Is Gig Work Replacing Traditional Employment? Evidence from

Agency decision

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Two Decades of Tax Returns ∗

Brett Collins†, Andrew Garin‡, Emilie Jackson§, Dmitri Koustas¶, Mark Paynek

March 25, 2019

Abstract

We examine the universe of tax returns in order to reconcile seemingly contradictory facts

about the rise of alternative work arrangements in the United States. Focusing on workers in

the “1099 workforce,” we document the share of the workforce with income from alternative,

non-employee work arrangements has grown by 1.9 percentage points of the workforce from

2000 to 2016. More than half of this increase occurred over 2013 to 2016 and can be attributed

almost entirely to dramatic growth among gigs mediated through online labor platforms. We

find that the rise in online platform work for labor is driven by earnings that are secondary

and supplemental sources of income. Many of these jobs do not show up in self-employment

tax records: approximately 44 percent of the overall growth in the 1099 economy comes from

people who do not file self-employment taxes. Examining the relationship between 1099s and

self-employment tax records more generally, we find that the previously documented increases in

self-employment tax filings since 2007 are largely driven by workers without 1099s. We discuss

implications of these findings for tax administration and measurement of alternative work using

tax data.

∗

This research was authorized through the IRS SOI Joint Statistical Research Program. The researchers were

granted access to tax administrative data as IRS employees through agreements under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. This paper was previously presented as “Understanding the Trend in U.S. Alternative Work Arrangements:

Evidence from Tax Returns.” We are grateful to seminar participants at the ASSA, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,

and the Sloan Foundation, to Lawrence Katz and David Card for their advisory role on all stages of this work, and

to many people at IRS who made this work possible.

†

Internal Revenue Service

‡

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Stanford University

University of Chicago

Internal Revenue Service

Introduction

New institutions and technologies have made it simpler for self-employed individuals to do work

for firms and peers that could have previously only been done in an employment relationship.

As a result, speculation has grown that traditional jobs in the United States will be replaced

by “gig” or “freelance” work performed by self-employed workers acting as independent contractors. While a shift towards a “gig economy” could increase opportunities for flexible work,

it could have major ramifications for tax administration and social programs, which are often

administered through employers. Therefore, it is crucial for policymakers to understand where

and why such shifts are occurring.

Despite the attention from media and from policymakers, the evidence to date on the rise

of a gig economy and of alternative work arrangements more generally has been mixed. On

the one hand, administrative records, some survey evidence, and abundant anecdotal evidence

suggest that alternative work arrangements, particularly independent contracting relationships,

are on the rise (Abraham, Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer, 2018b; Harris and Krueger,

2015; Katz and Krueger, 2019a; Farrell, Greig, and Hamoudi, 2018). Self-employment more

generally has been shown to be increasing in tax returns (Jackson, Looney, and Ramnath, 2017;

Abraham, Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer, 2018b). Some recent surveys find that more

than 30 percent of the workforce is engaged more broadly in some sort of freelance or “gig” work

(Intelligence, 2018; Gallup, 2018; Bracha and Burke, 2018). At the same time, self-employment

has not grown in the Current Population Survey (CPS), and the recent 2017 installment of

Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) to the CPS found that alternative work arrangements

of all forms were no more prevalent in 2017 than they were in 2005 when the supplement was

last conducted (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018a; Katz and Krueger, 2019b).

This paper analyzes the universe of U.S. tax returns in order to reconcile these seemingly

contradictory findings on the growth of non-employee “gig” work. Tax data from the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) allow us to directly identify spells of contract work in which self-employed

individuals do work for firms or intermediated by firms. We will refer to this group as the “1099

workforce” after the tax form we use to identify it.1 Though just one of several alternative

worker-firm arrangements, the 1099 workforce of freelancers and gig economy workers is particularly important part of the broader alternative workforce. Working with a firm as a selfemployed contractor instead of an employee has significant implications for how tax and labor

Form 1099 reports a variety of payments made to individuals; by 1099 workforce, we are referring to 1099

recipients with non-employee income from firms reported on forms 1099-MISC and 1099-K. We discuss this in more

detail in Section 1.

laws apply. Unlike traditional employees, self-employed independent contractors do not receive

benefits associated with employment: they do not receive employer-sponsored health insurance,

are not covered by the minimum wage or other protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act,

are not part of states’ unemployment insurance systems, and are on their own when it comes to

training, retirement savings, and tax planning. Recent surveys suggest that independent contracting is more prevalent than other alternative work arrangements that involve an employer,

such as temporary services. Moreover, since independent contract workers are self-employed,

trends in this sector may drive broader trends in self-employment, including those documented

in previous studies of IRS self-employment tax records (Jackson, Looney, and Ramnath, 2017;

Abraham, Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer, 2018b).

In our work, we pay special attention to a new and growing class of independent contract

work mediated by online platforms, which have received a significant amount of attention in

recent years. We refer to these arrangements, which are a subset of “1099 work,” collectively as

the “online platform economy for labor” (labor OPE). We measure participation in the labor

OPE based on employer names, building on work by Jackson, Looney, and Ramnath (2017). We

follow other work (Farrell and Greig, 2016a,b; Farrell, Greig, and Hamoudi, 2018) and develop

a broad definition of the labor OPE, focusing on a subset of companies that are primarily labor

platforms. This allows us to directly measure the labor OPE based on information returns.

We find that share of earners participating in the 1099 workforce grew by 1.9 percentage

points from 2000 to 2016, and now accounts for 11.8 percent of the workforce. Since the start

of the Great Recession in 2007, the 1099 workforce has grown by 1 percentage point of the

workforce, while at the same time the share earning only wages has shrunk by 1.1 percentage

points. Looking at the sources of this growth in more detail, we find that virtually all of the

growth in the 1099 workforce since 2007 is due to dramatic growth in labor OPE participation.

Meanwhile, more traditional 1099 work has plateaued. By 2016, the share of workers with labor

OPE income was approximately 1 percentage point of the workforce constituting 8.6 percent of

the 1099 workforce.

While we see dramatic growth in the “extensive” margin of participation in the 1099 workforce, we also find that these individuals are no more likely to earn a full-time living in the 1099

workforce in 2016 than they were in 2005. We find that the exponential growth in labor OPE

work is driven by individuals whose primary annual income derives from traditional jobs and

who supplement that income with platform-mediated work. Moreover, a majority of participants only derive small amounts of income from labor OPE work—fewer than half earned more

than $2,500 in 2016. This is largely consistent with recent findings from studies of individual

bank account data (Koustas, 2018; Farrell and Greig, 2016b,a; Farrell, Greig, and Hamoudi,

2018). In general, for 1099 work—as well as self-employment more broadly—we find that the

closer we move to a notion of “full” time employment, the less growth we see. Thus, consistent

with the 2017 CWS results, we find no evidence that “traditional” work arrangements are being

supplanted by independent contract arrangements reported on 1099s.

When comparing the demographic characteristics of the 1099 workforce to other groups of

workers, we find that participants in the labor OPE look different than other kinds of workers—

including other 1099 workers. Inter alia, labor OPE workers in a given year are much more likely

to be male, single, and to have experienced unemployment in that year. Labor OPE participants

also tend to be younger than other self-employed workers, and the youngest workers are most

likely to have small amounts of earnings. Outside of the labor OPE, self-employed individuals

with and without 1099 earnings are more similar. Compared to workers with wage income alone,

the non-OPE 1099 workers tend to be older, are more likely to be married, and more likely to

claim Social Security retirement benefits.

We find important heterogeneity in these trends across demographic groups and regions of the

United States. Outside the labor OPE, non-employee work has become more prevalent among

women since 2000, but not among men. By contrast, the rise in labor OPE employment is larger

among men than women. In addition, non-OPE 1099 work at any level of earnings becomes more

prevalent after Social Security eligibility at age 62, whereas labor OPE “moonlighting” for small

amounts of money is much more prevalent among younger workers. Geographically, the labor

OPE is concentrated in large city centers, while non-OPE 1099 work is much less concentrated

and much more common in rural areas of the plains states and the Southern states.

These findings help reconcile competing narratives about the growth of the gig economy.

Our results verify the explosive growth in the labor OPE documented in data from rideshare

platforms (Hall and Krueger, 2015) and bank account data (Koustas, 2018; Farrell, Greig, and

Hamoudi, 2018; Farrell and Greig, 2016a,b). Yet our findings offer an explanation as to why

OPE work has not registered in surveys like the CWS. While many such surveys ask individuals

about their primary source of income during a single week, we find that labor OPE work typically

supplements traditional W2 traditional jobs over the course of the year. At the same time, we

find that much of the previously documented rise in self-employment tax filings is not driven by

1099 work at all.

We also note that although we find that only 11.8 percent of the workforce participates

in the 1099 workforce, these findings do not necessarily contradict studies finding that many

more workers than this are engaged in some kind of informal work (Bracha and Burke, 2018).

Similar to the CWS, our study focuses on work that is firm-facing or firm-intermediated, and,

moreover, we only measure formal work reported to the IRS. It is likely that many individuals

also engage in informal consumer- or household-facing side jobs, such as flea-market selling,

driveway shoveling, babysitting, or house cleaning. We cannot identify such activity in 1099

data—in fact, such activity is likely not reported to the IRS at all in many cases. This limits

our ability to speak to the prevalence of such work, to trends over time, and to whether or not

new work in the OPE is substituting for or adds to other kinds of informal work.

This paper proceeds as follows: In section 2, we provide an overview of how we define and

measure alternative work in tax data. Section 3 provides our first results, showing high-level

trends in tax data since the 2000s. In Section 4, we further decompose these trends, examining

in detail who participates, and focusing on trends by gender and age. In section 5, we compare

trends in the 1099 workforce to trends in self-employment more broadly. Section 6 concludes.

Measuring the “Gig” Economy

2.1

What is Gig Work?

One of the challenges in measuring the rise of the “gig” (sometimes referred to as the “alternative” or “nontraditional”) workforce is the wide range of terminology, which is employed in a

variety of ways in different contexts. In this paper, our focus is on non-traditional work arrangements that substitute for the traditional employer-employee relationship. More specifically, we

examine activities that are firm-facing or firm-mediated in nature. This is consistent with the

notion of “alternative work” employed in the BLS’ Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS),

as well as the notion of the “gig” economy in Abraham, Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer

(2018b). By contrast, we do not focus on other types of informal or occasional work that are

consumer- or household-facing, such as babysitting or flea-market selling. Although multiple

surveys indicate that many Americans partake in this latter category of work, such work is by no

means new and is often informal or “under-the-counter.” To the extent this income is reported

to the IRS, we will also examine growth in self-employment more broadly later in the paper

in Section 5. Moreover, this informal work is usually not a direct alternative to firm mediated

work; although a possible exception may be the peer-to-peer transactions mediated by firms in

the Online Platform Economy, which we discuss below.

Non-traditional firm-facing work arrangements may take several forms (Bernhardt, Batt,

Houseman, and Appelbaum, 2016). The CWS categorizes alternative work arrangements into

four different classes of workers: workers who are identified as independent contractors, independent consultants, or freelance workers; on-call workers who are called to work only as needed;

temporary help agency workers paid by a temporary help agency; and finally, workers provided

by contract firms (See Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018b). Our work focuses on this first group,

which we will refer to as “independent contractors” for convenience. There is a policy rationale

for this focus. Independent contractor relationships differ from the other categories in a crucial

respect—independent contractors are not employed by the firms for which they work. Rather,

they are legally self-employed, doing “gig” work with firms on a freelance basis. The evolution

of these arrangements is therefore important to focus on in the context of both tax and labor

law that treat employees and self-employed contractors differently in important ways. Moreover,

this category is by far the largest component of the alternative workforce, comprising 68 percent

of the contingent workforce as measured in the 2017 CWS.

Fortunately, independent contractor relationships are directly observable in tax records. Payments by firms to self-employed individuals are reported on a form sent to individuals in a similar

way as are wages. Whereas other components of the contingent workforce are more difficult to

identify, this paper trail makes it relatively easy to identify and study independent contractors

in tax data. We discuss this in more detail in the next section

In our work, we pay special attention to a new and growing class of independent contract

work mediated by online platforms. We refer to these arrangements—which are a subset of

the broader “gig” economy”—as the “online platform economy” for labor (labor OPE). In the

OPE, consumers directly interface with a digital platform technology, which matches them with

contractors supplying labor and determines key parameters of the transaction. If a customer is

not satisfied with the service, customer service is often handled by the corporate platform, not

the worker supplying the service. Thus, although contractors typically provide services directly

to consumers, labor OPE transactions are crucially firm-mediated—and therefore are considered

independent contractors. While many transactions in the broader OPE involve selling of goods

or rental of durable capital, our focus in this paper is on labor supplied on these platforms.

Accordingly, we examine online platforms used to mainly trade labor services.

2.2

The 1099 Workforce

In this section, we describe how we identify the firm-facing gig economy in IRS tax data. Our

classification relies on forms issued by employers, or “information returns.” By far the most

common information return issued by employers is Form W-2, which is issued to wage workers.

Many firms, particularly those outside of the labor OPE, use traditional employees alongside

nontraditional workers. Two types of information returns allow us to focus on independent

contractors at these firms. One important information return for our purposes is Form 1099MISC. More specifically, firms are required to report all compensation of $600 or more to selfemployed independent contractors in Box 7 of Form 1099-MISC (“nonemployee compensation”).

We take the presence of Box 7 income as an indicator for our primary measure of alternative

work. Until 2011, all “freelance” or “gig” work done for firms or for clients through intermediaries

would be reported on this form.

However, reporting rules for intermediaries have changed over time in important ways that

mainly affect work in the OPE. In 2011, a new law went into effect requiring companies that

processed credit cards, electronic payments, or other transactions to report each recipient’s

payments on Form 1099-K. Starting in 2012, several important online intermediaries in the

OPE began issuing the form 1099-K instead of 1099-MISC non-employee compensation.

The income paid to gig workers on OPE labor platforms is, for all practical purposes, nonemployee compensation. However, one challenge in identifying OPE work is that 1099-Ks are

also issued for income from selling that is not non-employee compensation. We therefore identify

and track the labor OPE workforce over time by identifying approximately 50 important online

“gig” platforms on which self-employed individuals offer labor services to firms or individual

clients. We then measure the total payments individuals receive from these companies that are

reported on either a 1099-K or a 1099-MISC with non-employee compensation. We also explore

alternative approaches to identifying OPE work, as some companies cannot be identified by this

method.2 For example, we use mentions of platform names in taxpayer-reported descriptions of

business activity (line A) on Schedule C to identify additional instances of OPE work.

A potentially important limitation to studying the 1099-K is that companies in the labor

OPE classifying themselves as third party networks are only required to file this form if the total

amount of such transactions exceeds $20,000 and the aggregate number of such transactions

exceeds 200. In practice, this does not appear to impact our analysis through 2016, as we find

most of the major platforms have issued 1099-Ks to all platform participants, regardless of the

For some platforms that pay through the payment processor Paypal, the 1099 will be issued by Paypal, and

cannot be separately tied to a company in the OPE.

earnings level, in at least some years. However, individual firms have announced changes to

their policies over time. These future changes in firms’ policies may impact measurement more

severely in the future.

We refer to the “gig economy” of firm-facing non-employee work reported on these forms

as “1099 work” and to participants as the “1099 workforce.” There are a number of caveats

to studying the gig work that appears on 1099 forms. Some forms of work in the labor OPE

is clearly new economic activity, the most notable being paid ridesharing, which was largely

non-existent before 2011. In other contexts, new forms of firm-mediated activity in the OPE

may be supplanting informal work previously done in an informal setting, “under the table”

in the sense that this income was unlikely to be reported to tax authorities via an information

return. This is more likely the case for professional freelancers who now supply labor via the

labor OPE. Thus, while important to measure activity showing up in the tax system, caution

is required before interpreting growth entirely as new economic activity.

2.3

Self-Employment and the 1099 Workforce

From the perspective of the tax code, 1099 independent contractors—those with either 1099MISC non-employee compensation or an OPE 1099-K—are self-employed. Formally, this 1099

income, like all self-employment income, is considered active business income by the IRS. Accordingly, unless individuals become incorporated, this income should be reported to tax authorities

as proceeds from a wholly-owned business on Schedule C.

The income reported on 1099 returns is different from W-2 employment income in a key

respect. Whereas form W-2 reports the net returns to work, 1099 returns report gross revenues

inclusive of any costs incurred in the course of business. Thus, individuals may claim deductible

business expenses on Schedule C in order to determine their net income (i.e profit). We are able

to observe both gross and net measures of income, as well as expenses, on Schedule C. However,

expenses are not separately attributed to specific contracts reported on distinct 1099s.

A standard approach to measuring self employment in tax records is to examine SelfEmployment Contributions Act (SECA) tax filings on Schedule SE of Form 1040. These taxes

are paid in lieu of the FICA payroll taxes paid by W-2 employees. However, many SECA tax

payers do not receive 1099s, and many 1099 recipients are not required to pay SECA taxes. Individuals are subject to self-employment SECA taxes on their Schedule C net profits only if they

exceed a de minimus level of $400. All income subject to SECA taxes—including Schedule C

income, self-employment farm income, and certain income from partnerships and corporations—

is reported on an individual basis on Schedule SE. Hence, only 1099 income that exceeds $400

after expenses is reported on Schedule SE. Conversely, Schedule SE self-employment income

is not always derived from payments reported on a 1099. Self-employed persons with directly

consumer-facing activities—for examples shopkeepers, farmers, artists, and handymen who do

not use online platforms—can generate SE income without receiving a 1099.

Previous work using tax data has mainly focused on tax filers who file Schedule SE taxes.

Abraham, Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer (2018b) focus on Schedule C filers, while Jackson, Looney, and Ramnath (2017) focus on Schedule SE and Schedule C filers. Appendix Figure

A.1 shows that rates of Schedule C/SE filing have declined overtime, and non-compliance appears particularly severe in the labor OPE, where 43 percent of 1099 recipients did not file a

Schedule C or SE. There are a number of reasons why individuals receiving a 1099 may not file

as self-employed. One innocent reason (albeit still running afoul of tax filing obligations) is that

these individuals do not perceive themselves to be self-employed, and instead file this income

as “other income” or add it to their main earnings. Other reasons include not understanding

that receiving receipts over $400 mandates filing and paying self-employment taxes, even if total

income falls below the standard deduction. In our subsequent analysis, we will show there is

substantial growth in alternative work outside of Schedule SE filing.

Changes in the 1099 Workforce

In this section, we report the size of the 1099 workforce in various ways. We begin with the

broadest measure of counts of 1099s, and show how different components of the broader 1099

population, such as Schedule SE filers, have evolved. To put these raw counts in perspective

with trends occurring elsewhere in the workforce, we divide these counts by the total number

of earners in the tax data. After establishing trends in the “extensive” margin, we turn to

examining the “intensive” margin of 1099 work.

3.1

Growth in 1099 Work Since 2000

As shown in Figure 1, from 2000 to 2016, the number of individuals receiving a 1099-MISC

or 1099-K for 1099 contract work grew by 6.4 million (solid black line). In general, individuals

earning more than $400 in profits from such 1099s after expenses are required to file Schedule SE.

Immediately apparent from the bottom-most, light-gray line in Figure 1 is that a large number

of 1099 recipients do not pay these taxes. In 2016, only 51 percent of 1099 recipients paid SECA

taxes on Schedule SE. Yet, although many do not file Schedule SE, most 1099 recipients do

file a 1040 tax return. There are a number of possible reasons why Schedule SE is not filed.

Profits from 1099 payments may fall below the $400 threshold after expenses, 1099 payments

may (mistakenly) be reported as some other type of income, or households may not report this

income to tax authorities.

We also find a non-trivial number of 1099 recipients do not file a 1040 tax return at all, most

of whom also have no record of labor income on W2 returns. In 2016, approximately 2 million

people, or 8.6 percent, who received a 1099 for non-employee compensation did not file a 1040

or pay any payroll taxes, up from 6.1 percent in 2000. In cases where we have no evidence of

income or business activity besides the firm-issued 1099, it is difficult to infer the nature of these

cases, which might represent reporting errors (forms sent for non-taxable payments or incorrect

social security numbers), imperfect compliance (individuals with no other employment may not

know they need to pay taxes on this income), or uncertainty about filing requirements (filing

might not be required if income after expenses were sufficiently low). It is is also plausible

that decreasing costs of issuing 1099s have resulting in increased number of “false positive”

reporting of non-taxable income on 1099s. As a result, we are hesitant to count these cases as

true instances of “alternative work.” We discuss how we handle these cases in the section.

3.2

The Prevalence of 1099 Work in the “Tax Workforce”

To put these numbers in proper perspective with trends occurring elsewhere in the workforce,

we require a definition of the workforce that is internally consistent in the tax data. To this

end, we develop a simple taxonomy of earnings in the tax data to estimate the overall size of

the workforce, which we use to benchmark trends in non-traditional work arrangements.

Our taxonomy considers three sources of labor income reported on tax returns: First, wage

and salary income reported on Form W-2 reflects earnings from traditional labor relationships.

Second, Schedule SE income reflects net profits earned through self-employment activities of all

types, both firm-facing and otherwise. Although Schedule SE income is only reported at levels

over $400, it is nonetheless a useful basis for measuring self-employment income.3 The third

component of our tax workforce is non-employee income on 1099s—either 1099-MISC Box 7a

non-employee compensation or OPE income on 1099-K.

For our analysis, we define the “tax workforce” as all individuals that have any of the

following in a year: wage (W2) earnings, self-employment (Schedule SE) earnings, or 1099 nonemployee compensation so long as the individual appears on a tax return. This population

A practical reason is that the database we use records Schedule SE at the individual level since 2000. By contrast,

Schedule C income has only been recorded on an individual basis since 2007.

corresponds to Columns 1-9 in Table 1a. However, when a 1099 recipient has no 1040 or W2,

it is impossible to tell whether the 1099 is issued in error to someone out of the workforce, if

the individual is in the workforce but not reporting correctly, or if the 1099 income was not

taxable—in which case it is unclear whether or not the person was really doing “work”. As a

results, while we report the number of such cases in Column 10 of Table 1, we exclude them

from our baseline estimates in what follows to ensure the trends we document are not driven

by reporting oddities. We do, however, include individuals who have 1099s and a 1040 even if

they have no Schedule SE (Columns 6-7), or a if they have any W2 (Columns 8-9), in which

case they paid payroll taxes.

The largest component of the workforce in all years are traditional wage earners with no

self-employment or 1099 earnings (Cols 1, 8). It has become less common over the last 16 years

to be only a wage earner. As a share of the tax workforce, these only wage-earners have declined

but about 1 percentage point since 2000.

We can now more directly assess the prevalence of independent contracting accounting for

trends in other components of employment. In Figure 2, we present the share of our workforce,

as defined above, who receive any 1099 earnings in each year since 2000. We find that the 1099

workforce is indeed growing as a share of the workforce. The share of workers with any 1099

earnings has increased by 1.9 percentage points over the last 15 years, from around 9.9 percent

in 2000 to 11.8 percent by 2016. Notably, roughly half (1 percentage point) of this increase has

occurred in just the three most recent years.

Online “gig” income plays a central role in understanding this recent growth. Table 1b

examines these trends for the online platform economy for labor (labor OPE). Panel B documents

the number of 1099 recipients in each category that are labor OPE participants. Some labor

OPE workers also do 1099 work outside the OPE; accordingly, the numbers in italics break

out the subset of the labor OPE population who have no other 1099 earnings in each year.

Two important facts stand out. First, labor OPE work has grown dramatically in recent years

compared with other components of the workforce. Virtually non-existent before 2012, the

number with any labor OPE (only-OPE) in 2016 was around 1.9 million (1.6 million). Second,

most individuals with 1099 earnings from the labor OPE are not earning 1099s from outside the

OPE. Among labor OPE SE filers in 2016, between 66 (Col. 2) and 75 percent (Col. 1), only

had 1099’s from the OPE; the share with only 1099’s is even higher among the non-SE filers,

ranging from 80 percent among the non-tax filers with no W2 (Col. 6), to 91 percent among

tax filers with wages (Col. 3).

Moreover, we find that virtually all expansion of the 1099 workforce since 2011 comes from

participation in the labor OPE. Fully 86 percent of the expansion of the 1099 workforce as a

share of the tax workforce since 2012 is due to gig participants in the labor OPE with no other

earnings from 1099 work. In fact, we find only modest expansion of the “offline” gig economy

over an even longer time-frame. Non-OPE 1099 work grew from 2001 to 2006, before declining

in the Great Recession. The current level as a share of the workforce is similar to the share

in 2005. We view this absence of growth as potentially consistent with the CWS, which finds

rates of independent contracting in primary job during a reference week to be stable over the

same period. In the next section, we dig into the intensive margin to examine trends by fulland part-time earnings and primary versus secondary economic activity.

3.3

The Intensive Margin of 1099 Work

This “extensive margin” analysis of participation (whether workers participate in the 1099

economy at all) obscures potentially important information about the “intensive margin” of

participation (how much of this work people do). How many individuals rely on 1099 work as

their primary income source, particularly among full-time workers? Do earners earn substantial

amounts from this work? These questions are of particular importance for making comparisons

between trends in annual administrative data and those in BLS surveys like the CPS and the

CWS, which ask about workers’ primary activity in a given week.

To answer these questions, one needs to specify concrete notions of part-time work and

supplemental work in the tax data. In our analysis, we define individuals to be primarily wage

earners during a year if their wage earnings exceeds their Schedule SE net income for that year;

we define workers as primarily self-employed otherwise.4 In addition, we designate workers as

employed full-time throughout the year if they have at least $15,000 (in adjusted 2016 dollars) in

earnings (either wages or Schedule SE earnings). This threshold is roughly 2,000 hours at federal

minimum wage. This concept offers the most direct comparison between IRS tax returns and

the CPS and CWS, which asks about the primary source of earnings among those who worked

in the week prior to the survey.

Building on these definitions, Figure 2 shows the decomposition of the 1099 workforce into

those who are primarily self-employed (gray line) and those who are primarily wage-earners

with secondary self-employment income (red line). This decomposition reveals a key feature of

For the group with 1099 earnings, no Schedule SE and no W2 income (Column (7) in Table 1a), we assume

this group is primarily self-employed. The group with W2 and 1099 earnings (Column 9 in Table 1a) is treated as

primarily W2, essentially assuming that 1099 earnings must be small after deductions which is why the worker does

not file.

OPE work—the vast majority of OPE participants do so to supplement a primary job. Indeed,

the only growth in 1099 work since 2007 has been among individuals supplementing a primary

W2 job. Note that since we do not observe the hours and days worked, OPE work might

supplement a primary job either contemporaneously (“moonlighting”) or fill in gaps between

W2 jobs during the year. Recent analysis of high-frequency bank account activity provide

support for both (Farrell and Greig, 2016b; Koustas, 2019, 2018). When we focus in on trends

among the full-time-equivalent workforce (Columns 7-12 of Table 2, plotted in Appendix Figure

A2), our findings are very similar. Significantly, this decomposition reveals that 1099 workers

are no more likely to earn a full-time living primarily through self-employment now than in

2000.

An alternative approach to studying the intensive margin is to document how much workers

make in the 1099 economy. Figure 3 plots how common it has been over time to earn income

in the 1099 economy that exceeds specified thresholds (in adjusted 2016 constant dollars) over

time. The top panel reports trends among those with no OPE earnings. Two findings stand out:

First, over time, most participants in the 1099 economy have been earning modest amounts,

generally less than $7,500 in gross receipts. Second, growth has been more limited at higher

levels of 1099 income. This underscores a theme that runs throughout or findings—–the closer

we move to a notion of “full” time employment, the less growth in 1099 work we see.

These two findings are particularly pronounced in the OPE. First, we see the dramatic

increase in gig economy income is driven by very small amounts—most less than $2,500 before

taking out expenses. While there has been explosive growth in the number of people making

small amounts of money in this sector, the share of OPE workers who could plausibly be earning

a full-time living has declined. This is partly reflected in the large share of OPE participants

who file a 1040 but have no Schedule SE income (Table 1b)—many OPE participants with no

other self employment income wind up below the $400 SE tax earnings threshold.

However, payment amounts reported on 1099 reflect gross revenues (including expenses),

not net income levels. These thresholds in Figure 3 are therefore not directly comparable to

levels of wages and salaries reported on W2; one must first subtract from the gross receipts all

expenses incurred in the course of generating those payments.5 Although tax filers do not report

expenses separately for each 1099 income source, we observe total receipts and total revenues

For example, when a driver works for a firm, the employer pays all fuel an automobile repair expenses, and

those costs are not reflected in the driver’s salary. By contrast, when a self-employed individuals earns money on a

ride-sharing app, they are personally responsible for purchasing gas and repair services. The part of their revenues

that are spent covering these costs of business are not net income, and needs to be deducted to determine that income

amount.

on Schedule C. Though expenses on Schedule C are not broken out by specific 1099 or non-1099

revenue sources, Appendix Figure A3 shows that most of the receipts reported on Schedule C

by 1099 recipients come from their 1099s. Accordingly, we can infer typical expensing behavior

among different types of self-employed earners based on their respective Schedule C expenses.

We find that self-employed workers spend a considerable amount of their revenues on expenses, and that expensing levels are notably higher in the OPE. Figure 4 displays expensing

rates by revenue source and profit deciles among the overall population; the second panel shows

how the profit distribution differs for workers with different revenue sources. Outside the OPE,

the median self employed individual—both with and without 1099-MISC income source—tends

to write off about 20-30 percent of their gross revenues as expenses. However, OPE workers at

nearly all profit levels typically write off closer to 60 percent of their revenues as expenses.

Taken at face value, this suggests OPE users make significantly less than suggested by

Figure 3, once one accounts for expenses like gas, platform fees, and vehicle depreciation. Yet

some caution in interpreting these deductions is warranted, as self-employed taxpayers have an

incentive to write-off as many expenses as possible—including some expenses that traditional

employees incur but cannot write off as easily.6

Another important dimension of the intensive margin of 1099 work is the number of firms

individuals work for. Do individuals in the 1099 economy interact with many different employers,

or are they tied to a single firm? The traditional narrative of a “freelancer” is that of an

individual who does work for many different firms. The tabulations in Figure 5 show that

slightly over a quarter of workers in the 1099 economy got 1099 returns from more than one

firm in 2016. While significant, this is actually less than the share of W-2 workers with wages

or salaries from more than one firm: over 30 percent worked for more than one employer in

2016. Thus, it is no more common for wage earners to be tied to a single employer than it is

for contractors to be tied to a single payer firm.7 At the same time, 1099 workers with multiple

1099s are more likely to work for more than two firms, whereas wage earners rarely work for

more than two firms during the year. In comparison, the propensity for individuals in the OPE

to engage in so-called “multi-app-ing,” in which workers derive income from several platforms,

is similar to patterns in 1099 work more generally.8

For instance, self-employed workers have greater leeway to write of vehicle depreciation and gas expenses incurred

while commuting to work. The IRS allows for a particularly generous expensing rate for vehicle usage, which is

particularly important for rideshare drivers in the OPE.

We note that the population of 1099 workers in this figure includes those who are primarily employed at a W2

job, and vice versa.

While we find fewer cases of OPE workers with income from three or more platforms, this may in part reflect

limitations to our approach to identifying the OPE based on a fixed number of platforms identifiable in the data.

Trends in Participation Across Demographic Groups

Our analysis of participation in the 1099 economy has so far been broad, potentially masking

important heterogeneity across subgroups. In this section, we examine how the composition

of the 1099 workforce differs from other segments of the workforce and document important

heterogeneity underlying our baseline results. We first document how the demographics of the

1099 workforce overall, and the OPE workforce in particular, relates to those of the broader

self-employed and wage workforce. We then take a closer look at how levels and trends in 1099

economy participation differ by gender, age and geography.

4.1

Baseline Differences in Composition

Table 3 presents 2016 demographic characteristics of participants in different workforce segments. We compare the demographic composition of the overall workforce with those of wage

earners, non-OPE 1099 earners, OPE participants, and non-1099 self-employed. We also separately examine characteristics of those with self-employment earnings for whom self-employment

is a primary source of income.

Outside the OPE, we find that self-employed workers are largely similar whether or not they

receive a 1099. Compared to workers with W2 income, solely self-employed workers tend to be

older, are more likely to be married, and more likely to claim Social Security retirement benefits.

This is largely consistent with prior work documenting that self-employment often provides an

important bridge to retirement (Ramnath, Shoven, and Slavov, 2017). One notable difference

between self-employed individuals with 1099s and those without 1099s is that individuals with

1099s are less likely to claim dependents and even less likely to claim the Earned Income Tax

Credit (EITC). Instead, self-employed individuals with 1099s claim the EITC at similar rates to

wage earners. This finding relates to earlier studies documenting that self-employed workers are

significantly more likely to have income levels that result in EITC refunds, suggesting possible

manipulation of self-employment revenues or expenses to maximize refunds (Chetty, Friedman,

and Saez, 2013; Mortenson and Whitten, 2018). To the extent this type of manipulation occurs,

it appears less common among self-employed workers with third-party income reporting on 1099

forms.

By contrast, we find that participants in the OPE look different than other kinds of selfemployed workers in several respects. The OPE is more male than the traditional workforce.

While wage-only workers are 50.5 percent male, self-employed individuals with no 1099s are

52.4 percent male, and the non-OPE 1099 workforce is 56.2 percent male, the OPE workforce

is over 70 percent male. Rates of marriage are lower among OPE workers (approximately 35

percent) compared to other self-employed workers (53-54.3 percent) and also to wage workers.

OPE workers are significantly less likely to be over 55 or claiming Social Security Retirement

benefits than other workers, and OPE work is actually less common than wage work among

those 25 and under. Instead, OPE work is most common among middle-aged workers 26-55.

While 2016 OPE workers are significantly less likely to receive Social Security benefits than

other self-employed workers, they are notably more likely to have received unemployment insurance (UI) payments during the year. Over 7 percent receiving UI, compared with 4.5 percent of

wage-only earners, 3.2 percent of individuals with non-OPE 1099, and 1.9 percent of non-1099

self-employment. This is consistent with earlier evidence that OPE and ride-share work is more

likely than other self-employment work to smooth income around shocks like job loss (Abraham,

Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer, 2018a; Koustas, 2019, 2018). In addition, OPE workers

are 50 percent more likely to be receiving the EITC (30.9-32.0 percent) than other 1099 workers,

despite being slightly less likely to have dependents. This may simply reflect lower household

earnings levels among OPE participants than other 1099 workers. Nonetheless, these differences

in the rate of claiming EITC lend themselves to further investigation.

Finally, the last four rows in the table examine filing behavior across workers. As already

discussed, many individuals in the 1099 workforce do not file their taxes as if they were selfemployed. Some of these earnings could be reported elsewhere on the tax return. We examine

two possible candidates: earnings reported on “other income” line on Form 1040, and wages

reported on 1040s in excess of that found on W2 information returns. We do find that the

prevalence of other income is significantly greater in the 1099 workforce: 11.5 percent of nonOPE 1099 workers report other income, compared with just 4.3 percent of wage-only earners.

Importantly, unlike Schedule C business earnings, earnings reported as ”other income” are not

automatically considered subject to self-employment taxes and may not be reported on Schedule

SE. Seven percent, or 60 percent, have other income that equals or exceeds the 1099s. Rates of

reporting other income in the OPE are somewhat lower than the non-OPE 1099 workforce, but

still higher than for wage-only workers. In contrast, having other wages in excess of W2s does

not appear more likely in the 1099 workforce compared to outside of it.

4.2

Gender

The gender differences in alternative work documented above merit further investigation. Accordingly, Tables 2b and 2c decompose the participation rates in Table 2a into those among men

and women, respectively. In every year since 2000, 1099 work has been more common among

men than women. Men are more likely to do 1099 work both while primarily self-employed and

while supplementing primary W2 jobs.

However, we find that participation in the 1099 economy has grown significantly more since

2000 among women than among men. Figure 6 shows that while the share of men doing 1099

work grew by only about one percentage point between 2000 and 2016, the share of women grew

by two and a half percentage points over the same period.

Outside of the OPE, 1099 participation rates among women have been rapidly converging

to those of men. While the share of women participating in this type of work as a primary

income source and as a supplement to a job has grown substantially in recent decades, the

share of men outside of the OPE has actually declined slightly. Accordingly, our results showing

expansion in “offline” 1099 work since 2000 documented in the prior section was due to increased

participation rates among women. Meanwhile, participation in the OPE has grown among both

men and women. We find that OPE work—especially OPE work supplementing a primary

job—has grown faster for men.

4.3

Age Differences

Next, we examine life-cycle patterns in independent work in more depth. In Figure 7, we examine

the intensive margin of participation in the 1099 economy for workers of different ages in 2016

by plotting the share in each age group with 1099 revenues above different income thresholds.

For every income threshold we examine, the share of workers earning at least that much grows

consistently until age 40, plateaus until age 62, then grows dramatically as workers enter partial

or full retirement. In particular, workers become much more likely to earn small amounts of

income from non-OPE 1099 work in their more advanced years.

We see a vastly different picture when examining the OPE. Participation in the OPE peaks

around age 30, and declines consistently beyond age 35. However, this life-cycle pattern is driven

primarily by the large number of workers who earn less than $2,500 a year on online platforms.

Older workers are significantly less likely to “moonlight” in small amounts of OPE work. By

contrast, the life-cycle pattern is much more muted at higher earnings level. The propensity to

make a full-time-equivalent income through OPE work peaks much later, at age 40, and declines

more gradually afterward. Thus, the gaps in OPE extensive margin participation rates across

age groups mask key differences in intensive-margin behaviors among these groups.

Though some have speculated that the rise of the OPE might increase work opportunities

for retirement-age individuals seeking self-employment work with greater flexibility, we find that

this has not appeared to be the case as of 2016. By contrast, OPE work has grown dramatically

among younger and prime-age workers alike.

Table 4 documents how the prevalence of 1099 work within different age groups has evolved

over time. We find the lowest levels of growth in 1099 participation rates among workers

approaching retirement. Whereas the prevalence of 1099 work was increasing throughout the

life-cycle in 2000, these arrangements are now more common among workers aged 35-45 than

among those aged 56–65. Though this is in part a reflection of the rise of OPE work, which is

more common among younger workers, the OPE alone does not explain this change. In fact,

outside the OPE, 1099 work has become less common among workers aged 56–65. This may in

part reflect the aging of the W2 workforce.

4.4

Geographic Distribution of Alternative Work

Examining the geographic breakdown of work reveals significant differences in the propensity

to do 1099 contract work across regions. Figure 8 maps the propensity to do 1099 work in

and outside of the OPE. As evident in Panel (b), which maps the OPE at the zip code level,

online platform work is concentrated in large, dense metropolitan areas. Moreover, even within

metropolitan regions, OPE participation is highest in dense urban cores. This is unsurprising, and likely reflects the importance of market thickness in platform markets. Across large

metropolitan areas, we find further differences in OPE participation rates. Among the major

urban areas, we also see considerable variation, ranging from 0.7 percent of the tax workforce in

St. Louis to 2.9 percent of the workforce in the San Francisco/Oakland, CA metro area, where

many gig companies were founded and are headquartered.

By contrast, work in the broader 1099 economy is not predominantly an urban phenomenon,

and spatial patterns are markedly different than in the OPE. Panel (a) maps the non-OPE

gig economy, this time at the county level, which improves readability of the figure. Rates of

non-OPE 1099 work can be quite high in rural areas, and are typically highest in the center of

the country, often exceeding 20 percent or more. Contract arrangements are also particularly

high in population centers in California and Southern Florida, where 1099 employment exceeds

15 percent of the tax workforce. Among major metro areas, the rate of 1099 work in major

metropolitan areas varies from 7.8 percentage of the tax workforce in Milwaukee, WI to 15.8

percentage points in Miami, FL.

Full tabulations for state and major metro areas of more than 1 million people are provided

in the Appendix Tables. For each geographic area for 2016, we provide the same breakdown of

the tax workforce in Table 1. We also report the size of the 1099 economy and as a share of the

tax workforce by year. These tables reveal interesting heterogeneity in trends across space. For

instance, the 1099 economy, as a share of the workforce, has been shrinking in West Virginia

and Alaska.

Relationship to changes in Self-Employment

Though our primary analysis examines the 1099 economy, most prior literature measuring alternative work and gig economy trends in tax data has studied self-employment reporting (on Form

1040 Schedules C and SE) more generally (Jackson, Looney, and Ramnath, 2017; Abraham,

Haltiwanger, Sandusky, and Spletzer, 2018b). Conceptually, firm-facing independent contract

work reported on 1099s is a subset of self-employment—overall self-employment trends may

also reflect changes in entrepreneurial or consumer-facing business activity. However, in practice, 1099 work is not always reported as self-employment activity. In this section, we examine

how trends in the 1099 economy relate to the overall trends in self-employment documented in

prior work.

To shed light on the previously-documented rise in self-employment earnings, Figure 9 shows

how the share of the workforce with Schedule SE earnings has evolved over time. Consistent

with earlier work, we find that the share of workers with self-employment income grew by about

2 percentage points between 2000 and 2014. In contrast with the trends in 1099 work presented

in Figure 2, we find that there was a significant expansion in Schedule SE work between 2007

and 2014.

To account for this difference, Figure 9 decomposes the Schedule SE workforce into individuals with 1099 revenues and those with no 1099. We find that the expansion of self-employment

work from 2007 to 2014 is driven entirely by workers with no 1099s. In particular, there was

a sharp increase in workers with self-employment income but no 1099 in the aftermath of the

2008 recession, most of which had dissipated by 2016.

Interestingly, the right panel of Figure 9 shows that this post-2007 spike is driven entirely by

individuals who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. Rates of self-employment, both with and

without a 1099, have been flat among workers without EITC earning. Appendix Figure A4 shows

that the spike in Schedule SE earnings with no 1099 and with EITC claims is most pronounced

primarily among women. After the recession, there was a large inflow of individuals into this

category; however, this inflow does not simply reflect a decline in self-employment earnings

after the recession, since the the share of the workforce with Schedule SE earnings, no 1099

income, and no EITC claims remains constant over this period. One possibility is that, after the

recession, many who were previously wage earners or out of the workforce sought to bolster their

incomes with small amounts of self-employment work. Another possibility is that part of the

post-2007 surge in self-employment income on Schedule SE stems from individuals manipulating

self-employment income to qualify for EITC refunds after the onset of the recession. This finding

merits further investigation.

Meanwhile, the share of the workforce with both Schedule SE and 1099 income in Figure 9

is notably smaller than the share of the workforce in the 1099 economy documented in Figure

2. This is particularly true in the OPE, which barely registers in Figure 9. This is because

1099-MISC non-employee compensation and 1099-K OPE income often do not show up as selfemployment income on tax returns. While Figure 1 showed that about 15 percent of 1099

recipients in the workforce did not file a 1040 tax return at all, a much larger number of 1099

recipients file a 1040 return but do not report income on Schedule SE. This could occur either

because workers do not file a Schedule C or do not earn above the $400 threshold for filing

Schedule SE after making deductions on Schedule C. In Appendix Figure 1, we show that both

cases are common. In particular, only 31 percent of OPE earners pay SECA taxes, and 43

percent do not file schedule C at all. Thus, tabulations of Schedule SE or Schedule C are likely

to significantly underestimate the extent of participation in the OPE.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have examined the universe of tax returns in order to reconcile seemingly

contradictory facts about the rise of alternative work arrangements in the United States. Using

different measures of alternative work that are comparable to measures seen elsewhere in the

literature, we are largely able to reconcile differences across existing studies. We pay particular

attention to the role played by new types of “gig” work mediated by online platforms.

We find that while the rate of participation in the “1099 workforce” has grown in recent

years, essentially all of the increment is due to gig work on the Online Platform Economy (OPE).

However, these new forms of 1099 work tend either to represent small amounts of income to

individuals with no other employment, or supplement a primary W2 job. As a result, although

more 1099s have been issued, we find that individuals are no more likely to earn a full-time living

from 1099-based self-employment in 2016 than they were in 2005, consistent with findings in the

May 2017 Contingent Workforce Supplement. In general, for 1099 income and self-employment

more broadly, we find that the closer we move to a notion of “full” time employment, the less

growth we see.

Our findings also suggest that recent growth in the OPE has had little bearing on measures of

self-employment based on payers of the self-employment tax. We document that approximately

only one-third of OPE workers pay self-employment taxes (whereas 55% of workers in the broader

1099 workforce pay SECA taxes), so these records exclude the majority of participants in this

part of the “gig” economy. At the same time, we found that the recent surge in self-employment

filings was driven primarily by workers without payments reported on 1099s. Thus, trends in

self-employment measured in self-employment tax records may not reflect underlying changes

in alternative work.

Our findings have potentially important implications for tax administration. As supplemental OPE income has become more common, we find that a large share of tax payers have not been

reporting this income in standard ways on Schedule C. As a result, many OPE participants may

either not be correctly deducting their expenses or may not be correctly reporting their supplemental income at all. These findings raise concerns that as supplemental work in non-standard

arrangements becomes more common, taxpayers may face increasing burdens complying with

the tax code, raised previously by Bruckner (2016).

Overall, our results offer no evidence that traditional full-time jobs are being replaced by

non-employer “gig” work. However, we document that taxpayers are increasingly likely to have

supplemental income from independent work—especially in the OPE. Even if the amounts are

small, the ability to smooth income around critical junctures may still be highly valuable to

workers, as documented in Koustas (2018). These findings raise important questions about

the reasons households participate in alternative work arrangements. Do individuals shift into

non-employee relationships to obtain greater flexibility (i.e., “pull factors” that impact supply

decisions) or because they lost access to a stable job (i.e., a “push factor” driven by changes in

firm demand)? We leave the answer to these questions to future work.

Tables

(3)

No 1099

Has SE

Has W2

No W2

2,745,274 4,276,678

2,848,030 4,450,329

2,716,126 4,428,613

2,811,445 4,654,435

2,947,512 4,834,179

3,187,724 5,023,354

3,234,424 5,067,287

3,363,332 5,185,407

3,322,245 5,203,319

3,306,629 5,528,283

3,426,999 5,707,941

3,542,833 5,807,259

3,586,270 5,828,240

3,621,036 5,825,625

3,707,083 5,785,643

3,670,004 5,688,303

3,612,226 5,538,117

(2)

(6)

(7)

No SE

Has W2

No W2

5,079,142 1,489,674

4,939,932 1,637,864

5,100,634 1,793,859

5,097,447 1,734,151

5,149,209 1,679,267

5,090,867 1,679,665

5,243,676 1,746,961

5,373,985 1,984,462

5,405,482 1,879,266

4,735,172 1,896,687

4,893,957 1,952,974

5,047,608 1,985,205

5,196,550 1,942,307

5,319,501 1,954,042

5,477,755 1,952,899

5,967,346 1,990,319

6,336,029 1,998,963

Has 1099

(5)

Has SE

Has W2

No W2

4,206,095 4,112,352

4,075,372 4,130,232

4,179,409 4,335,830

4,311,240 4,534,488

4,546,345 4,688,548

4,827,942 4,794,365

5,061,816 4,923,540

5,239,113 4,976,941

5,104,718 4,814,209

4,839,026 4,850,692

4,825,687 4,895,241

4,972,607 5,048,259

5,064,147 5,145,971

5,116,191 5,203,945

5,428,251 5,342,041

5,626,109 5,417,213

5,847,087 5,467,799

(4)

Tax Filers

(9)

(10)

Non Tax Filers

No 1099

Has 1099

Has W2

No W2

11,680,667

732,123 1,011,852

11,514,118

601,180

903,958

11,724,515

667,772 1,016,479

11,729,295

733,429 1,186,453

12,057,290

812,738 1,295,975

12,384,389

824,020 1,257,981

12,488,887

849,675 1,304,209

11,183,086

707,051 1,123,443

12,099,444

786,953 1,268,454

12,231,118

658,731 1,256,697

11,948,580

662,553 1,247,160

11,458,297

704,087 1,299,731

12,213,645

791,588 1,397,978

12,903,653

863,132 1,469,608

13,737,587

976,284 1,579,241

14,585,468 1,137,363 1,713,472

16,331,090 1,415,418 1,961,044

(8)

Note: Table reports the number of unique individuals in each of the categories specified in the column headings. Categories are mutually

exclusive. “Tax Filer” refers to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). “1099” refers to receiving information returns with

non-employee compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are

identified. “SE” refers to filing Schedule SE. “W2” refers to receipt of a Form W-2 information return.

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

No SE

Has W2

123,419,643

124,316,095

123,518,165

122,919,974

123,655,347

125,113,822

127,391,493

130,898,673

129,981,204

126,359,456

126,100,472

127,281,343

128,260,985

129,446,289

130,314,642

131,292,819

131,321,676

(1)

(a) All 1099 Work, 2000-2016

Table 1: Components of Growth in the Tax Workforce

(b) OPE 1099’s, 2012-2016

(1)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

6,000

6,393

3,832

3,899

15,160

19,736

10,480

12,994

73,346

64,304

53,401

42,216

231,119 148,445

169,540 94,798

429,259 248,774

325,330 166,021

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

6,798

2,301

5,094

1,618

15,939

4,670

12,492

3,272

120,332 18,694

105,196 14,329

503,657 58,812

452,276 46,365

944,252 105,140

858,068 85,710

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

994

1,251

634

760

2,151

3,036

1,428

2,076

14,718

15,286

11,415

12,005

70,041

56,950

56,538

44,947

178,689 125,570

147,589 100,932

Note: First row is for “Any OPE” 1099, defined as individuals who receive

a 1099 from the OPE, but may also receive another 1099 outside the OPE.

Row in italics is the “Only OPE” population, who receive a 1099 only

from the OPE. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are

identified. See notes for Table 1(a) for definitions of column headings.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Earnings Primarily from Wages

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

2,411,350

6,524,911

1.53

4.14

2,288,074

6,296,752

1.44

3.97

2,447,675

6,427,622

1.54

4.06

2,518,811

6,510,657

1.59

4.11

2,593,808

6,735,576

1.62

4.20

2,617,103

6,893,451

1.61

4.23

2,691,196

7,187,214

1.62

4.33

2,698,330

7,329,609

1.60

4.34

2,744,712

7,314,949

1.63

4.34

2,466,363

6,570,921

1.50

2,571,841

6,607,119

1.56

4.02

2,655,260

6,830,230

1.60

4.12

2,723,394

4,538

3,272

7,064,688

7,612

5,505

1.62

4.20

2,780,860

9,869

7,298

7,252,744

19,210

14,860

1.63

0.01

4.26

0.01

2,880,824

54,803

43,378

7,682,982

135,362

115,565

1.67

0.03

4.45

0.08

0.07

3,003,340 192,817 156,873 8,387,912

559,979

490,470

1.71

0.11

0.09

4.78

0.32

0.28

3,219,913 391,355 324,737 9,020,171 1,067,193 947,236

1.81

0.22

0.18

5.07

0.60

0.53

(7)

Note: Table reports the number of unique individuals in each of the categories specified in the column headings. Row in italics

reports the preceding row as a share of the tax workforce. The tax workforce is defined as tax filers with wage, 1099 or SE

income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

2,297,306

2,895,316

1.46

1.84

2,310,105

2,850,939

1.46

1.80

2,468,601

2,938,827

1.56

1.85

2,611,337

3,034,777

1.65

1.91

2,696,305

3,170,149

1.68

1.98

2,758,339

3,267,299

1.69

2.01

2,879,545

3,319,579

1.73

3,020,850

3,247,173

1.79

1.92

3,019,481

3,031,155

1.79

1.80

3,119,093

2,926,108

1.90

1.78

3,194,019

2,903,352

1.94

1.77

3,230,712

3,055,119

1.95

1.84

3,256,356

4,826

3,112

3,152,603

3,207

1,568

1.94

1.88

3,308,679

14,095

9,693

3,159,275

9,810

5,542

1.94

0.01

1.86

0.01

3,394,620

49,961

34,386

3,264,579

32,567

18,893

1.97

0.03

0.02

1.89

0.02

0.01

3,401,478 125,162

84,301

3,354,062

75,287

41,493

1.94

0.07

0.05

1.91

0.04

0.02

3,462,829 220,005 154,400 3,362,119 122,385 70,610

1.95

0.12

0.09

1.89

0.07

0.04

(1)

(a) All 1099 Work

Table 2: Components of Growth by Earnings Levels, 2000-2016

refers to receipt of a W2 information return. “1099” refers to receiving information returns with non-employee compensation and/or a 1099K from

an online gig economy platform. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. “Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment”

defined as having the majority of Form W-2 wage plus Schedule SE earnings coming from Schedule SE; “Earnings Primarily from Wages” is

defined as the complement. To determine $15,000 or more in total earnings (wages plus Schedule SE), earnings are adjusted for inflation using

the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Implicit Price Deflator. “Any OPE” defined as individuals who receive a 1099 from the OPE, but

may also receive another 1099 outside the OPE. “Only OPE” receive a 1099 only from the OPE. Counts in the OPE before 2012 are suppressed

due to small sample sizes, but amount to less than 0.00 percent of the tax force.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Earnings Primarily from Wages

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

1,319,127

4,265,298

1.59

5.14

1,250,063

4,039,699

1.50

4.85

1,351,604

4,089,761

1.63

4.92

1,386,144

4,117,013

1.67

4.96

1,421,984

4,253,691

1.70

5.07

1,417,106

4,318,349

1.67

5.08

1,442,857

4,452,973

1.67

5.15

1,438,090

4,494,962

1.64

5.12

1,447,492

4,432,623

1.65

5.07

1,319,703

3,937,126

1.55

4.64

1,372,510

3,951,848

1.62

4.66

1,420,956

4,094,529

1.66

4.77

1,437,283

2,293

1,565

4,213,677

4,151

2,914

1.65

4.85

1,465,627

6,126

4,453

4,305,214

13,064

10,205

1.66

0.01

4.88

0.01

1,514,408

38,260

30,331

4,556,407 106,139

91,255

1.69

0.04

0.03

5.10

0.12

0.10

1,589,739 129,463 104,536 4,955,344 412,636 361,512

1.75

0.14

0.12

5.46

0.45

0.40

1,727,086 255,100 209,730 5,332,912 765,074 678,484

1.88

0.28

0.23

5.81

0.83

0.74

(7)

Note: Table 2(a) reports the same tabulations as Table 1(a), except restricted to men. Note that the sum of men and women

may not equal the totals reported in Table 2(a) since gender is not always known.

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

1,330,733

2,140,054

1.60

2.58

1,325,725

2,079,308

1.59

2.49

1,418,559

2,119,142

1.71

2.55

1,493,089

2,176,153

1.80

2.62

1,533,534

2,258,730

1.83

2.69

1,545,226

2,308,267

1.82

2.72

1,596,333

2,334,458

1.85

2.70

1,682,068

2,275,668

1.91

2.59

1,665,524

2,107,363

1.90

2.41

1,729,018

2,007,567

2.04

2.37

1,769,549

1,993,845

2.09

2.35

1,768,140

2,093,457

2.06

2.44

1,764,957

3,042

1,912

2,143,769

2,626

1,321

2.03

2.47

1,787,636

11,238

7,719

2,133,385

8,805

5,108

2.03

0.01

2.42

0.01

1,822,447

40,846

28,087

2,198,953

29,274

17,174

2.04

0.05

0.03

2.46

0.03

0.02

1,825,947

97,584

66,153

2,226,020

63,210

35,303

2.01

0.11

0.07

2.45

0.07

0.04

1,858,782 166,250 116,879 2,215,783 100,735 58,623

2.02

0.18

0.13

2.41

0.11

0.06

(1)

(b) Men

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Earnings Primarily from Wages

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

1,091,342

2,258,023

1.46

3.03

1,037,122

2,255,453

1.38

1,095,070

2,336,129

1.46

3.10

1,131,567

2,391,678

1.50

3.17

1,170,642

2,479,864

1.53

3.24

1,198,985

2,573,053

1.54

3.31

1,247,067

2,731,753

1.57

3.44

1,258,939

2,832,149

1.56

3.50

1,295,826

2,879,742

1.60

3.56

1,145,299

2,631,533

1.44

3.31

1,198,036

2,652,937

1.51

3.34

1,232,964

2,733,278

1.54

3.42

1,284,739

2,244

1,706

2,848,542

3,458

2,588

1.59

3.52

1,314,048

3,740

2,843

2,945,229

6,142

4,651

1.60

3.59

0.01

1,365,452

16,538

13,043

3,124,463

29,206

24,295

1.64

0.02

3.75

0.04

0.03

1,412,841

63,339

52,326

3,430,592 147,281 128,901

1.67

0.07

0.06

4.06

0.17

0.15

1,492,138 136,227 114,983 3,685,471 302,020 268,663

1.74

0.16

0.13

4.29

0.35

0.31

(7)

Note: Table 2(a) reports the same tabulations as Table 1(a), except restricted to women. Note that the sum of men and

women may not equal the totals reported in Table 2(a) since gender is not always known.

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment

Earned Less than $15,000

Earned More than $15,000

Total

OPE

Total

OPE

1099

Any

Only

1099

Any

Only

964,491

754,032

1.29

1.01

982,110

770,270

1.31

1.03

1,047,379

818,209

1.39

1.09

1,114,800

856,780

1.48

1.14

1,158,691

909,251

1.52

1.19

1,208,657

956,557

1.55

1.23

1,277,587

982,155

1.61

1.24

1,333,202

968,660

1.65

1.20

1,348,110

921,123

1.66

1.14

1,384,162

915,578

1.74

1.15

1,418,460

906,461

1.78

1.14

1,456,517

958,159

1.82

1.20

1,485,601

1,780

1,198

1,005,091

579

246

1.84

1.24

1,515,568

2,848

1,969

1,022,600

1,003

433

1.85

1.25

1,567,408

9,105

6,292

1,062,642

3,290

1,716

1.88

0.01

1.28

1,571,895 27,554 18,133 1,125,612 12,065

6,186

1.86

0.03

0.02

1.33

0.01

1,601,300 53,709 37,489 1,144,492 21,628 11,978

1.86

0.06

0.04

1.33

0.03

0.01

(1)

146,308,328

W2-Only

Tax

Workforce

175,764,437

Any

OPE

71.3

14.6

74.8

10.6

35.3

35.1

40.3

32.0

7.1

3.0

7.1

3.7

15.4

2.9

(4)

Only

OPE

70.9

15.4

74.5

10.2

34.6

34.3

40.4

30.9

7.3

3.0

6.8

4.2

15.9

3.2

(5)

Non-OPE

1099

18,630,580

(3)

Any

OPE

1,900,576

(4)

Only

OPE

1,578,416

(5)

(6)

No 1099

8,924,953

(6)

No 1099

54.4

6.6

64.9

28.5

56.3

37.5

53.7

36.3

1.9

9.3

8.1

9.3

Addendum: Group Size (Count)

Non-OPE

1099

56.2

10.1

62.7

27.2

54.3

35.9

41.2

20.4

3.2

10.0

11.5

7.0

12.9

2.3

(3)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment

Non-OPE

Any

Only

1099

OPE

No 1099

6,269,289 341,032 224,035 6,664,088

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment

Non-OPE Any Only

1099

OPE OPE

No 1099

58.4

77.9 78.0

53.4

6.7

7.8

7.9

6.0

59.9

75.5 74.9

63.7

33.4

16.6 17.2

30.3

59.7

46.6 46.2

54.9

45.9

45.3 46.4

41.2

45.4

51.4 52.1

53.7

32.3

61.7 64.0

41.3

1.1

3.1

3.3

1.2

13.3

5.0

5.5

10.7

8.9

6.3

5.8

7.0

3.4

1.6

2.0

6.0

7.2

7.4

6.5

1.3

1.7

2.2

Table reports the mean value specified in each row for the population specified in the column header. For the purposes of this table, population

is restricted to workers with non-missing gender and age, aged less than 76 years. The tax workforce is defined as tax filers with wage, 1099 or

SE income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to

receipt of a W2 information return. “1099” refers to receiving information returns with non-employee compensation and/or a 1099K from an

online gig economy platform. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. Columns (7)-(10) reports the same tabulations

as Columns (3)-(6), restricted to the population with“Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment,” defined as having the majority of Form W-2

wage plus Schedule SE earnings coming from Schedule SE.

Group Size (Count)

(2)

50.5

20.2

60.5

19.3

42.7

38.6

37.0

15.1

4.5

5.3

4.3

15.4

W2-Only

Tax

Workforce

51.6

18.4

61.1

20.5

44.5

38.1

38.4

17.0

4.2

6.0

5.3

14.8

(1)

Male

Age 15-25

Age 26-55

Age 55-75

Married on 1040

% 2nd Earner | Married

Has Dependents on 1040

EITC Claiment

UI Receipt

SS Receipt

Other Income>0

Other Income≥1099s

Total Wages>W2s

Total Wages≥W2s+1099s

(2)

(1)

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Tax Workforce, 2016

Table 4: 1099 Work Growth by Age, 2000-2016

(a) All 1099 Work

Age

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(1)

16-25

1,490,260

4.82

1,463,973

4.75

1,547,080

5.06

1,607,436

5.32

1,682,349

5.49

1,740,891

5.56

1,822,387

5.70

1,843,516

5.71

1,809,329

5.74

1,556,970

5.31

1,602,374

5.51

1,655,720

5.65

1,699,591

5.70

1,747,801

5.73

1,844,573

5.92

2,008,726

6.33

2,158,199

6.74

(2)

26-35

3,179,965

9.16

3,087,319

9.01

3,204,946

9.49

3,242,368

9.69

3,292,605

9.86

3,333,095

9.96

3,427,538

10.16

3,443,070

10.09

3,364,892

9.82

3,107,752

9.22

3,165,164

9.33

3,289,831

9.52

3,398,277

9.64

3,502,165

9.74

3,729,371

10.12

4,052,041

10.74

4,360,603

11.31

(3)

36-45

4,214,789

10.84

4,102,361

10.59

4,204,739

11.01

4,191,790

11.18

4,206,347

11.34

4,220,730

11.45

4,292,659

11.65

4,303,014

11.70

4,140,038

11.50

3,841,256

11.11

3,794,622

11.22

3,824,103

11.41

3,852,675

11.53

3,879,927

11.59

4,009,044

11.92

4,191,186

12.38

4,375,125

12.85

(4)

46-55

3,584,701

11.69

3,606,745

11.32

3,780,489

11.62

3,845,635

11.68

3,948,446

11.76

4,023,016

11.70

4,153,921

11.80

4,250,110

11.82

4,215,068

11.66

4,061,333

11.36

4,093,561

11.48

4,147,709

11.66

4,153,118

11.72

4,119,793

11.74

4,178,975

11.96

4,266,005

12.24

4,368,343

12.53

(5)

56-65

1,985,121

13.03

1,981,604

12.64

2,142,104

13.02

2,290,996

13.10

2,441,807

13.23

2,553,956

13.12

2,700,016

13.19

2,857,793

13.25

2,895,559

12.99

2,856,168

12.60

2,956,551

12.66

3,115,538

12.91

3,200,997

12.87

3,245,571

12.77

3,343,494

12.83

3,442,644

12.89

3,539,555

12.92

(6)

66-75

839,794

17.80

826,006

17.57

865,475

18.46

890,567

18.62

939,943

18.82

967,619

18.63

1,027,235

18.87

1,126,531

19.56

1,139,788

18.88

1,147,158

18.52

1,197,358

18.68

1,276,765

19.40

1,371,874

19.49

1,477,662

19.59

1,566,769

19.98

1,652,039

20.12

1,724,226

20.03

(7)

75+

270,399

21.02

269,918

21.79

289,870

23.48

301,067

23.85

323,594

23.94

335,667

23.92

356,475

24.10

411,707

26.26

384,702

24.35

373,431

23.90

386,805

24.09

413,415

24.82

430,473

25.26

451,971

25.65

474,054

27.28

494,734

27.75

510,219

27.61

Note: Table reports the number of unique individuals in each of the age brackets specified

in the column headings. Row in italics reports the preceding row as the share of the tax

workforce. The tax workforce is defined as tax filers with wage, 1099 or SE income, or

nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers to filing an individual income tax return

(Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information return. “1099” refers

to receiving information returns with non-employee compensation and/or a 1099K from an

online gig economy platform. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified.

Note that the row sum may not equal the row totals in other tables since age is not always

known.

(b) Any OPE 1099, 2012-2016

Age

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(1)

16-25

3,213

0.01

6,920

0.02

33,921

0.11

138,533

0.44

277,355

0.87

(2)

26-35

6,421

0.02

17,889

0.05

99,618

0.27

341,535

0.91

637,648

1.65

(3)

36-45

4,879

0.01

14,020

0.04

73,953

0.22

247,492

0.73

456,358

1.34

(4)

46-55

4,155

0.01

10,900

0.03

52,374

0.15

175,712

0.50

327,060

0.94

(5)

56-65

2,688

0.01

5,905

0.02

25,332

0.10

85,019

0.32

160,117

0.58

(6)

66-75

864

0.01

1,588

0.02

5,399

0.07

21,076

0.26

42,135

0.49

(7)

75+

251

0.01

416

0.02

760

0.04

2,608

0.15

5,243

0.28

Note: Table 4(b) reports the same tabulations as Table 4(a), except restricted

to “Any OPE” 1099 population, defined as individuals who receive a 1099

from the OPE, but may also receive another 1099 outside the OPE.

Age

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(1)

16-25

2,494

0.01

5,363

0.02

28,152

0.09

119,191

0.38

242,252

0.76

(2)

26-35

4,439

0.01

13,044

0.04

79,612

0.22

282,263

0.75

537,399

1.39

(3)

36-45

3,161

0.01

9,797

0.03

57,265

0.17

198,877

0.59

375,409

1.10

(4)

46-55

2,536

0.01

7,257

0.02

38,809

0.11

136,785

0.39

263,195

0.76

(5)

56-65

1,685

0.01

3,858

0.02

18,314

0.07

64,379

0.24

126,555

0.46

(6)

66-75

577

0.01

1,061

0.01

3,892

0.05

16,101

0.20

33,686

0.39

(7)

75+

176

0.01

282

0.02

494

0.03

1,852

0.10

4,073

0.22

Note: Table 4(c) reports the same tabulations as Table 4(a), except restricted

to the “Only OPE” 1099 population, defined as individuals who receive a 1099

only from the OPE. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are

identified.

Figures

Millions

Figure 1: Individuals in the 1099 and Gig Economy (Millions), By Filing Status, 2000-2016

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Has 1099

Has 1099 + Tax Filer or Wage Income

Has 1099 + Tax Filer

Has 1099 + SE Filer

2012

2014

2016

Exc. O.P.E. 1099

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee

compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform. Dashed lines exclude 1099s from the Online

Platform Economy (OPE). See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. Tax Filer refers to filing

an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information return. SE Filer

refers to filing Schedule SE.

Figure 2: The 1099 Gig Economy, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, 2000-2016

Percent of Tax Workforce

All 1099’s

Dashed

Lines

Exclude

O.P.E.

1099s

Earnings Primarily from Wages

Earnings Primarily from Self−Employment

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee

compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform, as a percentage of the tax workforce. The tax

workforce is defined as filers of 1040 with wage, 1099 or SE income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers

to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information return.

SE Filer refers to filing Schedule SE. Dashed lines exclude 1099s from the Online Platform Economy (OPE). See

text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. “Earnings Primarily from Self-Employment” defined as

having the majority of wage plus Schedule SE earnings coming from Schedule SE; “Earnings Primarily from Wages”

is defined as the complement.

Figure 3: The 1099 Gig Economy, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, by 1099 Receipt Amounts and

Year

Percent of Tax Workforce

(a) 1099 MISC Non-Employee Compensation, Excluding 1099’s from the Online Platform Economy, 20002016

2000

2005

2010

2015

1099 Receipts Above...

$1,000

$2,500

$7,500

$15,000

Percent of Tax Workforce

1.2

(b) Online Platform Economy Only, 2012-2016

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

1099 Receipts Above...

$1,000

$2,500

$7,500

$15,000

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individual receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee

compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform, as as a share of the tax workforce, for the income

thresholds specified in the figure legend. The tax workforce is defined as filers of 1040 with wage, 1099 or SE income,

or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage

income refers to receipt of a W2 information return. SE Filer refers to filing Schedule SE. Income thresholds are

adjusted for inflation using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Implicit Price Deflator. Panel A excludes

online gig platforms. Panel B is for the online platform economy only. See text for more details on how firms in the

OPE are identified.

Figure 4: Expensing Behavior

Expenses as Share of Revenues

(a) Median and Interquartile Range of Expense Share of Revenues, by Profit Decile (Schedule C with Positive

Profits)

$608

$609

$1,422

$1,423

$2,774

$2,775

$4,818

D10:

$4,819 $7,501 $1,0702 $14,957 $21,799 $40,962

$7,500 $10,701 $14,956 $21,798 $40,961

p50

p25 − p75

Share of Type

(b) Distribution of Types Across Profit Bins

Schedule C D1

Zero/Loss $1

$608

D10:

$609 $1,423 $2,775 $4,819 $7,501 $1,0702 $14,957 $21,799 $40,962

$1,422 $2,774 $4,818 $7,500 $10,701 $14,956 $21,798 $40,961

Profits, Deciles of all Schedule Cs with Income

No 1099

Has 1099 (no OPE)

Has OPE 1099

Note: Panel (a) shows the median and interquartile range of the expenses reported on Schedule C, as a share of

revenues reported on Schedule C, by decile of profits (revenues - expenses), for each group specified in the figure

legend. Panel (b) shows the distribution of each group across profit deciles.

Percent of Recipients

Figure 5: Number of Information Returns Received, 2016

69.5

73.8

74.4

20.5

19.6

10.1

11.9

6.0

14.2

Number of Firms Worked For

Information Returns Received:

W−2s

1099s, Non−OPE Firms

1099’s, OPE Firms

Note: The blue bar reports the distribution of the number of firms that individuals receive Form W-2 from, if they

receive a Form W-2, as a percent of the total number who receive Form W-2. The red bar reports the distribution of

the number of firms outside the OPE that individuals receive 1099-MISC non-employee compensation from, if they

receive Form 1099-MISC non-employee compensation from a non-OPE firm, as a percent of the total number who

receive Form 1099-MISC non-employee compensation from a non-OPE firm. The green bar reports the distribution

of the number of firms in the OPE that individuals receives 1099-MISC non-employee compensation or 1099-K gross

income, if they receive Form 1099-MISC non-employee compensation or 1099-K gross income from an OPE firm,

as a percent of the total number who receive Form 1099-MISC non-employee compensation or 1099-K gross income

from an OPE firm. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. Individuals can appear in the

tabulations for more than one bar if they receive information returns from multiple of these groups.

Figure 6: The 1099 Gig Economy, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, by Gender, 2000-2016

Men

Percent of Tax Workforce

Dashed

Lines

Exclude

O.P.E.

1099s

Women

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

Note: See notes for Figure 2.

2010

2012

2014

2016

Figure 7: Individuals in the 1099 Gig Economy, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, by 1099 Receipt

Amounts and Age, 2016

Percent of Tax Workforce

(a) 1099 MISC Non-Employee Compensation, Excluding 1099’s from the Online Platform Economy

Age

1099 Receipts Above...

$1000+

$2500

$7500+

$15000

Percent of Tax Workforce

1.5

(b) Online Platform Economy Only

Age

1099 Receipts Above...

$1000+

$2500

$7500+

$15000

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals as a share of the tax workforce receiving 1099 MISC information

returns with non-employee compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform, for income thresholds

(in 2016 constant dollars) specified in the legend and age groups specified on the x-axis. Income is adjusted for inflation

using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Implicit Price Deflator. Panel A excludes online gig platforms.

Panel B is for the online platform economy only. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified.

Figure 8: Geographic Distribution of 1099 Independent Contracting

(a) 1099 MISC Non-Employee Compensation, Excluding 1099’s from the Online Platform Economy, As a

Percent of the Tax Workforce, County Level

(b) Online Platform Economy Only, As a Percent of the Tax Workforce, 5 Digit Zipcode

Note: Panel (a) shows the number of unique individuals living in the county receiving 1099 MISC information

returns with non-employee compensation, as a percentage of the tax workforce. Panel (b) shows the number of

unique individuals living in the zipcode receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee compensation

from an online gig economy platform and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform, as a percentage of the

tax workforce. See text for more details on how firms in the OPE are identified. The tax workforce is defined as filers

of 1040 with wage, 1099 or SE income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers to filing an individual

income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information return. SE Filer refers to filing

Schedule SE.

Figure 9: Self-Employment Tax Payers, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, 2000-2016

(b) Self-Employed Tax Payers with No EITC

Percent of Tax Workforce

(a) All Self-Employment Tax Payers

2000

2002

20002006 2002

2004

2008

2010

2012

2004

SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

20062016

2014

2008

Exc. Gig 1099

Schedule SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

2010

2012

2002

2000

2014 2006 2016

2008

2004

SE Filers w/ no EITC

Exc. Gig 1099... with 1099

...with no 1099

Exc. Gig 1099

2010

2012

2014

2016

Exc. Gig 1099

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals filing Schedule SE, as a share of the tax workforce. The tax

workforce is defined as tax filers with wage, 1099 or SE income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer refers

to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information return.

Dashed lines exclude 1099s from the Online Platform Economy (OPE). See text for more details on how firms in the

OPE are identified. Panel (b) focuses on filers with no EITC receipt.

Data Appendix

This appendix describes the technical details of our data construction where we combine data

from a variety of different tax forms.

The core of our analysis draws on “masked” W2, 1099-MISC, and 1099-K information returns

along with 1040 individual tax returns and associated schedules. We begin with the population

of individuals who appear as primary or secondary filers on a 1040 in each year. We create a

record of all de-identified individuals, using masked Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs)

appearing on these forms, attributed to either the primary filer or the attached spouse.

For all years, we merge in self-employment information for individuals and their spouses from

Schedule SE. On Schedule SE (a schedule of Form 1040), individuals report all self-employment

income subject to SECA taxation, so long as the total exceeds $400. This includes active income

from wholly-owned businesses on Schedule C, income from partnerships on Schedule K1, and

farm income on Schedule F. Importantly, SECA taxes are assessed on individuals, not income tax

filing units, so Schedule SE is always identified at the individual level. Unfortunately, Schedule

C information is only recorded at the tax unit level before 2007 in the IRS databases. We merge

in individual-level Schedule C information beginning in 2007, and also merge in select tax-unit

totals from schedule C for all years.

We next turn to cleaning and processing the information returns. For Form W-2, we pull

all W-2s with TINs that have been validated by the IRS. We eliminate duplicate or amended

returns, and we drop a small number of invalid TINs (approximately 50,000 in 2016) and TINs

considered “unmatchable” (approximately 5.2 million). Both of these are small compared to

the overall number of W-2s, which exceeded 240 million in 2016. We use the recipient TINs to

match W-2s to our main file of individuals. Since a large number of individuals with low W-2

earnings are not required to file 1040 returns, we add all cases with valid W-2s but no 1040 to

our population file.

We then merge on information from Form 1099-MISC. We pull everyone with non-zero nonemployee compensation reported in Box 7. In our analysis, we only examine Box 7 income. We

use recipient TINs to link to our core file. Many 1099-MISCs with Box 7 income do not link to

a TIN with a valid W-2 or 1040 in the same year. This could occur for several reasons: 1) The

recipient may be an individual who has registered and Employee Identification Number (EIN)

for their business activities that is distinct from their personal TIN; 2) The 1099 may have been

issued to an incorporated business (this can occur in special cases); 3) The 1099 was valid but

the individual did not file, either because the individuals net income was below filing thresholds

or because the individuals were not in compliance with tax law; 4) The 1099 may have been

issued in error or to the wrong TIN.

We find that many 1099s are issued to TINs that the IRS classifies as EINs or an invalid

TIN. However, many such cases nonetheless match to 1040s and in the Social Security DM-1

master file. In particular, 20 percent of 1099-MISCs had recipient TINs classified as EINs in

2016, but we find that about 25 percent of these match to 1040s. We also find that 38 percent of

1099-MISCs with recipient TINs classified as “unmatchable (unknown)” merge to a 1040 TIN.

One possibility is that there are mistakes on the W-9, and these are really TINs of individuals

and not EINs.

Our rule is to treat these information returns as valid so long as they match to a 1040 or W-2.

In general, we do not retain information for individuals in years in which they have 1099-MISCs

but neither a W-2 or 1040 return, due to concerns that these 1099s were issued in error. We

do, however, keep track of the number of such cases in Column (10) of Table 1, individuals who

have no 1040 and W-2 information return—but only for TINs of individuals that are properly

validated by the IRS. We currently do not merge in 1099-MISCs issued to valid EINs that are

used by individual tax payers rather than their personal TIN, since attributing EINs to personal

TINs is not possible prior to 2007 (before which point Schedule Cs with EINs could only be

attributed to a couple). We are exploring this area further.

To identify the online platform economy, we begin with a list of roughly 50 large platforms

based on public databases of online labor platforms, which we are able identify (along with

the corresponding EIN) in business tax returns using the unmasked firm name. Using the

corresponding EIN, we then identify all 1099-MISCs in our cleaned file coming from these

platforms and classify them as OPE income. Prior to 2011 all platforms issued 1099-MISC

returns, and after 2011 a large number continue to do so.

We next pull 1099-K returns issued from the EINs on our OPE list. 1099-Ks are issued by

platforms that classify themselves as ”third party payment processors,” who act as a facilitator

in a transaction determined by two distinct contracting parties. In some cases where platforms

offer incentive payments or other bonuses, these payments are reported on separate 1099-MISCs

since they are payments directly from the platform to the recipient. Current IRS guidelines

exempt payments subject 1099-K reporting from additional 1099-MISC reporting by contracting

entities. In our analysis, we use Box 1 gross receipts to measure payments. We clean these

forms using the same methodology described for the 1099-MISCs. We attribute 1099-K OPE

payments to individuals, and add this to OPE income. We consider this income to be a part of

the “1099 economy” and include it in measures of “1099 recipients” or “1099 income.” Worker

characteristics Marriage, secondary earner, and dependents are defined for 1040 filers only.

Marriage is determined from listing a spouse on a 1040. Dependents are determined from listing

dependents (other than the spouse) on the 1040. Wages and 1099 earnings are merged in for

the spouse. Being a secondary earner is defined as having fewer wage plus Schedule SE earnings

than a spouse.

Other worker characteristics are merged in from other sources. Birth dates and gender are

pulled from the DM-1 file, populated by the Social Security Administration. Social Security

receipt comes from Form SSA-1099, and unemployment insurance receipt comes from Form

1099-G.

Geography Location for tables cut by geographic region is determined by examining the zip

code on 1040 tax returns and information returns. We default to using the zip code listed on

Form 1040. For recipients of information returns who did not file a 1040, zip codes are taken

first from Form W-2 and, if still missing, from the 1099 information returns. If individuals

receive multiple information returns sent to different locations, we pick the location where the

largest dollar value of returns were sent.

Figure A1: How are 1099s reported on C/SE?, 2007-2016

(a) The 1099 Gig Economy, Excluding 1099’s from the Online Platform Economy

3.03

3.04

3.08

3.17

2.85

2.96

3.10

3.20

2.71

1.74

1.76

1.73

1.72

1.70

1.68

1.69

1.70

1.66

6.05

5.88

5.89

5.91

6.04

6.07

6.05

6.18

6.15

6.09

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Share of Tax Workforce

3.03

(b) OPE-Only

1099s

Neither Sched C nor SE

Share of Tax Workforce

Sched C Only

Sched SE

0.39

0.19

0.12

0.23

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

2012

2013

0.28

0.04

0.03

0.06

0.15

2014

2015

2016

Neither Sched C nor SE

Sched C Only

Sched SE

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee

compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform, as a percentage of the tax workforce. The tax

workforce is defined as filers of 1040 with wage, 1099 or SE income, or nontaxfilers with wage earnings. Tax Filer

refers to filing an individual income tax return (Form 1040). Wage income refers to receipt of a W2 information

return. “Sched SE” refers to filing Schedule SE. “Sched C” refers to filing Schedule C. Figure begins in 2007 because

this is the first year Schedule C can be attributed to individuals instead of the tax unit. Panel (a) is for individuals

receiving at least one 1099 outside of the OPE. Panel (b) is for individuals receiving a 1099 only from the OPE.

Percent of Tax Workforce

Figure A2: The 1099 Gig Economy with $15,000 or More in Earnings, as a Share of the Tax

Workforce, 2000-2016

All 1099’s

Dashed

Lines

Exclude

O.P.E.

1099s

Earnings Primarily from Wages

Earnings Primarily from Self−Employment

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

Note: Figure shows the number of unique individuals receiving 1099 MISC information returns with non-employee

compensation and/or a 1099K from an online gig economy platform and who have $15,000 or more in total earnings

(wages plus Schedule SE). Earnings are adjusted for inflation using the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)

Implicit Price Deflator. See notes for figure 2 for additional details.

Figure A3: Where Do Schedule C Receipts Come From? Self-Employment Tax Payers With

Schedule C Profits 2007-2016

(a) Revenues From 1099s

(b) Revenues From OPE 1099s O1099s

Note: Figure decomposes population of individuals with Schedule C profits and Schedule SE net income over $400

based on whether individuals have 1099 revenues and how magnitude of 1099 revenues compares to total Schedule C

revenues. ”Majority of Receipts from 1099s” indicates that the total revenues across all 1099-MISCs or OPE 1099-Ks

exceeds 50% of Schedule C gross revenues. ”Majority of Receipts from 1099s” indicates that the total revenues across

all 1099s exceeds 50% of Schedule C gross revenues. ”Majority is one 1099” indicates that the revenues on the single

1099-MISC or OPE 1099-K with the greatest revenues received by an individual exceeds 50% of their Schedule C gross

revenues. Darker-shaded areas are subsets of lighter-shaded regions. Individual-level data on Schedule C revenues is

only available after 2006.

Figure A4: Self-Employment Tax Payers, as a Share of the Tax Workforce, 2000-2016, by Gender

I. Men

(a) All Self-Employment Tax Payers

Percent of Tax Workforce

10 12

(b) Self-Employed Tax Payers with No EITC

2004

2002

2006

2008

SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

2010

2012

2014

2016

2000

2004

2006

2008

2010

Schedule SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

II. Women

2012

2014

2016

Exc. Gig 1099

(d) Self-Employed Tax Payers with No EITC

Percent of Tax Workforce

2002

Exc. Gig 1099

2000

2002

20002006 2002

2004

2008

2010

2012

2004

SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

20062016

2014

2008

Exc. Gig 1099

Schedule SE Filers

... with 1099

...with no 1099

Note: See notes for Figure 9.

2010

2012

2002

2000

2014 2006 2016

2008

2004

SE Filers w/ no EITC

Exc. Gig 1099... with 1099

...with no 1099

Exc. Gig 1099

2010

2012

2014

Exc. Gig 1099

2016

No SE

Has W2

317,775

1,789,458

1,095,022

2,495,670

14,900,672

2,344,995

1,558,738

271,597

404,619

7,698,727

3,803,519

604,889

1,385,234

679,078

5,409,935

2,871,116

1,230,355

1,777,902

1,687,927

3,109,185

2,555,692

595,260

4,099,269

2,480,640

2,534,176

(1)

(3)

No 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

12,215

12,867

55,683

67,100

31,943

40,667

64,302

100,189

394,542 793,512

69,220

100,119

41,959

78,551

9,151

10,759

8,170

12,282

238,561 409,153

128,406 161,425

13,006

22,965

39,054

48,524

19,087

28,483

148,555 200,247

71,135

78,823

34,116

44,127

44,769

60,726

64,718

75,144

71,207

116,062

65,876

120,011

16,276

27,137

113,347 139,041

65,909

81,411

67,921

89,155

(2)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Has 1099

Has SE

No SE

Has W2 No W2 Has W2 No W2

12,426

9,569

10,981

3,830

68,617

67,395

75,504

28,048

47,068

46,940

54,233

20,393

105,311

98,999

117,810

41,442

784,224 850,143 774,716 246,143

124,764 102,511 122,320

38,299

68,161

61,275

62,622

16,348

19,544

11,250

18,242

2,985

13,747

11,508

16,929

4,754

380,707 426,183 522,757 171,319

179,519 187,944 232,475

68,046

25,065

25,702

25,888

7,919

60,575

49,808

56,226

18,247

27,042

24,737

26,729

10,618

243,961 203,853 238,441

63,957

108,965

82,255

102,385

32,844

54,759

43,405

49,156

18,272

66,515

59,231

62,160

22,038

75,863

65,075

81,497

23,951

160,870 121,136 126,104

27,117

123,079 105,629 127,096

30,696

24,131

25,350

19,619

6,574

161,611 142,551 164,862

58,802

120,301

82,533

216,788

58,848

100,379

86,940

89,128

31,824

(4)

Tax Filers

(a) All 1099 Gig Economy

(9)

(10)

Non Tax Filers

No 1099

Has 1099

Has W2

Has W2 No W2

40,042

2,912

4,135

284,651

24,354

37,417

161,138

14,802

22,174

405,407

35,190

46,774

1,797,497 172,149 214,453

292,076

30,762

33,864

145,535

10,823

17,211

46,041

5,905

5,613

55,522

4,343

4,603

926,465

112,242 140,892

634,369

73,601

106,902

61,001

6,209

8,435

162,729

10,321

12,414

93,584

5,426

6,805

536,203

51,399

69,293

309,315

22,487

28,397

155,255

10,639

12,993

201,369

14,737

21,923

297,463

27,414

37,578

270,770

23,335

31,188

317,711

31,696

41,693

59,988

3,930

6,763

456,413

38,252

51,459

239,651

27,060

15,197

336,078

22,795

28,412

(8)

Table A1: Components of the Tax Workforce, 2016, by State

No SE

Has W2

2,534,176

1,068,203

441,772

3,990,566

343,575

864,106

664,723

3,920,287

764,304

1,154,802

8,218,426

4,974,255

1,441,709

1,654,237

5,594,433

479,310

1,931,056

386,367

2,640,171

10,444,678

1,249,651

3,622,217

294,139

3,195,498

2,711,448

707,151

248,499

(1)

(3)

No 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

67,921

89,155

42,265

43,649

14,652

20,380

109,159 145,606

12,574

13,750

23,974

29,034

15,389

26,443

116,422 191,952

16,759

28,422

27,424

41,192

232,105 463,793

119,201 148,875

38,539

54,523

42,403

73,633

117,944 172,064

10,962

15,833

54,686

70,381

14,329

16,892

85,349

116,902

309,297 446,954

35,084

38,905

90,206

120,901

9,079

13,786

71,041

109,717

65,476

83,122

14,036

21,084

6,768

8,537

(2)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Has 1099

Has SE

No SE

Has W2 No W2 Has W2 No W2

100,379

86,940

89,128

31,824

42,061

42,445

46,194

16,023

19,048

17,601

18,394

7,848

177,348 172,057 175,695

57,921

17,360

10,890

15,711

4,367

39,637

29,531

35,357

10,901

25,796

24,377

19,901

5,910

160,186 127,289 151,028

33,516

28,987

28,618

32,239

13,957

47,799

41,380

65,483

18,500

377,053 325,841 295,469

75,255

196,807 161,002 221,812

71,381

62,276

60,539

72,022

29,531

65,801

64,193

66,481

24,048

215,479 176,554 234,274

71,802

21,734

16,956

17,950

3,803

74,478

72,940

85,546

29,356

19,291

14,702

16,761

5,932

121,777 123,782 120,271

39,772

523,460 586,835 786,612 262,969

51,346

32,044

52,353

14,969

153,606 128,143 153,659

42,001

14,110

13,055

10,079

3,530

113,581 103,833 102,905

35,118

84,142

64,342

85,644

26,227

20,335

17,569

22,699

8,725

11,849

8,769

10,937

4,329

(4)

Tax Filers

All 1099 Gig Economy (Con’t)

(9)

(10)

Non Tax Filers

No 1099

Has 1099

Has W2

Has W2 No W2

336,078

22,795

28,412

175,820

14,756

25,519

53,484

3,468

5,170

507,229

45,690

79,277

37,643

2,782

2,537

92,150

6,195

7,935

53,186

3,733

5,806

393,663

26,148

30,185

112,076

8,490

11,881

158,091

17,383

16,664

834,072

57,193

82,113

517,164

45,343

57,746

234,046

20,242

30,899

222,627

15,186

19,005

491,964

39,275

46,230

36,588

3,175

4,712

275,586

21,667

33,800

39,769

2,812

3,566

326,835

31,171

48,234

1,326,398 181,503 246,376

167,009

10,334

10,075

395,415

33,226

47,008

24,444

1,480

2,104

338,991

20,614

25,937

266,625

12,279

13,524

66,407

3,892

6,242

30,917

2,218

2,537

(8)

(b) OPE

(1)

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

1,387

556

1,024

351

790

288

562

162

9,046

3,847

6,710

2,242

97,887

57,183

75,083

39,690

9,960

3,998

7,676

2,739

3,802

1,726

2,983

1,146

2,811

1,434

2,222

1,135

1,005

391

811

281

34,524

23,882

23,542

14,676

13,206

6,573

9,526

4,398

1,731

685

1,395

434

1,435

365

1,064

212

759

347

559

202

29,815

18,304

23,945

13,540

4,658

1,604

3,463

985

1,540

504

1,163

302

2,296

859

1,717

512

3,984

1,630

2,941

1,128

17,964

8,056

14,930

6,167

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

218

196

4,325

482

3,938

403

2,386

258

2,143

195

22,823

2,941

20,679

2,324

165,205 22,842

149,937 19,027

16,558

1,977

15,044

1,614

9,060

813

8,425

680

6,021

450

5,569

396

2,642

204

2,440

172

105,402 13,814

94,209

11,120

46,601

4,015

42,317

3,273

3,286

358

3,075

292

3,875

248

3,617

215

1,482

199

1,318

169

57,144

5,418

52,945

4,620

12,998

1,076

12,012

889

4,264

393

3,932

313

6,030

445

5,586

365

10,385

826

9,443

669

25,506

2,040

23,769

1,758

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

831

160

706

412

333

5,239

1,189

4,377

472

38,163

17,458

31,397

12,121

3,733

816

3,050

422

1,147

263

969

1,726

782

1,466

553

535

466

14,682

3,387

11,767

792

12,923

1,900

10,812

645

528

118

437

450

391

219

168

11,946

4,977

10,114

3,220

1,925

371

1,603

157

677

585

879

130

728

2,339

321

1,912

4,298

1,836

3,622

1,262

OPE (Con’t)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

13,791

7,317

11,094

5,362

596

219

439

134

6,229

2,960

4,536

1,897

5,313

2,037

3,827

1,198

3,394

1,302

2,603

849

544

214

396

125

307

110

235

8,410

3,431

6,114

2,125

284

225

1,025

262

759

149

825

303

637

193

16,755

9,876

13,479

6,577

816

333

618

209

7,326

3,011

5,383

1,944

21,191

37,544

15,462

24,027

9,122

3,581

6,706

2,149

1,965

748

1,356

424

4,426

1,993

3,586

1,410

16,265

6,844

12,842

4,683

1,607

682

1,279

491

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

32,337

3,059

29,775

2,571

1,401

1,291

16,249

1,995

14,869

1,650

10,289

1,376

8,581

1,016

8,350

645

7,697

533

1,925

206

1,735

163

602

533

27,839

2,531

25,625

2,089

609

557

2,446

184

2,239

155

1,779

160

1,667

134

35,360

3,312

33,089

2,843

2,387

341

2,213

273

16,568

2,004

14,770

1,678

19,564

3,345

17,268

2,531

25,990

2,352

23,598

1,862

7,294

691

6,698

572

5,882

792

5,369

663

37,795

2,928

34,938

2,440

3,835

296

3,590

257

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

7,540

2,192

6,397

1,362

204

171

3,020

610

2,539

256

1,494

242

1,168

120

1,690

208

1,448

303

246

4,813

681

4,106

194

255

210

227

187

4,811

1,314

4,125

697

404

336

3,426

888

2,789

442

5,305

5,602

4,203

3,792

4,104

689

3,405

181

1,278

203

1,042

1,309

378

1,106

230

6,813

1,655

5,708

847

459

109

390

OPE (Con’t)

(1)

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

3,369

1,358

2,505

823

6,834

2,725

4,770

1,513

30,399

14,180

21,273

8,438

2,193

786

1,568

463

12,749

7,524

10,157

5,341

278

216

10,203

5,534

8,332

3,977

3,710

1,179

3,049

834

351

145

280

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

10,380

1,161

9,481

939

166

145

17,463

1,562

15,852

1,258

92,780

10,134

81,798

7,731

5,585

615

5,079

511

27,140

2,598

25,186

2,168

405

382

13,251

1,680

12,197

1,412

8,272

618

7,739

520

888

102

813

131

111

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

1,866

271

1,558

3,014

512

2,437

147

16,161

3,601

12,740

1,385

824

135

673

4,070

1,207

3,408

656

2,631

911

2,195

534

1,128

145

968

110

Note: Non-italics denotes any OPE. Italics denote OPE only. See

notes for Table 1. Counts less than 50 persons are suppressed.

Atlanta, GA

Austin, TX

Baltimore, MD

Boston, MA–NH–RI

Charlotte, NC–SC

Chicago, IL–IN

Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN

Cleveland, OH

Columbus, OH

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

Denver–Aurora, CO

Detroit, MI

Houston, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Jacksonville, FL

Kansas City, MO–KS

Las Vegas–Henderson, NV

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA

Memphis, TN–MS–AR

Miami, FL

Milwaukee, WI

No SE

Has W2

1,877,614

652,883

944,766

2,013,751

599,313

3,623,292

744,934

764,528

659,238

2,226,064

1,159,873

1,510,111

2,048,686

711,505

486,860

706,033

791,103

4,559,999

409,051

2,141,276

617,177

(1)

(3)

No 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

66,024

89,921

19,084

26,260

24,450

38,139

47,670

75,723

17,587

21,840

100,820 144,657

17,324

20,011

19,617

22,477

17,463

20,154

64,768

91,814

32,738

46,131

49,491

54,982

66,548

104,573

19,334

20,533

13,508

14,856

18,022

21,576

19,975

28,899

139,463 298,213

21,353

17,828

81,444

178,408

16,541

16,877

(2)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Has 1099

Has SE

No SE

Has W2 No W2 Has W2 No W2

103,368 109,364 133,144 33,928

44,227

36,909

50,230

12,948

44,804

32,756

46,442

9,373

114,448

78,868

85,477

16,437

30,513

28,555

32,877

8,516

179,927 151,036 177,449 41,713

31,997

23,220

32,030

7,710

33,717

25,571

39,472

10,151

32,948

23,237

34,504

6,949

111,868 125,381 165,873 47,058

63,175

47,989

62,309

15,923

62,202

54,860

64,809

20,389

102,818 134,716 146,940 44,345

31,988

22,013

31,032

6,818

18,604

16,095

27,932

7,865

30,383

22,108

26,391

6,861

34,922

28,869

50,568

12,674

292,921 314,773 289,444 80,267

15,572

15,192

20,051

5,080

137,706 174,203 189,187 54,151

20,459

13,358

19,770

4,214

(4)

Tax Filers

(a) All 1099 Gig Economy

Table A2: Components of the Tax Workforce, 2016, by Metro Area

(9)

(10)

Non Tax Filers

No 1099

Has 1099

Has W2 Has W2 No W2

317,415

43,249

59,843

80,374

13,269

14,489

140,795

12,887

13,958

172,654

16,116

20,294

81,268

8,535

13,763

376,949

41,057

52,403

85,303

7,845

8,291

84,326

8,393

10,209

78,021

8,018

8,837

295,014

40,405

49,416

145,189

16,244

16,627

201,286

18,274

22,222

262,719

34,534

52,583

87,143

7,616

9,655

67,153

6,692

6,414

103,570

7,580

8,140

112,604

14,023

12,821

554,142

68,519

83,102

77,651

6,484

7,697

223,813

34,459

50,489

80,130

3,842

3,356

(8)

Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI

New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT

Orlando, FL

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD

Phoenix–Mesa, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR–WA

Providence, RI–MA

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Sacramento, CA

Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT

San Antonio, TX

San Diego, CA

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

San Jose, CA

San Juan, PR

Seattle, WA

St. Louis, MO–IL

Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL

Virginia Beach, VA

Washington, DC–VA–MD

No SE

Has W2

1,303,196

7,846,376

696,239

2,351,469

1,469,208

800,127

843,246

545,957

758,527

722,151

446,488

775,639

1,257,383

1,453,332

768,646

65,127

1,548,608

949,493

1,043,930

633,896

2,138,996

(1)

(3)

No 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

32,450

37,582

252,635 505,871

22,149

27,887

53,968

80,965

39,016

58,487

15,652

19,757

21,361

34,767

11,530

16,863

18,631

33,957

16,031

30,055

11,848

13,826

17,935

25,389

29,248

58,746

39,380

76,577

16,710

29,291

13,048

48,239

34,475

51,067

26,625

28,319

26,012

39,677

14,202

14,396

62,038

110,058

(2)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Has 1099

Has SE

No SE

Has W2 No W2 Has W2 No W2

67,381

39,902

109,633 25,487

394,522 336,674 311,452 69,166

33,760

30,534

48,322

11,765

104,333

79,174

114,228 24,220

67,477

60,334

75,072

23,434

34,399

23,172

34,948

9,026

38,488

33,111

35,576

10,201

23,230

17,615

20,150

3,985

25,184

32,665

32,648

10,183

29,897

34,742

34,236

10,826

18,613

11,473

18,543

4,455

36,033

36,830

58,866

16,409

62,671

61,621

66,716

20,218

105,800

91,886

79,917

21,006

39,950

33,804

31,786

8,795

1,064

2,860

1,183

665

64,755

53,343

52,964

14,756

37,791

27,896

32,618

8,314

45,957

45,973

67,072

20,395

19,498

14,864

27,360

6,591

125,695 109,069 117,685 26,094

(4)

Tax Filers

All 1099 Gig Economy (Con’t)

(9)

(10)

Non Tax Filers

No 1099

Has 1099

Has W2 Has W2 No W2

129,121

15,183

7,909

805,145

61,873

82,400

82,041

10,660

10,871

271,494

24,224

24,536

239,975

22,713

25,288

67,219

5,997

6,465

101,154

8,240

8,368

42,064

3,507

5,070

103,817

7,716

10,159

82,967

6,811

7,691

63,940

4,273

3,943

100,652

14,279

17,125

135,818

13,639

15,301

140,652

19,058

20,915

62,119

5,827

6,716

387,626

5,359

1,642

152,400

11,127

12,318

126,276

8,249

9,115

135,125

15,905

16,832

90,867

7,143

8,163

228,160

27,358

38,495

(8)

(b) OPE

(1)

Atlanta, GA

Austin, TX

Baltimore, MD

Boston, MA–NH–RI

Charlotte, NC–SC

Chicago, IL–IN

Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN

Cleveland, OH

Columbus, OH

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

Denver–Aurora, CO

Detroit, MI

Houston, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Jacksonville, FL

Kansas City, MO–KS

Las Vegas–Henderson, NV

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA

Memphis, TN–MS–AR

Miami, FL

Milwaukee, WI

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

10,608

5,512

7,618

3,721

4,759

1,883

3,253

1,063

5,113

2,365

4,097

1,696

15,586

7,044

13,068

5,504

2,381

1,100

1,701

681

27,999

17,723

22,526

13,146

2,107

765

1,584

436

2,325

931

1,684

594

2,811

1,045

2,139

625

9,372

4,348

6,626

2,667

7,369

3,013

5,709

2,098

3,366

1,817

2,437

1,157

6,598

3,977

4,709

2,506

2,349

819

1,732

509

1,358

631

1,011

378

1,690

608

1,273

370

6,509

2,703

4,749

1,756

39,940

24,898

29,287

16,666

800

344

573

197

16,766

14,176

11,036

8,758

1,809

633

1,512

467

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

36,537

3,131

33,107

2,551

9,038

956

7,877

707

12,469

1,044

11,516

893

20,442

1,594

19,099

1,374

8,014

650

7,336

518

52,716

5,027

48,822

4,285

5,451

439

4,987

356

7,095

693

6,478

569

6,923

471

6,284

370

30,222

2,878

26,890

2,251

11,751

1,324

10,697

1,081

9,093

1,137

8,286

961

19,437

2,310

17,087

1,789

6,988

537

6,441

434

5,297

551

4,829

463

4,114

350

3,795

276

14,786

1,758

13,152

1,485

70,973

9,577

63,849

7,859

3,261

272

2,974

225

44,318

6,417

38,630

5,023

4,040

280

3,807

249

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

10,794

1,647

9,002

571

2,005

667

1,526

361

3,170

629

2,729

355

3,578

1,638

3,021

1,161

1,675

220

1,425

11,415

4,876

9,666

3,171

914

128

754

1,173

213

977

1,165

181

972

5,589

1,141

4,453

400

2,761

598

2,272

310

1,851

381

1,565

160

3,349

862

2,676

335

978

161

815

826

108

689

888

115

767

3,122

821

2,542

421

17,013

7,816

13,754

5,294

591

485

5,501

1,718

4,253

401

674

583

OPE (Con’t)

(1)

Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI

New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT

Orlando, FL

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD

Phoenix–Mesa, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR–WA

Providence, RI–MA

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Sacramento, CA

Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT

San Antonio, TX

San Diego, CA

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

San Jose, CA

San Juan, PR

Seattle, WA

St. Louis, MO–IL

Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL

Virginia Beach, VA

Washington, DC–VA–MD

(2)

(3)

Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has SE

Has W2 No W2

4,748

1,779

3,460

1,077

33,679

45,126

25,618

29,008

3,745

2,139

2,520

1,318

11,486

5,393

9,109

3,837

6,729

2,856

4,963

1,626

3,298

1,055

2,634

711

4,290

1,903

3,486

1,358

1,840

769

1,473

542

1,981

1,060

1,528

685

3,950

2,018

3,144

1,414

1,213

411

879

266

2,873

1,033

2,036

585

8,436

4,423

6,771

3,151

18,554

11,783

14,645

8,722

7,071

3,198

5,797

2,364

8,043

4,502

6,593

3,294

1,903

766

1,483

510

4,517

2,340

3,247

1,404

1,846

557

1,505

391

17,593

11,449

14,144

8,468

(4)

No SE

Has W2 No W2

7,962

861

6,790

649

45,057

5,675

41,229

4,547

13,341

1,283

12,177

1,044

27,945

2,084

25,837

1,770

16,999

2,114

15,350

1,655

6,499

504

6,008

428

5,557

735

5,095

620

4,301

322

4,010

287

5,384

765

4,975

625

8,676

1,173

8,041

997

2,932

293

2,694

241

9,790

902

8,726

720

16,202

2,195

14,914

1,862

20,285

2,498

18,250

2,101

7,875

976

7,265

842

9,374

1,088

8,653

907

4,819

346

4,463

289

16,094

1,825

14,646

1,499

7,005

574

6,620

495

33,985

3,229

31,347

2,724

(5)

(6)

Non Tax Filers

Has 1099

Has W2 No W2

1,201

218

940

110

8,605

6,459

7,050

4,238

1,863

317

1,522

5,522

1,384

4,649

733

3,997

919

3,329

380

1,171

235

963

122

1,267

345

1,076

208

521

128

445

1,066

253

887

147

1,701

571

1,495

387

471

394

1,585

256

1,256

3,316

1,296

2,811

876

5,982

3,775

4,773

2,847

1,724

867

1,471

693

1,959

747

1,637

449

959

110

817

2,724

466

2,238

106

1,130

151

986

6,924

2,920

5,791

1,933

Note: Non-italics denotes any OPE. Italics denote OPE only. See notes for Table 1. Counts less

than 50 persons are suppressed.

2000

38,084

10.38

226,613

9.79

157,804

11.43

245,596

9.39

2027697

11.52

307,408

12.04

209,418

10.64

34,236

10.75

42,420

9.21

987,712

11.49

475,969

10.48

65,200

9.74

163,518

9.74

69,308

661,604

9.73

309,805

8.86

144,930

9.55

196,888

9.10

216,844

9.63

387,472

10.41

2001

38,772

10.24

220,456

9.63

159,429

11.46

247,958

9.22

2051932

11.49

312,697

12.13

205,911

10.44

33,258

10.62

41,075

8.87

975,268

11.19

477,331

10.46

65,585

9.57

159,841

9.51

68,201

9.61

636,018

9.33

297,837

8.60

141,494

9.27

197,301

9.19

212,172

9.38

379,481

10.20

2002

38,976

10.16

228,176

10.02

163,188

11.78

263,809

9.69

2113414

11.80

323,269

12.58

211,682

10.80

34,917

11.20

43,084

9.23

1040664

11.75

507,502

11.11

67,208

9.71

166,820

9.99

74,220

10.38

667,798

9.90

307,921

8.93

150,218

9.89

201,598

9.42

224,537

9.95

397,139

10.83

2003

39,577

10.28

230,850

10.19

164,785

11.88

272,674

9.90

2181737

12.31

324,547

12.69

210,848

10.79

34,671

11.62

44,499

9.45

1083407

11.98

516,370

11.26

68,683

9.83

167,026

9.97

75,919

10.45

674,111

10.09

303,573

8.84

151,780

10.03

200,776

9.40

226,231

10.03

405,990

11.14

2004

39,993

10.26

237,978

10.31

169,619

12.03

290,227

10.12

2240184

12.53

332,339

12.84

211,654

10.73

36,258

11.58

45,646

9.58

1119923

533,573

11.41

70,587

9.89

170,894

10.12

79,031

10.62

689,144

10.22

308,676

8.90

155,789

10.24

203,463

9.44

225,517

10.16

412,424

11.23

2005

38,358

9.71

244,413

10.36

176,163

12.31

303,616

10.15

2253602

12.43

334,798

12.63

214,138

10.80

36,772

11.68

46,493

9.55

1152232

11.98

549,808

11.45

71,546

9.81

172,257

10.09

81,146

10.52

697,917

10.27

311,147

8.89

159,503

10.35

210,332

9.60

228,561

10.33

411,466

11.21

(a) Any 1099 Gig Work, by State

2006

39,072

9.77

255,568

10.62

178,915

12.29

317,117

10.23

2347619

12.64

349,798

12.85

216,230

10.75

37,752

11.51

48,021

9.69

1199552

12.20

583,757

11.80

77,420

10.43

177,060

10.24

87,289

10.96

711,166

10.25

316,562

8.95

161,721

10.28

211,099

9.53

236,686

10.51

408,808

10.99

Table A3: Any 1099 Gig Work, by State, 2000-2016

2007

40,259

9.84

266,372

10.90

183,310

12.43

324,645

10.26

2430721

12.89

361,019

12.93

219,437

10.78

39,333

11.69

48,687

9.70

1223629

12.39

620,041

12.29

79,133

10.49

182,806

10.36

88,845

10.86

726,785

10.35

323,169

9.02

166,609

10.40

216,667

9.63

245,718

10.62

415,520

11.01

2008

40,083

9.74

254,786

10.51

173,216

11.79

313,849

9.99

2539054

13.52

350,895

12.47

211,106

10.41

39,682

11.40

45,738

9.15

1229265

12.65

605,297

12.10

77,484

10.32

180,835

10.21

85,540

10.54

694,285

9.94

312,608

8.79

163,281

10.11

207,314

9.27

241,699

10.35

404,389

10.69

2009

38,611

9.35

240,411

10.27

164,390

11.44

297,385

9.85

2227067

12.17

331,858

12.04

198,420

10.03

39,072

11.24

43,024

8.81

1229394

13.08

575,932

11.85

72,296

9.81

175,178

10.07

79,944

10.16

659,630

9.70

298,002

8.66

157,492

9.93

198,594

9.11

230,696

10.01

388,307

10.43

2010

40,067

9.58

241,315

10.30

165,937

11.47

301,557

10.02

2248554

12.29

334,650

12.08

199,271

10.09

40,161

11.36

43,674

8.92

1272112

13.39

586,073

12.01

73,250

9.89

176,200

10.14

79,028

10.06

669,402

9.87

299,179

8.69

158,149

10.04

198,599

9.10

239,957

10.40

390,396

10.44

2011

40,486

9.46

245,810

10.37

170,315

11.60

315,203

10.22

2312913

12.39

348,341

12.25

204,701

10.28

40,698

11.45

44,443

8.97

1313201

13.62

603,606

12.17

76,492

10.17

183,070

10.25

82,219

10.13

698,446

10.17

311,931

8.92

163,876

10.27

205,168

9.28

244,078

10.36

399,419

10.55

2012

40,674

9.45

247,383

10.37

171,697

11.63

322,853

10.25

2360488

12.41

358,445

12.28

205,639

10.26

42,007

11.67

44,609

8.91

1327780

13.55

615,024

12.25

79,763

10.45

183,863

10.22

84,370

10.17

694,602

315,711

8.91

167,537

10.40

208,596

9.33

250,699

10.56

398,207

10.40

2013

40,162

9.32

245,878

10.27

170,541

11.56

329,751

10.25

2407408

12.38

365,410

12.23

203,707

10.10

44,128

11.99

44,854

8.84

1349333

13.49

624,189

12.24

81,572

10.51

182,073

10.08

85,470

10.11

711,144

10.20

316,863

8.87

167,124

10.33

207,490

9.25

254,154

10.62

406,208

10.49

2014

41,718

9.64

251,143

10.43

175,254

11.79

346,238

10.57

2516209

12.65

380,646

12.39

206,406

10.19

48,421

12.69

45,320

8.85

1410076

13.77

656,709

12.62

83,919

10.68

186,407

10.26

87,274

10.15

729,935

10.36

327,180

9.11

168,626

10.32

211,633

9.35

259,237

10.73

418,032

10.64

2015

40,974

9.47

256,320

10.54

177,930

11.89

368,961

10.98

2684908

13.20

399,247

12.66

212,532

10.43

54,499

13.89

47,712

9.14

1507655

14.28

695,946

13.04

85,829

10.87

190,465

10.43

90,988

10.30

772,730

10.88

338,897

9.32

171,906

10.49

219,024

9.57

264,672

10.93

441,017

11.08

2016

39,718

9.40

263,918

10.72

183,436

12.13

398,752

11.51

2827375

13.65

418,656

12.98

219,229

10.73

57,926

14.65

51,281

9.64

1613208

14.82

741,585

13.56

90,783

11.45

195,177

10.66

94,552

10.34

801,611

11.30

348,936

9.48

176,231

10.75

224,681

9.73

273,800

11.41

458,562

11.39

2000

289,358

9.40

77,182

10.29

527,152

9.35

289,578

9.70

267,552

8.55

139,742

9.83

58,167

11.69

446,497

9.87

38,762

10.64

104,069

10.38

77,938

10.03

400,310

8.46

96,473

10.54

103,530

8.92

893,278

8.93

560,082

8.59

196,414

10.87

203,606

10.74

562,840

8.41

54,028

9.09

2001

281,786

9.06

76,009

10.06

513,105

9.23

285,518

9.54

270,012

8.57

137,782

9.80

57,818

11.62

428,032

9.51

37,894

10.29

101,943

10.14

76,600

9.77

383,612

8.07

99,339

10.49

108,294

9.06

895,159

8.89

555,236

8.62

192,894

10.60

202,865

10.68

538,604

8.03

53,355

8.94

2002

302,022

9.62

80,661

10.63

495,039

303,079

10.17

287,754

9.16

143,821

10.25

59,810

11.89

457,481

10.19

38,203

10.34

106,861

10.65

80,172

10.23

402,508

8.45

103,287

10.74

114,621

9.45

913,318

9.12

567,340

8.89

202,376

11.18

204,140

10.82

569,861

8.49

54,250

9.05

2003

308,609

9.82

80,413

10.56

530,838

9.77

306,564

10.27

292,869

9.31

146,328

10.43

60,974

11.91

468,435

10.38

40,979

10.95

103,561

10.25

81,721

10.39

408,606

8.55

103,015

10.73

121,395

9.63

943,827

9.61

564,644

8.89

202,650

11.27

201,371

10.75

581,439

8.65

54,238

9.08

2004

313,814

9.86

81,968

10.73

535,491

9.87

307,684

10.21

301,549

9.53

149,298

10.55

61,231

11.76

486,865

10.62

42,045

11.10

105,558

10.42

83,048

10.42

421,485

8.75

105,405

10.82

130,029

9.92

979,807

9.86

576,245

9.07

209,151

11.54

211,580

11.09

612,637

9.07

54,242

9.04

2005

316,299

9.83

83,524

10.89

543,041

10.03

314,606

10.31

307,455

9.58

153,860

10.70

61,593

11.54

502,635

10.65

43,852

11.45

104,380

10.20

84,115

10.48

422,330

8.71

111,881

11.23

136,360

9.91

991,756

9.92

584,687

9.16

214,548

11.57

213,525

10.91

653,308

9.55

54,214

9.11

2006

331,784

10.17

86,096

11.17

543,308

10.09

321,153

10.36

315,432

9.71

163,488

11.18

63,684

11.66

531,668

10.97

44,729

11.50

107,945

10.42

83,500

10.31

426,776

8.69

110,369

10.83

144,316

10.08

1016950

10.02

580,698

9.05

220,252

11.61

221,276

11.03

699,412

10.08

55,294

9.25

Any 1099 Gig Work, by State (Con’t)

2007

337,123

10.22

89,347

11.49

517,547

9.65

322,756

10.30

321,136

9.77

170,078

11.49

64,534

11.55

552,776

11.15

45,868

11.57

110,971

10.51

84,480

10.33

433,183

8.74

113,702

10.98

145,262

10.01

1047758

10.15

595,893

9.25

226,455

11.67

226,886

11.07

747,710

10.64

56,088

9.38

2008

330,939

10.04

82,281

10.71

522,059

9.87

315,843

10.08

308,147

9.41

161,400

10.98

63,305

11.35

529,367

10.72

42,511

10.60

109,654

10.31

81,292

9.98

419,947

8.49

115,317

11.08

140,296

9.81

1029097

9.95

580,704

9.10

222,877

11.36

219,509

10.81

713,052

10.18

55,204

9.33

2009

317,245

9.77

80,886

10.76

494,129

9.72

295,770

9.62

293,488

9.19

150,712

10.51

58,989

10.81

497,528

10.40

41,927

10.38

106,660

10.16

77,430

9.72

399,427

8.26

104,875

10.36

130,369

9.56

991,876

9.71

565,152

9.18

210,294

10.97

206,150

10.50

675,362

9.83

52,600

9.15

2010

319,638

9.81

77,099

10.29

501,297

9.87

296,827

9.63

295,114

9.28

153,292

10.71

60,410

11.05

506,781

10.58

43,166

10.47

108,051

10.23

76,305

9.58

404,553

8.37

103,881

10.32

131,814

9.76

988,983

9.66

622,863

10.15

212,609

11.13

203,984

10.41

677,643

9.85

53,348

9.25

2011

327,564

9.91

79,478

10.53

521,199

10.06

304,010

9.68

307,188

9.53

153,789

10.59

62,241

11.01

524,661

10.71

45,759

10.53

113,401

10.50

77,577

9.62

414,262

8.48

106,453

10.47

143,347

10.41

1010111

9.75

668,630

10.74

221,484

11.31

207,071

10.37

682,510

9.84

54,652

9.46

2012

334,756

9.97

78,529

10.39

527,144

10.07

306,751

9.63

309,942

9.53

152,920

10.48

62,433

10.87

537,042

10.78

47,336

10.52

114,337

10.43

77,803

9.60

415,097

8.46

107,341

10.51

144,302

10.25

1022354

9.78

672,770

10.69

228,888

11.51

207,129

10.23

677,462

9.76

54,964

9.43

2013

343,631

10.14

77,028

10.14

523,369

9.92

305,696

9.49

308,212

9.44

153,511

10.50

61,384

10.61

542,358

10.73

48,111

10.47

112,910

10.22

77,298

9.48

423,599

8.52

106,820

10.48

148,252

10.29

1031460

9.76

666,241

10.52

230,846

11.52

210,160

10.19

672,833

9.68

55,883

9.52

2014

360,961

10.56

78,071

10.25

530,052

10.11

351,805

10.77

315,203

9.59

154,466

10.49

62,833

10.77

566,862

11.03

49,639

10.55

114,589

10.27

77,850

9.49

430,949

8.61

109,428

10.63

154,854

10.51

1058341

9.89

669,577

10.53

239,455

11.82

211,777

10.05

681,885

9.75

57,109

9.62

2015

391,423

11.35

77,272

10.08

547,486

10.33

473,624

14.24

321,084

9.66

157,755

10.63

64,776

10.96

592,744

11.30

51,123

10.93

118,361

10.53

78,972

9.52

461,896

9.11

114,109

11.07

165,076

10.90

1091952

10.09

680,751

10.62

239,318

11.80

223,566

10.29

702,868

9.98

60,311

10.06

2016

418,196

12.03

79,604

10.23

566,078

10.53

505,530

14.99

331,066

9.86

161,479

10.83

66,359

11.12

628,711

11.68

51,110

11.14

121,621

10.75

79,717

9.50

498,167

9.73

112,291

10.86

190,545

12.12

1130811

10.39

696,345

10.79

244,610

12.15

235,709

10.58

737,384

10.37

63,618

10.49

2000

206,259

9.39

46,285

10.68

334,624

10.59

1279777

11.64

105,247

8.87

366,548

8.98

41,686

11.28

281,230

8.46

239,409

7.48

84,030

9.47

31,706

11.03

2001

198,937

9.10

45,749

10.49

322,152

10.30

1259942

11.27

106,753

8.75

358,082

8.68

43,360

11.75

283,190

8.44

230,934

7.23

81,119

9.19

32,311

10.91

2002

210,964

9.70

48,831

11.26

344,778

11.02

1351805

12.05

113,503

9.27

382,516

9.19

43,367

11.70

290,187

8.70

241,546

7.58

83,173

9.39

33,590

11.37

2003

214,726

9.83

48,363

10.94

352,123

11.21

1371093

12.17

113,957

9.34

393,535

9.36

43,854

11.81

291,441

8.75

245,292

7.70

83,719

9.51

33,849

11.38

2004

221,336

9.97

49,441

11.03

362,670

11.37

1413070

12.36

118,923

9.55

404,707

9.47

44,274

11.79

303,837

8.97

249,349

7.77

80,644

9.13

34,263

11.42

2005

230,421

10.10

50,158

10.99

375,200

11.55

1458971

12.37

123,733

9.54

413,445

9.51

44,623

11.80

310,112

8.95

252,767

7.79

80,580

8.99

35,275

11.41

2006

241,343

10.30

51,929

11.19

389,333

11.73

1559932

12.77

133,492

9.84

426,255

9.64

44,063

11.60

326,327

9.16

256,423

7.82

80,599

8.92

37,394

11.69

2007

251,637

10.50

52,468

11.10

403,420

11.95

1612548

12.79

137,889

9.84

436,940

9.73

45,361

11.84

335,308

9.16

261,580

7.90

83,615

9.14

37,932

11.52

2008

240,629

10.13

52,927

11.08

386,183

11.51

1590274

12.41

135,219

9.56

424,458

9.43

43,944

11.51

324,340

8.81

254,425

7.70

79,067

8.69

37,694

11.31

Italics denotes share of tax workforce. See notes for Table 1. Counts less than 50 persons are

suppressed.

Any 1099 Gig Work, by State (Con’t)

2009

226,317

9.84

52,093

10.98

363,529

11.22

1530911

12.08

126,456

9.17

409,595

9.27

41,920

11.17

308,221

8.60

240,002

7.45

75,680

8.47

35,530

10.93

2010

231,834

10.05

52,711

11.05

366,017

11.26

1570389

12.27

126,295

9.13

420,612

9.48

42,052

11.20

309,228

8.67

238,061

7.40

78,015

8.71

36,250

11.10

2011

234,668

9.96

54,792

11.05

378,253

11.40

1709996

12.96

132,117

9.27

433,053

9.58

42,968

11.34

318,408

8.71

243,078

7.44

79,083

8.72

38,241

11.24

2012

240,046

10.02

57,156

11.34

383,900

11.38

1899401

13.96

136,961

9.35

441,780

9.69

42,543

11.19

321,495

8.65

248,800

7.55

78,219

8.61

38,867

11.28

2013

243,832

10.01

55,446

10.97

385,562

11.30

2061638

14.68

141,104

9.36

443,979

9.67

42,026

11.05

329,508

8.69

248,737

7.50

76,799

8.54

37,198

10.85

2014

253,652

10.22

56,738

11.14

397,977

11.50

2229039

15.50

146,144

9.44

462,589

9.98

42,503

11.14

337,566

8.74

253,128

7.58

76,097

8.46

38,180

11.05

2015

264,358

10.40

58,286

11.35

414,720

11.76

2291803

15.65

150,945

9.41

483,956

10.32

42,717

11.17

358,194

8.99

264,676

7.86

74,650

8.36

38,398

11.18

2016

283,987

10.86

59,498

11.51

436,773

12.11

2341379

15.75

161,046

9.75

510,635

10.77

42,254

11.01

376,051

9.19

272,634

8.02

73,220

8.30

38,102

11.45

(b) Any O.P.E. Work, by State

2012

126

0.01

499

0.02

3,454

0.02

361

0.01

178

0.01

108

0.03

0.01

1,375

0.01

908

0.02

0.01

1,878

0.03

248

0.01

143

0.01

139

0.01

927

0.02

2013

0.01

190

0.01

108

0.01

1,032

0.03

13,946

0.07

978

0.03

300

0.01

579

0.16

0.01

1,905

0.02

2,042

0.04

0.01

6,640

0.10

522

0.01

152

0.01

178

0.01

185

0.01

2,861

0.07

2014

110

0.03

318

0.01

323

0.02

6,209

0.19

76,160

0.38

5,251

0.17

1,359

0.07

2,761

0.72

231

0.05

17,983

0.18

10,328

0.20

575

0.07

357

0.02

152

0.02

25,334

0.36

2,704

0.08

739

0.05

970

0.04

546

0.02

16,152

0.41

2015

211

0.05

1,416

0.06

1,525

0.10

19,642

0.58

234,200

1.15

17,962

0.57

7,791

0.38

8,574

2.19

1,808

0.35

90,478

0.86

40,071

0.75

2,668

0.34

2,560

0.14

1,032

0.12

76,278

1.07

11,834

0.33

3,247

0.20

5,275

0.23

7,132

0.29

37,833

0.95

2016

431

0.10

7,581

0.31

4,134

0.27

43,896

1.27

381,280

1.84

36,226

1.12

16,548

0.81

12,442

3.15

4,777

0.90

192,304

1.77

83,318

1.52

6,588

0.83

6,373

0.35

3,006

0.33

122,627

1.73

22,261

0.61

7,378

0.45

10,509

0.46

19,164

0.80

57,864

1.44

Any O.P.E. Work, by State (Con’t)

2012

550

0.02

0.01

401

0.01

250

0.01

303

0.01

488

0.01

523

0.01

154

0.01

1,254

0.01

906

0.01

110

0.01

202

0.01

639

0.01

2013

1,808

0.05

0.01

729

0.01

606

0.02

423

0.01

775

0.02

107

0.01

1,297

0.03

105

0.01

219

0.02

4,964

0.05

1,123

0.02

204

0.01

282

0.01

1,010

0.01

2014

10,958

0.32

256

0.03

3,683

0.07

3,190

0.10

1,088

0.03

157

0.01

5,448

0.11

0.01

345

0.03

324

0.04

8,358

0.17

452

0.04

1,276

0.09

24,065

0.22

4,006

0.06

1,148

0.06

842

0.04

4,685

0.07

828

0.14

2015

41,331

1.20

1,188

0.15

17,409

0.33

10,271

0.31

5,493

0.17

883

0.06

175

0.03

21,947

0.42

472

0.10

2,033

0.18

1,548

0.19

35,491

0.70

1,634

0.16

9,160

0.61

49,773

0.46

20,980

0.33

5,477

0.27

6,430

0.30

31,225

0.44

3,895

0.65

2016

64,044

1.84

2,518

0.32

30,453

0.57

20,509

0.61

15,381

0.46

3,192

0.21

1,155

0.19

47,024

0.87

1,061

0.23

4,172

0.37

3,294

0.39

70,114

1.37

4,281

0.41

32,335

2.06

86,949

0.80

45,149

0.70

11,976

0.59

14,402

0.65

70,645

0.99

6,879

1.13

Any O.P.E. Work, by State (Con’t)

2012

188

0.01

284

0.01

3,188

0.02

0.01

819

0.02

768

0.02

138

0.01

2013

238

0.01

405

0.01

5,807

0.04

132

0.01

2,853

0.06

0.01

1,938

0.05

232

0.01

2014

1,453

0.06

0.01

3,474

0.10

26,269

0.18

664

0.04

11,409

0.25

0.02

6,393

0.17

1,451

0.04

0.01

2015

6,821

0.27

145

0.03

15,741

0.45

90,896

0.62

3,359

0.21

29,720

0.63

420

0.11

17,406

0.44

7,730

0.23

324

0.04

0.03

2016

18,134

0.69

315

0.06

31,598

0.88

163,654

1.10

10,003

0.61

54,081

1.14

853

0.22

33,299

0.81

14,907

0.44

1,596

0.18

256

0.08

Italics denotes share of tax workforce. See

notes for Table 1. Counts less than 50 persons are suppressed.

Milwaukee, WI

Miami, FL

Memphis, TN–MS–AR

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA

Las Vegas–Henderson, NV

Kansas City, MO–KS

Jacksonville, FL

Indianapolis, IN

Houston, TX

Detroit, MI

Denver–Aurora, CO

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

Columbus, OH

Cleveland, OH

Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN

Chicago, IL–IN

Charlotte, NC–SC

Boston, MA–NH–RI

Baltimore, MD

Austin, TX

Atlanta, GA

2000

232,702

10.99

68,286

11.79

102,342

8.66

237,057

10.26

54,696

10.15

451,079

10.05

77,631

8.54

91,461

8.62

69,335

9.46

264,357

11.16

138,167

11.20

199,873

9.05

244,553

11.84

72,819

9.48

46,918

8.71

69,792

8.41

65,903

8.74

700,469

12.41

50,741

9.18

332,725

13.09

52,923

6.78

2001

236,166

11.05

67,562

11.61

98,775

8.35

233,528

10.11

54,067

9.91

436,163

9.68

77,378

8.57

91,325

8.74

68,500

9.53

260,107

10.92

140,200

11.36

193,843

245,098

11.58

71,192

9.23

47,030

8.62

69,497

8.35

69,914

8.93

713,378

12.42

49,236

9.02

328,484

12.71

50,925

6.61

2002

254,962

11.89

73,834

12.69

105,290

8.86

245,288

10.76

59,393

10.75

459,081

10.30

80,351

8.91

92,670

9.04

71,674

9.89

280,111

11.85

146,155

11.97

185,438

8.72

261,657

12.23

74,102

9.61

50,120

9.04

74,550

9.03

74,939

9.34

738,055

12.74

52,808

9.72

351,679

13.44

52,930

6.95

2003

261,500

12.10

76,683

12.99

107,932

9.09

253,021

11.17

61,374

10.89

462,914

10.54

80,422

8.93

91,223

8.97

73,395

10.03

284,883

12.03

146,651

12.04

197,736

9.47

269,802

12.56

73,675

9.59

51,849

9.21

75,933

9.20

80,334

9.63

766,330

13.26

53,690

9.93

369,863

13.89

52,816

7.01

2004

270,996

12.21

80,384

13.17

108,222

9.05

260,929

11.36

64,545

476,830

10.71

81,742

92,446

9.14

75,049

10.16

291,109

12.13

149,496

12.17

199,750

9.62

281,083

12.90

75,210

9.56

51,970

8.99

78,162

9.43

87,207

9.98

784,506

13.53

54,865

10.06

385,532

14.14

53,921

7.16

(a) Any 1099 Gig Work, by Major Metro Area

2005

281,620

12.23

84,394

13.17

108,639

9.02

263,230

11.42

69,594

11.17

484,124

10.79

83,258

9.10

93,457

9.23

77,221

10.31

298,490

12.09

149,994

11.93

202,506

9.81

288,424

12.77

76,629

9.56

54,824

9.21

79,472

9.45

91,988

9.97

784,502

13.42

54,996

10.03

396,078

14.27

54,312

7.18

2006

300,885

12.58

91,439

13.52

114,984

9.40

263,156

11.19

74,798

11.44

495,171

10.78

83,026

8.98

94,000

9.25

78,139

10.26

317,736

12.40

156,729

12.10

200,680

9.81

310,143

13.17

78,333

9.56

56,824

9.37

81,131

9.49

98,377

10.17

812,528

13.58

56,387

10.06

419,477

14.76

55,219

7.20

2007

315,937

12.96

95,265

13.51

116,505

9.43

268,338

11.19

79,648

11.77

504,950

10.85

85,601

9.15

96,162

9.44

79,096

10.24

327,840

12.41

162,114

12.18

190,924

9.41

320,240

13.12

80,924

9.65

58,556

9.58

82,477

9.48

98,458

10.04

840,333

13.85

58,246

10.26

429,130

14.95

56,594

7.32

2008

309,601

12.77

96,284

13.29

114,628

9.28

262,664

10.90

77,506

11.41

481,477

10.39

87,060

9.34

93,960

9.31

77,237

9.90

324,372

12.11

157,727

11.75

193,151

9.65

316,450

12.69

78,768

9.34

60,128

9.99

80,044

9.18

94,801

9.77

873,128

14.48

56,314

9.96

429,238

15.08

55,284

7.16

Milwaukee, WI

Miami, FL

Memphis, TN–MS–AR

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA

Las Vegas–Henderson, NV

Kansas City, MO–KS

Jacksonville, FL

Indianapolis, IN

Houston, TX

Detroit, MI

Denver–Aurora, CO

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

Columbus, OH

Cleveland, OH

Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN

Chicago, IL–IN

Charlotte, NC–SC

Boston, MA–NH–RI

Baltimore, MD

Austin, TX

Atlanta, GA

2009

298,239

12.60

94,025

12.93

108,712

8.98

253,223

10.63

73,618

11.10

457,750

10.15

79,989

8.86

92,956

9.52

75,941

9.92

314,248

11.89

151,189

11.46

184,018

9.62

308,552

12.45

75,301

9.11

61,100

10.51

77,401

9.07

88,730

9.56

772,313

13.16

53,517

9.80

427,660

15.44

52,138

6.95

2010

306,674

12.85

98,799

13.23

109,537

9.02

256,512

10.69

77,448

11.51

466,342

10.35

88,349

9.80

101,742

10.45

82,831

10.68

324,627

12.14

153,752

11.52

187,300

9.81

316,841

12.70

75,984

9.13

62,228

10.72

77,999

9.14

90,094

9.79

789,122

13.43

54,934

9.99

445,036

15.71

52,195

6.97

2011

318,831

13.07

106,916

13.78

111,801

9.08

262,112

10.75

80,872

11.59

477,360

10.44

92,797

10.17

108,629

11.02

88,930

11.21

351,693

12.79

161,027

11.74

193,834

9.92

344,117

13.33

80,305

9.44

63,928

10.87

81,082

9.37

100,236

10.67

821,385

13.72

54,868

9.79

467,096

16.20

52,316

6.89

2012

328,973

13.24

118,566

14.67

113,556

9.08

261,229

10.58

84,519

11.69

485,822

10.49

93,855

10.18

108,368

10.89

91,151

11.22

385,133

13.63

167,054

11.78

196,475

9.96

380,579

14.16

82,439

9.47

65,020

10.89

82,318

9.35

101,018

10.49

843,633

13.82

56,159

9.97

471,857

16.17

55,459

7.24

2013

337,812

13.29

129,533

15.38

115,928

9.20

267,482

10.67

87,408

11.72

494,522

10.53

92,880

9.96

107,351

10.74

91,456

11.03

414,474

14.21

172,697

11.81

196,481

9.85

408,080

14.66

84,171

9.52

65,697

10.79

83,279

9.33

105,169

10.63

867,533

13.91

55,493

9.79

479,806

16.10

55,289

7.16

2014

359,594

13.75

143,509

16.39

121,881

9.56

279,532

10.94

93,376

12.11

520,361

10.91

94,969

10.05

108,075

10.83

94,317

11.12

450,415

14.99

181,330

201,082

10.13

439,740

15.26

88,399

9.86

68,068

10.92

85,850

9.47

110,881

10.87

915,882

14.35

57,433

509,468

16.63

55,683

7.13

2015

390,989

14.49

157,607

17.35

135,522

10.53

298,499

11.50

100,430

12.55

562,244

11.65

99,093

10.34

112,233

11.17

99,072

11.43

472,492

15.27

193,270

12.42

210,372

10.47

453,033

15.40

94,322

10.27

72,434

11.29

89,244

9.64

120,001

11.41

990,501

15.20

58,883

10.08

554,113

17.56

59,049

7.48

2016

423,060

15.25

157,578

16.83

146,263

11.30

311,329

11.88

108,992

13.15

591,179

12.22

102,805

10.59

117,305

11.63

105,651

490,577

15.48

205,646

12.94

220,528

10.83

463,357

15.73

99,468

10.60

77,190

11.70

93,324

9.90

141,052

12.90

1045915

15.85

62,376

10.60

589,703

18.34

61,639

7.78

2000

143,359

9.34

871,597

9.40

76,430

10.68

252,523

8.76

140,909

9.33

83,104

8.54

94,642

10.11

57,743

8.69

69,120

9.74

76,649

9.90

43,199

8.71

78,828

10.52

154,610

10.98

226,452

12.37

86,002

9.69

6,755

7.69

139,922

8.72

93,625

7.71

119,537

10.34

55,991

7.35

248,431

10.44

2001

140,426

9.17

848,231

9.13

75,476

10.42

243,029

8.43

143,006

9.27

80,121

8.21

95,597

10.18

56,999

8.53

71,329

9.76

79,346

9.93

43,706

8.71

77,654

10.07

155,959

10.73

223,218

12.32

84,230

9.60

6,708

8.08

140,087

8.67

92,972

7.66

117,152

10.05

53,928

6.98

245,961

10.13

2002

149,045

9.85

879,817

9.51

81,269

11.05

253,993

8.79

151,958

9.79

84,116

8.69

95,634

10.33

58,290

8.72

75,690

9.91

84,735

10.48

46,884

9.43

83,220

10.71

161,005

10.95

224,858

12.82

87,010

10.50

7,376

9.34

143,584

9.03

98,953

8.19

124,359

10.55

57,543

7.33

262,505

10.75

2003

149,642

9.89

912,084

9.87

86,031

11.39

258,371

8.91

155,906

10.05

84,733

8.78

94,458

10.30

58,530

8.77

81,214

10.27

88,272

10.73

46,001

9.39

86,270

10.99

169,592

11.68

224,765

13.24

89,090

11.16

7,102

9.29

144,597

9.21

101,666

8.45

128,635

10.70

58,700

7.38

268,172

10.97

2004

151,490

9.93

949,243

10.14

87,772

11.23

267,213

9.16

165,575

10.28

89,108

9.29

99,374

10.63

58,506

8.73

84,749

10.34

92,757

11.14

47,528

9.58

88,991

11.13

169,881

11.55

233,199

13.79

93,058

11.58

7,196

9.46

150,453

9.42

104,188

8.65

133,080

10.76

60,391

7.52

276,796

11.07

2005

153,860

9.97

960,273

10.19

90,974

11.26

282,059

9.59

171,968

10.39

94,213

9.75

101,664

10.59

58,771

8.83

87,893

10.43

95,898

11.27

48,038

9.40

94,508

11.40

168,329

11.34

231,524

13.54

93,760

11.44

7,497

8.70

153,327

9.38

104,735

8.67

135,749

10.69

62,691

7.74

279,893

11.09

2006

157,136

9.99

986,492

10.27

93,817

11.33

299,583

10.01

179,128

10.46

100,524

10.31

105,976

10.66

59,566

8.90

93,104

10.67

99,131

11.39

51,451

9.66

101,164

11.74

176,206

11.60

240,866

13.75

97,532

11.50

8,481

8.20

160,336

9.51

106,877

8.76

141,818

10.94

64,009

7.83

290,037

11.25

2007

157,838

9.93

1010952

10.35

95,580

11.49

316,004

10.45

182,713

10.47

108,092

10.92

109,215

10.70

60,365

9.01

97,108

11.02

103,174

11.66

52,480

9.59

104,315

11.70

181,483

11.77

250,024

13.97

100,111

11.52

12,358

2.52

165,123

9.53

109,667

8.89

144,746

11.12

65,185

7.91

296,327

11.27

Italics denotes share of tax workforce. See notes for Table 1. Counts less than 50 persons are suppressed.

Washington, DC–VA–MD

Virginia Beach, VA

Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL

St. Louis, MO–IL

Seattle, WA

San Juan, PR

San Jose, CA

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

San Diego, CA

San Antonio, TX

Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT

Sacramento, CA

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Providence, RI–MA

Portland, OR–WA

Pittsburgh, PA

Phoenix–Mesa, AZ

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD

Orlando, FL

New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT

Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI

Any 1099 Gig Work, by Major Metro Area (Con’t)

2008

154,708

9.72

996,107

10.16

95,577

11.62

298,610

9.92

176,907

10.20

103,492

10.47

107,196

10.50

59,001

8.90

105,934

12.12

110,315

12.56

51,560

9.36

101,966

11.25

193,799

12.57

257,554

14.38

104,046

11.94

11,837

2.37

159,895

9.15

105,437

8.56

146,809

11.45

61,802

7.53

296,734

11.12

Washington, DC–VA–MD

Virginia Beach, VA

Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL

St. Louis, MO–IL

Seattle, WA

San Juan, PR

San Jose, CA

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

San Diego, CA

San Antonio, TX

Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT

Sacramento, CA

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Providence, RI–MA

Portland, OR–WA

Pittsburgh, PA

Phoenix–Mesa, AZ

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD

Orlando, FL

New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT

Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI

2009

146,024

9.34

961,253

9.93

94,905

11.93

287,305

9.74

174,775

10.19

97,059

9.92

102,078

10.28

56,360

8.73

88,190

10.35

91,625

10.75

47,948

8.95

97,252

10.80

168,710

11.15

233,026

13.31

93,563

11,215

2.33

152,785

8.99

100,568

8.36

148,482

11.95

59,223

7.40

291,395

10.95

2010

147,976

9.41

964,294

9.91

97,919

12.17

289,007

9.79

179,704

10.40

97,946

9.97

102,411

10.28

57,041

8.82

87,346

10.21

90,779

10.75

47,608

8.87

99,011

10.83

172,314

11.37

239,297

13.63

96,233

11.23

10,542

2.35

155,287

9.15

102,261

8.56

156,515

12.41

59,735

7.50

298,486

11.07

2011

152,255

9.48

989,245

10.04

101,947

12.32

290,922

9.80

189,711

10.65

98,560

9.92

105,225

10.33

58,540

9.02

90,022

10.25

92,435

10.81

48,481

9.07

108,342

11.52

177,511

11.46

247,465

13.76

99,213

11.29

10,534

2.26

161,246

9.24

105,653

8.76

156,319

12.34

61,903

7.67

307,231

11.18

2012

154,075

9.42

1003298

10.05

104,520

12.31

290,294

9.75

194,897

10.65

97,956

9.80

105,932

10.20

58,672

8.97

91,394

10.16

94,306

10.87

50,035

9.13

122,396

12.60

181,983

11.51

253,463

13.73

101,458

11.25

11,462

2.11

162,934

9.13

106,737

8.76

156,403

12.17

62,925

7.77

316,142

11.32

2013

154,158

9.28

1020874

10.06

107,374

12.28

289,491

9.66

201,336

10.67

96,752

9.66

107,432

10.11

59,929

9.07

93,435

10.08

96,411

10.85

51,146

9.08

135,639

13.56

185,799

11.53

262,399

13.81

101,791

10.97

11,701

2.22

168,647

9.21

105,792

8.67

158,904

12.10

62,809

7.72

327,621

11.57

2014

177,905

10.50

1053691

10.21

113,935

12.58

298,141

9.85

212,594

10.99

98,730

9.82

108,776

10.18

61,159

9.14

97,494

10.13

99,672

10.94

52,601

9.11

148,239

14.37

196,479

11.89

282,551

14.45

106,757

11.15

12,427

2.17

174,506

9.30

107,578

8.75

165,516

12.28

64,681

7.86

353,015

12.26

2015

239,036

13.80

1111253

10.59

124,109

13.24

316,791

10.33

228,717

11.47

103,277

10.24

117,030

10.60

64,906

9.59

101,877

10.26

105,447

11.24

53,807

9.24

154,032

14.55

213,107

12.64

306,797

15.31

114,945

11.67

10,953

2.03

186,757

9.63

110,874

8.94

177,589

12.74

69,645

8.40

382,065

13.07

2016

257,582

14.64

1173689

11.09

135,043

14.02

346,191

11.15

249,029

12.11

107,544

10.64

125,616

11.15

68,480

108,400

10.59

116,508

12.04

57,360

9.67

162,416

15.01

224,867

13.18

317,667

15.67

120,162

12.05

11,120

2.12

196,943

9.93

114,858

9.22

195,301

13.56

75,457

9.10

405,895

13.78

(b) Any O.P.E. Work, by Major Metro Area

Atlanta, GA

Austin, TX

Baltimore, MD

Boston, MA–NH–RI

Charlotte, NC–SC

Chicago, IL–IN

Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN

Cleveland, OH

Columbus, OH

Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX

Denver–Aurora, CO

Detroit, MI

Houston, TX

Indianapolis, IN

Jacksonville, FL

Kansas City, MO–KS

Las Vegas–Henderson, NV

Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA

Memphis, TN–MS–AR

Miami, FL

2012

651

0.03

279

0.03

178

0.01

815

0.03

103

0.01

1,763

0.04

143

0.02

159

0.02

146

0.02

763

0.03

233

0.02

184

0.01

736

0.03

120

0.01

0.02

0.01

121

0.01

960

0.02

0.01

430

0.01

2013

1,707

0.07

471

0.06

542

0.04

2,658

0.11

267

0.04

6,451

0.14

172

0.02

205

0.02

193

0.02

1,901

0.07

742

0.05

372

0.02

1,007

0.04

299

0.03

126

0.02

156

0.02

168

0.02

4,708

0.08

0.01

572

0.02

2014

9,348

0.36

4,956

0.57

3,675

0.29

15,144

0.59

1,873

0.24

24,960

0.52

993

0.11

962

0.10

1,292

0.15

8,550

0.28

4,280

0.28

2,301

0.12

6,183

0.21

1,927

0.21

784

0.13

955

0.11

1,121

0.11

32,307

0.51

448

0.08

10,109

0.33

2015

33,793

1.25

18,656

2.05

16,295

1.27

33,393

1.29

6,817

0.85

73,081

1.51

5,103

0.53

6,056

0.60

5,925

0.68

28,558

0.92

13,550

0.87

10,185

0.51

18,507

0.63

6,898

0.75

3,602

0.56

3,686

0.40

8,394

0.80

102,960

1.58

1,925

0.33

47,592

1.51

2016

66,581

2.40

18,644

1.99

24,159

1.87

48,239

1.84

13,822

1.67

114,865

2.37

9,676

1.00

12,213

1.21

12,414

1.41

52,406

1.65

26,211

1.65

17,254

0.85

35,663

1.21

11,669

1.24

8,659

1.31

7,636

0.81

28,869

2.64

162,396

2.46

5,266

0.90

87,169

2.71

Any O.P.E. Work, by Major Metro Area (Con’t)

Milwaukee, WI

Minneapolis–St. Paul, MN–WI

New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT

Orlando, FL

Philadelphia, PA–NJ–DE–MD

Phoenix–Mesa, AZ

Pittsburgh, PA

Portland, OR–WA

Providence, RI–MA

Riverside–San Bernardino, CA

Sacramento, CA

Salt Lake City–West Valley City, UT

San Antonio, TX

San Diego, CA

San Francisco–Oakland, CA

San Jose, CA

San Juan, PR

Seattle, WA

St. Louis, MO–IL

Tampa–St. Petersburg, FL

Virginia Beach, VA

Washington, DC–VA–MD

2012

0.01

190

0.01

1,440

0.01

148

0.02

391

0.01

359

0.02

102

0.01

151

0.01

105

0.01

189

0.02

324

0.02

1,145

0.06

220

0.02

615

0.03

184

0.02

172

0.01

911

0.03

2013

0.01

520

0.03

5,650

0.06

211

0.02

645

0.02

783

0.04

122

0.01

213

0.02

0.01

135

0.01

298

0.03

0.01

338

0.03

1,097

0.07

5,152

0.27

824

0.09

1,655

0.09

247

0.02

279

0.02

105

0.01

4,137

0.15

2014

862

0.11

2,770

0.16

30,656

0.30

2,076

0.23

3,070

0.10

4,781

0.25

1,587

0.16

688

0.06

952

0.14

1,211

0.13

1,743

0.19

445

0.08

1,571

0.15

6,736

0.41

18,987

0.97

4,370

0.46

5,608

0.30

358

0.03

2,062

0.15

683

0.08

18,476

0.64

2015

4,462

0.57

8,320

0.48

76,662

0.73

10,328

1.10

22,813

0.74

15,144

0.76

6,874

0.68

6,001

0.54

4,323

0.64

4,896

0.49

7,374

0.79

1,935

0.33

5,042

0.48

21,104

1.25

44,236

2.21

13,285

1.35

0.01

14,118

0.73

2,667

0.22

11,090

0.80

4,772

0.58

47,752

1.63

2016

7,430

0.94

16,532

0.94

138,114

1.30

22,370

2.32

52,412

1.69

32,686

1.59

12,516

1.24

13,755

1.22

7,746

1.13

10,251

1.00

17,510

1.81

5,316

0.90

16,186

1.50

34,564

2.03

59,093

2.91

20,841

2.09

166

0.03

24,966

1.26

8,778

0.70

27,490

1.91

11,111

1.34

73,171

2.48

Note Italics denotes share of tax workforce. See notes for Table 1. Counts

less than 50 persons are suppressed.

References

Abraham, K., J. Haltiwanger, K. Sandusky, and J. Spletzer (2018a): “Driving the

Gig Economy,” .

(2018b): “Measuring the gig economy: Current knowledge and open issues,” NBER

Working Papers #24950.

Bernhardt, A., R. Batt, S. Houseman, and E. Appelbaum (2016): “Domestic Outsourcing in the United States: A Research Agenda to Assess Trends and Effects on Job Quality,”

Upjohn Institute Working Papers.

Bracha, A., and M. Burke (2018): “How Big is the Gig?,” Working Paper.

Bruckner, C. (2016): “Shortchanged: The Tax Compliance Challenges of Small Business

Operators Driving the On-Demand Platform Economy,” Kogod Tax Policy Center.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018a): “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements - May 2017,” .

(2018b): “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements Technical Note,”

Available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/conemp.tn.htm.

Chetty, R., J. N. Friedman, and E. Saez (2013): “Using Differences in Knowledge across

Neighborhoods to Uncover the Impacts of the EITC on Earnings,” American Economic Review, 103(7), 2683–2721.

Farrell, D., and F. Greig (2016a): “The Online Platform Economy: Has Growth Peaked?,”

JPMorgan Chase Institute.

(2016b): “Paychecks, Paydays, and the Online Platform Economy,” JPMorgan Chase

Institute.

Farrell, D., F. Greig, and A. Hamoudi (2018): “The Online Platform Economy in 2018:

Drivers, Workers, Sellers, and Lessors,” J.P. Morgan Chase Institute.

Gallup (2018): “Gallup’s Perspective on The Gig Economy and Alternative Work Arrangements,” Discussion paper.

Hall, J., and A. Krueger (2015): “An Analysis of the Labor Market for Uber’s DriverPartners in the United States,” ILR Review, 71(3), 705–732.

Harris, S., and A. Krueger (2015): “A Proposal for Modernizing Labor Laws for TwentyFirst-Century Work: The “Independent Worker”,” The Hamilton Project Discussion Paper

2015-10.

Intelligence, E. (2018): “Freelancing in America: 2018, Commissioned by Upwork and Freelancers Union,” Discussion paper.

Jackson, E., A. Looney, and S. Ramnath (2017): “The Rise of Alternative Work Arrangements: Evidence and Implications for Tax Filing and Benefit Coverage,” Office of Tax

Analysis Working Paper 114.

Katz, L., and A. Krueger (2019a): “The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements

in the United States, 1995-2015,” ILR Review, 72(2), 382–416.

(2019b): “Understanding Trends in Alternative Work Arrangements in the United

States,” NBER Working Papers #25425.

Koustas, D. (2018): “Consumption Insurance and Multiple Jobs: Evidence from Rideshare

Drivers,” Working Paper.

(2019): “What Do Big Data Tell Us About Why People Take Gig Economy Jobs?,”

AEA Papers and Proceedings, 109.

Mortenson, J., and A. Whitten (2018): “Bunching to Maximize Tax Credits: Evidence

from Kinks in the U.S. Tax Schedule,” SSRN Working Paper.

Ramnath, S., J. Shoven, and S. N. Slavov (2017): “Pathways to Retirement Through

Self-Employment,” NBER Working Paper #23551.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.