Seattle's Delivery Minimum Wage Failed Drivers and Raised Costs
Increased hourly rates corresponded with lower tips and fewer orders to share between drivers, leaving gig workers no better off than they were before the law passed.
In 2022, Seattle became one of the first cities in America to pass a minimum wage law for food delivery drivers. The law went into effect in 2024, and the results were nothing short of calamitous. Food orders plunged to unprecedented lows, delivery costs exploded, and driver earnings appeared to crater.
Now, new research on Seattle's delivery driver minimum wage ordinance shows that the law had no long-term effect on driver wages. And yet, Seattle's city council shows no signs of changing course, even with higher consumer costs and zero growth in driver pay.
Seattle's delivery minimum wage currently sits at over $26 per hour—higher than the city's general minimum wage, which will reach $21.30 in January 2026. In the first few weeks after the new minimum wage was enacted, DoorDash reported a decline of 30,000 orders, while UberEats saw a 30 percent drop in order volume. Reports indicated that drivers were earning less than half of what they had prior to the ordinance's passage.
But what was once merely anecdotal evidence now has hard economic facts to back it up. In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, researchers from Carnegie Mellon University unpacked the Seattle experience using cross-platform, task-level data that allowed them to track individual drivers over time.
While finding that per-task base pay doubled under the new wage, researchers also saw a corresponding decline in driver tips and a reduction in the number of tasks completed by each driver. As a result, within one month of the law's implementation, the most active drivers had experienced no increase in monthly total earnings, according to the researchers. There was also evidence of increased wait times between tasks and more idle (i.e., non-earning) time spent by deliverers.
The researchers conclude that in a labor market with free entry—which is the case with gig-based delivery work, given that new drivers can always sign up and join a platform—increases in base pay are fully offset by these declines in tips and order volume.
There's some controversy around why driver tips fell, with many pointing to food ordering platforms moving in-app tipping options from appearing during order placement pre-ordinance to appearing after an order was placed post-ordinance. Although it's likely this response did impact overall tip levels, increasing the minimum wage nearly always leads to a reduction in tipping in tipped-wage occupations, including for delivery drivers and restaurant workers.
Other cities that have experimented with minimum wages for app-based delivery drivers have seen results similar to those in Seattle. For instance, New York City's delivery minimum wage led to a 10 percent spike in delivery costs and a 47 percent decline in driver tips.
There was also an 8 percent drop in NYC's delivery driver workforce, as gig companies were forced to cap the number of drivers active at any one time in order to manage the suddenly higher labor costs. (For its part, NYC also recently passed an ordinance mandating that delivery apps provide at least a 10 percent in-app tipping option on all orders.)
As more and more economic evidence keeps rolling in showcasing the deleterious effects of its minimum wage, Seattle's city council has remained as recalcitrant as ever. A 2024 lobbying effort by the council president to reform and overhaul the minimum wage ordinance ultimately failed to pass and was quietly abandoned.
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
I am shocked, shocked.
Of course, the real intention is to drive independent workers out of the marketplace, as the left hates any form of independence. The intention is to force then onto "real" jobs were they are regimented and CONTROLLED.
(Ideally, union jobs where the democrat donations are automatic)
^Exactly.....
The whole reason independent contracting was so successful was it dodged [D]emon-rats tyrannical 'Guns'.
This intention is aided and abetted by all those "well intentioned" folks who say "at least the workers aren't being exploited anymore by those more interested in grubbing profits than serving their fellow man"
Can't quite figure out how city council persons monetize such legislation for themselves. There must be a way, or they wouldn't do it.
More union pay, more union members, more union donations. Longtobefree and TJJ2000 have it exactly right. Independent thinking is the bete noir of statists in general, and collectivists in particular.
A consultation with Somali experts could prove useful.
Its about ego and keeping their job.
By grinding down the poor they get the ego boost of exercising that power over others and they get to 'solve' a 'problem' because they know if there weren't problems then *anyone* could do their job and they would actually have a fight on the next election.
What aggravates me most about this kind of nonsense is how every little step statists take like this makes the economy that much more inefficient. Supposedly, individuals spend the equivalent of 3 million full-time jobs, 6 billion hours, 24 hours per adult, on personal income taxes, and that's not counting the accountants' and tax preparers' time, nor other taxes, nor business income taxes.
It's all unseen, invisible, to the burrocrats and poltroons who populate government. "It's just one little tax." They can't comprehend that thousands of little taxes and impediments add up.
Government really sucks.
What aggravates me most about this kind of nonsense is how every little step statists take like this makes the economy that much more inefficient.
Right, which is proof that Capitalism isn't working, and so we need socialism.
Nothing says Liberty like bureaucrats stamping a price-tag on your forehead! /s
I don't know what this article is talking about - Seattle accomplished every single one of its goals.
1. Virtue signalling.
2. Driving people out of the gig economy and back into more 'legible' categories of employment. The managers like a clear distinction between 'employee' and 'contractor' and hate anything that blurs that line, makes it 'illegible'.
3. Impoverished even more poor Seattlites - this is a two-fer. Its simultaneously allows them to grind some faces into the ground (how can the people know you have power over them unless you exercise that power?) while opening more opportunities to virtue signal by creating more discontent.