JIC you missed it: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-sellin...
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/17/gig-work-online-sellin... shows that 18-29 year olds are most likely to be a part of the gig economy, as a percentage of an age range, and VERY few over 50 year olds participate (4%), so I'm not sure the data supports that specific view at all.
On the data, IMHO (and it is just an opinion) where there is data, it is going to be incomplete because as a new phenomenon, there is nothing to compare it to historically, and the current situation will not be indicative of future performance. As an example, the demographics of internet usage have changed dramatically from 1995 to today, as now the vast majority of people on the web are not white, but instead live in Asia (the top 10 here http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/ includes only the US, UK and Germany, which are dwarfed by China and India).
BTW: that NY Times article is a great example of using data really selectively, if not downright misleadingly. Examples:
* "In New York City, an Uber drivers group affiliated with the machinists union said that more than one-fifth of its members earn less than $30,000 before expenses." OK, but is that BECAUSE of Uber, or the reason they drive for Uber? i.e. without Uber would they have more or less income? How many hours do they drive for Uber? Are they full or part time? And really, how is employing poor people anything but a positive thing? The mind boggles!
* I absolutely LOVE how having a large number of minorities was presented as a negative. "Company employs 47% blacks and minorities" would seem to mean it is a really progressive company, however the NYTimes article takes this as evidence of how bad a company it is. I can only assume that is because them there my-norities are too stupid to see how they are being ripped off by these evil corporations, unlike the oh so clevery smart Whitey White-White-McWhite-Whites. I could have the tone wrong there, but man, it comes off to me as really patronising to these minorities.
Last point and I'm done, from the Pew Data I love how it is a shock that people earning < $30K are more likely to take part in the gig economy than those making $75K. It is almost like people rationally choose to engage only when the marginal return from their time is best spent on the gig economy vs some other task ...
NYT loves doing stuff like this. It's the same paper that reported 39% of colleges having less overseas applicants, 35% - more and the rest roughly the same number as "Amid ‘Trump Effect’ Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants".[1] Looks like they just can't help themselves.
[1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/one...
My personal experience haven't been so - most "gig" services I've got were from people for which is was complementary income and which never intended to hold a full-time blue-collar job. Some of them could have 15-20 years of past blue collar experience only if they joined the ranks of workers straight out of kindergarten.
But my perspective is necessarily narrow and accidental - so I wonder, are there any data on it?
> perform low-level jobs, many of which require little or no specialized skills.
These jobs need to be performed. So who should be performing them?
> many gig workers find themselves too old to work but with no retirement savings, for example.
You are assuming these people would always hold these jobs until they retire. Why? Most people that drive for Uber or do gigs on taskrabbit or fiverr do not see it as a lifetime career, as far as I know. Just as a teenager getting min wage in McDonalds does not plan to do the same until she's 65. So asking "how can you retire on McDonalds salary?" doesn't make a lot of sense.