IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/buseco/v52y2017i4d10.1057_s11369-017-0053-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

America’s online ‘jobs’: conceptualizations, measurements, and influencing factors

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Alex Hooton

    (Internet Association)

Abstract

The paper examines the size and distribution of online income positions (OIPs) from internet platforms in the United States. While researchers have developed traditional internet sector employment estimates (e.g., engineers), this secondary OIP market remains largely unmeasured due to shortcomings in industrial codes, conceptualizations, and methods. The estimates that do exist vary greatly. The paper addresses these shortcomings through original survey data collected directly from internet sector companies, allowing it to develop the first comprehensive look at the market for online income opportunities. The paper provides national and state-level estimates, finding approximately 23.9 million OIPs exist currently in 2017. The paper finds that these OIPs are present across all 50 states and the District of Columbia and that their distribution is less tied to population levels than traditional employment. The paper also develops a model for OIP levels with a surprisingly strong fit, which demonstrates that OIPs are driven by relative cost to income factors, exposure to the ‘tech’ sector, and internet access, but not by unemployment. To the extent of the paper’s knowledge, this is the only research that has drawn on actual internet firm data to estimate the size of the OIP market.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher Alex Hooton, 2017. "America’s online ‘jobs’: conceptualizations, measurements, and influencing factors," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 227-249, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:buseco:v:52:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1057_s11369-017-0053-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s11369-017-0053-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s11369-017-0053-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s11369-017-0053-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roberts,Mark, 2016. "Identifying the economic potential of Indian districts," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7623, The World Bank.
    2. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2016. "The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015," Working Papers 603, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    3. Katharine G. Abraham & John C. Haltiwanger & Kristin Sandusky & James R. Spletzer, 2017. "Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring and Accounting for Innovation in the Twenty-First Century, pages 257-298, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Anat Bracha & Mary A. Burke, 2016. "Who counts as employed?: informal work, employment status, and labor market slack," Working Papers 16-29, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bracha, Anat & Burke, Mary A., 2018. "Wage inflation and informal work," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 159-163.
    2. Joshua Greenstein, 2020. "The Precariat Class Structure and Income Inequality among US Workers: 1980–2018," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(3), pages 447-469, September.
    3. Kässi, Otto & Lehdonvirta, Vili, 2018. "Online labour index: Measuring the online gig economy for policy and research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 241-248.
    4. Lynn Riggs & Isabelle Sin & Dean Hyslop, 2019. "Measuring the “gig” economy: Challenges and options," Working Papers 19_18, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    5. Brice Corgnet & Simon Gaechter & Roberto Hernan Gonzalez, 2020. "Working Too Much for Too Little: Stochastic Rewards Cause Work Addiction," Discussion Papers 2020-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 2019. "Understanding Trends in Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States," NBER Working Papers 25425, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Maria Cesira Urzi Brancati & Annarosa Pesole & Enrique Férnandéz-Macías, 2020. "New evidence on platform workers in Europe: Results from the second COLLEEM survey," JRC Research Reports JRC118570, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Peter Z. Schochet, 2021. "Long‐Run Labor Market Effects of the Job Corps Program: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(1), pages 128-157, January.
    9. Anat Bracha & Mary A. Burke, 2018. "The ups and downs of the gig economy, 2015–2017," Working Papers 18-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    10. Sheena McConnell & Peter Z. Schochet & Dana Rotz & Ken Fortson & Paul Burkander & Annalisa Mastri, 2021. "The Effects of Employment Counseling on Labor Market Outcomes for Adults and Dislocated Workers: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 1249-1287, September.
    11. Bas Scheer & Wiljan van den Berge & Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2022. "Alternative Work Arrangements and Worker Outcomes: Evidence from Payrolling," CPB Discussion Paper 435, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    12. Jae Song & David J Price & Fatih Guvenen & Nicholas Bloom & Till von Wachter, 2019. "Firming Up Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 1-50.
    13. Werner Eichhorst & Ulf Rinne, 2017. "Digital Challenges for the Welfare State," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 18(04), pages 03-08, December.
    14. Aghion, Philippe & Akcigit, Ufuk & Lequien, Matthieu & Stantcheva, Stefanie, 2017. "Tax simplicity and heterogeneous learning," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86613, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Jose Asturias & Emin Dinlersoz & John Haltiwanger & Rebecca Hutchinson & Alyson Plumb, 2021. "Business Applications as a Leading Economic Indicator?," Working Papers 21-09, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    16. Hirsch, Barry T. & Winters, John V., 2016. "Rotation group bias in measures of multiple job holding," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 160-163.
    17. Mossberger, Karen & LaCombe, Scott & Tolbert, Caroline J., 2022. "A new measure of digital economic activity and its impact on local opportunity," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1).
    18. John C. Haltiwanger, 2022. "Entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from the Business Formation Statistics," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 9-42.
    19. Basu, Arnab K. & Chau, Nancy H. & Soundararajan, Vidhya, 2019. "Wage fairness in a subcontracted labor market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 24-42.
    20. Cody Cook & Rebecca Diamond & Jonathan V Hall & John A List & Paul Oyer, 2021. "The Gender Earnings Gap in the Gig Economy: Evidence from over a Million Rideshare Drivers [Measuring the Gig Economy: Current Knowledge and Open Issues]," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 88(5), pages 2210-2238.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:buseco:v:52:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1057_s11369-017-0053-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.