{"id":384,"date":"2026-07-09T09:38:29","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T09:38:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384"},"modified":"2026-07-09T09:38:29","modified_gmt":"2026-07-09T09:38:29","slug":"the-dangerous-myth-of-flexibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384","title":{"rendered":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Flexibility.<\/strong> Since the emergence of the gig economy in the early 2010s and through the upheavals of the pandemic, it\u2019s something increasing numbers of Americans have experienced at work.<\/p>\n

Read more Maine Democrats Poised to Run a Lighthouse Primary for Senate<\/a><\/p>\n

Unsurprisingly, people tend to like having control over where and when they work, fitting it around their lives\u2019 schedules. At the same time, flexibility has become the lynchpin of a well-traveled myth that corporations have spun to their employees, policymakers, and the public.<\/p>\n

More from David Weil<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

While this myth doesn\u2019t survive close scrutiny, it has been incredibly effective. With artificial intelligence being explored as a replacement for many white-collar jobs, and the gig work model continuing its global expansion into new sectors like health care, information technology, staffing, hospitality, and child care, the flexibility myth now threatens the hard-won rights and protections afforded to tens of millions of working people.<\/p>\n

It goes something like this:<\/p>\n

\n

[W]e\u2019ve advocated for creating a framework that gives independent workers the benefits and protections they deserve, while preserving the flexibility they want. One that offers an alternative to traditional employment and fits the way people are increasingly choosing to work. A framework where people can choose work that fits the rhythms of their lives, not the other way around.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

These are the words of Tony West, Uber\u2019s chief legal officer, from a public letter written after Uber and Lyft reached a settlement with the Massachusetts Attorney General Office in 2024. The case turned on whether or not drivers were employees under Massachusetts employment law.<\/p>\n

I served as the lead expert witness for the Massachusetts Attorney General Office in that suit, and my task was to explain the Uber and Lyft business model to the court\u2014that is, the methods that the companies use to create sustainable profits.<\/p>\n

To fulfill this task, I had access to evidence collected through discovery by the Massachusetts Attorney General over several years. For the many academics and governments that have attempted to get an accurate picture of working conditions in the gig economy over the years, this data is something of a holy grail: Most studies of gig worker income, hours, safety, and such are built on laboriously collected surveys. The companies themselves claim these data as proprietary trade secrets and guard closely against release into the public domain.<\/p>\n

For the purposes of this article, I have not revealed anything beyond what was stated directly on the public record in my testimony during that trial, corroborated by findings of other recent studies. Many of my findings have more recently been corroborated by other academic studies and investigative reporting.<\/p>\n

After reviewing the data, I came to a very clear conclusion: Drivers don\u2019t have flexibility because they want it. They have it because it is the essential core of Uber\u2019s and Lyft\u2019s business model.<\/p>\n

This may not seem earthshaking news. But it contradicts a fundamental plank of every one of the regulatory fights that gig companies have faced over the last decade: that their workers need to be classified as independent contractors, so that they can continue to enjoy flexibility. This is the companies\u2019 narrative to the public, the basis of their recurrent threats to leave local markets when independent contractor status is challenged, and the message blasted to the cellphone of every one of their drivers in the affected area: \u201cThe government wants to take your flexibility.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the former head of the U.S. Department of Labor agency in charge of labor standards, I can assure you: There is nothing keeping any company from offering flexible work schedules to its employees and no necessary connection between independent contractor status and flexibility.<\/p>\n

Uber and Lyft would desire to keep drivers\u2019 flexibility even if the drivers became employees. In fact, this has happened elsewhere when governments have refused to accept the companies\u2019 contention that Uber\u2019s drivers don\u2019t actually work for Uber.<\/p>\n

The gig work model has been fine-tuned after years of harvesting, analyzing, and operationalizing real-time data on rider and driver behavior. In recent years, developments in artificial intelligence have greatly enhanced its functioning. The result is a management system that addresses fundamental challenges confronting any profit-seeking company in virtually any sector\u2014setting prices for customers, rates of pay for workers, and optimizing the scale of operations. As a result, Uber and Lyft drivers have found themselves at the forefront of experiments using artificial intelligence to manage a company\u2019s workforce. Uber even touts that in offering AI services to other companies.<\/p>\n

These innovations have thus far been accompanied by another, more insidious one: how to convince governments that your employees should be treated as independent contractors because of their (not the companies\u2019) desire for flexibility, and designing new, bespoke labor laws to reinforce that position.<\/p>\n

To understand the role of the flexibility myth in perpetuating this situation, it\u2019s first necessary to understand the business model.<\/p>\n

Looking Under the Hood of an Uber and Lyft Ride<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s say you intend to start a restaurant. Before you can open your doors, you\u2019ll need to find a space and equip a kitchen and dining room, hire staff, and source your supplies. And you\u2019d have to calculate such costs against the number of your prospective customers and how much you think they\u2019d pay for the meals you have in mind.<\/p>\n

The details are many, and the uncertainties can be maddening: Long-term considerations and fixed decisions about the scale of your operations. Prices for ingredients that change with climatic conditions. The increased productivity versus the wages of another prep cook you only really need on the weekend, and so on.<\/p>\n

Of course, you\u2019d aim to keep your costs low and source only the ingredients you need, and to attract and employ just enough workers with the requisite skills to serve them. It might be tempting to constantly adjust your prices to match your costs plus the profit that makes it all sustainable and worthwhile. That, however, would likely be obtrusive and not particularly appreciated by your customers.<\/p>\n

What diners are willing to pay can also vary a lot\u2014person to person and hour by hour, season to season and dish to dish. So you\u2019ll need to consider intangible factors like ambiance and mood in addition to spice and method when you make your educated guesses and chart your course to profits.<\/p>\n

Historically, most businesses couldn\u2019t continuously vary prices and wages to reflect real-time costs and willingness to pay, in part because diners and workers alike appreciate predictable prices and wages.<\/p>\n

Imagine reading a menu, putting it down, and picking it back up to see that the prices have changed based on what your tablemates said they wanted and the way your eyes traveled the menu that first time through.<\/p>\n

In their early years, Uber and Lyft solved the problem of how to turn a profit by simply not doing this. Instead, they convinced enough high-risk investors they\u2019d be able to do this in the future by creating a customer base with low prices and recruiting an army of drivers with the lure of a new way to make money through a side hustle. Investor tolerance for losses greatly loosened both companies\u2019 cost constraints and allowed them to maximize for scale.<\/p>\n

After creating and cementing their position in the rideshare market, and around the time that both companies made their initial public offerings, Uber and Lyft shifted their approach. Rather than basing customer prices on a fixed markup of payments to drivers, they \u201cdecoupled\u201d the rates they charge riders from the rate they pay drivers. They set these prices independently one from the other, in order to control the difference between the two for every offered ride\u2014that is, their profit margin. A recent study of Uber drivers documented similar decoupling in the U.K.<\/p>\n

Decoupled pricing allows the companies to process and analyze the terabytes of real-time information they unilaterally collect and control, and convert them via pricing algorithms to set a price for riders and drivers that maximizes their profit margin. On the rider side, the companies have carefully developed dynamic pricing models to tailor prices offered to riders based on the route they pick, the day of the week and the time of day, and also current demand conditions (how many potential customers are looking for transportation) for any given pairing of starting points and destinations. That means setting millions of prices in any geographic area in the course of a day. Economists call pricing like that \u201cthird-degree price discrimination.\u201d It sounds illegal (it is not) but means pursuing profits by varying prices based on customers\u2019 willingness to pay.<\/p>\n

On the driver side, the companies determine what to pay drivers\u2014their key cost in getting any given customer from point A to point B\u2014based on equally refined dynamic pricing models geared at coaxing out a sufficient number of drivers to transport the current demand for rides. In this case, Uber and Lyft seek to pay a sufficient amount to summon a workforce\u2014but at the minimum price they have to pay at any moment. In other words, they calculate each driver\u2019s momentary willingness to work.<\/p>\n

Economists call this kind of practice in labor markets \u201cwage discrimination\u201d (once again, not illegal)\u2014setting wages so as to compensate workers just the amount needed for them to agree to work, but no more than that.<\/p>\n

They are able to do this because of the never-ending streams of data coming in from drivers\u2019 and customers\u2019 phones, using AI and machine learning to constantly refine their algorithms. Pricing methods are further fine-tuned by experimentation as the companies vary pricing and then gauge behavioral responses. Dynamic pricing is the primary reason that the companies\u2014Uber in particular\u2014have been able to steadily increase their margins per ride and overall profitability in recent years. A recent study finds that customer use of platforms tends to be \u201csticky\u201d in real time\u2014that is, once a rider decides to use one company, they don\u2019t do a lot of price comparison with the other. This rider stickiness nets an estimated $300 million additional annual gross bookings (revenues) in New York City alone.<\/p>\n

Why the Decoupled Deck Is Stacked Against Drivers<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The system is particularly weighted against drivers, who are only paid once they are offered and then accept (within 15 seconds) a ride, receiving no compensation for the time when they are on the platform but not matched with a rider. The length of time that a driver waits in that uncompensated state is largely a function of how many other drivers are also on the platform and willing to be paid less. Since bringing another driver onto the road is essentially costless to the companies, the supply of drivers can be maintained at the minimum amount needed to fulfill current ride demand.<\/p>\n

In restaurant terms, imagine a lineup of unpaid waiters and cooks standing out back at all times, allowing the restaurant owner to offer the lowest wage acceptable to someone in the line to prepare and serve every dish. And not only that. Uber\u2019s and Lyft\u2019s business model also addresses the capacity problem\u2014How big a kitchen? How many tables?\u2014with the aid of AI, algorithms, and gluts of real-time information. Rather than guessing about the number of drivers required to fulfill demand, they can manipulate demand based on their rider pricing decisions. In essence, Uber and Lyft act like a restaurateur who can adjust the size of their kitchen and dining room to meet instantaneous demand.<\/p>\n

To illustrate how this works in practice, consider a big concert venue after a show lets out. Large numbers of people stream out of the venue, and many are looking for a ride.<\/p>\n

Read more Trump Blows Up His Own Iran Deal<\/a><\/p>\n

Some people who need or want to be picked up immediately will be willing to pay whatever that ride may cost. If prices are too high, others might wait for them to come down. Uber\u2019s algorithms will decide how long to keep prices high (\u201csurge\u201d pricing), taking advantage of the higher revenues\u2014up until the point that some critical mass of riders will choose to walk or take the bus or call a Lyft instead.<\/p>\n

On the flip side, the company must bring in a sufficient number of drivers to fill the large number of immediate, high-priced ride requests and still have drivers available as the prices decrease. The screens of drivers\u2019 phones will display a heatmap overlaying the neighborhood of the venue, indicating the availability of surge-priced rides there. Since drivers shoulder all the costs of fuel and their unmatched time, the cost to Uber and Lyft of drawing too many drivers to the area is zero. Working uncompensated hours is a reality for platform drivers, and the main contributor to their low\u2014and in some analyses, falling\u2014average hourly earnings.<\/p>\n

It is as if the supply of drivers and the demand for rides were two balloons. When the demand balloon expands after the venue\u2019s house lights come on, Uber and Lyft expand the supply balloon, to their great benefit. That\u2019s the business model and the reason that the companies value flexibility above all. A balloon without flexibility is not a balloon.<\/p>\n

No, They Are Not Just Like Airbnb or eBay<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Another aspect of the flexibility myth rests on a category confusion. Since their beginnings, Uber and Lyft have objected to being considered transportation companies. Instead, they insist, they are technology companies and platforms that simply make matches between riders and independent drivers.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, much of the academic, business, and popular writing about the companies has ignored the fundamental differences between Uber and Lyft, on the one hand, and a true \u201ctwo-sided\u201d platform like Airbnb, eBay, or Etsy. By being put in the same technology box as companies whose business models\u2019 profits come from matching two sides of digital marketplaces, Uber and Lyft can define their relationship with drivers as similar to those other companies\u2019 relationships with the \u201chosts\u201d or sellers on their platforms.<\/p>\n

But unlike companies like Airbnb, Lyft and Uber determine the prices paid by riders and<\/em> the compensation paid to drivers. \u201cGuests\u201d go to Airbnb to choose from a wide variety of options offered by a range of \u201chosts\u201d for places to stay. Although Airbnb now offers hosts suggestions on rates, those rates are set by the individual hosts, based on their own assessment of the value of their property. Although many guests pay the rate provided by the host, that rate can also be negotiated between the parties. Not so with Uber and Lyft: Both the rider and the driver are matched to one another by prices set by the companies. And that price\u2014what Uber and Lyft like to insist is the \u201cmarket price\u201d\u2014reflects the optimization decisions of the platforms.<\/p>\n

And whereas Airbnb attracts customers by offering variety, Uber and Lyft spend millions of dollars each year on advertising and marketing to convince their customers that they will receive a service\u2014a ride\u2014that is uniformly dependable, safe, and of an expected quality level no matter which driver picks them up<\/em>. In the apps, riders see uniform icons of cars nearby, and only learn their driver\u2019s identity after<\/em> they\u2019ve been matched.<\/p>\n

The companies have successfully convinced millions of people to get into cars with strangers (Exhibit A: Uber\u2019s marketing of services for driving teens). Doing so only makes sense if riders associate both companies, regardless of the driver sent to them, with basic qualities: dependability, service quality, and safety. The companies are not providing a digital market connection\u2014they are solving a customer problem: getting from A to B comfortably, reliably, and safely. Those are fundamental differences between platforms that function like a digital, two-sided market (Airbnb, eBay, Etsy) and platforms that serve as an algorithmic, AI-tuned management system (Uber and Lyft).<\/p>\n

Flexibility Is About Profits, Not Beneficence<\/strong><\/h3>\n

This brings us back to why \u201cflexibility\u201d means very different things for Uber and Lyft than it does for its drivers\u2014and the public.<\/p>\n

Uber and Lyft argue that, in order to provide their workers with the flexibility they want, they must classify those workers as independent contractors. Absent independent contractor status, their business models would not be possible and the companies would be forced to adopt rigid schedules like a more traditional employer.<\/p>\n

This is the flexibility myth, and it has been propagated whenever the companies have faced legislation, referenda, or enforcement under existing labor laws.<\/p>\n

But look under the hood at the business model and it\u2019s clear: Setting millions of prices for its drivers and riders is to these companies what the use of point-of-sale data and advanced logistics is to modern retailers like Walmart and Amazon\u2014the very key to profitability.<\/p>\n

Why would these companies sacrifice their sophisticated uses of data on revenues, costs, and capacity needs if they had to pay minimum wages, unemployment insurance, and workers\u2019 compensation\u2014the key provisions that really are at stake in the employee\/independent contractor distinction.<\/p>\n

They would adjust algorithms to take these costs into account if required to do so. In fact, they have done just that in , where they pay 25 percent above the minimum wage for all drivers\u2019 time and expenses, and where drivers are covered by workers\u2019 comp and Uber drivers by unemployment insurance. They have also kept the same business model in other parts of the world where the companies have been required to accept employment status.<\/p>\n

The flexibility myth is a bluff.<\/p>\n

Independent contractor status releases the companies from obligations that our worker protection and labor standards laws require. This body of laws imposes costs on employers, and it is no wonder that any business would prefer to be released from them. But Uber and Lyft would operate profitably just as they do now if they were required to recognize those obligations.<\/p>\n

The Public Discussion We Need About Flexibility<\/strong><\/h3>\n

It\u2019s precisely because businesses do not arrive at these practices on their own that public policies impose minimum wages and labor standards, require provision for safe and healthy work environments and compensation for workplace injuries, restrict practices that discriminate, and provide opportunities for workers to exercise their voices. Granting drivers the rights and protections of employees would undoubtedly raise the costs of labor for Uber and Lyft. But the same is true for any company having to comply with employment law and work protections.<\/p>\n

It is one thing for a company to press its advantage by disseminating a false narrative. That\u2019s their prerogative. But it\u2019s yet another for government officials and policymakers to adopt that narrative wholesale. In the first Trump administration, they did so by releasing a regulation on employee status that clearly sought to bend how the Fair Labor Standards Act defines employment, to the advantage of the platform companies. After being reversed during the Biden administration, the second Trump administration has doubled down on it.<\/p>\n

In an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner<\/em>, current acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling (whom Trump has now nominated for the post of secretary) warned the International Labour Organization (ILO) that \u201cThe Trump administration will not sit on the sidelines while some foreign governments push to hamper American innovation in the gig economy worldwide.\u201d This year, the ILO took up the issue of worker conditions in the gig economy for the first time and is expected to issue recommendations on standards. And in Sonderling\u2019s piece, there it is, \u201cflexibility,\u201d right in the first paragraph:<\/p>\n

\n

The gig economy is one of the defining innovations of the 21st century. It has revolutionized how people earn a living, offering flexibility, independence, and opportunity on a global scale.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Notably, pushing against Sonderling\u2019s and the U.S. delegation\u2019s (as well as the platform companies\u2019) position, this June the ILO adopted Convention 193, \u201cDecent Work in the Platform Economy,\u201d which is the first binding international labor standard for the platform economy.<\/p>\n

The flexibility argument was also central to the campaign for California\u2019s Proposition 22, the most expensive referendum campaign in the state\u2019s history, largely due to spending by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. There, ostensibly in order to preserve flexibility, voters approved a bespoke minimum wage and benefits package for gig workers and made their independent contractor status permanent: The proposition stipulated it can only be overturned by a vote of seven-eighths of state legislators.<\/p>\n

This year, California lawmakers added a bespoke right to organize to Prop 22\u2019s provisions for gig workers. In Massachusetts, a similar referendum was approved by the electorate in November 2024, and drivers recently won the recognition rights under the referendum\u2019s provisions.<\/p>\n

On one hand, this gives Uber and Lyft drivers a recognized right to form a union and bargain collectively. On the other, that recognition is based on their nonemployee status (if that were not true, both laws would be preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act). It requires a separate discussion on whether or not this is a step forward\u2014particularly because the law in California was drafted in part and fully endorsed by Uber.<\/p>\n

And the Massachusetts referendum was only possible because of what appeared to many to be a judge\u2019s probable decision in the Massachusetts Attorney General Office\u2019s suit (where I served as an expert) that Uber and Lyft were employees under the state\u2019s ABC test. In a courthouse-step agreement to resolve the suit, the companies agreed to retract a \u201cProposition 22\u201d-type referendum from the ballot in return for a settlement that left employee status ambiguous.<\/p>\n

And, once again premised on the myth of flexibility as a gift provided for the sake of workers, a similar package of \u201cflexible benefits\u201d for gig workers has now been introduced in the U.S. Senate.<\/p>\n

There is no doubt that workers value and need flexibility. and unpredictability increase earnings volatility, stress, material hardship, and health problems. Conversely, research shows that policies reducing schedule uncertainty, thereby allowing workers to navigate the complexities of modern life while earning a sustainable living, improve economic security and health outcomes.<\/p>\n

Uber\u2019s and Lyft\u2019s self-serving rhetoric, however, has created a myth that worker flexibility can only come at the price of rights and protections. Accepting this premise encourages other businesses to follow suit. They have done so, in industry after industry and country after country. This supposed innovation is causing millions more workers every year to find themselves in situations outside the reach of the basic rights and protections their governments have established as minimum standards.<\/p>\n

At its root, this has nothing to do with the wonders of digital technology, or artificial intelligence, or America\u2019s national capacity for innovation. It\u2019s based almost entirely on the power of storytelling, and the willingness of certain audiences to suspend their disbelief. It is long past time that we demand the truth instead.<\/p>\n

Read more When in Doubt, Moderates Veer Left<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
\n
\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At its root, the myth is based almost entirely on the power of storytelling, and the willingness of certain audiences to suspend their disbelief.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":383,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[188],"class_list":["post-384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-working-in-america","tag-tagged-ballot-measures-california-corporate-power-gig-economy-labor-lyft-massachusetts-misclassification-pricing-uber-working-in-america"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"At its root, the myth is based almost entirely on the power of storytelling, and the willingness of certain audiences to suspend their disbelief.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Frontier Housing Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247\"},\"headline\":\"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384\"},\"wordCount\":3845,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Tagged: ballot measures,\u00a0California,\u00a0corporate power,\u00a0gig economy,\u00a0labor,\u00a0Lyft,\u00a0Massachusetts,\u00a0misclassification,\u00a0pricing,\u00a0Uber,\u00a0Working in America\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Working in America\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384\",\"name\":\"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp\",\"width\":2000,\"height\":1333},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?p=384#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Frontier Housing Report\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/frontierhousingreport.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report","og_description":"At its root, the myth is based almost entirely on the power of storytelling, and the willingness of certain audiences to suspend their disbelief.","og_url":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384","og_site_name":"Frontier Housing Report","article_published_time":"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247"},"headline":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility","datePublished":"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384"},"wordCount":3845,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp","keywords":["Tagged: ballot measures,\u00a0California,\u00a0corporate power,\u00a0gig economy,\u00a0labor,\u00a0Lyft,\u00a0Massachusetts,\u00a0misclassification,\u00a0pricing,\u00a0Uber,\u00a0Working in America"],"articleSection":["Working in America"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384","url":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384","name":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility - Frontier Housing Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-09T09:38:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/51f66b063bc9ba60c638fb6afcfff7de.webp","width":2000,"height":1333},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?p=384#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Dangerous Myth of Flexibility"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/","name":"Frontier Housing Report","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/13a8c63a4bd3b73600b541c1532fc247","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com"],"url":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/384\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/frontierhousingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}