.

{2} GoogleTranslate (H)

English French German Spanish Italian Dutch Russian Portuguese Japanese Korean Arabic Chinese Simplified

Our New Stuff

{3} up AdBrite + eToro

Your Ad Here

Thursday, April 2, 2015

The Big Picture

The Big Picture


Majority of Hires Never Report Looking for a Job

Posted: 02 Apr 2015 02:00 AM PDT

Majority of Hires Never Report Looking for a Job
Carlos Carrillo-Tudela, Bart Hobijn, Patryk Perkowski, and Ludo Visschers
FRBSF, 2015-10 March 30, 2015

 

 

 

 

Every month, millions of workers search for new jobs although they already have one. About one-tenth of these searchers switch employers in the following month. However, most of the job switchers in the United States never reported having looked for a job. This implies that, rather than those workers finding jobs, the jobs actually found them.

 

In conventional models of the labor market, unemployed people search for jobs and respond to job openings posted by employers (as in Mortensen and Pissarides 1994). However, job search is not limited to just those currently without jobs. Each month, millions of employed people also search for new jobs hoping to change employers. While a lot is known about the job-search behaviors of the unemployed, the same is not true for the employed.

In this Economic Letter, we investigate active job searching among the employed and its implications for labor market turnover. We find that people on a payroll actively search for jobs at about half the rate as those without jobs. Employed workers who search are much more likely to transition into a new job than those who do not. However, roughly three-quarters of job switchers did not report having looked for a new job, because there are many more nonsearchers than there are job-seekers. Instead, workers who switched jobs seem to have been actively sought out and recruited by their new employers.

Measuring on-the-job search

The most common source of information on U.S. labor market activity is the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). It is used to calculate the official unemployment rate. People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job and are actively searching for one. As a consequence, the CPS primarily contains data on the job-search behavior of the unemployed.

Unfortunately, once people report having a job and are classified as employed, the CPS does not ask them whether they are searching for another job. Surveys similar to the CPS in other countries like the United Kingdom (Fujita 2012 and Carrillo-Tudela et al. 2014) do ask such questions.

The only U.S. data on the search behavior of employed workers is through the Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) to the CPS. Conducted in February of 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2005, the CWS covers job-search behavior over the three months before the survey. The CWS asks respondents who started working at their current job within the past three months about their job-search behavior since starting their latest job.

In looking at these data, it is important to be consistent regarding what it means to search for a job in the definition of unemployment. For this study, we classify only those who actively search for work as job searchers. This includes contacting employers, employment agencies, friends, family, or university employment centers; sending out resumes; checking professional registers; and placing job ads. We exclude people who exclusively use passive job-search methods such as looking at ads or attending job training programs.

Prevalence of active job search among the employed

Figure 1
Active job search rates from February surveys

Active job search rates from February surveys

Source: CPS and Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Job search among those with a job is not as common as job search among those without one. Figure 1 shows job search rates for people currently with or without jobs. Those who have a job are less than half as likely to search for a new job as those without one. About 4.3% of wage and salary workers reported actively searching for a new job, compared with about 9% of those without a job. Our 4.3% estimate may seem tiny, but active job-searchers constitute a significant labor market force. In February 2005, for example, of the 130 million wage and salary workers in the United States, almost 5 million were actively searching for a new job. Adding these on-the-job searchers to the roughly 8 million unemployed yields a total of 13 million individuals who were searching for new jobs that month.

Job-search rates among the employed vary in terms of demographic characteristics according to the CWS survey. Younger workers are more likely to search on the job than older ones, which could imply they are less tied to their current job and are seeking other possible employment opportunities. Almost 7% of workers age 16 to 24 actively searched on the job compared with just 2.3% of those age 45 or older. College graduates are more likely to search on the job than those without a college education. This trend is especially true for recent college graduates, that is, individuals between ages 22 and 27 with a college degree. About 9.6% of employed recent college graduates actively searched for new jobs, compared with just 4.3% of the general population of workers. This may reflect that recent college graduates are more focused on changing jobs to find a career that matches their skills and interests.

Active job search and labor status transitions

Figure 2
Transitions from employment by search effort

Transitions from employment by search effort

Source: CPS.

People who actively search on the job are much more likely to switch employers than those who do not. Figure 2 shows February's employed CWS respondents who reported a job status change in March broken down according to their job search activity. For both groups, over 90% of wage and salary workers reported still being employed in March, whether in their former jobs (not shown) or in new jobs. However, those who reported actively searching for a job were more than six times as likely to transition into a new job than those who did not report active job search (11.3% versus 1.8%), as denoted by the red bars in Figure 2. Job search affects transitions into employment in a similar way for those without a job: Jobless people who searched for a job are also six times as likely to transition into a job as the jobless who do not report job search. All of this falls in line with the traditional view of the labor market: People who actively search for jobs are more likely to transition into a job than those who do not.

Table 1
Hiring probability, hires by job status and search effort

Hiring probability, hires by job status and search effort

However, Figure 2 shows that about 2% of nonsearchers also find new jobs. Though their chances of finding a job are smaller, nonsearchers actually make up the majority of new hires because there are many more people who do not search than there are who search. Table 1 summarizes these numbers. It shows that more than three-quarters of workers who switched employers did not report active job search in the previous three months. Thus the bulk of job-to-job transitions does not adhere to the usual interpretation of the labor market matching process in which employees actively seek out job openings posted by employers.

The story is not much different for those who are jobless. Fallick and Fleischman (2004) find that only about one-third of the moves from non-employment into employment come from those who actively searched in the previous month. Table 1 shows the same for our sample: Two-thirds of those who move from non-employment in February to employment in March do not report active job search.

Part of the phenomenon of nonseekers finding jobs might be explained as workers who search only briefly and find a job quickly such that their search activity is never reported in the CPS and CWS. However, Elsby, Hobijn, and Şahin (2015) show that this measurement issue only partly accounts for the flows from nonparticipation to unemployment; instead, a substantial part of these flows appears to be people who did not actively search but who seem to have been recruited by employers. Our evidence here suggests the same is true for job-to-job switchers.

Employer recruitment activity

Because of this, recruitment by employers through activities such as referrals or directly contacting applicants appears to be important for understanding a substantial part of labor turnover in the United States. Indeed a large literature emphasizes the importance of informal contacts for worker job mobility (see Ioannides and Loury 2004). Unfortunately, there is no obvious data source on recruitment activities by U.S. firms. The most common source is the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which measures the number of people hired by firms and the number of job openings posted. A job opening could be interpreted as an active search effort from the business's side. However, Davis, Faberman, and Haltiwanger (2013) point out that 42% of hires each month occur at firms that did not report vacancies.

Some specific labor markets, like those for construction workers, do not rely on hiring through vacancies. These might account for part of the hires without vacancies in the data. Potentially more important, regardless of whether a vacancy is posted or not, employers may reach out to employees at other firms directly even if the employee is not searching for a new job. This practice of employee poaching may explain both why job search accounts for just 20% of employer-to-employer transitions and why job search matters less for those with jobs than those without jobs. First, workers may be poached and switch employers even if they were not looking for new employment. Second, people are more likely to be recruited if they have a current job and an established network and track record. Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence on employee poaching in the labor market. However, if one assumes that employers are more likely to poach from competitors in the same industry, then this implies that job-to-job switches by nonseekers are more often within the same industry than switches by job seekers. This turns out to be true. According to the CWS, about 60% of workers who experienced an employer transition without active job search—and were thus more likely to have been poached—remained in the same industry, compared with just 40% of those who experienced an employer transition while actively searching for a job.

Conclusion

Many people find jobs without ever reporting actively looking for one. This implies that, rather than them finding jobs, the jobs actually find them. Analysis of data on workers' search behavior suggests that this is the case for a majority of the people who get hired. Unfortunately, evidence on the recruitment activities of businesses is very limited. Additional data on businesses' hiring efforts beyond job openings could substantially improve our understanding of U.S. labor market dynamics.

Carlos Carrillo-Tudela is a professor at University of Essex.

Bart Hobijn is a senior research advisor in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Patryk Perkowski is a research associate in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Ludo Visschers is a professor at the University of Edinburgh.

References

Carrillo-Tudela, Carlos, Bart Hobijn, Powen She, and Ludo Visschers. 2014. "The Extent and Cyclicality of Career Changes: Evidence for the U.K." FRB San Francisco Working Paper 2014-21.

Davis, Steven J., R. Jason Faberman, and John C. Haltiwanger. 2013. "The Establishment-Level Behavior of Vacancies and Hiring." Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(2), pp. 581–622.

Elsby, Michael, Bart Hobijn, and Ayşegül Şahin. 2015. "On the Importance of the Participation Margin for Labor Market Fluctuations." Journal of Monetary Economics, forthcoming.

Fallick, Bruce, and Charles Fleischman. 2004. "Employer-to-Employer Flows in the U.S. Labor Market: The Complete Picture of Gross Worker Flows." Board of Governors Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2004-34.

Fujita, Shigeru. 2012. "An Empirical Analysis of On-the-Job Search and Job-to-Job Transitions." FRB Philadelphia Working Paper 10-34R.

Ioannides, Yannis M., and Linda Datcher Loury. 2004. "Job Information Networks, Neighborhood Effects, and Inequality."Journal of Economic Literature 42 (4, December), pp. 1,056–1,093.

Mortensen, Dale T., and Christopher A. Pissarides. 1994. "Job Creation and Job Destruction in the Theory of Unemployment." Review of Economic Studies 61(3), pp. 397–415.

Confused Person’s Guide to Middle East Conflict

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 06:00 PM PDT


Source: The Atlantic

Masters in Business: Charley Ellis

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 01:00 PM PDT

This week, our Masters in Business radio podcast features Charley Ellis, former Chairman of the Yale Endowment, Vanguard Group Board member, chairman of the CFA Institute, and author of Winning the Loser's Game: Timeless Strategies for Successful Investing.

Following a B.A. in Art History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School, Ellis explains how he accidentally began his career in the Rockefeller family office. He ended went on to launch his own consulting firm Greenwich Associates, which caters to banks, investment houses and other financial entities. He chaired the CFA Institute, served on the faculty of Harvard Business School and the Yale School of Management, and was Chairman of the Yale Endowment, where he worked with legendary Yale CIO David Swensen. Ellis served on the Board of Directors of Vanguard Group, and is an advisor to Wealthfront.

He is is the author of 16 books, including Winning the Loser's Game (which we discuss extensively in the show), and a collection of investing writing, The Investor's Anthology: Original Ideas from the Industry's Greatest Minds. His most recent book is titled Falling Short: The Coming Retirement Crisis and What to Do About It.

Listen to the podcast at Bloomberg, on Apple iTunes or SoundCloud. All of our prior podcasts are now available on iTunes.

Next week, we speak with Bobby Flay, Chef, Restaurateur, cookbook author and star of of the Food Network.

 

2015 Farm Bill Essentials

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 12:00 PM PDT

Cool article about the transition away from much of the traditional corporate farm price supports.

Now if we could only get rid of that damned ethanol subsidy . . .

 

click for ginormous interactive graphic/article

Source: Bloomberg

Blue Line Jumps 11 Percent

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 08:00 AM PDT


Source: The Onion

From The Onion:

Excitement swept the financial world Monday, when a blue line jumped more than 11 percent, passing four black horizontal lines as it rose from 367.22 to 408.85.

It was the biggest single-day gain for a blue line since 1994.

“Even if you extend the blue line’s big white box back many vertical lines, you won’t find a comparably large jump,” said Milton Vogel, a senior analyst with Merrill Lynch. “That line just kept going up, up, up.”

The blue line, which had been sluggish ever since the red line started pointing down in April, began its rebound with an impressively pointy 7 percent rise Friday. By noon Monday, it had crossed the second horizontal line from the top for the first time since December.

Ecstatic investors are comparing the blue line to the left side of a very tall, steep blue mountain.

10 Wednesday AM Reads

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 04:30 AM PDT

No foolin’ around with our April Fool’s morning train reads:

• Investors Across the Globe Join the Party (WSJ)
• All Hail Jeffrey Gundlach, the New Bond King (Bloomberg View)
• Once-bullish fund managers start to capitulate on oil prices (Reuterssee also Oil Speculators Focused on Glut Miss Surge as Bombs Hit Yemen (Bloomberg)
• Highs and lows of the minimum wage (Tim Harford)
• Did Bernanke forget about QE? (FT Alphavillesee also U.S. Government Bonds Rise for Fifth Straight Quarterly Gain (WSJ)

Continues here: Ritholtz’s Reads: All Hail the New Bond King

 

 

 

Wally’s Economic Forecasting

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 04:00 AM PDT

Presented without comment:


Source: Dilbert

Every TV News Report on the Economy in One

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 03:00 AM PDT

Charlie Brooker’s Weekly Wipe: Every TV news report on the economy in one, courtesy of generic reporter Emily Surname

.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Big Picture

The Big Picture


Labor Market Slack and Monetary Policy

Posted: 01 Apr 2015 02:00 AM PDT

Pour-Over: Smart, Artisinal Coffee Machine

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 05:30 PM PDT

click for bigger image
pour over

From Poppy

 

Hey! You kids at Poppy! You don’t understand what you have here, so let me bring you up to speed:

Nobody cares that this machine is “carefully handcrafted in San Francisco” or that it automatically reorders coffee filters.

It's simply a gorgeous looking, single cup brewing fully automatic pour-over coffee maker. Try marketing it as a fantastic single cup coffee maker, one that allows people to get rid of their crappy K-Cup units.  (Get me one of these, pronto!)

 

 

 

Previously:

Your Coffee Sucks! (April 25, 2004)

Capresso 465 CoffeeTeam  (December 19th, 2011)

Breville BDC600XL YouBrew Drip Coffee Maker  (TBP Holiday Shopping Ideas November 28th, 2012)

 

 

More Economic & Legal Details on Indiana’s RFRA Law

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 11:00 AM PDT

This morning, I described the potential economic cost of the backlash Indiana’s RFRA law. There was some pushback, but emailers were quickly disabused of the falsity of their statements. A few factual clarifications and a few last details will round out what some people may not understand.

First, the Indiana legislation is different from other “Religious Freedom” laws. The language of the Indiana law differs from both Federal most other state RFRA legislation:

The Indiana statute has two important differences from the federal RFRA—and most state RFRAs.

First, the Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language, and neither does any of the state RFRAs (South Carolina is the lone exception). Louisiana and Pennsylvania explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.

Indiana statute also contains this language: "A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding." (emphasis added) Neither the federal RFRA, nor 18 of the 19 state statutes cited by Cook in the Post, says anything remotely like this; (The 1999 Texas RFRA is somewhat similar).

There are more details here.

Second, legal scholars with an expertise in laws pertaining to religious matters as well as civil liberties had warned the Indiana legislators in advance of passage that this bill’s language had problems.

Third, the Indiana legislation follows the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, and is such seemingly is an attempt to expand the 'natural' rights of corporations. This is the natural legal progression, and laws passed prior to Hobby Lobby are different in context.

Fourth, it is especially noteworthy that other states with similar religious freedom laws also have anti-gay discrimination laws. Indiana does not. This one factor has a simply tremendous difference in how such laws will be enforced. That missing element is why various companies looked at this as thinly veiled legislative discrimination.

Last, and perhaps most damning of all, the law was intended to send a message. As GLAAD showed in this revealing photograph, the backers of the bill are some of the nation's most notorious homophobes. Despite the false protestations of Governor Pence, the invited participants to the private – not public — legislative signing ceremony is extremely revealing. Its no wonder that Pence has canceled numerous public appearances since the backlash to his legislation began. The governor's claim the legislation had nothing to do with anti-gay motivations was revealed by Polifact as a half truth. I go further than that and call it bullshit.

~~~

While there have been prior attempts at statewide boycotts, this is the first one discussed in the era of social media. The hashtag #BoycottIndiana quickly trended to the top of Twitter. That is driving a lot of the discussion.

Consider the NCAA contract with the Hoosier state. The collegiate sports association is headquartered in Indiana, and has a deal with the state to "host men’s Final Four every five years through 2039" in Indiana. There is pressure from some quarters to relocate both the NCAA and the Final Four out of Indiana. It is a novel legal question as to whether the new law is sufficient to allow the NCAA out of that deal.

But that is what might happen in the future. There has been significant immediate response to the law. These are already having an impact on the state's economy. If this continues, the potential impact could run into the billions of dollars:

There have been other, less specific economic threats. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman wrote "it is unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large." The Indiana Chamber of Commerce has criticized the law, calling it “unnecessary.” And states such as  Connecticut and Washington have banned official travel to Indiana over what they called the state's LGBT discrimination law; San Francisco and Seattle have imposed similar travel bans.

Other localities have jumped on the controversy to court Indiana's business community. Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe reached out to companies in Indiana, offering that "in Virginia, we do not discriminate against our friends and neighbors, particularly those who are supporting local businesses and generating economic activity.” both Cincinnati Council member Chris Seelbach (the first openly gay politician elected in that city) Tweeted last week that Cincinnati was recently named one of the most LGBT inclusive cities in the country and “we have taken every necessary step to make our laws fully inclusive.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also jumped into the fray.

~~~

There have been quite a few tortured explanations for why the Indiana law isn't discriminatory, but I won't link to any of these. The lawyer in me finds them to be intellectually disingenuous as well as morally repugnant.

 

Gay Discrimination Is A Billion Dollar Self-Indulgence

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 07:00 AM PDT

By now, you have surely heard about Indiana's so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act and its potential for giving cover to those who discriminate against gay people. A backlash that had already been gathering momentum burst open this weekend, driven by an op-ed by Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook in the Washington Post. As Cook wrote:

America's business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business.

The law’s passage has led to a torrent of business responses. I want to discuss the potential economic aspects of these, and what it might mean to the state of Indiana.

At stake are losses for manufacturing ($95.4 billion in annual state output), finance ($44 billion) and tourism ($10.3 billion) — not to mention reputational harm. Arizona adopted a similar religious-freedom bill last year, but "opposition from the state's business interests led Republican Governor Jan Brewer to veto it."

Any discussion of the economic implications and financial consequences of this law must take account of the speed of the response and the wave of unfavorable publicity

Continues here:  Indiana’s Costly Anti-Gay Experiment

 

 

10 Tuesday AM Reads

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 04:30 AM PDT

Heckuva of a way to start the week, with a giant rally — let’s see if  it sticks. Meanwhile, our morning train reads:

• Want to avoid a bear market? (Irrelevant Investorsee also You won't know the bull market is over until the bear is here (MarketWatch)
• China's stock market sure looks like a bubble (Wonkblog)
• A Shrewd Oil Call Reverses Fortunes for Lucky Few (WSJ)
• Small investors blame losses on brokers they once trusted (Yahoo Finance)
• Now That Ben Bernanke Is Blogging, Here's What He Should Write About (Upshot)

Continues here

 

 

Trends Around 1st Fed Rate Hikes

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 03:30 AM PDT

Lessons For Lift Off – Recent sensitivities to interest rates, and trends around the 1st Fed rate hikes of 1994, 1999, and 2004


Source: Credit Suisse

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

.

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

The Big Picture

The Big Picture


Are Wages Flat or Falling? Decomposing Recent Changes in the Average Wage Provides an Answer

Posted: 31 Mar 2015 02:00 AM PDT

Are Wages Flat or Falling? Decomposing Recent Changes in the Average Wage Provides an Answer
Joel Elvery and Christopher Vecchio
Cleveland Fed 03.27.2015

 

 

 

the federal reserve bank of cleveland

 

There recently has been a lot of concern about stagnant wages. Most of the discussion has focused on the median and average hourly wage, but these measures are sensitive to changes in the mix of occupations. For example, consider how average wages move during recessions. Demand for labor falls during recessions, and increased competition for the remaining jobs can push wages down. However, average wages often rise during recessions as firms lay off their less-skilled (and lower paid) employees while retaining their higher-skilled (and better paid) employees. In addition, over time there has been a steady up-skilling of the workforce, which has pushed the average wage higher. This article answers the question: What fraction of recent changes in the average wage is due to changes in the occupation mix versus changes in wages within occupations?

To answer questions like this, economists often use the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique (Oaxaca is pronounced wa-ha-ka). This technique is frequently used to analyze wage differences between two groups, for example men and women. We use it to decompose the change in wages between years into two parts. One part is the change in the average wage due to within-occupation wage changes (as in the increased-competition scenario above), and the other is the change in the average wage due to changes in each occupation's share of employment (like the up-skilling scenario above). We do the decomposition for the United States, the four states in the Fourth District (Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia), and the Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas.

We use data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), a survey of 1.2 million establishments over three years, which provides annual estimates of employment levels and average wages for detailed occupations. Because of the overlap in the sample across years, we focus on just three years: 2007, 2010, and 2013. The 2007 to 2010 period captures the recession plus the first year of the recovery and the 2010 to 2013 period captures the rest of the recovery. The occupation codes used by OES changed between 2007 and 2010, so we combined some occupations to create time-stable occupation codes, giving us 785 detailed occupations. We adjust all wages to 2013 dollars to make it easier to compare values across time. For brevity, we call the "real average hourly wage" simply the "average wage."

We use the OES rather than the most common source of overall average wages, Current Employment Statistics (CES), because the CES lacks the occupational detail we need for the decomposition. But in the areas where they overlap, the two data sets give similar results. OES's estimate of the national average hourly wage in May 2013 is $22.81, $1.60 less than the CES estimate. This may be because the OES can underestimate the average wage of occupations with very high wages. The OES also shows less growth in average wages from 2011 to 2013, which is consistent with the evidence that recent wage growth has been stronger in high-wage occupations. That said, the OES and CES have similar wage trends from 2007 to 2013. Over this time, the average wage increased 1.7 percent in the OES and 1.9 percent in the CES.

Table 1. Decomposition of the Change in Real Average Hourly Wages, 2007–2013

Area Actual percent change Percent Change Due to Changes in
Wages Occupational Mix
United States 1.5 −0.6 2.1
States
Kentucky 0.6 −0.6 1.2
Ohio −0.6 −3.5 2.9
Pennsylvania 3.3 1.2 2.1
West Virginia 3.3 0.8 2.5
Metro areas
Cincinnati −0.1 −3.6 3.4
Cleveland −1.0 −3.8 2.8
Columbus −0.2 −3.2 3.1
Pittsburgh 4.6 2.4 2.2

Note: Due to rounding, the percent change may not equal the sum of the wage and occupational mix components.
Source: authors' calculations from the Occupational Employment Statistics.

Our analysis shows that for the United States as a whole, the average wage rose 1.5 percent from 2007 to 2013, which is slightly below the published OES estimate. If the mix of occupations were held fixed, the average wage would have declined 0.6 percent due to declines in within-occupation wages. If instead hourly wages within each occupation were held fixed, the average wage would have increased 2.1 percent due to increases in the share of employment in higher-wage occupations.

Looking at the states in the Fourth District over the same time period, we find that wages declined 0.6 percent in Ohio and rose 3.3 percent in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and 0.6 percent in Kentucky. In each state, increases in the share of employment in higher-wage occupations pushed the average wage up, but in Ohio a 3.5 percent decline in the within-occupation wage was enough to make the average wage in the state fall.

A similar pattern is seen in the Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus metro areas, where notable shifts to higher-wage occupations were not enough to offset falling wages within occupations, and average wages fell from 2007 to 2013. In Pittsburgh, within-occupation wage increases and shifts to higher-wage occupations contributed about equally to a 4.6 percent increase in the average wage over that time.

Next we divide this six-year period into two periods: 2007 to 2010 (the recession and the first year of the recovery) and 2010 to 2013 (recovery years). The figures below show the results graphically. The blue bars are the percent change in the average wage due to changes in the mix of occupations. The tan bars are the percent change in the average wage due to within-occupation wage changes. The red dots are the actual percent change in average wage, which is the sum of the two components. When both components have the same sign, the height of the stacked bars is the total change. When the wage and mix component have different signs, the dots representing the total change fall inside the bars.

 

In the United States, the average hourly wage rose 3.7 percent from 2007 to 2010 and fell 2.2 percent from 2010 to 2013. The increase in the average wage during the recession came from an increase in the share of employment in higher-wage occupations as well as rising wages within occupations. In the recovery, there was a 2.5 percent decline in the average wage due to within-occupation wage changes, and shifts in the occupational mix had a small positive effect (0.3 percent). This implies that, on average, people who did not change occupations experienced declines in their real hourly wage between 2010 and 2013.

Table 2. Decomposition of the Change in Real Average Hourly Wage, 2007–2010 and 20102013

Area 2007–2010 2010–2013
Actual percent change Percent Change Due to Changes in Actual percent change Percent Change Due to Changes in
Wages Occupational Mix Wages Occupational Mix
United States 3.7 1.0 2.6 −2.2 −2.5 0.3
States
Kentucky 3.3 1.4 1.9 −2.6 −2.2 −0.4
Ohio 0.6 0.0 0.6 −1.2 −3.6 2.4
Pennsylvania 5.0 3.6 1.4 −1.6 −2.3 0.7
West Virginia 4.1 3.3 0.8 −0.7 −2.5 1.7
Metro areas
Cincinnati 0.0 −0.5 0.5 −0.1 −3.1 2.9
Cleveland −0.2 −0.8 0.6 −0.9 −3.0 2.2
Columbus 2.0 0.6 1.3 −2.1 −3.7 1.6
Pittsburgh 5.7 4.2 1.6 −1.1 −1.7 0.6

Note: Due to rounding, the percent change may not equal the sum of the wage and occupational mix components.

Source: authors' calculations from the Occupational Employment Statistics.

 

Average wages rose during the recession and fell during the recovery in all four of the states in the Fourth District. The increases from 2007 to 2010 ranged from 0.6 percent in Ohio to 5.0 percent in Pennsylvania. The small increase in Ohio's average wage was due entirely to changes in the mix of occupations, while the increases in the other states were due to both within-occupation wage increases and increases in the share of employment in higher-wage occupations. The declines in average hourly wages from 2010 to 2013 ranged from 0.7 percent in West Virginia to 2.6 percent in Kentucky. Though shifts to higher-wage occupations pushed the average wage up in Ohio and West Virginia during the recovery, it was not enough to counteract the effect of within-occupation declines in wages, which ranged from 2.2 percent in Kentucky to 3.6 percent in Ohio.

Wage growth and its components varied widely across the four largest metropolitan areas in the Fourth District. However, all had within-occupation wage declines during the later recovery years. These declines were large enough to make the average wage fall in each metro area even as their occupational mixes shifted toward higher-wage occupations. For example, in the Columbus metro area from 2010 to 2013, within-occupation wage changes reduced the average wage by 3.7 percent and the shift to higher-wage occupations increased the average wage by 1.6 percent, which nets to a 2.1 percent decline in the average wage.

 

In general, we find that real average hourly wages rose during the recession and fell during the recovery. The drop in the average wage between 2010 and 2013—which occurred in the US as a whole and all of the states and metropolitan areas we looked at—would have been more severe if there had not also been an increase in the share of employment in occupations with above-average wages.

Why did wages rise during the recession and fall during the recovery? It may be due to what are called "selection effects." During recessions, firms tend to retain their most productive workers, both across and within occupations. Furthermore, less productive firms are more likely to lay off workers during recessions, which would also increase average productivity within occupations. Wages are closely linked to productivity, so the selection effects that increase within-occupation productivity also increase within-occupation wages. As hiring increases during a recovery, people who were laid off during the recession—who tend to have lower productivity than people in the same occupation who remained employed—find new jobs, which would pull down the average productivity of the workers within an occupation.

It is also possible that wages declined more in the recovery than in the recession due to what economists call "sticky wages." Reducing real wages is one of the ways the labor market adjusts to drops in demand for labor. However, firms generally do not cut the wages of existing employees, so their real wages tend to decline only due to inflation. When the labor market is weak, firms can reduce the wages offered to new hires. As a result, the wages of new hires are more responsive to current labor market conditions than are the wages of existing employees. This implies that within-occupation wages would not change much during the recession due to low levels of hiring, but they could decline as firms hire new workers during the recovery. In this scenario, the within-occupation wage declines indicate just how weak the labor market was between 2010 and 2013.

 

* * *

 

Source:  Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank

~~~

Joel Elvery

Joel Elvery is an economist in the Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Dr. Elvery's primary fields of interest are labor, public, and urban economics. He also specializes in applied econometrics, which involves studying economic models and using statistical trials to calculate future trends. His current work focuses on the regional economy in the Fourth Federal Reserve District, which includes Ohio, western Pennsylvania, eastern Kentucky, and the northern panhandle of West Virginia.

See All

Christopher Vecchio

Christopher Vecchio is a research analyst in the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. His primary interests include development economics, international economics, and the economics of terrorism. Mr. Vecchio holds a bachelor's degree in economics from John Carroll University and a master's degree in economics from Cleveland State University.

See All

 

Indiana’s SB-01– Is Not Pro Religion, Its Anti-Gay

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 05:00 PM PDT

Governor Mike Pence is lying about the purpose of this law. The photo below, and who the governor invited to its being signed into law, very much reveals the motivation behind SB101 — its not pro-religion, its anti-gay, and thats wrong.

Its also bad business — companies like Apple and Angies List may very well be the tip of the iceberg; I suspect we may see other companies vote with their feet — and their dollars. Pence has revealed himself, and may have just torpedoed his own Presidential ambitions.

The Party of Lincoln, what happened to you?

 

click for ginormous version
CBSZ0lMUkAAe3Sh
Source: GLAAD

Howard Marks: Origins and Inspirations

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 01:00 PM PDT

The Most Important Thing – “Origins and Inspirations

Warren Buffett said “When I see memos from Howard Marks in my mail, they’re the first thing I open and read.” Howard is the Co-Chairman of Oaktree Capital Management. He is known in the investment community for his “Oaktree memos” to clients which detail investment strategies and insight into the economy. He treats investing as equal parts psychology and finance, and his book The Most Important Thing provides “uncommon sense for the thoughtful investor.”

Probability, Mean Reversion and Forecasting

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 09:00 AM PDT

We’re down to the Final Four in this year’s iteration of March Madness, also known as the national collegiate basketball tournament. Our earlier discussion of “The March Madness Theory of Investing didn’t sit well with some readers. The lessons we sussed out from the bracket-destroying results included home-country bias, how expert forecasts are about as good as those of nonexperts, and the impact of noise and distraction.

One issue I want to delve into further is why predicting the future seems to be so hard, if not impossible. That particular "lesson" caused quite a bit of pushback.

There were many good responses, but Cullen Roche of Pragmatic Capitalism made perhaps the most interesting observation. In a blog post he wrote:

(P)redicting the future is actually pretty easy in a macro sense. For instance, anyone with a sound understanding of macroeconomics and the capital structure knows, with a very high probability, that stocks will tend to become more valuable over long periods of time because stocks reflect the value of some portion of our overall output.

 I don’t see this so much as a factual disagreement as simply defining epistemological elements differently.

At the risk of repeating myself, let's define just what a prediction is:

Continues here: March Madness and the Perils of Predicting

 

 

 

Bull vs. Bear Debate: Is Biotech Is in a Bubble?

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 05:00 AM PDT

Awesome graphic:

 

click for ginormous graphic
-1x-1
Source: Credit Suisse via Bloomberg

 

 

10 Monday AM Reads

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 04:00 AM PDT

Back to the workweek! Spring has sprung, the futures are green, and its time for our morning train reads:

• Why are interest rates so low?  (Ben S. Bernanke Blog)
• How to Combine Value and Momentum Investing Strategies (Alpha Architectbut see Woe Betide the Value Investor (Research Affiliates)
• Confusing today's liquidity with tomorrow's (TRB)
• How the world’s youngest self-made female billionaire is shaking up the healthcare industry (Business Insider)
• Economic Confidence Shows Euro-Area Recovery Defies Greek Risks (Bloomberg) see also German Economy Finds New Fuel as It Reaps Benefits of QE (Bloomberg)

Continues here

 

 

.

Monday, March 30, 2015

The Big Picture

The Big Picture


Low Interest Rates and Financial Stability

Posted: 30 Mar 2015 02:00 AM PDT

60 Minutes: Killing Cancer

Posted: 29 Mar 2015 05:00 PM PDT

60 Minutes follows brain cancer patients in a Duke University clinical trial of a therapy that uses a re-engineered polio virus to kill cancer cells

 

Using polio to kill cancer: A producers’ notebook

Hate Mail Rules

Posted: 29 Mar 2015 09:00 AM PDT

1. CHECK YOUR GRAMMAR

No one’s going to take you seriously if you use “there” instead of “their” or “your” instead of “you’re.” Maybe you should write your missives in Word first, where there’s a grammar checker. Or maybe run your prospective words by your mother, since you want her to be proud of you. I’d say to get a review by your significant other, but I’ve yet to find a hater with a spouse.

2. SPELLCHECK

This is built into so many of today’s programs, especially e-mail. How much effort does it take to scroll up to the menu and give it a go?

Then again, you’re probably hating from your smartphone, and you don’t want to risk waiting and having your anger subside. Otherwise you won’t have the desired effect of pissing off your target. Hating must be done right away, when you’re irate, when it’s still the most important thing in the world. However, those worth hating judge you by your spelling mistakes. They’re evidence of education. And if you haven’t got any, the target will not take you seriously.

3. SCRUB SEARCH ENGINES

The problem with today’s world is everybody is identifiable, researchable. Especially in this challenged economy where everybody is looking for a job and posts his curriculum vitae on LinkedIn. You don’t want the recipient of your hatred to know you don’t have a job, or a bad one. You’re embarrassed about your situation enough! So hire a reputation company to get rid of stuff you don’t want people to see. As for victims checking out your resume… You might think you’ve won, but the truth is victims like to laugh too!

4. DON’T HATE IN YOUR FIELD/BACKYARD

Otherwise it just evidences jealousy.

If you’re in music, hate in sports or TV. Because if you hate in your preferred area it just shows that you’re frustrated, you believe that the recipient has your job. Then again, haters hate because they don’t know how to climb the business ladder, wherein social skills are key to advancement. However, this is not just a hater problem. With so few good jobs available, the populace is defeated. So, for this we must have sympathy for the hater.

5. CONTENT PEOPLE!

A reasoned argument has impact. Assuming the hate reaches the target, and you must assume this, being the head of a military operation with many strikes, you never know when you’ll succeed, don’t just say STOP, or YOU’RE A JERK! That stuff works on the schoolyard, when it’s accompanied by physical intimidation and social status. But not online. Then again, you’re lucky you have online as your sandbox, because haters tend to be wimpy loners who’ve found this one way to vent their anger that their lives are not working out. So, if you’re hating on someone, delineate your complaint thoroughly. Point out not only the mistake, but the path of correction. This is your true mission, helping others. Why else would someone reach down in the pit and rescue you from your misery, acknowledge you and give you a job, if you’re not helpful?

6. PUNCH UP, NOT DOWN

Only hate on those higher up the food chain than yourself. Nothing undercuts your status more than posing as popular and successful and then hating someone you keep saying is beneath you. It makes you look small and petty. Which is why when someone receives hate e-mail from an attorney or public figure, that contains no analysis (see #5 above), it changes the recipient’s viewpoint of the hater. I’ll give you the opposite example. Obama is President, that’s why he does not hate, there’s no one above him. He just experiences the vitriol and smiles. Whereas Republican Congresspeople and Fox News excoriate him, because they want his job.

7. ANONYMITY

Shows cowardice. It radiates fear. If you’re not willing to put your name to your hate your hate will not be taken seriously.

8. CABAL

Some haters have friends, who they rally to pile on. Is the lone gunman more powerful than the army? It’s debatable. But if you enlist your minions have a goal. And make sure you can win. Because if you rally everybody and don’t get the desired response, which is usually a response at all, then you’ll have a hard time getting everybody to hate together in the future.

9. SOCIAL NETWORKS

Twitter is on to your game. It’s banning hate accounts based on phone number. How many phone numbers do you have? Not many, therefore you won’t be able to keep creating new accounts for strategic attacks. Which is why you’re best off hating in your own name.

10. TAKE HATING SERIOUSLY

One hate mail is dismissible. Could have been a missend, meant for someone else, and will be ignored. Then again, so much hate is ignored. Which is why you must send hundreds of e-mails even if you get no response. Because hating is the most important thing to you. If you stop hating, the terrorists win.

 

~~~


Visit the archive:   http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/

@Twitter  http://www.twitter.com/lefsetz

If you would like to subscribe to the LefsetzLetter

10 Sunday Reads

Posted: 29 Mar 2015 04:00 AM PDT

Good Sunday morning. Round out your weekend with some interesting reads you may have missed:

• Need Financial Advice? Ask the Future You (NY Times)
• Vanguard snubs outsiders in digital advice: As firms like Schwab and Vanguard build more online portfolios, money managers face an ‘open architecture’ question (Investment News)
• Activist Investor Bill Ackman Sets a $1 Million Debate Bet (Vanity Fair)
• Does bankruptcy trump privacy? (Digitopoly)
• Piketty’s Three Big Mistakes (Bloomberg View)
• The War Over Who Steve Jobs Was (Mediumsee also Becoming Steve Jobs biography: 'Much of it was chutzpah and self delusion' (The Register)
• How Poor Are the Poor? (NY Times)
• BBC’s Hypocrisy Shifts Into ‘Top Gear’ (Bloomberg View) see also Top Gear Shouldn’t Go on Without Jeremy Clarkson (Wired)
• Finally, we know how many bloggers live in their parents' basement (WonkBlog)
• Scientists Divided Over Cosmic Event: Did the highly anticipated clash between a black hole and a gas cloud fall flat? (WSJ) see also Black Hole Fails to Destroy Mystery Cosmic Cloud (National Geographic)

What are you reading?

 

 


Source: Know More

 

 

.
previous home Next

{8} chatroll


{9} AdBrite FOOTER

{8} Nice Blogs (Adgetize)