Costas (Maks) Flashcards

(56 cards)

1
Q

Title: Katz & Murphy (1992)

A

Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Motivation: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

US wage gaps between high and low skill workers exploded after the late-1970s. Are those gaps mainly due to a flood of college grads (supply) or to rising employer demand for skill (skill-biased technological change)?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Setting: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

United States, 1963-87. Annual March Current Population Survey files track wages and hours for the whole workforce

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Supply-Only Test: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

Compute the dot-product of wage changes and quantity changes for every five-year window. If only supply moved, the product should be negativez; a positive sign means demand must have shifte, as supply cant explain the shift (hapened in mid 80s)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Test Demand: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

Collapse labour into “high-skill” and “low-skill” productivity units using the constant elasticity substitution (CES) production function.

Estimate the substitution elasticity (how fast or how slow do high skill workers substitute low skill workers) and wage ratio, to get the the backed out demand trend (interpreted as skill-biased tech change).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Decomposing Demand Shift: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

Build counterfactual indices to ask how much of the demand shift comes from inter- or intra industry reallocation, labour up-skilling or trade.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Robustness: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

CES results unchanged when adding union density, import penetration, or alternative industry splits; trade-only and sectoral reallocation stories explain at most a minor share of the overall demand shift.

Technology, and not trade flows, explain the extra skill demand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Results: Katz & Murphy (1992) - Changes in Relative Wages, 1963-1987: Supply and Demand Factors

A

After 1980 demand for college-type skill rises steadily, overrunning earlier supply booms and pushing the wage premium up again. Most of the extra demand appears within industries, consistent with technology-driven up-skilling

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Title: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003)

A

The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Motivation: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

Since the 1970s the “middle” of the U.S. job market has thinned out: office clerks and factory workers have become scarcer, while well-paid professional jobs have multiplied. This paper asks whether the spread of cheap computers is the reason.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Setting: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

US Census and CPS micro-data from 1960-1998 are merged with occupation-level routine scores (from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Adoption Pattern: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

The 1st regression tests whether industries that were more routine-intensive in 1960 experienced faster computer uptake in subsequent decades; routine share in 1960 serves as a pre-treatment predictor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Re-allocation Tests: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

(i) Industry-level test relates changes in computer use to shifts in non-routine tasks
(ii) the same specification is run separately for college and non-college workers to verify that job routiness for all education levels is moving
(iii) within-occupation version confirms that tasks inside job titles re-balance as computer use rises.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Robustness: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

Common computer-price shock applies to all sectors; placebo decades show no effect; identical patterns appear across industries, education groups and occupations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Results: Autor, Levy & Murnane (2003) - The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration

A

Routine-heavy industries adopt computers earlier, automate clerical/assembly work and expand analytic and interactive tasks — both between and within occupations. This task re-allocation explains the bulk of the post-1970 surge in demand for college-educated labour.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Title: Autor & Dorn (2013)

A

The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Motivation: Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

Since 1980 the U.S. job distribution has formed a U-shape: middle-wage clerical posts shrank, while both high-pay professional roles and low-pay service jobs grew. The paper asks whether cheap computers, by automating routine office and production work, pushed displaced workers into in-person services

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Setting: Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

The authors follow roughly millions of workers in every Census from 1950 to 2005 in the United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Economic Mechanism Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

A goods sector combines routine labour with computer capital, while a face-to-face service sector uses only manual non-routine labour. If computers substitute for routine work more easily than households swap expenditures between goods and services, cheaper computers should push all low-skill labour toward services and raise wages at the top (abstract tasks).Factories and offices often rely on rule-based jobs like typing invoices or operating simple machines, and those tasks can now be done by cheap computers.

By services sector performs hands-on, people-facing work that machines still can’t handle. When computer prices fall, firms swap out their rule-based workers for machines. Displaced workers drift into in-person service jobs at the bottom of the pay scale, while demand (and pay) rises for highly educated people whose abstract, problem-solving tasks are helped, not replaced, by technology.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Empirical Tests: Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

a. see whether places that were loaded with routine jobs back (high RTI share) were the quickest to push more low-skilled into services (growth of services sector) (RTI & regress RTI share)
b. in same CZs see whether U-shaped polarization is steeper in routine heavy vs low routine heavy CZs
c. See whether routine heavy CZs attract more college (high skill) workers. Regress College share on Rti share

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Robustness: Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

Instrument the 1980 routine share with the 1950 mix to avoid mechanical bias; control for entity and time fixed effects; replace PC use with hardware-investment data and obtain similar results.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Results: Autor & Dorn (2013) - The Growth of Low-Skill Service Jobs and the Polarization of the US Labor Market

A

Routine-heavy labour markets adopted PCs earlier, then shed clerical and factory jobs while expanding low-skill, face-to-face services.
Within these markets wages stretched into a pronounced U-shape, with it being steepest in high-routine CZs.

The inflow of college-educated workers grew, signalling stronger demand for abstract, non-routine tasks.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Title: Goos et al. (2014)

A

Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring

24
Q

Motivation: Goos et al. (2014) - Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring

A

Why have middle-wage jobs vanished while both well-paid professional and low-paid service jobs expanded (polarizatio)? Authors test whether automation of routine work and its offshoring abroad can jointly reproduce this polar shape. (Many industries, allows for offshoring, Europe rather than US & within or between industires)

25
Setting: Goos et al. (2014) - Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring
EU Labour Force Survey, 1993-2010, sixteen West-European countries. Ranked by Routine Task Intensity (RTI—share of repetitive rule-based duties) and by an offshorability index (likelihood tasks can be done remotely).
26
Methodology: Goos et al. (2014) - Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring
Main OLS: Regress change in hours worked on RTI, offshorability and the interaction between the interaction RTI and offshorability, controlling for fixed effects. Dynamic panel re-estimated with system-GMM to tackle serial correlation and simultaneity between shrinking occupations and investment in automation. Decomposition isolates within-industry versus between-industry contributions.
27
Robustness: Goos et al. (2014) - Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring
Uses clustered-by-occupation SEs, country-specific time trends, alternative RTI scales, person-weight versus hours-weight, exclude surveys that use different standards. Coefficients stable in leave-one-country-out jackknifes.
28
Results: Goos et al. (2014) - Explaining Job Polarization: Routine-Biased Technological Change and Offshoring
High RTI tasks (routine) shrink every year/shed employment. 60% of this polarization happens within, and 40% between industries (almost equal effects) - routine biased technological change. It's EU wide Offshoring is not significant once controlling for everything, Thus in routine-heavy industries, firms will prefer to invest in capital to meet the new demand, instead of labour.
29
Title: Deming (2017)
The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
30
Motivation: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
As computers displaced routine cognitive work, returns to pure analytical skill plateaued. Hypothesis: tasks requiring social interaction resist automation, so labour-market demand—and pay—pivot toward social skills, especially when combined with cognitive ability.
31
Setting: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
U.S. Census data 1980-2012, O*NET task ratings for social and cognitive content, wages and measured skills between 79-97 cohorts.
32
Economic Mechanism: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
Workers differ in which micro-tasks they’re quickest at. They gain by swapping tasks (sppecialisatiomn), yet each swap wastes time, and the loss shrinks when a worker's communication skills are higher (Iceberg costs). As computers automate the routine middle of jobs, greater variance (abstract) tasks are left, thus swapping uneven tasks is more important and and results in bigger gains. Therefore, specialisation requires more task trading -> more social skills. paired with cognitive skills, results ever-higher pay (smart workers specialise and collaborate smoothly)
33
Empirical Approach: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
1) Wages are regressed on cognitive skill, social skill and their product; a positive interaction shows that brains pay more when paired with people-skills.
34
Robustness: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
Standard errors clustered by occupation; results unchanged adding computer-capital, offshoring exposure, union decline, local-labour-market effects. Triple-difference falsification shows no rising premium in cognitive-only roles. IV using sibling fixed effects confirms skill measures not driven by unobserved ability.
35
Results: Deming (2017) - The Growing Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market
1) Social skills have higher wage returns & pay more, especially when paired with cognitive skills. Social premium doubles from 1980s to 2012 2) High social skills workes flee routine jobs and pivot towards interactive ones (sorting) 3) Employment and wages surge in jobs that score high in both interaction of cognitive aand maths, stagnated in cognitive heavy social low, and shrank sharrply in cognitive oonly
36
Title: Cavounidis et al. (2024)
The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
37
Motivation: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
Authors ask which of the 5 basic skills became more important, and whether those skill-specific shocks alone can explain both job flows across occupations and task shifts within occupations.
38
Setting: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
United States, 1960-2016 occupational data. Five aggregate skills analysed: routine-cognitive, dexterous routine-manual, basic manual, abstract reasoning, social interaction.
39
Methodology: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
Treat every job as a five-element skill mix (summing up to 1). Regress each job’s decade-to-decade employment change on those skill shares * Growth relative to the average. The estimated coefficients reveal which skill technologies raced ahead (negative sign) or lagged behind (positive sign). See whether 5 skills changes are happening within jobs or across industries. (jobs changing or tasks within jobs?) Also, see whether increasing tech and skills are substitutes or complements to eachother (manual tech -> job uses less manal. also cross-tabulations of skill and tech) See how fast tech rebalances the 5 skills in each job. compute to actual DOT shift, finding a one-to-one match
40
Robustness: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
Estimates robust to alternative occupation aggregation, dropping recession years, hours vs heads weighting, and augmenting model with occupation-specific capital trends. Out-of-sample validation: skill-growth estimates from 1960-83 accurately forecast 1995-2016 within-occupation task shifts.
41
Results: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - The Nature of Technological Change, 1960-2016
Fastest productivity gains occur in routine-cognitive and finger-dexterous tasks, pushing workers out of those jobs and reducing such task shares those jobs. Slowest productivity gains in abstract and social skills increase their intra-job usage and preserve associated employment. Framework reconciles both the cross-industry polarization of employment and the rising share of interactive and problem-solving tasks.
42
Title: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022)
Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
43
Motivation: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
Measure displacement of wages (ripple effects / hydrostatics) by automation across industries, linking it to wage and employment hours changes and quantifying how much of rising inequality automation can explain.
44
Data / Setting: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
49 U.S. industries, 1987-2016. Industry-level capital type count.
45
Task Displacement Index: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
Sums, across industries, how much automation cut routine labour times the group’s initial exposure to those tasks.
46
Reduced-form test: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
They regress each group’s real wage change on its task-displacement index while controlling for industry trends and a rich set of group fixed effects. The coefficient shows how much losing one percentage point more of your tasks to automation lowers wages.
47
General-equilibrium model: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
The same task-allocation logic is embedded in a multi-sector model that lets automation in one industry spill into others through labour re-sorting and price changes. Fitting the model to the industry data allows the authors to simulate the full distributional impact of automation (ripple effects & hydrostatics).
48
Robustness: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
Results hold when adding controls for de-unionisation, China import shock, industry mark-ups, and classic skill-bias variables. Split-sample and alternative elasticity checks give similar slopes.
49
Results: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
Losing a large share of routine tasks (due to automation) is consistently followed by wage and hours displacement between industries (due to ripple effects). Automation explains much of the post-1980 widening of wage gaps and most of the rising college premium, even though it boosts overall productivity only modestly.
50
Title: Cavounidis et al. (2024)
Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
51
Motivation: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
When workers know their occupation is likely to disappear (e.g. self-driving trucks), how do wages, hiring and workforce age adjust during the long lead-up? They label the temporary wage premium an obsolescence rent.
52
Data / Setting: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
1) Horse-drawn teamsters vs motor-truck drivers, 1910-30. 2) Modern U.S. occupations, 2005-19, matched to automation-risk scores. 3) Today’s long-haul truckers facing autonomous vehicles.
53
Methodology: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
Build a three-state overlapping-generations model (no-shock / anticipatory-dread / aftermath), then test its predictions in the data. Empirics: (1) compare wages, employment and age structure for teamsters in the dread decade (1910-20) versus the aftermath (1920-30); (2) Modern jobs ranked by Frey-Osbourne Automation risk: regress decade changes in pay, jobs and mean age on automation-risk × year across modern occupations; (3) DiD, treatment: truck driver 2015-18 (dread), control: truck driver 2005-06 (pre-dread) - signs of workforce greying
54
Robustness: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
results are consistent for all three settings
55
Results: Cavounidis et al. (2024) - Obsolescence Rents: Teamsters, Truckers & Impending Computerization
Rising wages and ageing workers in the occupation can be a warning sign that technology is on the way; labour-market adjustment (obsolence rent / wage premia) begins well before the machines actually arrive. long haul drives are a contemporrary mirror of teamsters
56
Hydrostatics: Acemoglu & Restrepo (2022) - Tasks, Automation, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality
metaphor for how automation reshapes task allocation and wages across worker groups. When automation displaces a group from its tasks, it creates ripple effects—those workers shift to other tasks, increasing competition and pushing down wages for similar groups.