Freelancers Are Getting Ruined by AI
At one time, freelancing was seen as the domain of plucky young writers and daring web designers. Now, it's a growing fact of life for billions of workers around the world, as companies break up full-time positions into contract work with less stability and protection by labor laws.
That was already becoming the case back in 2009, when the fallout of the Great Recession forced thousands of out-of-work professionals to become freelancers to pay the bills.
Jump ahead to 2024, when over 76 million Americans were said to be freelance workers, up from 64 million in 2023. That's over 36 percent of the workforce, a number that's expected to grow to over 50 percent by 2028, primarily driven by cost-cutting hiring practices.
Though Wall Street-backed think tanks and Fortune 500 companies laud freelance as the "future of work," labor experts warn that self-employment is a dangerous precedent that allows companies to shirk labor laws and keep worker benefits at a minimum.
While rosy think pieces would have you believe workers and employers alike prefer these types of "flexible" arrangements, they are increasingly becoming the only choice for many who would prefer full-time work, to the benefit of a select few.
Involuntary freelance is hard enough. But a recent study by researchers at Washington University and NYU's Stern School of Business highlights a new hardship facing freelancers: the proliferation of artificial intelligence. Though the official spin has been that AI will automate "unskilled," repetitive jobs so humans can explore more thoughtful work, that's not shaping up to be the case.
The research finds that "for every 1 percent increase in a freelancer's past earnings, they experience an additional .5 percent drop in job opportunities and a 1.7 percent decrease in monthly income following the introduction of AI technologies." In short: if today's AI is any indication, tomorrow's AI is going to flatten just as many high-skilled jobs as it will low-skilled.
It's compelling evidence that big tech's endless push toward an AI-powered future will continue to be a one-way street in our current labor environment.
Though AI is far from offering the kind of liberation tech moguls have been promising for years, it's nonetheless already being used to siphon money away from workers for the profit of those who own the companies.
The research hammers home the fact that AI isn't a cure-all for the problems with today's job market, and that anyone who tells you otherwise is either duped by big tech's enormous promises, or was in on the game from the start.
Whether freelance or full time, control of AI will ultimately fall to those who rule the current labor environment — but it doesn't have to. A handful of well-organized unions are pushing back against this grim future, asserting their right to quality work in the face of the enshittification of labor.
In October of last year, for example, a militant dockworker strike delayed the automation of America's ports, a development which would have destroyed thousands of well-paying jobs. Earlier in April, hundreds of members of the California Nurses Association successfully stopped slapdash AI tech from being rushed out by hospital administration.
At Boston University, striking graduate students and faculty with the Service Employees International Union Local 509 forced the administration to backtrack after suggesting AI could do the instructors' work while they organized for better working conditions.
It's not all going to be easy, especially for contract and freelance workers. But it's clear that the AI dystopia is already upon us, actively making conditions worse for workers right now. The only question left is, what will we do about it?
More on AI and labor: Y Combinator Pulls Support for AI Startup After Video of Boss Barking at Human Worker, Calling Him "Number 17"
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump bill pledges $1,000 contribution for babies. How much would that be in Tennessee?
Another addition to the President Donald Trump's tax bill is a program to provide financial support for children born in the United States. The program would create the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement program, or MAGA accounts. Through the program, there would be a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government to the child, and parents, churches, or private foundations are also eligible to contribute financially to the account. House Republicans changed the name of the program from "MAGA accounts" to "Trump accounts" before the bill's passage last month, offering the president a tangible benefit for working-class Americans that he can put his stamp on. Here is what current and future parents can expect from the program. The program for American children born during Trump's current term would involve a one-time contribution of $1,000 per toddler from the federal government into a mutual fund or index fund tied to the performance of the stock market. The legislation touts the program as "a new kind of savings account designed to incentivize education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership while promoting financial security." The accounts are eligible to all future children born and all children under the age of eight by the time Jan. 1, 2026, rolls around. The bill also allows parents, churches, and private foundations to make contributions of up to $5,000 annually during childhood, which the child can access upon turning 18 to pay for education, training, or a first-time home purchase. Contributions to these accounts from tax-exempt entities, like private foundations, are not subject to the annual $5,000 limit but must be provided to all children within a qualified group, such as all children in a state, a school district, or an educational institution. The full balance would be available at age 30. CEOs of several large corporations said they would make billions of dollars in additional investments into accounts for the children of their employees. Dell Technologies, Salesforce, Uber, and Goldman Sachs were among the companies the White House said would participate. According to the University of Tennessee's data center, there were 83,742 live births in Tennessee in 2024. This was the highest number of children born since 2008, when 85,560 babies were born. The program pertains to children under eight years old as of Jan. 1, 2026. There were 489,884 live births in Tennessee between 2019 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. Taking into account the rising birth rates, a low estimate for 2025's live births would be 83,000, which would increase the total children eligible to 572,884. This would amount to $572,884,000 for Tennessee alone, assuming every child eligible is signed up for the program. In 2023, Tennessee had a fertility rate of 58.9 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is the 14th highest fertility rate in the country. This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Trump bill sets up cash accounts for kids. How much would TN get?
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ahead of Tesla robotaxi launch, residents in one Austin neighborhood say Model Ys—with drivers—are circling their blocks over and over
Christian Pfister, a 68-year-old retiree, walks his Great Pyrenees, Wally, each morning on the street in his quiet neighborhood—a compilation of old oak tree-lined streets for single-family homes, duplexes, and apartments in southeast Austin where he's been living the last 26 years. It was about three weeks ago, on one of these morning strolls, that he spotted a white Tesla Y with a Texas manufacturer plate drive by, with a dark-colored Tesla closely trailing behind it. He watched as the Tesla tandem conducted a left turn at a street up ahead of him, disappeared around the block for half a mile, then drove by him again—once, then twice, then again and again. 'That's all they did—around the same block over and over and over, all day long,' Pfister says in an interview. Since Pfister's spotting of the vehicles a few weeks ago, a handful of white Teslas (and some black and gray Teslas too) have frequented the streets of Pfister's small neighborhood, driving the same routes and taking the same turns repeatedly—typically with drivers in the front seat, though two residents in the neighborhood that Fortune interviewed say they have seen some driverless vehicles with someone in the passenger seat. Another resident saw Teslas without anyone in them at all on multiple occasions. Tesla is testing the vehicles in the neighborhood as it gears up for a long-anticipated launch of its self-driving taxi service in Austin by the end of this month. The EV company, which has been working on autonomous technology for more than a decade now, has said it is finally ready to go up against robotaxi competitors like Alphabet, whose subsidiary Waymo has already offered 10 million paid rides and is operating in four cities and planning to launch soon in several more. Elon Musk has assured investors that Tesla's robotaxi service, which will initially start small with 10 to 20 vehicles, will expand to several other cities before the end of the year. But it all will start in Austin—and specifically in this small neighborhood—as Tesla proves its concept and irons out any kinks. When the sightings of Tesla's robotaxis began a few weeks ago, they raised alarm among some of the people who lived in the neighborhood. A couple of residents took to the community messaging platform Nextdoor to query their neighbors as to why white Teslas—with drivers—were parking in front of their houses for long stretches of time. 'It's freaking me out,' one woman posted. Anastasia Maren, 24, who moved into the neighborhood last month, said she has seen Teslas drive by or park in front of her duplex repeatedly since she moved in, particularly when she is going on walks. 'They stare you down as if you're in their way, or you're the one who shouldn't be here,' Maren says of the drivers. She says that, while she has sometimes seen the vehicles driving around with only someone in the passenger seat—she often sees a person in the driver's seat controlling the vehicles. 'Sometimes I can see the person actually turning the wheel,' she says. A 37-year-old Austin resident, Robert Yeats, who lives in an apartment complex further north in the neighborhood than Maren and Pfister, says he sees white Teslas line up in front of his apartment, parked and with their hazard lights on, often in groups of about four. In some cases, the Teslas were parked in the middle of the road with their hazard lights on, forcing other drivers to go around them. According to one resident, the tests have occurred as late as 10pm. None of the residents Fortune spoke to said they had received any notice or information from Tesla about the testing in their neighborhood. Austin residents are used to seeing self-driving vehicles around town. Waymo's cars started mapping the city in 2023 with safety drivers on-board, and has since begun offering passenger service around the city without safety drivers in the vehicles. Pfister told Fortune he has seen Waymos parked overnight in front of empty lots in the same neighborhood. A few years ago, Cruise had released robotaxis on the streets of Austin, back before parent company General Motors stopped all rides, and later shut down the ride-hail service, after a high-profile accident in San Francisco. But the Tesla sightings add to the questions that many industry observers have about the viability of the company's technology and approach to autonomous driving. While other autonomous vehicle companies have needed to digitally map roads and neighborhoods before launch, Tesla claims that its camera-only system doesn't require high-definition mapping, radar, or lidar technology. According to the company, its approach to autonomous driving is less expensive and more adaptable than the competition: instead of mapping an area for months, Tesla cars can figure out the terrain wherever they are. But if that's the case, why are Teslas driving around the same streets of one neighborhood over and over—and why do many of the vehicles have someone driving them? 'I thought, well, maybe they're just in the driver's seat, so that if something goes wrong, they can grab the steering wheel. But they are actually driving the car,' Pfister says, noting that he has seen the drivers with their hands on the steering wheel. 'They are actually driving the car, so it's not driverless. I don't really understand.' Tesla did not respond to a request for comment. Tesla has also conducted testing in at least two other locations in Texas. There was a scheduled testing with emergency vehicles in a separate isolated street in Austin, as Fortune earlier reported. Tesla also did testing at a training facility in Florence, Tex. with the Texas Department of Public Safety's crash reconstruction team. During that event, state agencies set up scenarios for Tesla's robotaxis to operate, so that the company could collect information about how to respond to various encounters with emergency personnel and equipment, such as crash scenes or flashing lights and sirens, according to a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Public Safety. But it's along a few blocks of the neighborhood in Southeast Austin where Tesla has been conducting its regular, real-world testing in the weeks before launch. There's a Tesla Supercharger station just across a busy street—the only station for about two miles—as well as a Tesla collision center less than two miles down the road. The neighborhood itself features quiet streets, though Teslas will have to cross a busy road to get to the charging station. There aren't sidewalks on the residential streets, so residents walk their dogs or push strollers on the street itself—giving the cars an opportunity to operate with obstacles in a controlled environment. The three residents tell Fortune that the cars appear to operate at speeds no greater than 25 miles-per-hour. Tesla is nearing the end of the June deadline that Musk set for launch—with just three weeks until the end of the month. A Bloomberg report had suggested the company was aiming for a June 12 launch. But as of Tuesday, June 10, several important pre-launch checklist items appeared to be outstanding. Tesla had provided drafts, but not finalized emergency responder guides, nor had it conducted emergency responder trainings to the Austin Transportation and Works Department of the Austin Fire Department as of Tuesday, the agencies told Fortune. As Fortune earlier reported, the EV maker told city employees those items would be furnished before the company launches service. This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' good for US consumers?
The bond market is sending Washington an unmistakable message: The U.S. budget deficit is a problem we can no longer ignore. Yet, the GOP budget bill seems to do precisely that. If the ballooning debt persists, long-term interest rates will stay elevated and could continue to rise. While politicians celebrate tax cuts, bond investors, the people and institutions lending money to the U.S. government, are far less enthusiastic. They're demanding higher returns to make U.S. debt attractive: The 30-year Treasury yield briefly surged past 5% in May. This milestone hasn't been reached since 2007, with the exception of a quick spike in 2023, when high inflation sent the entire yield curve higher (the 10-year yield also breached 5% during that period). With the 10-year yield hovering around 4.4% today, the spread between the 30-year yield and 10-year yield is near 0.5%—much higher than it was in 2023—implying the market is pricing in significant risks for the very long term. Range says these aren't just fleeting worries; they reflect deep-seated concerns about long-term inflation risks, fiscal sustainability, and the future value of long-dated dollar assets. We've always believed credit markets can be a more reliable economic indicator than equity markets. During the tariff uncertainty earlier this year, credit spreads barely widened while equity markets gyrated wildly. The credit markets called it right when they didn't overreact to tariffs, unlike equities. They remained stable in a time when other market indicators did not. But now those same credit markets that rarely overreact are flashing warning signals about something far more fundamental: our deficit spending. The new budget bill includes several pieces of popular legislation, such as extending tax cuts, eliminating taxes on tips, and pre-funded tax-advantaged savings accounts for newborns. But this bill in its current form is also projected to add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The response from bond investors has been unforgiving, reflected in rising long-term interest rates: 30-year yields were up 18 basis points in May, more than 22 times the average monthly change over the past year. Here's what this means for actual Americans trying to buy homes or fund their businesses: Mortgage rates are climbing: The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hovered close to 7% in May, peaking at 7.02% on May 27, up from 6.62% in mid-April. Anyone waiting for rates to come down is facing an uncomfortable reality—deficit concerns are keeping them elevated. Corporate borrowing gets expensive: When the government needs to issue more debt to fund spending, it crowds out private borrowers. As debt becomes more expensive thanks to an oversupply from the government, companies find it harder and more expensive to access capital, which slows hiring and economic growth. The Fed can't save you: The Federal Reserve controls short-term rates, but long-term rates are set by market forces. Even if anticipated Fed rate cuts materialize in the second half of 2025, the combination of the tax bill and uncertainty “sets the stage for a higher term premium,“ according to the Institute of International Finance. This means rates on mortgages, auto loans and student debt, may stay elevated even as the Fed cuts. Let's walk through the mechanics of how this gets ugly: When deficit spending rises (the government spends more than it makes), the Treasury must issue more debt to fund operations. More supply of bonds means investors demand higher interest rates (yields) to absorb all that debt. Higher yields make the debt more expensive to service, which requires ... more borrowing to pay the interest. Eventually, this forces painful choices: Either slash spending (austerity that nobody wants, similar to what countries like Greece and Italy went through after the Great Financial Crisis), or have the Fed step in to buy bonds with printed money. That second option leads to currency debasement and persistent inflation—exactly what we saw in the 1970s, dubbed 'The Lost Decade' for U.S. markets. Back then, Fed Chair Arthur Burns caved to political pressure from Nixon to lower rates despite rising deficits and increasing inflation. The result? A lost decade where equity markets went nowhere, the dollar was significantly devalued, inflation spiraled out of control, and American consumers watched their purchasing power erode year after year. What made it particularly brutal was that people couldn't escape through traditional investments—stocks were flat, bonds got crushed by rising rates, and cash lost value to inflation. While today's robust economy and the Fed's strengthened independence distinguish our current situation from the 1970s, that era serves as a stark reminder of how deep economic damage can run when policymakers chase short-term political gains at the expense of lasting economic stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio would hit nearly 200% by 2055 if current tax provisions are extended, up from today's ratio of about 120%, according to the Yale Budget Lab. To put that in perspective, only Sudan and Japan currently have debt burdens that high. National debt interest payments made up the second largest spending category in the past fiscal year's Federal Budget: That's a 13% slice of the $6.9 trillion budget, with only Social Security costing more. That's right—we spent more on debt interest than on our entire Defense or Medicare budgets. Given this administration has talked explicitly about lowering long-term rates, there's hope these red flags will prompt policymakers to come together and address the rising deficit. We've done this before. In the 1990s, policymakers on both sides of the aisle worked to cut spending, strategically increase tax revenues, and implement pro-growth policies to address growing deficit concerns. The result: By FY1998, the U.S. budget was in surplus for the first time since 1969, and surpluses continued through fiscal year 2001. This tax bill, as currently written, is not a step in the right direction—while it does cut some Medicaid and food stamp spending, the potential revenue losses from its tax cuts far outweigh these savings. Now is the time for policymakers to take the deficit seriously. We're not in crisis yet—the economy is still healthy, unemployment is low, and that gives us agency: While it's always hard to cut back on spending, it becomes much more painful to do it when the economy is hurting. Acting now, from a position of strength, gives us the flexibility to make thoughtful changes rather than being forced into drastic measures later. Real deficit reduction would require the kind of politically toxic medicine that Washington has avoided for decades: fewer tax breaks, lower spending on widely used programs, or both. It's a long, uncomfortable process that involves telling voters hard truths about fiscal reality rather than promising easy wins. This environment makes diversification crucial. Not all markets face the same pressures: International exposure makes sense: Interest rates and deficits aren't rising everywhere at the same rate as we're seeing domestically. Having exposure to other markets can provide a hedge against U.S.-specific fiscal risks. Equities still have a role: The S&P 500 is a nominal asset that can perform well during inflationary periods. People get scared when they see equity markets react to hot inflation data, but over longer horizons, equities can serve as an inflation hedge. Short-term bonds look attractive: If you can stay short on duration—meaning bonds that mature in a few years rather than decades—you could earn attractive yields much higher than averages we've seen in almost two decades. If long-term interest rates continue to go up, the price of short-term bonds won't fluctuate as much, so your principal will face less risk of losing value. Tax cuts might sound appealing, but 7% mortgage rates and elevated corporate borrowing costs aren't. The credit markets are essentially telling Congress: Do better on deficit reduction, or consumers will pay the price through higher long-term interest rates. This isn't about politics—it's about mathematics. The bond market doesn't care about party affiliation; it cares about sustainable fiscal policy. Right now, the numbers don't add up, and interest rates reflect that reality. For investors and consumers, the message is clear: Prepare for a higher-rate environment that may persist longer than many expect. The easy money era is over, and fiscal discipline matters more than ever. This story was produced by Range and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
