The gig economy—praised for its flexibility, autonomy, and adaptability—has become a defining feature of modern work. But according to new research from Harvard Business School, juggling multiple jobs may be far more costly, both financially and emotionally, than it seems.

The study, The Hidden Costs of Working Multiple Jobs: Implications for Spending Behavior and Wellbeing, conducted by Paige Tsai and Ryan W. Buell, analyzed the financial behavior and wellbeing of over 90,000 individuals. The core insight: people with multiple jobs don’t just spend their money differently—they live differently.

“One view of the world is that income is income. It doesn’t matter how you make it—it’s how much you earn that drives you’re spending choices,” said HBS Professor Ryan Buell to Working Knoledge, a Harvard University website. “But that's not what we see at all. People with multiple jobs, who earn the same amount of money, exhibit very different spending behavior,” added Buell.

Spending Less—Even on the Basics

One of the most striking findings is that people with multiple jobs—despite earning the same income as those with one—spend significantly less overall. On average, multi-job workers spend 17 percentage points less of their income, including:

15.5 points less on basic necessities such as housing, healthcare, and food.
1.9 points less on “indulgences”, like entertainment, travel, or dining out.
29% lower likelihood of putting money toward a mortgage.

“It would really be smart for managers to take the time to understand what role a job is playing in their employees’ lives, and how they might design those jobs to improve well-being,” explained lead author Paige Tsai. The instability and fragmentation of gig work, along with commuting and scheduling challenges, contribute to a reduced quality of life.

More Education and Transit, Less Joy

Interestingly, gig workers tend to invest 80% more in education, likely in hopes of improving their job prospects. They also face 2.2% higher transportation costs, including a 16% jump in public transit use, likely reflecting the logistical burden of managing multiple jobs.

But despite these efforts, they’re not necessarily happier. Drawing on data from the General Social Survey, the authors found that workers with multiple jobs report lower levels of happiness and financial satisfaction, even when their total earnings match those of single-income earners.

Income Isn't Neutral

The study debunks the idea that income is income, regardless of its source. Instead, how money is earned appears to profoundly shape how it’s spent and experienced.

Gig workers allocate less to categories linked to physical and emotional wellbeing. For example, they spend 5% less on groceries, 15% less on healthcare, 26% less on entertainment, and 17% less on travel. They also make more peer-to-peer transfers and digital payments—potential signs of greater reliance on informal networks or shared expenses.

A Wake-Up Call for Employers

So, what should companies learn from this? Tsai urges employers to understand why workers are seeking a job in the first place. If someone needs flexibility to attend classes, offering a single flexible full-time role may benefit both employer and employee more than fragmented part-time gigs.

“That first step of even taking the time to understand why employers are at their door in the first place would be a really critical one,” Tsai emphasized.

The message: employers can improve both performance and wellbeing by designing roles that align better with workers’ real-life needs.

A Trend Here to Stay?

The gig economy accelerated with the pandemic, remote work, and digital platforms. And with inflation and financial pressure still affecting many households, working multiple jobs feels like the only option for millions.

But the Harvard study warns that this might not be a sustainable strategy. Multi-job workers spend less on essentials and joy—and may experience a lower quality of life as a result.

In the end, the authors propose a deeper question: if we want sustainable work models, shouldn't we be designing jobs that support people not only while they’re working—but also when they’re off the clock?