Gig economy workers and Amazon staff are increasingly dependent on food stamps and Medicaid, says federal report

midian182

Posts: 11,762   +179
Staff member
In a nutshell: Working at Amazon or being part of the gig economy certainly isn't fun. According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), it's these jobs that have seen the number of people relying on food stamps and Medicaid explode over the last five years.

The GAO report, which was commissioned by Senator Bernie Sanders, shows that the number of Amazon workers relying on food stamps and Medicaid tripled between the start of the Covid pandemic in February 2020 and September 2025.

It's an equally depressing situation for Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, GrubHub, and Instacart drivers. App-based food delivery and ride-hailing platforms are the number one category of work in which employees receive food stamps. Gig economy drivers also rank third when it comes to Medicaid representation. Five years ago, the category barely registered in the GAO's data.

Walmart topped both lists in 2020 and remains the company with the most employees using Medicaid, but while its share of beneficiaries has increased only slightly over the years, Amazon's has exploded.

The report included some findings about working adults who use these programs, taking data from the census and employment information from 11 states. It found that about two-thirds worked full time, most worked for private sector employers, and workers were largely in transportation, restaurants and food prep, and retail sales jobs. It was also noted that Some employers in selected states had thousands of beneficiaries on their payrolls.

The report also discovered that about 13.8 million working Americans in these states – Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington – were enrolled in Medicaid in 2024, up from 12 million in 2020, despite many working full time. There were also 10.6 million workers who relied on SNAP for groceries, up from 9 million in 2020.

Sanders says that taxpayers are subsidizing the starvation wages of large corporations like Walmart and Amazon, while the companies themselves are paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages and spending billions of dollars on stock buybacks to enrich their wealthy shareholders.

Amazon argues that the report is misleading as it looks at numbers rather than percentages, suggesting Amazon ranks high because it has so many employees. It also said that because Amazon is one of several employers that make part-time work an option, more of its workers might be eligible for Medicaid and SNAP.

DoorDash pointed to an in-house survey that found a third of workers said they did deliveries to avoid signing up for government benefits. Meanwhile, gig worker industry group Flex sang the praises of the industry and said many workers who might otherwise rely on government benefits can "turn to flexible work to bridge the gap."

Gig work might offer flexibility, but many workers pay for it through low wages, limited benefits, and financial insecurity. An Economic Policy Institute analysis found that 29% of those in the industry earned less than their state's minimum wage, while 14% made less than the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. Almost one in five said they had gone hungry because they could not afford enough food, and 31% had been unable to pay their utility bills in full during the previous month.

Gig workers also lack many of the protections associated with conventional employment. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed that only 19.9% of contingent workers received employer-provided health insurance, compared with 51.2% of non-contingent workers. Platform work can bring physical risks, too: a Pew Research Center survey found that 35% of workers had felt unsafe while doing a job, while 19% reported experiencing an unwanted sexual advance.

Permalink to story:

 
"Amazon argues that the report is misleading as it looks at numbers rather than percentages, suggesting Amazon ranks high because it has so many employees. It also said that because Amazon is one of several employers that make part-time work an option, more of its workers might be eligible for Medicaid and SNAP."

I am one of the last people who is normally going to defend the business practices of companies like Amazon, but this point *is* valid. The data should be given in percentages of full-time and part-time workers, and not absolute numbers.

That being said, I'm fairly confident the data would look just as bad when the data is provided that way. But the point *is* valid.
 
This whole article feels like it's trying to tell me how to feel about something, rather than giving well researched facts and letting the reader decide how they feel about it.

I don't think it's fair to blame just Amazon or just Walmart for increasing poverty and the cost of everything increasing significantly. There is plenty of places to spread the blame from public education not preparing anyone for the job market, the federal minimum wage not increasing since 2009 and to oligarchs whose allowances as a child were well above minimum wage now running the government.

I believe there is too much money at the top especially for CEOs who aren't impacted if they make mistakes that leads to massive layoffs, but I also don't think it's fair to blame just one group of people for all the problems that have led to many people living in poverty.
 
I always thought these types of jobs were to supplement income, not BE the income. Anyone with a few working brain cells could do the math and see these are not the types of jobs that make a person financially secure.
 
I worked as a freelancer/independent contractor for the past five years: the lack of peace of mind was considerable, not to mention earning poorly and having no protections. Out of work now and trying to get into another field, such as the civil service or back into libraries. To be honest, if there were some space programme to leave Earth as an experiment for ever, I would go tomorrow, though love and family obligations hold me here.
 
I always thought these types of jobs were to supplement income, not BE the income. Anyone with a few working brain cells could do the math and see these are not the types of jobs that make a person financially secure.
Before Obamacare employers were offering benefits to part-time workers. Afterwards only full time workers only got benefits. Before 911 you can survive on part time job, after 911 and Government hyperspending push for higher and higher minimum wage you can't survive with one part time job, because the inflation rate is higher than wage increase. Covid also made conditions worse. Both parties run on affordability but never reach it because that would make people stop voting for them. Affordability can be reached by less spending, less bureaucracy, less taxes.
Eg. Mandummy wants to raise property tax but freeze rent. This spells disaster for quality of rentals, more scarcity, and the landlord can't survive from raising taxes without raising rent. Root cause analysis of unaffordability is government intervention.
Also Amazon supports the $15 minimum wage per hour so claiming they are paying workers below minimum wage doesn't add up. I guess if you factor in taxes thd net is below that. 🙄
 
Last edited:
As long as the government allows companies to get away from providing benefits, those gig workers will continue to depend on the system resources and they won't fight against these companies for benefits and better pay.

The root issue is the government turning a blind eye to the predatory business practices and economic unsustainability for their communities.
 
Last edited:
I worked as a freelancer/independent contractor for the past five years: the lack of peace of mind was considerable, not to mention earning poorly and having no protections. Out of work now and trying to get into another field, such as the civil service or back into libraries. To be honest, if there were some space programme to leave Earth as an experiment for ever, I would go tomorrow, though love and family obligations hold me here.
Trust me I get your desperation...but you gotta build yourself up. The dream of being your own boss is an illusion unless you have a ton of money to sustain you. It's best to work for a fast food restaurant with benefits than to be "independent" and having nothing to watch your back.
 
Last edited:
As long as the government allows gig workers get away from paying taxes by adding everything to "expenses" they won't fight against these predatory companies for benefits and better pay.

The root issue is the government turning a blind eye to the predatory business practices and economic unsustainability for their communities.
The government has a conflict of interest.1000070990.jpg
 
This whole article feels like it's trying to tell me how to feel about something, rather than giving well researched facts and letting the reader decide how they feel about it.

I don't think it's fair to blame just Amazon or just Walmart for increasing poverty and the cost of everything increasing significantly. There is plenty of places to spread the blame from public education not preparing anyone for the job market, the federal minimum wage not increasing since 2009 and to oligarchs whose allowances as a child were well above minimum wage now running the government.

I believe there is too much money at the top especially for CEOs who aren't impacted if they make mistakes that leads to massive layoffs, but I also don't think it's fair to blame just one group of people for all the problems that have led to many people living in poverty.
Here's the root problem: The economy grows when consumers spend money. But since the mid-1970s (coincidentally, about the time the US abandoned Kynes economics), a lower share of the wealth has been held by said consumers. So, the US has to subsidize (either directly or through tax incentives) large swaths of the economy so people can afford to spend money, thus racking up massive piles of debt to keep the engine running.

Thing is, doing this also, from a market perspective, justifies higher prices, so prices continue to go up, requiring ever more subsidization to keep the economy chugging. See the issue?

What we're seeing now is the front-end of the breaking point where consumers simply can not keep up with it all. The next recession could very well be a 1929/1837 style economic collapse, because I don't see how the US can afford the jumpstart the economy whenever it decides to go bust.
 
Gig work bothers me because it gives people hope, but the numbers will never be on their side. They exist to be a cheaper option (for everyone except the customer and the worker). The results reflect this. The fees reflect this. To each their own, but I cannot overstate the importance of developing skills to get yourself out of this spot if at all possible.
 
I always thought these types of jobs were to supplement income, not BE the income. Anyone with a few working brain cells could do the math and see these are not the types of jobs that make a person financially secure.
The problem is for people who can't afford college, where else are they going to go? There's really no significant unskilled jobs yet, at least none that will hire people lacking any form of resume.
 
The government has a conflict of interest.View attachment 90930
The question is why the Democrats voted against it...that's the answer the White House is not telling you since the Bill excluded the president from keep trading (crazy, I know) also had strings attached that will affect voters for the mid terms....if you are going to be political please put all the facts on display.
 
Last edited:
Only if the states of California, Texas, Illinois and Florida would come together to demand Gig companies to provide benefits to their workers, only then the situation would better for everyone not live off the system.

This is not the gig workers fault but the government of the biggest states for not looking out for the workers neither the tax payer which money is coming from to sustain their needs.

But sadly Republicans states would never agree to that.
 
Trust me I get your desperation...but you gotta build yourself up. The dream of being your own boss is an illusion unless you have a ton of money to sustain you. It's best to work for a fast food restaurant with benefits than to be "independent" and having nothing to watch your back.
Yes, it's not worth it, and one pays for the flexibility dearly. In the end, one is cast aside as if one were nothing.
 
Yes, it's not worth it, and one pays for the flexibility dearly. In the end, one is cast aside as if one were nothing.
I did the gig work back when Amazon Flex was paying $40.00 per hour...but my car paid the consequences and I understood that no matter the money is worth the Gig work since it will always go against you.
 
US was the only country in the world cup without some sort of universal healthcare.

A quick note on the part timers. Depending on state, part time can be classified by as much as 39 hours a week. I think the lowest in the US is 34. If people go from part time to full time it's often only the difference of a few hours a week and the loss of likely over 10s of thousands of dollars in benefits. They will not be able to afford those benefits with the few extra hours the get a week. It's a stretegic decision for many. Also, the types of plans that these companies have are also garbage. The company I work for contracts with 1 company to provide benefits. All the plans are garbage even the "gold" plan, I can only imagine amazon the HMO plans the low earning full time amazon employees have access to and probably can't even use because the copays are to high.

Just a note on the poverty level of the employees at Amazon, even full timers can't meet the 30% requirement to afford housing in the US.
 
The question is why the Democrats voted against it...that's the answer the White House is not telling you since the Bill excluded the president from keep trading (crazy, I know) also had strings attached that will affect voters for the mid terms....if you are going to be political please put all the facts on display.
As long as we know both sides have a conflict of interest.
 
The government has a conflict of interest.View attachment 90930
Do you know why? Might want to read what the republicans added to the bill that has nothing to do with stock trading. They did it so they could use this talking point and you just fell for it hook and sinker.

If the bill only banned stock trading, it would pass with flying colors. Massie already pointed out the massive hypocrisy from repubs on this.
 
I don't think it's fair to blame just Amazon or just Walmart for increasing poverty and the cost of everything increasing significantly.
The article leaves off the fact that the use of food stamps and Medicaid among the general population at large has grown exponentially over the last few decades, in large part because of simple fraud, as well as the relaxation of requirements:

Snapbenefits.jpg
 
Lets not forget Seattle already tried this experiment and it failed miserably. You have that feel good moment until it goes sour. Gig workers ended up not getting any increase in pay because people stopped using the delivery services like Door Dash and Uber.

We never show the bigger picture of what's going on. We focus on one thing and say, that's the problem. Instead of just looking at people not getting paid enough, how about we look at people's finances and how they're spending their money. You can make all the money in the world and still be broke because of your spending habits. Spending $10 for a latte at Starbucks's 5 times a week is a want, not a need. Having a $1,000 car payment for a new car that you can't afford because you want to show off to your neighbors and friends just shows your financial illiteracy.
 
Back