Knowledge that Transforms

Previous articleNext article FreeJacob Mincer AwardPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreDavid Card is the 2019 recipient of the Jacob Mincer Award for lifetime contributions to the field of labor economics. Card is the Class of 1950 Professor of Economics and the director of the Center for Labor Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a fellow of the Society of Labor Economists, the Econometric Society, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. David has won numerous prizes and awards, including the Frisch Medal from the Econometric Society, the IZA Prize in Labor Economics, and the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award. He has served as coeditor of the Journal of Labor Economics, the American Economic Review, and Econometrica. David has also served as president of the Society of Labor Economists and of the Western Economics Association.David grew up on a farm near Guelph, Ontario, and he attended a one-room school as a child. He was an undergraduate at Queens University and received his PhD in economics from Princeton. After spending one year on the faculty at the University of Chicago, David returned to Princeton in 1983, where he remained until 1997, when he moved to Berkeley. David’s time at Princeton was marked by, among other things, very fruitful collaborations with Orley Ashenfelter and Alan Krueger. It was at Princeton that David first exhibited his lifelong devotion to training graduate students. Many of David’s students, from both Princeton and Berkeley, are now leading economists in labor economics and related fields.David is an obvious choice for the Mincer Award. It is hard to think of a labor economist who entered the profession in the past 40 years with broader reach and influence than David Card. He has been a major force and leader in the field of labor economics for more than three decades with pioneering and influential contributions spanning all aspects of the field, and it is difficult for anyone to work in labor economics without citing his important work. David’s research stands as an exemplar of how empirical research in economics should be conducted.Any list of the substantive questions David has worked on will necessarily be incomplete due to the range of topics he has addressed, and we mention only some here. David’s research portfolio includes work on static and intertemporal labor supply, labor contracts and union wage and employment determination, the empirical methodology of estimating returns to schooling, the effects of school inputs (school quality) on earnings and racial wage gaps, long-run changes in racial wage gaps, the effects of immigration on the labor market, the effects of training and employment policies, the minimum wage, the empirical methodology of program evaluation and natural experiments, unemployment and unemployment insurance, and, most recently, the use of employer-employee matched data to examine the role of firms in wage setting and to test models of labor contracting.David’s earliest work was on indexation in labor contracts and on labor demand in a unionized environment. His interest in labor unions presaged his important later work on labor unions and inequality. David’s paper with Orley Ashenfelter on estimating the effect of training programs remains one of the important early contributions to the literature on program evaluation. David’s work with John Abowd on employment contracts and models of earnings and labor supply stands as seminal work on these problems. David’s work on immigration began with his well-known study of the effects of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami labor market and stands as a prime example of the use of a natural experiment to understand an important policy problem. This work was followed by his later central contributions to the literature on the effects of immigration. David’s seminal work with Alan Krueger on the employment effects of the minimum wage challenged conventional orthodoxy, changed the way economists thought about the minimum wage, and was an important driver in subsequent work on employer market power and monopsony. David’s work on education, focusing both on the role of educational resources and on understanding the causal effect of education on earnings, consists of central contributions to the human capital literature. More recently, David’s work on heterogeneity across firms in wage setting has played an important role in understanding wage inequality.In conclusion, the depth and breadth of David Card’s contributions to labor economics, his mentoring of generations of students who have gone on to be the leaders of succeeding generations of labor economists, and his generous provision of professional public goods to the field and to the Society of Labor Economists make him an ideal recipient of the Jacob Mincer Award.2019 Jacob Mincer Award Nominating Committee:Joseph Altonji (ex officio)Henry Farber (chair)John HaltiwangerHilary HoynesLawrence KatzAlan ManningPetra Todd Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Labor Economics Volume 37, Number 3July 2019 Published for the Society of Labor Economists, Economics Research Center/ NORC Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/704046 © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Previous articleNext article FreeSOLE 2019 Fellows Awards for Best PostersPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreGroup A: Gender, Families, and ChildrenWinner: Joanna Syrda, “Gender Differences in Reported Relationship between Spouses’ Housework Hours and Relative Income”Group B: Secondary and Higher EducationWinner: Mikko Silliman and Hanna Virtanen, “Labor Market Returns to Vocational Secondary Education”Group C: Inequality and Social PolicyWinner: Dionissi Aliprantis, Hal Martin, and David Phillips, “Can Landlords Be Paid to Stop Avoiding Voucher Tenants?”Group D: Careers and WagesWinner: Parag Mahajan and Dhiren Patki, “Broader Impacts of Labor Market Entry during a Recession: Evidence from Germany”Judges: Katharine Abraham, Joseph Altonji, Dan Black, Francine Blau, Charlie Brown, Henry Farber, Hilary Hoynes, Chinhui Juhn, Lawrence Kahn, Robert Moffitt, Derek Neal, Kathryn Shaw, Jeff Smith, and Chris Taber. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Labor Economics Volume 37, Number 3July 2019 Published for the Society of Labor Economists, Economics Research Center/ NORC Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/704245 © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Previous articleNext article FreeOfficers of the SocietyPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMore2019–20 Board of OfficersPresident: Katharine G. Abraham, University of MarylandPresident-Elect: Robert Moffitt, Johns Hopkins UniversityVice President: Kevin Lang, Boston UniversityExecutive Board (2018–20):Martha J. Bailey, University of MichiganCharlie Brown, University of MichiganExecutive Board (2019–21):Uta Schönberg, University College LondonChristopher Taber, University of Wisconsin–MadisonDan Black, University of Chicago and NORC, ex officioPaul Oyer, Stanford University and the Journal of Labor Economics, ex officioSecretary-Treasurer: Maggie NewmanFellows of the Society of Labor EconomistsJohn AbowdKatharine AbrahamDaron AcemogluGeorge AkerlofJoseph AltonjiJoshua AngristOrley AshenfelterDavid AutorGary Becker*Marianne BertrandSandra BlackRebecca BlankFrancine BlauRichard BlundellGeorge BorjasJohn BoundCharles BrownKenneth BurdettGlen Cain*David CardKerwin Kofi CharlesPierre-Andre ChiapporiJanet CurrieSteven J. DavisJohn DiNardo*Christian DustmannRon EhrenbergHenry FarberRichard FreemanVictor FuchsRoland G. FryerRobert GibbonsClaudia GoldinReuben GronauRobert HallJohn HaltiwangerDan HamermeshEric HanushekJames HeckmanV. Joseph HotzCaroline M. HoxbyHilary HoynesGeorge Johnson*Lawrence KahnLawrence KatzJohn KennanAlan Krueger*Robert J. LaLonde*Kevin LangRichard LayardEdward LazearThomas LemieuxShelly LundbergStephen MachinW. Bentley MacLeodThomas MaCurdyAlan ManningMarjorie McElroyCostas MeghirRobert MichaelJacob Mincer*Robert MoffittEnrico MorettiDale Mortensen*Richard MurnaneKevin MurphyDerek NealSteve NickellWalter Oi*John PencavelChristopher PissaridesRobert PollakCanice PrendergastMelvin Reder*Mark RosenzweigKathryn ShawRob ShimerJames SmithJeffrey SmithGary SolonFrank StaffordChris TaberPetra ToddRobert TopelJohn Van ReenenYoram WeissFinis WelchRobert WillisNew Fellows Elected in 2019Ann BartelDan BlackChinhui JuhnFrancis KramarzAlexandre Mas Notes *Deceased. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Labor Economics Volume 37, Number 3July 2019 Published for the Society of Labor Economists, Economics Research Center/ NORC Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/703764 © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Previous articleNext article FreeSOLE Prize for Contributions to Data and MeasurementPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreKatharine Abraham is the inaugural recipient of the Society of Labor Economists’ prize for contributions to data and measurement. Katharine is a professor of economics, a professor of survey methodology, and the director of the Maryland Center for Economics and Policy, all at the University of Maryland. Katharine is also a fellow of the Society of Labor Economists, a fellow of the American Statistical Association, and president-elect of the Society of Labor Economists.Katharine was commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) from 1993 to 2001. She was instrumental in initiating several new BLS surveys: the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), the National Longitudinal Survey 1997 cohort (NLSY97), and the Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). In addition to developing these new surveys during Katharine’s time as BLS commissioner, the BLS also developed the Business Employment Dynamics (BED) by longitudinally linking existing administrative micro data.Katharine oversaw many changes to the consumer price index (CPI) during her tenure as commissioner of the BLS, and she testified before Congress many times regarding BLS efforts to improve the accuracy of the CPI. Katharine has already been recognized for her contributions to measurement; she is the 2002 recipient of the Julius Shiskin Memorial Award for Economic Statistics and the 2010 recipient of the Roger Herriot Award for Innovation in Federal Statistics.Katharine is a role model regarding service to the economic measurement community. She was chair of the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, and she currently serves as chair of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, as coordinator of the Institute of Labor Economics’ program in labor statistics, and as a member of the advisory committees for the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.Katharine has been a leader in methodological innovations to both employment and price statistics, and she continues this with her research on topics such as understanding the relationship between unemployment and vacancies and measuring nonstandard employment arrangements. Katharine has utilized a wide range of data in her research, including data she collected herself.Katharine Abraham is a natural choice for the first-ever Society of Labor Economists’ prize for contributions to data and measurement.2019 SOLE Prize Nominating Committee:Joseph Altonji (ex officio)Sandra BlackSteven DavisDavid JohnsonChinhui JuhnJames Smith (chair)James Spletzer Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of Labor Economics Volume 37, Number 3July 2019 Published for the Society of Labor Economists, Economics Research Center/ NORC Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/703863 © 2019 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

In many professional service firms, new associates work long hours while competing in up-or-out promotion contests. Our model explains why. We argue that the productivity of skilled partners in professional service firms (e.g., law, consulting, investment banking, and public accounting) is quite large relative to the productivity of their peers who are competent and experienced but not well suited to the partner role. Therefore, these firms adopt personnel policies that facilitate the identification of new partners. In our model, both heavy workloads and up-or-out rules serve this purpose.

Some of the most important but difficult issues in modern societies revolve around a simple question: What factors ensure that a young person will have a good start when she or he first enters the labor market? The importance of this question has been driven home by three sets of research findings. First, there is substantial persistence in labor market outcomes over the life cycle. Good or bad outcomes early in a career are strong indicators of long-term success or failure. Second, although immutable factors like parents’ education exert a powerful and lasting influence on children’s outcomes, there is an important causal role for potentially malleable factors like schools, neighborhoods, and local institutions. Third, some groups of youth—particularly those from disadvantaged family backgrounds—appear to be especially vulnerable to both temporary shocks and permanent features of the environment in which they were raised. Traditionally, economists have thought of employment as a key metric for assessing the initial success of young people. By this standard, youth are much worse off today than in earlier decades. As shown in figure 1, the average fraction of 16–24-year-olds working in any week fell from around 60% in the late 1970s to around 50% today. The decline for teenagers was even steeper. A closer examination of the relative employment rate of youth (plotted in the bottom line in fig. 1) suggests that it has been trending downward over the past 40 years, with discrete declines after each of the last four recessions (in 1982–83, 1991, 2001, and 2007–9). Viewed from this perspective, the Great Recession is just the latest in a long series of setbacks for young workers. Of course, employment is only part of the story. Given smaller family sizes and higher incomes, an increasing fraction of US families may decide

In the last three decades, Canada and the United States showed different paths in per capita gross domestic product growth, skill premiums, and inequality. Worker quality and price differences both play a role but are difficult to distinguish. Human capital prices and quantities are estimated using methods we developed previously. In the United States, there was faster growth and a much more rapid rise in skill premia and inequality. This was primarily due to different paths for the relative price paid to rent high-skilled human capital in the two countries, rather than differences in relative quantities.

The United States and Canada are as close economically and socially as any pair of countries in the world. They share similar cultural traditions and economic institutions. They are also closely linked by trade and multinational firms that operate on both sides of the border. Nevertheless, the two countries differ inmany small but important ways that ultimately affect individual outcomes and overall labor market performance. Canada has a more comprehensive set of social programs that tend to be more redistributive than those in the United States. Canada also has a higher rate of immigration, with nearly twice as many immigrants per capita. The Canadian economy is more reliant on the natural resource sector, while the United States has a larger tech sector. The United States has a wider distribution of income, with higher poverty rates and a higher share of people with earnings far above themedian salary. It also experienced a far deeper and longer-lasting recession in 2007–8, the consequences of which are still being analyzed and debated. There is a long tradition in social science of using comparisons between the United States and Canada to uncover the impacts of different institutions and policies, including work in political science (e.g., Lipset 1990), criminology (e.g., Sloan et al. 1988), medicine (e.g., Gorey et al. 2009), demography (e.g., Boyd 1976), and labor relations (e.g., Meltz 1985). Building on this tra-