California's Attack on Gig Work Predictably Drove Workers Out of Jobs
Self-employment in California fell by 10.5 percent and overall employment tumbled by 4.4 percent after A.B. 5's implementation.

California's attempt at forcing gig workers to become traditional employees backfired by driving many of those workers out of their jobs.
In the wake of a new law (Assembly Bill 5) that was intended to reclassify many independent contractors as regular employees, self-employment in California fell by 10.5 percent and overall employment tumbled by 4.4 percent, according to a study released Thursday by the Mercatus Center, a free market think tank housed at George Mason University. In professions where self-employment was more common, the effects were more dramatic, and in some fields employment declined by as much as 28 percent after A.B. 5's implementation.
Meanwhile, researchers Liya Palagashvili, Paola A. Suarez, Christopher M. Kaiser, and Vitor Melo reported finding no increase in the number of employees classified as full employees. In professions where there was an uptick in traditional employees receiving W-2 wages and benefits, those increases were not large enough to cancel out the number of self-employed workers who left jobs.
"These results suggest that AB5 did not simply alter the composition of the workforce as intended by lawmakers," the four researchers wrote. "Instead, our findings suggest that AB5 was associated with a significant decline in self-employment and overall employment in California."
That could have significant implications for the Department of Labor's (DOL) recently announced attempt at duplicating California's policy across the rest of the country.
Last week, the DOL announced a new set of rules for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. Like with California's A.B. 5, those proposed federal rules are meant to crack down on what the government sees as a deliberate effort to misclassify workers as contractors—which can change, among other things, the benefits that an employer is obligated to pay. Most gig workers and independent contractors are content with their more flexible, less structured employment arrangements—so in some sense, these governmental efforts seem to be trying to save workers from their own choices.
The Mercatus research suggests that, given a different set of choices, many of those workers would choose to exit the work force rather than accept (or be able to take) a more traditional employment arrangement. In fact, a sizable number of workers seem to have left the labor force entirely. The Mercatus study claims A.B. 5's passage was associated with at least a 6.5 percent decline in labor force participation in California.
As a result, funneling workers into traditional employment might not be as simple as federal regulators believe.
"Our results suggest that the DOL rule may lead to a significant decrease in self-employment and overall employment nationwide," wrote Palagashvili in a blog post summarizing the group's findings. "Further, it is not clear whether the new DOL rule would definitively lead to an increase in traditional employment, as intended."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is going to backfire at the Federal level just as bad as it did in California. Wait till they see all the small one person businesses shut down and stop paying taxes.
Well, that's the point, isn't it?
Fascists need large corporations to control the citizens, not individuals.
Crony Socialism.......
Course they'll deflect by dumping 'Crony Capitalism' (a complete oxymoron) propaganda all over the place.
...because that's what [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s] do.
It's no backfire. Predictable consequences cannot be credibly called unintentional. The people pushing these laws want gig workers unemployed or under the thumb of a union that reliably donates to Team Blue.
Bingo!
Plus they don't want some ambitious free-lancer to make the others look bad.
Weird, you're telling me politicians randomly deciding that I can't be self-employed didn't work out as planned? Inconthievable!
From the study ...
All together now....
Foreseeable consequences are not "unintended".
The gold standard for this kind of employment research continues to be the University of Washington study commissioned by King County, Washington to prove that raising the minimum wage in King County would NOT result in job losses. Unfortunately, that properly designed research not only failed to prove what the politicians paid the researchers to prove, it unequivocally proved a significant loss of employment. Of course, the politicians rejected the study and commissioned a NEW “study” from University of California at Berkeley that did NOT fail to prove what they wanted.
These same people suport instituting carbon taxes because they know increasing the price of fossil fuels would reduce their use.
And yet, they do not figure out that raising wages would reduce employment!
Brilliant! What's it called when you can hold two diametrically opposed mutually exclusive ideas in your noggin at the same time without cognitive dissonance?
Progressivism.
The new world order.
Stupidity!
But the people who converted from gig work to employees are getting more pay, right? Right?
Absolutely. Both of them.
“Like with California's A.B. 5, those proposed federal rules are meant to crack down on what the government sees as a deliberate effort to misclassify workers as contractors—which can change, among other things, the benefits that an employer is obligated to pay”
Let’s be honest. The government could care less about the benefits employees receive. State government, collect unemployment tax on employees, but not on contractors. The federal government, thanks to income tax withholding, is far more efficient in collecting taxes from employees than from independent contractors, who must be counted on to pay into their income tax liability quarterly. That’s the real reason government is “cracking down“ on contractors.
More than that, it's almost impossible to organize independent contractors into organized labor collectives that can make or break socialist politicians' careers!
Mission accomplished.
Self-employment in California fell by 10.5 percent. Mission Accomplished.
overall employment tumbled by 4.4 percent. Doh!
Gov-'Gun' gangs out entitling people right out of their jobs.
The 'Guns' will make sh*t now ... nothing else will be needed.
You know what kind of person uses 'guns' to make sh*t?
Remember - they want you dead.
They want you in labor camps (the party of slavery) to their UN-earned benefit and when that slavery benefit isn’t needed anymore then they want you dead to ‘save’ the resources/planet in their zero-sum armed-theft game.
Reasonable, really. I want them dead too.
But Republicans!!!!1!1!1!
Just wondering - - -
Any data on how much of those drops is from people who fled the state?
These people only think in large corpo group-think. Large corp cheaters *cough Uber* were getting away with cheating workers out of benefits while simultaneous overworking them with hours on the clock. Naturally, instead of using a precise tool ... they applied the biggest hammer they could find and clobbered small businesses as well.
Large corp cheaters *cough Uber* were getting away with cheating workers out of benefits while simultaneous overworking them with hours on the clock.
Tell me you don't understand how Uber works without telling me you don't understand how Uber works.
"...Large corp cheaters *cough Uber* were getting away with cheating workers out of benefits while simultaneous overworking them with hours on the clock..."
Fuck off and die in a fire, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Yes. Uber was out there carjacking people and making them drive for them.
I saw it in the socialist newspapers!
It was the white vans.
Yes, because desired work schedules, pay, and benefits are a human right--every libertarian knows that.
You stupid cunt.
These results don't surprise me, but the report does not really address a HUGE confounding variable, the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental response to it. It is not unreasonable to expect that many more gig workers would lose work during that time because of the nature of their employment status. They kind of wave their hands around that and claim that the findings remain robust even when they omit March 2020–March 2021 and March 2020–March 2022, but this ignores the possibility that COVID had a persistent effect on the data due to differentials in the rebound, such as companies preferentially hiring employees over freelancers in response to then-current economic conditions.
Given the “other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” nature of the time frame they examined, I would expect to see more than that assertion and the data tables that show the robustness of the findings.
And, judging from the Mercator blog post and the intro, I’m pretty sure the authors were aware of this weakness and were hoping nobody would notice: They mention other dates relatively prominently, but don’t mention the 2019 date of AB5’s passage where you would expect to see it in introducing the concept.
This doesn’t mean they are wrong (and there is good reason to expect their finding is right), but the sloppiness with which they handled COVID in the report (virtually ignoring it) raises questions they should have dealt with head on and will make it easier for AB5 true believers to hand wave away these results.
It's a shame, because we need good data on this subject and this could really help, but the appearance that they were ignoring COVID raises reasonable suspicion here.
That's why peer review and statistical accuracy is so important.
There are "studies" released everyday that propose some cause and effect as being proven. The media picks up on and summarizes them. And then invents some inflammatory headline guaranteed to attract the all important clicks and eyeballs.
After that, the "findings" are repeated as fact without any critical analysis. And picked up and used as propaganda by those that find such findings as supportive to their cause.
Sometimes, Reason falls into this camp. That's how effective it is.
Yeah, this is a pretty clear case of confirmation bias at work on the part of Reason. And I say that as someone who thinks it's probably right.
You mean government is the problem, not the solution? Who knew?
Not the lefty shit-pile Liberty Belle.
As with most government regulations, it had the exact opposite of the intended effect. If imposed nationally, it will only spur a growth in the underground economy as Uber drivers become gypsy cabs and stylists cut hair in their kitchens for cash. Government officials who study history are rare as hen’s teeth.
Eventually, everyone in California will be a ward and/or employee of the one-party state. Truly that will be the peak of human existence.
Meanwhile enjoy your $15 Big Mac meal that, gosh, you can't get delivered to you anymore.
I usually imagine Gavin Newsom's office like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85t3aLQzTsI
I have always been very surprised by the laws of California, especially their taxation. They are simply forcing the middle class out of the state. I have a small hobby that brings me a little money - https://mel-bet.bi/en I would really think about stopping because I don’t want to fall into violation of some point of the new laws. Luckily I'm in Utah)