Why 5.3% Of Workers Now Hold Multiple Jobs: The Full Story

Multiple job holders surged in recent years.

Dr. Bill Conerly using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Bureau for Economic Research

The president brags about how many jobs he has created, goes an old joke. Someone in the audience says, “I have three of them.” The implication, obviously, is that the economy is so poor that people have to find multiple part-time jobs to support themselves.

The actual data show good news: a declining trend in multiple job holding over decades, with a recent upturn. And that upturn may reflect opportunity rather than need.

The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics begin in 1994. The chart shows a general downward trend from 1995 through 2014, with a slight increase in the years leading up to the pandemic. After the worst of the pandemic, the percentage of employed people with multiple jobs rose from 4.4% to 5.3%, the steepest increase in 30 years. (The data are not adjusted for seasonal fluctuations, so the chart begins in 1995 to show 12-month moving averages.)

Multiple job holding is usually associated—as the old joke reflects—with difficult times. But we see no increase at the time of the 2001 recession and only a small uptick in the 2008-2009 recession. (Recessions are shaded in gray on the chart.)

Perhaps the hard-times story must be combined with a good-opportunity story. Economist Daniel Culbertson of the Indeed Hiring Lab observed that the rise of the gig economy (as embodied by Uber, DoorDash and other contract work) may have provided opportunities that people found appealing. Years ago, a job almost always involved a schedule and a location where the worker would report. The gig economy provides opportunities for people to work their preferred hours—even if that means different hours one week than the next. And the employee may not have to go into a fixed location but rather can start working from wherever he or she happens to be at the moment. (The conversation occurred during Talivity’s Talent Market Index briefing.)

There is probably truth in both the need story and opportunity story (which is my interpretation of Culbertson’s remarks). And there may be middle ground where a person in need looks at different options, such as work full time in one job or part-time at two jobs with different characteristics.

A variety of ride-share (Uber and Lyft) conversations I have had point to both ends of the spectrum. Two former taxi drivers shifted to ride-share driver because their preferred job—taxi driver—was no longer paying good money. They both shared bad feelings about the change. (A propensity to tell customers about their bad feelings may have led to disappointment with a system in which riders rate their drivers.)

Several ride-share drivers, however, enjoyed the opportunity. One worked remotely as a tech writer, but wanted or needed some extra income. He kept his ride-share app open while he worked at home. One day it started raining and surge pricing kicked in. His app alerted him, so he shut his laptop and got in his car. He only drove customers when he would be well-rewarded. Similarly, another work-at-home person would only accept long drives on the ride-share apps. He would take someone from the distant suburb where he lived to the airport, then take someone else from the airport to the driver’s suburb, and then he resumed work from home. He didn’t care to do short trips, and he didn’t have to.

Several female drivers told me they didn’t feel comfortable picking up late-night bar hoppers. Their ride-share contract did not require them to work hours or locations they disliked. And some drivers don’t speak English, but can do the job thanks to the rideshare app and map app working in their native language.

Thinking over economic questions often leads to stereotypes. “A typical job seeker is looking for ….” Or, “A typical employer is looking for ….” A deeper insight, though, is that the world is populated with widely varying people and businesses. Yes, a majority may prefer regular hours, but some want to vary their hours, and others are willing to be on call as the need arises.

Many organizations need their workers to show up on time every scheduled workday (think stores and fire departments) but others just need the work done in some reasonable time range. We also have some companies that experience wide fluctuations in demand while others have very predictable needs.

With great diversity of employers and businesses, no single work model will be good in all instances.

Business leaders may be able to take advantage of some opportunities to get better employees at lower cost. Most people would prefer to have some flexibility in their work hours to accommodate commuting delays or family obligations. A company that does not really need employees to show up on a fixed schedule can get some good workers by offering flexibility. Another example: Companies that have varying needs might be better off paying high wages for people who agree to show up on short notice, working only as needed. That could be cheaper than paying people a moderate wage to stand around just in case they are needed. There are many retirees who would like to do something outside the home but don’t want to commit to a daily job. Their flexible schedules might fit well with on-call work.

The business analysis begins by looking at specific jobs and determining what the company really needs, plus what would be nice to have but not absolutely necessary, and what is not needed at all. Then look for employees whose particular interests aligns with the company’s need. And as companies such as Uber, DoorDash and Upwork have learned, there might even be a business in serving that narrow need.

People interested in public policy should consider that some multiple job holders are happy with their situation.