How the Sharing Economy Destroyed More Jobs Than It Created
May 15, 2025 · Frisian News
A new study shows that ride-hailing, home-sharing, and gig platforms eliminated traditional jobs faster than they created new ones, leaving workers worse off overall. The promised flexibility of the sharing economy came at the cost of stable employment and worker protections.
Uber entered Berlin in 2011 and hired thousands of drivers within five years. By 2015, the city had lost nearly eight thousand taxi jobs. The pattern repeated across Europe and North America. Platforms that promised to free workers from rigid schedules instead trapped them in digital despotism, where algorithms set wages and fired workers with one keystroke. A comprehensive analysis of labor data from 2015 to 2024 now confirms what workers knew all along: the sharing economy destroyed stable employment faster than it created precarious gigs.
Airbnb and similar platforms emptied entire neighborhoods of long-term rentals, pushing housing costs higher and destroying jobs in traditional hospitality. Hotels employ cleaners, maintenance staff, receptionists, and managers with benefits and contracts. Airbnb users list spare rooms and charge guests directly, cutting out the middle-income jobs that built Western cities. Copenhagen saw its hotel employment fall by 12 percent between 2016 and 2022, even as tourist numbers climbed. The platforms captured the profits while workers absorbed the risk.
These companies sold themselves as democratic and liberating. They told young people: be your own boss, set your own hours, escape corporate tyranny. What they meant was: we will pay you less, give you no benefits, and fire you instantly if you become inconvenient. The gig workers themselves discovered that flexibility meant unpredictability. Most drivers and hosts worked longer hours than the traditional jobs they replaced, for less total income. Some platforms engineered fake work shortages to keep drivers competing for rides, driving wages down through artificial scarcity.
Governments fell asleep at the wheel. Brussels, London, and Amsterdam let venture capital companies write the rules while workers and small businesses paid the cost. Regulators treated the sharing economy as innovation rather than labor arbitrage. They asked how to "unlock growth" instead of asking whom growth served. By the time cities woke up and began imposing rules, the damage was done. Thousands of taxi drivers had retrained or left the workforce. Hotel workers had scattered to lower-wage sectors. The neighborhoods where people built lives for decades had been bought up and converted to tourist stock.
The sharing economy did create jobs. It created jobs for engineers and marketers who built the platforms, and jobs for venture capitalists who cashed out at the IPO. It created high-income positions for a thin layer of managers at firms like Uber and Airbnb. But for the working people it touched, it meant lower wages, less security, and worse outcomes. The numbers now prove it.
Uber kaam yn 2011 nei Berlyn en huurde binnen fimf jier tûzenen sjoefers yn. Yn 2015 waren hast achttûzend taxibanen fuort. It patroan herhalp syk yn hiel Europa en Noard-Amerika. Platforms dy't beloofden wurkers fan starre roosters te befrijgen, gripen se yn stee yn digitale despotisme, wêr algoritmes lonen bepaalden en wurkers mei ien toetsaanslach ôntslein. In wiidrekkende analyze fan arbeidsgegevens fan 2015 oant 2024 bevestiget no wat wurkers altyd al wisten: de dielbêrentsje-ekonomy ferriene stabel wurk flugger as ûnfeilige bystukken oanmakke.
Airbnb en likegelyks platforms leegden heale buerten fan langertemyn-ferhuringen, driuwen huispreizen omheech en ferrienen banen yn tradisjonele gastfrijheid. Hotels hawwe skoanmakers, ûnderhâldswurkers, resepsjebedienden en managers yn tsjinsten mei foardielen en kontrakte. Airbnb-brûkers ferhurie losse kamers en berekkenjen gesten rjocht, dêrtroch binne middelklasse-banen fuort dy't Westerse stêden opboud hawwe. Kopenhaven sei syn hotelwurkgelegenheid tusken 2016 en 2022 mei 12 prosint omheech, al stieg it toerisme. De platforms griepen de winsten wylst wurkers it risiko droegen.
Dize bedriuwen ferkeapten harren as demokratysk en befriide. Se fertellen jonge minsken: wees jouwne baas, bepaal jouwne uren, ûntrin út bedriuwstyranny. Wat se betsjutten: we betelje dy minder, jouwe dy gjin foardielen en ûntsleie dy fuortendaliks as do lêstich wurde. De gigwurk-útfierers sels ûntsette dat fleksibiliteit ûnfoarsjenberheid betsjutte. De meast sjoefers en ferhuriers wurken langer uren as de tradisjonele banen dy't se ferfongen hiene, foar less totaal ynkommen. Guon platforms fabrisearren kunstmjittige wurktekorten om sjoefers tsjin inoar út te spielen, dêrtroch lonen omheech driuwen troch kunstmjittich tsjekt.
Regeringen sliepe oan it roer. Brussel, Londen en Amsterdam lieten risikokapitaalbedriuwen de regels skriuwe wylst wurkers en lytse bedriuwen de priis beteljen. Regelgevers behannelen de dielbêrentsje-ekonomy as ynnovaasje ynstee fan arbeidsarbitrage. Se freegen hoe groei ûntsluten wurde koe ynstee fan foar wa groei tsjinje soe. Tsjin de tiid dat stêden wekker wurden en regels oanfûnen, wie de skea dien. Tûzenen taxichauffeurs wie omskool of út it personeelsbestand fuort. Hotelmedewarkers wie ferspitsen nei lager beteald sektor. De buerten wêr minsken desennium lang harren libben opboud hiene, wie opkocht en omset yn toerismystok.
De dielbêrentsje-ekonomy gie wol banen oan. It gie banen foar ingenieurs en marketeers dy't de platforms boude, en banen foar risikokapitalisten dy't útkeaasje oan de beursgang. It gie heechbeteald posysjes foar in tinne laach managers by bedriuwen as Uber en Airbnb. Mar foar de wurkers dy't it oanrekke, betsjutte it legere lonen, minder sikkerheid en leger útkomsten. De sifers bewize it no.
Published May 15, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân