To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
2 results ✕ Clear filters

Employment, Hours, and Earnings Consequences of Job Loss: US Evidence from the Displaced Workers Survey

Journal of Labor Economics 2017 35(S1), S235-S272
Data are used from the 1984–2016 Displaced Workers Surveys (DWS) to investigate the incidence and consequences of job loss, 1981–2015. These data show a record high rate of job loss in the Great Recession, with serious employment consequences for job losers, including very low rates of re-employment and difficulty finding full-time employment. The average reduction in weekly earnings for job losers making a full-time–full-time transition are relatively small, with a substantial minority reporting earning more on their new job than on the lost job. Most of the cost of job loss comes from difficulty finding new full-time employment.

Assessing the Performance of Nonexperimental Estimators for Evaluating Head Start

Journal of Labor Economics 2017 35(S1), S7-S63
This paper uses experimental data from the Head Start Impact Study (HSIS) combined with nonexperimental data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) to study the performance of nonexperimental estimators for evaluating Head Start program impacts. The estimators studied include parametric cross-section and difference-in-differences regression estimators and nonparametric cross-section and difference-in-differences matching estimators. The estimators are used to generate program impacts on cognitive achievement test scores, child health measures, parenting behaviors, and parent labor market outcomes. Some of the estimators closely reproduce the experimental results, but a priori it would be difficult to know whether the estimator works well for any particular outcome. Pre-program exogeneity tests eliminate some outcomes and estimators with the worst biases, but estimators/outcomes with substantial biases pass the tests. The difference-in-differences matching estimator exhibits the best performance in terms of low bias values and capturing the pattern of statistically significant treatment effects. However, the variation in bias is greater across outcomes examined than across methods.