A new economic study confirms Seattle’s 2024 gig worker minimum wage law has failed to produce net benefits for delivery drivers and has weakened local delivery demand. Evidence shows that higher mandated pay was largely offset by fewer orders, lower tips, and increased idle time, leaving drivers no better off than before the law went into effect.
Seattle’s city council enacted a law in early 2024 that required app-based delivery drivers for services like DoorDash and Uber Eats to receive a guaranteed minimum rate tied to time and distance worked. The measure was framed as a worker protection and pay increase, with initial results showing higher base pay per delivery.
However, a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study found that the law’s increases in base pay were matched or exceeded by drops in tips, fewer total deliveries, and longer idle periods for drivers. According to the research, active drivers saw no increase in monthly earnings once these factors were accounted for.
The law also appears to have reduced consumer demand for app-based orders. Data cited in the report shows DoorDash experienced a drop of about 30,000 orders shortly after the law took effect, and Uber Eats saw roughly a 30 % fall in order volume, signaling consumers pulled back in response to higher prices.
Economic analysis underscores the unintended consequences: by imposing a wage floor without adjusting for the economics of the gig model, the policy disrupted tipping patterns, increased service costs, and reduced delivery traffic. Delivery platforms and independent researchers attribute the stagnation in earnings to structural shifts in how pay and tips are distributed once base wages are mandated.
Local small businesses also felt the ripple effects. Interviews with restaurant owners reported that customers balked at steep service fees added to cover compliance costs — in some cases ordering less or abandoning app deliveries altogether, which further reduced the flow of work for drivers.
City leaders have largely defended the law, saying it offers transparency and a baseline of earnings for gig workers. But critics argue the results show that interventionist labor mandates can distort flexible work arrangements, undermine market signals, and ultimately harm the very workers they aim to protect.
