The relationship between employer size and within firm job mobility is investigated. Larger employers are posited to provide their workers with greater options for career advancement within the firm in an attempt to both protect (and encourage) the relatively higher investments in their workers and to evaluate employee performance. Using microdata on actual levels of internal mobility, direct support is found for the propositions of greater internal mobility in larger establishments.

We investigate the effect of tenure on employee retention under varying labor market conditions. Using a competing risks analysis of recall and new job acceptance applied to layoff unemployment spell data from waves 15 and 16 (1982-83) of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we find that adverse conditions (sectoral employment decline) significantly reduce the positive tenure effect on recall probabilities. This result is consistent with firm default on delayed payment contracts and does not appear to reflect the effect of technological change on the value of firm-specific investments.

Wages are positively related to firm size. This relation was discovered by Henry L. Moore (1911) and later confirmed by, among others, Charles Brown and James Medoff (1989). The wage premium associated with working at a larger firm or plant is ubiquitous, but its magnitude varies across countries and over time. The reason for a size-related wage premium is harder to pin down. Paying supernormal wages to deter shirking, thereby saving monitoring costs, seems plausible, but a closer examination has led us to reject this explanation (Oi and Idson, 1999). At a big firm, the workplace is safer, and fringes are superior, so that these factors cannot be the source of a positive premium. It must be something else such as work effort. The theory that we advance is that employees at larger firms are more productive and hence command higher wages in a competitive labor market. The shape of the size–wage relation depends on technology, worker preferences, and working conditions other than size. It will change over time and across occupations.

This article investigates wage differentials for employees of different size firms utilizing an econometric methodology that allows the size of employer to be treated as endogenous in the context of discrete, ordered employer-size data. As a result we are able to estimate (i) employer-size wage gaps, which are corrected for selectivity bias, and (ii) the magnitude and direction of the selection bias. Decompositions of the resulting wage differentials are computed, with comparisons of the conditional (on sorting across employer size) and unconditional wage gaps.

This study tests the hypothesis that price expectations differ across individuals because they acquire different information about inflation. If price information is a normal good, then the amount of price information acquired will vary across individuals according to income, education, and other demand-specific variables, causing price expectations to be heteroscedastic with respect to these variables. Utilizing monthly household survey data, the authors test the heteroscedasticity hypothesis and find support for the differential information model. In addition, they develop a novel method of incorporating the "don't know" response to questions about inflation into the estimation of price expectations.