-
Technology and Jobs: Secular Changes and Cyclical Dynamics
September 1996
Working Paper Number:
CES-96-07
In this paper, we exploit plant-level data for U.S. manufacturing for the 1970s and 1980s to explore the connections between changes in technology and the structure of employment and wages. We focus on the nonproduction labor share (measured alternatively by employment and wages) as the variable of interest. Our main findings are summarized as follows: (i) aggregate changes in the nonproduction labor share at annual and longer frequencies are dominated by within plant changes; (ii) the distribution of annual within plant changes exhibits a spike at zero, tremendous heterogeneity and fat left and right tails; (iii) within plant secular changes are concentrated in recessions; and (iv) while observable indicators of changes in technology account for a significant fraction of the secular increase in the average nonproduction labor share, unobservable factors account for most of the secular increase, most of the cyclical variation and most of the cross sectional heterogeneity.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
A Comparison of Job Creation and Job Destruction in Canada and the United States
May 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-02
In recent years a growing number of countries have constructed data series on job creation and job destruction using establishment-level data sets. This paper provides a description and detailed comparison of these new data series for the United States and Canada. First, the Canadian and United States industry-level job creation and destruction data are remarkably similar. Industries with high (low) job creation in the US are evidenced by high (low) job creation in Canada. The same is true for job destruction. In addition, the overall magnitude of gross job flows in the two countries is comparable. Second, the time-series patterns of creation and destruction are qualitatively similar but do differ in a number of important respects. In both countries, job destruction is much more cyclically volatile than job creation. This cyclical asymmetry is, however, more pronounced in the United States. The paper finishes with a characterization of the job flow patterns using a modified Blanchard and Diamond (1992) model.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Downsizing and Productivity Growth: Myth or Reality?
April 1994
Working Paper Number:
CES-94-04
The conventional wisdom is that the rising productivity in the U.S. manufacturing sector in the 1980s has been driven by the apparently pervasive downsizing over this period. Aggregate evidence clearly shows falling employment accompanying the rise in productivity. In this paper, we examine the microeconomic evidence using the plant level data from the Longitudinal Research Database (LRD). In contrast to the conventional wisdom, we find that plants that increased employment as well as productivity contribute almost as much to overall productivity growth in the 1980s as the plants that increased productivity at the expense of employment. Further, there are striking differences by sector (defined by industry, size, region, wages, and ownership type) in the allocation of plants in terms of whether they upsize or downsize and whether they increase or decrease productivity. Nevertheless, in spite of the striking differences across sectors defined in a variety of ways, most of the variance of productivity and employment growth is accounted for by idiosyncratic factors.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
THE AGGREGATE IMPLICATIONS OF MACHINE REPLACEMENT: THEORY AND EVIDENCE
October 1992
Working Paper Number:
CES-92-12
This paper studies an economy in which producers incur resource costs to replace depreciated machines. The process of costly replacement and depreciation creates endogenous fluctuations in productivity, employment and output of a single producer. We also explore the spillover effects of machine replacement on other sectors of the economy and provide conditions for synchronized machine replacement by multiple, independent producers. The implications of our model are generally consistent with observed monthly output, employment and productivity fluctuations in automobile plants. Synchronization of retooling across plants within the auto industry is widespread so that the fluctuations observed at the plant level have aggregate implications.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Published Versus Sample Statistics From The ASM: Implications For The LRD
January 1991
Working Paper Number:
CES-91-01
In principle, the Longitudinal Research Database ( LRD ) which links the establishments in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM) is ideal for examining the dynamics of firm and aggregate behavior. However, the published ASM aggregates are not simply the appropriately weighted sums of establishment data in the LRD . Instead, the published data equal the sum of LRD-based sample estimates and nonsample estimates. The latter reflect adjustments related to sampling error and the imputation of small-establishment data. Differences between the LRD and the ASM raise questions for users of both data sets. For ASM users, time-series variation in the difference indicates potential problems in consistently and reliably estimating the nonsample portion of the ASM. For LRD users, potential sample selection problems arise due to the systematic exclusion of data from small establishments. Microeconomic studies based on the LRD can yield misleading inferences to the extent that small establishments behave differently. Similarly, new economic aggregates constructed from the LRD can yield incorrect estimates of levels and growth rates. This paper documents cross-sectional and time-series differences between ASM and LRD estimates of levels and growth rates of total employment, and compares them with employment estimates provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics and County Business Patterns data. In addition, this paper explores potential adjustments to economic aggregates constructed from the LRD. In particular, the paper reports the results of adjusting LRD-based estimates of gross job creation and destruction to be consistent with net job changes implied by the published ASM figures.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Gross Job Creation and Destruction: Microeconomic Evidence and Macroeconomic Implications
September 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-10
This paper investigates the connection between the heterogeneity of establishment-level employment changes and aggregate fluctuations at business cycle frequencies. The empirical work exploits a rich data set with approximately 860,000 annual observations and 3.4 million quarterly observations on 160,000 manufacturing establishments to calculate rates of gross job creation, gross job destruction, and their sum, gross job reallocation. The central messages that emerge from the research in this paper are: (1) Establishment-level employment changes exhibit tremendous heterogeneity, even within narrowly defined sectors of the economy. This heterogeneity manifests itself in terms of high rates of gross job creation, destruction, and reallocation. Further, the magnitude of this heterogeneity varies significantly over time, most of the variation is due to time variation in the idiosyncratic component of establishment growth rates, and the variation is significantly countercyclical. (2) The theoretical model of employment reallocation and business cycles is suggestive of how both aggregate and allocative disturbances can drive fluctuations in job creation, job destruction, unemployment, productivity, and output. (3) The empirical analysis of the joint dynamics of job creation and job destruction supports the view that allocative disturbances were a major driving force behind movements in jobs creation, job destruction, job reallocation and net employment growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector during the 1972 to 1986 period.
View Full
Paper PDF
-
Gross Job Creation, Gross Job Destruction and Employment Reallocation
June 1990
Working Paper Number:
CES-90-04
This paper measures the heterogeneity of establishment-level employment changes in the U.S. manufacturing sector over the 1972 to 1986 period. Our empirical work exploits a rich data set with approximately 860,000 annual observations on 160,000 manufacturing establishments to calculate rates of gross job creation, gross job destruction, and their sum, gross job reallocation. The central empirical findings are as follows: (1) Based on March-to-March establishment-level employment changes, gross job reallocation averages more than 20% of employment per year. (2) For the manufacturing sector as a whole, March-to-March gross job reallocation varies over time from 17% to 23% of employment per year. (3) Time variation in gross job reallocation is countercyclic-gross job reallocation rates covary negatively with own-sector and manufacturing net employment growth rates. (4) Virtually all of the time variation in gross job reallocation is accounted for by idiosyncratic effects on the establishment growth rate density. Changes in the shape and location of the growth rate density due to aggregate-year effects and sector-year effects cannot explain the observed variation in gross job reallocation. (5) The part of gross job reallocation attributable to idiosyncratic effects fluctuates countercyclically. Combining (3) ' (5), we conclude that the intensity of shifts in the pattern of employment opportunities across establishments exhibits significant countercyclic variation. In preparing the data for this study, we have greatly benefited from the assistance of Robert Bechtold, Timothy Dunne, Cyr Linonis, James Monahan, Al Nucci and other Census Bureau employees at the Center for Economic Studies. We have also benefited from helpful comments by Katherine Abraham, Martin Baily, Fischer Black, Timothy Dunne, David Lilien, Robert McGuckin, Kevin M. Murphy, Larrty Katz, John Wallis, workshop participants at the University of Maryland, the Resource Mobility Session of the Econometric society (Winter 1988 meetings), an NBER conference on Alternative Explanations of Employment Fluctuations, and the NBER's Economic Fluctuations Program Meeting (Summer 1989). Scott Schuh provided excellent research assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the National Science Foundation (SES-8721031 and SES-8720931), the Hoover Institution, and the Office of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Maryland. Davis also thanks the National Science Foundation for it's support through a grant to the National Fellows Program at the Hoover Institution. Most of the research for this paper was conducted while Davis was a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution.
View Full
Paper PDF
