Apps are no longer just a 'gig': how the profile of app workers is changing

This data may surprise many Americans, who tend to see working through apps as a “side job” to supplement their income. In practice, however, these activities have become increasingly important as a source of livelihood, although they are not always sufficient to cover basic expenses such as food and medical care. As an urban policy researcher, I consider this result part of a broader scenario identified in a survey of more than 1,000 Michigan residents, conducted by my institute in partnership with the Michigan Metro Area Communities Study. Around 22% of those interviewed said they had already carried out some type of work through apps or platforms. Among them, approximately half said that this activity was essential or important to meet basic needs. At the same time, social protection programs — financed by taxpayers — end up filling part of the gap left by platforms, which target low-income workers without offering benefits traditionally associated with formal employment. Flexibility as a double-edged sword Large platforms, such as Uber and Lyft, often present this type of work as an opportunity to earn income with the freedom to set your own hours. In this aspect, the workers' perception coincides with the companies' discourse. In the survey, nine in 10 said they valued flexibility, while more than two-thirds rated their experiences positively. Despite this, professionals also highlighted important concerns, mainly related to transparency, remuneration and the lack of benefits. The question, therefore, is not whether workers want flexibility, but whether the income obtained in this way is sufficient for them to be able to support themselves. App-based work can work as an income supplement, but it is not always a choice. In a scenario where almost half of Americans say they have difficulty paying their bills, these activities tend to gain importance as a financial survival strategy. This does not mean, however, that these activities are replacing traditional jobs. The survey showed that only 6% of workers reduced their hours or left another job to dedicate themselves to working via apps. When this work becomes a necessary source of income, the lack of benefits — such as health insurance, disability coverage and protection in case of workplace accidents — increases the dependence of these professionals on public programs. If large platforms do not offer sufficient remuneration to guarantee adequate living conditions or benefits, under the argument that this is the price of “flexibility”, the government often ends up filling this gap. In other words, part of the costs related to the social protection of these workers ends up being financed by taxpayers. The number of workers enrolled in Medicaid is growing The Government Accountability Office report also showed that, together, the platforms now occupy the third position among US employers with the highest number of workers enrolled in Medicaid, a public health program aimed mainly at the low-income population and people with disabilities. In 2020, these companies did not even appear in the top five. Additionally, recent changes to Medicaid rules may make the situation even more difficult for these professionals. The broad tax and immigration package approved in 2025, during President Donald Trump's administration, included changes that affect states that expanded Medicaid over the last 15 years. Under the new rules, beneficiaries now face stricter requirements, including proof of 80 hours of work or study per month to maintain coverage. Activities carried out through applications count towards meeting this requirement. However, professionals who work on multiple platforms may face difficulties in proving their journey. This is because the applications use different formats to record the journey, and these professionals do not receive a standardized payment slip that informs the total hours worked. There is also no traditional employer or supervisor who can facilitate this proof. Furthermore, the records do not always consider the period in which the worker waits for a race or delivery. Fluctuations in demand also make working hours and income unpredictable. The complexity and bureaucracy of the new requirements can cause beneficiaries to lose coverage even when they complete 80 hours per month. These barriers can remove more people from Medicaid and increase dependence on other social programs, especially as medical expenses rise and family income is compromised. Losing coverage can also have more serious consequences. Without access to health insurance, some people