Knowledge that Transforms

The long-term decline in US workers’ attempts to organize labor unions accelerated after 2000. We find that the swift rise of imports from China arising from a change in trade policy accounts for nearly all of this post-2000 acceleration: union certification elections decreased substantially among workers in manufacturing industries directly exposed to imports, but also among workers indirectly exposed through their local labor market. Consistent with a simple model of workers’ decision to seek union representation, direct exposure lowered the expected wage gain from unionization, whereas indirect exposure increased the cost of job loss—both of which discourage organizing.

Natives are expected to respond to the wage impact of immigration by moving across markets. We argue that the observed impact depends not only on the size of the native response but also on which natives choose to respond. Specifically, a nonrandom response produces a selection bias. We document its empirical relevance by showing that the strong feminization of the French immigrant workforce reduced the employment of native women, leading to sizable compositional shifts and no correlation between immigration and female wages. Adjusting for selection bias results in a wage elasticity that becomes negative for women and similar to men.

We investigate the causal impact of a generous unconditional cash transfer at birth on children’s health and academic performance. Using rich administrative data, we take advantage of the unexpected introduction of a baby bonus in Spain in 2007 and implement a difference-in-discontinuity approach comparing children born in the surrounding months in different years. We find little impact on children’s health and test scores. We also fail to find meaningful changes in household structure, maternal employment, parental time, or child-related monetary investments. Our results contribute to understanding which interventions are effective at fostering children’s health and human capital formation.

Using full count US census data, we study the impact of early twentieth-century state-industry-specific minimum wage laws that primarily targeted female employees. Our triple-difference estimates suggest a null impact of the minimum wage laws, potentially reflecting disemployment effects and the positive selection bias of the workers remaining in the labor force. When comparing county-industry trends between counties straddling state borders, female employment is lower by around 3.1% in affected county-industry cells. We further investigate the implications for own-wage elasticity of labor demand as a function of cross-industry concentration, the channels of substitution between men and women, and heterogeneity by marital status.

Using Danish registry data linked to the Labor Force Survey, we provide the first rigorous evidence with external validity on the hours-career nexus (positive association between hours and career success). Guided by three theories (human capital; rat race; tournament), we unpack the hours-career nexus through examining: the differential effect of hours in the present firm and elsewhere; hours relative to peers’ hours; standard vs. evening/night/weekend hours; and the importance of sustaining long hours. Supplemented by the time use survey, we show the gender gap in hours and career success is due mostly to gendered division of labor in household production.

We present evidence that is consistent with large disparities across firms in their on-the-job learning opportunities using administrative datasets from Brazil and Italy. We categorize firms into discrete “classes”—which our conceptual framework interprets as skill-learning classes—using a clustering methodology that groups together firms with similar distributions of unexplained wage growth. Mincerian returns to experience vary widely across experiences acquired in different firm classes. Four tests leveraging firm movers, occupation/industry switchers, hiring wages, and displaced workers point toward a portable and general human capital interpretation. Heterogeneous employment experiences explain an important share of wage variance by age 35.

We study the consequences of job markets' heavy reliance on referrals. Referrals lead to more opportunities for workers to be hired, which lead to better matches and increased productivity but also disadvantage job seekers with few or no connections to employed workers, increasing inequality. Coupled with homophily, referrals also lead to immobility. We identify conditions under which distributing referrals more evenly reduces inequality and improves future productivity and mobility. We use the model to examine the short- and long-run welfare impacts of policies such as affirmative action and algorithmic fairness.