyone who doesn't want it can go take any of the less flexible jobs that would be their only alternative if you prohibited these.

zwkrt 4y ago

Top comments are about how gig work can help make ends meet for people who are struggling. By some estimates 9% of adults are currently doing tech-enabled gig-work, or have done it in the past. That is too many people trying to make ends meet. That number is so high that the conclusion that /I/ draw is that about 5% of the jobs being offered on the market are gig work, and the people who are in a position to take them aren't paid well enough to make a decent living. All of this is related to hustle culture. Where instead of believing in the myth that corporations buy your labor from you, we have a new myth that we are all to some extent self-employed. That our greatest assets are our ability to push ourselves for economic gain. That our attention is for sale. That the solution to financial ruin is a side-hustle. We used to rely on the community of people around us to make ends meet and provide enrichment in our lives, but the new mythos doesn't make room for that. Friendships are monetizable. Attention is transactional. Hobbies are for improving oneself. I don't fully know where this rant is going. I don't think everyone thinks these things. But there is something about individuality and money being more important than camaraderie and material wealth that I think motivates the prevailing viewpoint that gig work is anything other than an erosion of protections our great grandparents fought very hard for.

jandrewrogers 4y ago
I have a met no small number of people who drive for Uber essentially for fun. They don’t need the money, they drive because it gives them something to do when they are retired, when their spouse travels, to buy some latest gear for a hobby, etc. The extra money might be nice but the motivation isn’t existential.
- wyre 4y ago
  Many people can drive for Uber for fun, doesnt mean more people do it because they're destitute and without other options.

Eumenes 4y ago

Wow, great scientific research here! More like = low pay for low skill workers linked to lifestyle problems, including health outcomes. The same could be said about any hard labor. I found this strange: "Sayre conducted a final online survey with 252 higher-income employees in finance, marketing and sales who relied on commissions or bonuses for a smaller fraction of their income. The workers completed monthly surveys for three months, and pay volatility was less harmful to health when they were less reliant on commissions or bonuses." Whats this getting at? Ending incentive pay? This rhetoric is tied to 'pay transparency'. Aka, everyone must be paid the same if they have the same title/job. A workers rights issues, but really an employers wet dream.

waterhouse 4y ago

The article admits at the bottom: "The study findings do not prove that volatile pay causes health symptoms, only that there is a correlation between them." Yet, in the body of the article, it says "pay volatility was less harmful to health", the wording of which implicitly asserts causation. Sigh. The null hypothesis is "health problems, and difficulties associated with health problems, cause people to take jobs with more volatile pay". It is plausible that volatile pay causes stress which causes problems, but this doesn't provide any convincing evidence of it. In fact, this part is evidence against it: "Mindfulness [...] has been shown to buffer against stress in other aspects of work and life [...] but it did not help reduce the physical symptoms associated with volatile pay." (Of course, an individual's mindfulness could also influence what jobs they'll accept and keep.) (Another mechanism comes to mind for the "performance bonuses" they mention. That could lead to some people staying up late to finish things, or otherwise deciding to stretch themselves physically for their job. But if you want to study that, you should ask about those behaviors specifically.)