Working Paper 68 Training, Wage Growth, Firm Size by zgu20479

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 28

									Survey of
Income and
Program
Part~cipation
 Training, Wage Growth, Firm Size


         Sheldon E. Haber
 The George Washington University
          Enrique Lamas
       Bureau of the Census




                          November 1988
This research was supported by the Office of Advocacy,
U.S. Small Business Administration under award SBA-
8587-AER-84. The findings and conclusions are the
sole responsibility of the authors.
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS


1.   The Theoretical Background............................                    1
2.   The Measurement of Training ...........................                   3

3.   The D a t a . . . , . . . . , . , , , , , . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . e e . . ~
                                                                               7.

4.                  oe..................
     The Empirical Mdl.....,...........                                        8
5.                  eut.................
     The Empirical Rsls................                                      12
       Table 1.     Regression Results: Wage Growth
                    Over 16 Months, SIPP Waves 1-4,
                    1984 Panel (Including Imputations)            ........ 14
       Table 2.     Regression Results: Wage ~ r o w t h
                    Over 16 Months, SIPP Waves 1-4,
                    1984 Panel (Excluding Imputations)            ........ 17

FOOTNOTES
REFERENCES
APPENDIX TABLE
                           Training, Wage Growth, and Firm Size*


A growing body o f economic l i t e r a t u r e indicates t h a t t h e l a b o r market operates
t o match workers w i t h p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l s t o f i r m s i n which those s k i l l s are

needed.     Because o f t h e importance of monitoring costs and o f e f f i c i e n c i e s
t h a t r e s u l t from t h e r o u t i n i t a t ion o f production when producing 1arge stand-

ardized volumes o f output, l a r g e firms tend t o provide f i rm-specifi c t r a i n i n g .
Small fi
       ms, on t h e other hand, can more e a s i l y adjust output between product
l i n e s and t h e volume o f output i t s e l f ; t h e s k i 11s required t o f a c i l i t a t e

such adjustments tend t o be learned through general t r a i n i n g .                 Thus t h e

question of whether workers receive more on-the-job t r a i n i n g a t l a r g e firms

o r a t small ones can .only be resolved by analyses of empirical data.                          It i s
t h i s question t h a t i s t h e subject matter of our study.

1.   The Theoreti cal Background

Theoretical models i n c l u d i n g W i 11iamson (1967), Lucas (1978), Rosen (1982),
and O i (1983 a, b ) e x p l a i n how market e q u i l i b r i u m occurs w i t h f i r m s of d i f -

ferent size.       The work o f O i which i s summarized below i s p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant

f o r i t s i n s i g h t s i n t o f i r m heterogenity, the organization o f production, and
t h e i r implications f o r training.


According t o O i differences i n firm s i z e a r i s e o u t o f an unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n
of entrepreneur1a1 a b i l ity.         The special a b i l i t y o f some entrepreneurs t h a t

enables thef r f i r m s t o reach l a r g e s i z e i s t h a t they are able t o coordinate
t h e production o f l a r g e volumes o f standardized goods.                This a b i l i t y however

does not extend t o monitoring t h e performance o f workers.                     As a r e s u l t more


                                                                     ..
*This research was supported by t h e O f f i c e o f Advocacy, US Small Business
Admi n i s t r a t i on under award SBA-8587dER-84.       The f i ngs and conclusions are
                                                                 ndi
t h e sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e authors.
able entrepreneurs who employ a l a r g e r work force w i l l i n c u r greater monitoring
costs i n h i r i n g an a d d i t i o n a l worker than those faced by l e s s able entrepreneurs
who employ fewer workers.                I n s o f a r as workers d i f f e r i n t h e amount of moni-

t o r i n g , l a r g e f i r m s w i l l f i n d i t advantageous t o h i r e r e l a t i v e l y high-produc-
t i v i t y workers.     Small firms, on t h e other hand, w i l l expand output by h i r i n g
re1a t i vely 1ow-producti v i t y workers even though they requi r e more intensi ve

monitoring.        The outcome o f t h i s matching process i s that, a l l e l s e being t h e

same, b e t t e r educated workers and workers w i t h greater l a b o r f o r c e attachment,
1 .e.,   characteri s t i c s associated w i t h h i g h - q u a l i t y labor, are employed i n
l a r g e firms vis-a-vis small .ones (Barth, Cordes, and Haber, 1987).


Large firms a l s o l i m i t monitoring costs i n t h e way they organize production.

Production i s arranged around teams and managers are layered i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l
structure.        Capital i s used i n t e n s i v e l y and i s specialized t o s i m p l i f y t h e
tasks performed by 1abor.                Job descriptions and work assignments are described

i n d e t a i l , 1i m i t i n g what workers would 1i k e t o do and p r o s c r i b i n g what they
should do.        One imp1i c a t i o n o f t h e organization o f production i n l a r g e f i r m s

i s t h a t workers i n these f i r m s receive r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e amounts o f s p e c i f i c

training.       S p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g includes not only t r a i n i n g on how t o operate a
unique piece of equipment, but a l s o l e a r n i n g t o modify one's behavior t o f u r t h e r
t h e objectives o f t h e f i r m .        S p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g o f t h e l a t t e r t y p e may b e j u s t
as i n p o r t a n t as t h e former, since i t molds workers i n t o more homogeneous l a b o r
u n i t s a1 1 owing s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y between workers and reduces t h e costs of
Supervision,


A t t h e other end o f t h e scale, small firm do best by choosing technologies
t h a t are not c a p i t a l i n t e n s i ve.   This alone reduces t h e i r need t o engage i n
specific training.             By r e l y i n g on general purpose equipment small f i r m s can
1   more e a s i l y ad j u s t t h e volume of output as w e l l as i t s mix.                   we1 1.     I n the


I   adjustment process, workers a t a l l experience l e v e l s may be expected t o receive
    genera1 t r a i n i n g .


    From t h e discussion i t i s seen t h a t small and l a r g e firms tend t o occupy d i f -

    f erent n i ches i t h e producti on spectrum, empl oy d i f f e r e n t k i nds o f workers,
                      n

    and provide d i f f e r e n t types o f t r a i n i n g .         While i t i s n o t possible t o say w i t h
    confidence t h a t one f i r m s i z e group provides more t r a i n i n g than another, t h e
    following argument might be made t o support t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t l a r g e f i r m s
    do more t r a i n i n g :      Since increases i n worker output per u n i t o f t r a i n i n g tend
    t o be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o a worker's i n i t i a l p r o d u c t i v i t y l e v e l , i may be
                                                                                                               t

    t h a t l a r g e firms p r o v i de general t r a i n i n g , as w e l l as s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g , t o

    the1 r we1 1-educated employees.                  O t h e other hand, although s i m i l a r i vid-
                                                       n                                          ndi
    uals undertaking general t r a i n i n g i n small firms may a l s o want t o i n v e s t                          n

    s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g , ample o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r such t r a i n i n g may be lacking.

    Whether t h i s i s indeed t h e case, however, can only be resolved by examining
    empirical data.

I   As noted t h e h i g h monitoring casts faced by l a r g e f i r m s imply t h a t they f i n d

I   i t more e f f i c i e n t t o h i r e h i g h - p r o d u c t i v i t y workers.   It i p l a u s i b l e t o assume
                                                                                            s

    t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f workers r e c e i v i n g t r a i n i n g f n l a r g e firm a r e t h e

I   same as those o f t h e workers they are most l i k e l y t o hire.                          But although small

    firms h i r e d i s p r o p o r t i onately fewer h i gh-producti v i ty workers,                 i t would n o t be
I   s u r p r i s i n g ifi n these firms, too, h i gh-productivity workers a l s o received t h e

I   m s t training.             Not so c l e a r however i s whether workers w i t h given character-
    i s t i c s receive d i f f e r e n t amounts o f t r a i n i n g i n f i r m s o f d i f f e r e n t size.


    2.    The Measurement o f T r a i n i n q

I   D i r e c t evidence o f t h e extent t o which t r a i n i n g i s provided by f i r m s can be
obtained by aski ng empl oyees and/or employers about company t r a i n i n g programs.
While L i l l a r d and Tan (1986) do n o t consider f i r m size, based on t h e i r analysis
o f Current Population Survey (CPS) and National Longitudi n a l Survey data they

suggest t h a t t h e r e i s a complementarity between formal schooling and p a r t i c i -

p a t i o n i n a company t r a i n i n g program.        They conclude t h a t except f o r persons

w i t h more than 16 years o f schooling, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a
company t r a i n i ng program r ises w i t h educational attainment.                      I n separate

studies of American and Canadian f i r m s based on employer surveys, where f i r m
s i z e i s taken i n t o account, Barren, Black and Lowenstein (1984) and Simpson
(19841, r e s p e c t i v e l y , have found t h a t t r a i n i n g programs are more prevalent

among l a r g e firms than small ones.                I n t h e f o m r study prevalency i s based,
i n part, on t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f a f i r m ' s most r e c e n t l y h i r e d worker r e c e i v i n g
formal t r a i n i n g by management.1            I n t h e l a t t e r study prevalency i s measured

by t h e duration i n months o f i n d u s t r i a1 nonapprenticeshi p t r a i n i n g programs.


The bulk of on-the-job t r a i n i n g probably occurs through more informal ways
than p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a t r a i n i n g program.   Informal t r a i n i n g i s t y p i c a l l y

obtained through i n s t r u c t i o n o f f e r e d by experienced workers t o inexperi enced
ones.     It a l s o occurs when workers simply observe how others perform t h e i r

j o b o r when they l e a r n by doing through t r i a l and error.                   Whatever the mode
of t r a i n i n g , t o t h e extent t h a t t r a i n i n g occurs and increases a worker's

producti v i ty, one would expect t h a t higher p r o d u c t i v i t y t o be r e f l e c t e d i n
increased earnings.            Thus, a measure t h a t captures a11 aspects o f t h e t r a i n i n g

process, a1bei t i r e c t , i s wage growth.
                  ndi

The p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t wage growth i s due t o t h e accumulation o f human c a p i t a l

i s c e n t r a l t o t h e human c a p i t a l theory o f l i f e c y c l e earnings.          However,
wages may increase f o r reasons t h a t are independent o f t h e t r a i n i n g received
by a worker w h i l e i n t h e employ o f a given f i r m .                Lazear (1981), f o r example,

suggests t h a t t h e promise and r e a l i t y o f c o n t i n u a l l y higher wages f o r most
workers i s an inducement o f f e r e d by fi
                                            rms t o d i scourage malfeasance.                              I n i t i a1l y

low wages followed by higher wages, on t h e other hand, i s seen by Salop and

Salop (1976) as a means o f discouraging workers who have marginal attachment
t o t h e l a b o r f o r c e o r who are " j o b changers" from seeking employment a t firms
because t h i s i s one way of reducing costs, e.g.,                       h i r i n g costs.     Despite t h e

d i f f e r e n t reasons why an i n d i v i d u a l ' s wage increases over time, we assume i n

t h i s study t h a t wage growth i s r e l a t e d t o human c a p i t a l investment and t h a t
employers who pay a higher wage i n t h e absence o f a corresponding increase i n

worker p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l n o t s u r v i v e f o r l o n g i n a competitive market.             To t h e
extent t h a t t h i s i s not t h e case, i t i s assumed t h a t t h e proportional c o n t r i -

b u t i o n of other f a c t o r s t o wage growth remains constant over time.                          Some

empirical evidence t h a t t h e r e i s a very l i t t l e discernable wage growth i n t h e

absence of t r a i n i n g , and o f t h e wage growth t h a t i s observed upon completion
of t r a i n i n g only a r e l a t i v e l y small p o r t i o n i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o f a c t o r s other

than t r a i n i n g , has been provided by Brown (1983).


Because of t h e stringency of' t h e data requirements, analyses o f wage growth t o
study product1 v i t y gains achieved v i a on-the-job t r a i n i n g are n o t comon.                            Data

s e t s t h a t permit t h e r x a m i n i a t i o n o f f i r m s i z e as a f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g wage

growth are even rarer, since f i r m s i z e i s l a c k i ng i n most household surveys.
                                                                                rm
I n a study by Keeley (1984), data f o r h o u r l y workers i n 14 c i t i e s fo t h e

Elrpl oyment Opportunity P i 1o t P r o j e c t surveys were matched w i t h employer data
t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on f i r m size.   Keeley found t h a t workers p a i d by t h e

hour i n small and l a r g e firms experienced t h e same r e 1a t i v e wage growth, and

concluded t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g such workers o b t a i n in t h e l a t t e r i s
offset by general t r a i n i n g i n t h e former.               However, h o u r l y workers are l e s s
l i k e l y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n company t r a i n i n g programs than s a l a r i e d workers,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n l a r g e f i r m s (Haber, 19881, and t h i s may a l s o be t r u e f o r
informal t r a i n i ng.     Since s a l a r i e d workers comprise approximately 40 percent

of p r i v a t e sector workers, i t i s unclear whether Keeley's f i n d i n g f o r hourly
workers a1 so holds f o r a l l workers.

R e l a t i v e wage g ~ o w t hi s a l s o considered by Barron, Black, and Lowenstein (1985)
but they conclude t h a t i t i s higher f o r small firms than large'ones.                             Based On

1960-70 data f rom t h e Soci a1 S e c u r i t y Admi n i s t r a t i o n Longitudinal Employee-

Employer Data f i l e ,      a s i m i l a r conclusion i s reached by Schf l l e r (1982) f o r
young males on t h e i r f i r s t f u l l - t i m e j o b l a s t i n g a t l e a s t 6 months.

While no c o n t r o l f o r f i r m s i z e was included i n t e i g h t o n and Mincer (1981),

t h e i r study of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e minimum wage and human c a p i t a l
formation, proxied by absolute wage growth, i s consistent wf t h t h e hypothesis

t h a t l e s s t r a i n i n g i s provided by small f i r m s than l a r g e ones.            Under t h e
minimum wage low-paying f i r m s t h a t would otherwise o f f e r a wage t h a t i s l e s s

than t h e minimum and, a d d i t i o n a l l y , a l s o p r o v i de employer-paid f i r m - s p e c i f i c
t r a i n i n g might f i n d t h a t they can only offer t h e higher minimum wage,                      Workers

who are t h e most l i k e l y t o f i n d t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s c u r t a i l e d by t h e minimum
wage are those whose p r o d u c t i v i t y i low, i.e.,
                                              s                        whose earnings are low.                Leighton

and Mincer's study i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e minimum wage does, indeed, i h i b i t human
                                                                               n
c a p i t a l formation among 1ow-producti v i t y workers,                 To t h e extent t h a t '1ow-

p r o d u c t i v i t y workers a r e employed i n low-wage f i rrns and low-wage fi are
                                                                                   rats

small firms, i t i s p l a u s i b l e t o surmise t h a t wage growth i n small firms i s
lower than I n l a r g e ones, again subject t o t h e caveat t h a t l i t t l e i s known
about t h e amount o f general t r a i n i n g received by workers i n small firms,
Leighton and Mincer measure wage growth i n absolute terms on t h e grounds t h a t
i t i s t h e d o l l a r amount by which t h e wage rates increases t h a t measures t h e

amount of t r a i n i n g received by an i n d i v i d u a l .          I n t h i s study we a l s o use

absolute wage growth t o measure t h e degree t o which s k i l l s are augmented v i a
on-the-job t r a i n i n g .

3.    The Data

The data t h a t we u t i l i z e are from Waves 1 through 4 o f t h e 1984 panel of t h e

Bureau of Census Survey o f Income and Program P a r t i c i p a t i o n (SIPP),                        A dis-
t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f SIPP i s t h a t i t i s a l o n g i t u d i n a l survey.   Each SIPP

panel i s d i v i d i e d i n t o f o u r r o t a t i o n groups.      One r o t a t i o n group i s -interviewed

d u r i n g t h e f i r s t two weeks o f each month.             One c y c l e o r wave of i n t e r v i e w i n g

o f t h e f o u r r o t a t i o n groups required f o u r months; thus each household i s i n t e r -
viewed three times a year.                 The reference period f o r an i n t e r v i e w i s t h e four

month period preceding t h e i n t e r v i e w month.


As we use data from Waves 1 through 4, they cover a p e r i o d o f 16 months, span-
n i n g calendar year 1984 and e a r l y 1985,                 O f importance f o r t h i s study SIPP

Wave 3 included t h e s i z e o f f i r m a t which i n d i v i d u a l s worked,                Since t h e analysis

i s r e s t r i c t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s who worked f o r t h e same employer throughout t h e
16 month perf od, t h i s information i s s u f f i c i e n t t o determine whether wage growth

occurred a t a small o r l a r g e f i r m .


I n performing t h e analysis a number o f screens have been u t i l i z e d t o increase
t h e homogeneity o f t h e sampl e,             As indicated, a11 i n d i vf duals f n t h e sampl e
worked a t l e a s t 16 months f o r the4 r employer.                    Only i n d i v i d u a l s age 2 1 years

and over are i c l uded because work experience informati on was n o t c o l l e c t e d
              n
f o r younger persons.            Even i n t h e absence o f t h i s data constraint, one might

wish t o exclude younger workers because some members o f t h e 16-20 age group
may be d i s i n c l i n e d t o i n v e s t i n human c a p i t a l i t h e form o f on-the-job t r a i n i n g
                                                                      n

a t t h i s e a r l y stage of t h e i r work l i f e .      Likewise, persons age 65 years o r
over and those who i n d i c a t e d they had r e t i r e d from a job are excluded on t h e
grounds t h a t they may be l e s s i n c l i n e d t o i n v e s t i n human c a p i t a l then o t h e r
workers.


The sample i s f u r t h e r l i m i t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s who both u s u a l l y worked f u l l - t i m e
a t t h e i r job   and actual l y    worked 35 hours o r more per week2 i n a l l weeks
(excluding weeks n o t worked b u t f o r which they were paid, e.g.,                          because of

holidays, vacation, etc.) d u r i n g t h e 16 months d e f i n i n g t h e reference periods
of Wave 1 through Wave 4.               These c r i t e r i a are more r e s t r i c t i v e than those
defining full-time,           f u l l - y e a r workers i n t h e CPS and ensure greater homoge-

n e i t y of t h e sample.       Moreover, because o f t h e four-month r e c a l l perf od i n
SIPP ( r a t h e r than t h e 15-month r e c a l l period i n t h e CPS), t h e earni ngs, hours,

and weeks worked i n f o r m a t i o n are l i k e l y t o be more accurate.                The i n t e n t here

i s t o focus on f u l l -time workers who had uninterrupted attachment t o t h e i r
enployer and, therefore, had t h e same exposure t o t r a i n i n g .                     ApproximatelY

2,450 respondents sat1 s t i e d t h e c r i t e r i a j u s t described p l u s t h e a d d i t i o n a l

c r i t e r i o n t h a t they be p r i v a t e wage and s a l a r y workers, excluding p r i v a t e
household workers, employed i n nonagri c u l t u r a l industries.


4.    The Empirical Model
The SIPP data are p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l s u i t e d f o r assessing t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between wage growth and firm size.                    This assessment i s undertaken below

u t i 1k i n g a regression model i n c o r p o r a t i n g t n d i vidual and f i m c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
and observing how wage growth varies w i t h f i r m s i z e when a l l o t h e r independent

variables a r e he1d constant.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r a i ning and f i r m s i z e i s assessed by estimating t h e
empi r i cal wage growth model



where     4     w measures absolute wage grovrth over a 16 month period.                                     The x i and
y i represent i n d i v i d u a l and f i n re1ated characteristics, respecti ~ e l y ; ~
t h e coeffi c i e n t s i n d i c a t e how p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l o r firm c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

influence wage growth; and e i s an e r r o r term assumed t o be normally d i s t r i                                        -
buted w i t h constant variance.


Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t f o r t h i s study i s how wage growth i s r e l a t e d t o f i r m
s i z e on t h e grounds t h a t i f one observes d i f f e r e n t i a l rates of growth f o r two

i n d i v i d u a l s who are otherwise a l i k e except t h a t one works f o r a small f i r m and

t h e other f o r a l a r g e one, t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l wage growth between f i r m s i z e
groups measures differences i n t h e amount o f t r a i n i n g t h a t they provide.


It i s important t o note t h a t what i s being assessed i s not whether l a r g e f i r m s

provide greater amounts o r l e s s e r amounts o f t r a i n i n g than small ones considering
t h e e n t i r e work f o r c e o f each, but rather whether t h e amount o f i n d u s t r i a l

t r a i n i n g t h a t s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s receive i s affected by f i r m size.                The amount

of t r a i n i n g received by workers i n a f i r m depends not only on how much t r a i n i n g
is o f f e r e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b u t a l s o on t h e mix of
workers i n t h e firm.             As mentioned e a r l i e r t h e mix o f workers i s d i f f e r e n t i n

small and l a r g e finns.


Among t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s variables t h a t can be c o n t r o l l e d f o r i n

SIPP i s educati onal attainment which i s here defined i n terms o f degree earned
r a t h e r than years o f school completed.                      Defining educational attainment i n

t h i s manner has t h e advantage o f a f f o r d i n g a more precise measure of t h e amount
o f formal knowledge a person has accumulated w h i l e attending school than t h e
amount of time spent i n school.                 A1 1 e l s e t h e same, i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h more

formal education may be expected t o acquire more on-the-job t r a i n i n g than
those w i t h l e s s formal t r a i n i n g .


Human c a p i t a l i s acquired not only by attending school b u t a l s o by working a t

a succession o f jobs, hence, t h e need t o c o n t r o l f o r differences among i n d i                     -
viduals i n t h e l e n g t h o f time they have spent i n t h e l a b o r force.                  A t t h e same
time t h e r a t e a t which new s k i l l s are acquired i n t h e ' l a b o r market may be

expected t o diminish over time and t h i s , too, should be taken i n t o account.
I n S I P P work experience can be measured by t h e number o f years an f n d i v i d u a l
has worked s i x months o r more since t h e year he o r she f i r s t worked s i x s t r a i g h t
months o r longer.          This measure o f work experience provides a more accurate
estimate o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s j o b r e l a t e d investments i human c a p i t a l than t h e
                                                                         n

convent ional measure o f potent ia1 years of work experience (i
                                                               .e.,                              age-educati on-

61, since t h e l a t t e r can y i e l d erroneous r e s u l t s when applied t o women.

Labor force attachment i s stronger f o r married than nonmarried men b u t t h e

converse i s t r u e among women.            A p a r a l l e l r e l a t i o n s h i p might be expected between
m a r i t a l status and wage growth, namely, married men may experience greater wage
growth than divorced o r s i n g l e men whereas married women may experience l e s s

wage growth than divorced o r s i n g l e women.


It i s w e l l known t h a t persons i n poor h e a l t h earn l e s s than those I n good health.
I t m y a l s o be t h a t poor h e a l t h impedes t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of new s k i l l s .
     a                                                                                                    From

the   SIPP data h e a l t h s t a t u s can be masured by whether an i n d i v i d u a l has a
h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n t h a t l i m i t s t h e k i n d o r amount of work t h a t he o r she can do.
Workers covered under a union contract t y p i c a l l y earn more than t h e i r non-

union counterparts, a l l e l s e being t h e same.                   It appears, however, t h a t t h e

wage p r o f i l e of union workers i s not as steep as t h a t o f nonuni onized workers.
Ift h e tasks performed by union workers are more r o u t i n i z e d then those per-

formed by other workers, wage growth f o r t h e former may be no greater than

t h a t f o r t h e l a t t e r even though t h e l e v e l of wages i s higher f o r union                 worker^.^

Wage p r o f i l e s a r e a l s o i v a r i a b l y f l a t t e r f o r women than f o r men.
                                    n                                                                 Thus, a l l

e l s e t h e same, i t would not be s u r p r i s i n g i f wage growth were l e s s f o r women
than f o r men.       Less evident, however, i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between gender and
wage growth among f i r m s o f d i f f e r e n t size.            I n p a r t i c u l a r , does wage growth

among women (re1 a t i v e t o men) depend on f i r m s i z e ? Because of t h e work h i s t o r y
data a v a i l a b l e i n SIPP, i t i s possible t o address t h i s question.5


Re1a t i vely f 1a t wage p r o f i1es are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f m i n o r i t i e s , i.e.,    blacks

and Hispanics, and these groups, too, may also experience low r a t e s of human
c a p i t a l accumul a t i on through t r a i n i ng.


S t i l l another v a r i a b l e t h a t may be r e l a t e d t o wage growth i s occupation.

Three occupational dumqy variables are used t o c o n t r o l f o r d i f f e r e n c e s 1n
occupation among workers.                A c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p e r t a i n i ng more t o employers than
employees i s industry.             Three i n d u s t r y dumrqy variables a r e used t o c o n t r o l f o r
i n d u s t r y effects.


I n t h i s study a f i r m i s defined t o i n c l u d e a l l o f i t s establishments.                   A small

f i r m i s defined as having l e s s than 100 employees ; l a r g e ones a r e those w i t h
100 o r amre enployees.              As i n d i c a t e d by t h e b r i e f review of t h e l i t e r a t u r e ,
t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f i r m s i z e and wage growth has been measured i n d i f f e r e n t
ways by d i f f e r e n t investigators.            The f i n d i n g s a r e 1ikewise mi xed; s t r o n g
evidence i s l a c k i n g t h a t e i t h e r l a r g e o r small employers a f f o r d workers greater
opportunities f o r training.


As noted our proxy f o r t r a i n i n g i s absolute wage growth denoted by                              A     w=wlmwo
where w y and       wo   are, respectively, wage r a t e s a t t h e end and beginning dates

of a time i n t e r v a l spanning 16 months.                  For t h e dependent v a r i a b l e measured i n
t h i s manner, t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s i n t h e regression equation measure t h e change i n
an i n d i v i d u a l ' s wage f o r a small change i n an independent variable, everything
e l s e t h e same.       I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e c o e f f i c i e n t o f t h e firm s i z e v a r i a b l e shows

how f i r m s i z e affects wage growth when other f a c t o r s are h e l d constant.

5.    The Empirical Results

The empirical regression models are designed t o exami ne two f ssues.                                       The f i r s t

i s c e n t r a l t o t h i s study, namely, whether i n d i v i d u a l s who are otherwise a l i k e

receive d i f f e r e n t amounts o f t r a i n i n g depending on whether they work f o r a

l a r g e o r small f i r m .      The second issue i s whethe t h e r e are groups o f workers
who receive more t r a i n i n g i n one f i r m s i z e o r another.                    For example, do married

workers receive more t r a i n i n g than unmarried ones i n l a r g e f i r m s ?                        Based on
d i f f e r e n t i a l monitoring costs between l a r g e and small firms, an argument f o r

t h e a f f i r m a t i v e can be made on t h e assumption t h a t married workers have more
s t a b l e work t r a i t s .   But i f such t r a i n i n g i s firm-specific,               t h i s l i n e o f reason-

i n g s t i 11 leaves unanswered t h e questi on o f whether marri ed persons i n small
firnts r'ecei ve an equal amount o f t r a i n i n g i n t h e form o f general t r a f ning.                            It

should be noted t h a t t h i s second issue i s independent o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
                                                                                                                               *.
between t r a i n i n g and f ir m size,


The r e s u l t s o f t h e regressi on analysis are shown i n Tables 1 and 2,                                The
dependent varf able i n model 1 I s wage growth measured i n absolute terms.                                          The

dependent v a r i a b l e i n Model 2 i s t h e n a t u r a l log o f t h e wage rate.                      The l a t t e r
    model can be compared w i t h t h e f i r s t t o see how t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e wage r a t e
    regressions d i f f e r from those o f t h e wage growth regressions.

    As can be seen from Model 1A i n Table 1 t h e regression r e s u l t s conform f o r
                                            ,

    t h e most p a r t w i t h what i s known about wage p r o f i l e s .            The conclusions t h a t
    can be drawn from t h i s t a b l e are:            Wage growth increases w i t h work experience,
    m i r r o r i n g gains i n p r o d u c t i v i t y associated w i t h investment i n human c a p i t a l ,
    but then moderates as investment i n human c a p i t a l tapers o f f i n t h e l a t e r
    stages o f t h e l i f e cycle.         Wage growth i s a l s o found t o be l e s s among women

    than men, r e f l e c t i n g t h e l e s s steep wage p r o f i l e f o r t h e former found i n studies

    based on cross-sectional data.                  Additional l y , growth i s p o s i t i v e l y re1ated t o
    education, bei ng greater among i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a Bachelor's degree than among

    those who have not completed college.                     I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a Master's o r higher

    degree, however, do not appear t o experience greater wage growth than those

    who have not completed college.                  One possible explanation f o r t h i s i s t h e
    f i n d i n g o f L i 11 ard and Tan t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h an advanced degree tend not

    t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g programs a t work.     Another reason, noted below,
    pertains t o t h e way t h e data are constructed.


    Although t h e sf gns o f t h e independent variables are i n general agreement w i t h
I   what one would expect, except f o r t h e variables j u s t c i t e d and t h e t h r e e

    occupational variables t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f a l l other variables i n Model 1A are

    found t o be n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero a t t h e .10 s i g n i f i c a n c e

I   1eve1   .
I   For t h i s study t h e most important conclusion t h a t emerges given t h e r e s u l t s of

    Model 1A i s t h a t wage growth i s independent o f f i nn size, implying that, a11
I   e l s e being equal, i n d i vidual s acquire as much t r a i n i n g m r k i ng i n small f im
    as they do i n l a r g e ones.           Despite t h e f a c t t h a t i n l a r g e f i rms a h i gher f r a r t i o n
                                             Table 1
                                               ae
                         Regression Results: W g Growth
                         Over 16 Months, SIPP Waves 1-4,
                        1984 Panel (Including Imputations)

                                                              Regression Equationsa
                                      Mean             Model 1A          B
                                                                   Model 1      Model 2A

Intercept
Large Firm
Fern-
Black
Span
Mra
Health
BA
MA
Uni on
 MA
SS
South
 a
Mn
Tran
Ret Pers
Prof
 l
C er
Mceh
Y rs Worked
Yrs ~orkedz

~2
F Ratio
Prob > F



a Dependent variable i s b w i n Models 1A and 1B and In w in Model 2A.
   *
  **
 ***
       Significant a t 1%
                                 .
                             level.
       Si gni f f cant a t 5%1eve1
       Significant a t 10%level.
Sanple size 2,459.
o f workers p a r t i c i p a t e i n t r a i n i n g programs (Haber, 1988) t h a t f o r t h e most

p a r t are fi
             rm-specific,              i t appears t h a t full-time,           full-year workers i n small

firms obtain general t r a i n i n g i n amounts s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y
t o t h e same extent as t h e i r counterparts i n l a r g e firms.


It may be, of course, t h a t t h e absence o f a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -

ship between wage growth and f i r m s i z e i s due t o f i r m s i z e being c o r r e l a t e d

w i t h t h e independent variables included i n t h e model.                         To check t h i s possi-

b i l i t y , wage growth i s regressed soley against f i r m s i z e i n Model 1B w i t h t h e
same outcome--the two variables are found t o be unrelated.


The f i n d i n g t h a t wage growth i s t h e same i n small firms and l a r g e ones i s i n

                                                                                 r
sharp contrast t o what i s observed regarding wage l e v e l s f o r t h e two fim s i z e
groups.       U t i l i z i n g t h e same data i n Model 2A, t h e natural logarithm of t h e

wage r a t e i s regressed against t h e independent variables included i n
Model I A .       Most o f t h e variables i n Model 2A are s t a t i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from
zero a t t h e .01 l e v e l o f sf g n i f i cance and t h e remainder are s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .10 l e v e l .   I n p a r t i c u l a r , i t i s found t h a t c e t e r i s p a r i bus
wage rates are 19.0 percent higher f o r workers i n l a r g e f i r m s than workers i n
small firms.           Since t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l data f a i l t o i n d i c a t e a d i f f e r e n c e i n on-

the-job human c a p i t a l accumulation between small and l a r g e firms, t h e higher

                                                                                    m
wages found f o r t h e l a t t e r i n cross-sectional data suggest t h a t these fi
h i r e h i g h e r - q u a l i t y workers--and t h a t t h e wage d i f f e r e n t i a l i s due t o t h e

wage premium t h a t l a r g e f i r m s pay such workers.                    I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e higher
wage p a i d t o workers i n l a r g e firms, evidenced I n Hodel 2A, r e f l e c t s i n d i -
vidual a t t r i b u t e s t h a t are d i f f i c u l t t o measure i n cross-sectional data b u t

are c o n t r o l l e d f o r i n l o n g i t u d i n a l data i n t h a t i f they are present a t one
p o i n t o f time they are t y p i c a l l y present a t other p o i n t s of time.
Another possible explanation o f t h e lack o f association between wage growth
and f i r m s i z e i s t h a t i t i s due t o imputation e r r o r s i n t h e data.                   When inform-
a t i o n i s missing f o r a respondent, t h e Census Bureau u t i l i z e s what i s known as

a "hot-deck" procedure whereby t h e missing data element f s inputed using t h e
same value as t h a t of t h e preceding respondent w i t h t h e same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Thus, f o r example, i f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s wage r a t e i s imputed i n both t h e f i r s t

and l a s t months of Waves 1 and 4, t h e e r r o r i n measured wage growth i s l i k e l y
t o be greater than t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e imputed and t r u e values f o r each
wave.      Hence, t h e hot-deck procedure introduces 1arger e r r o r s i n regressi 0ns

based on 1ongi t u d i n a l data than regressions based on cross-sectional data.6
To check whether t h e Census Bureau's i n p u t a t i o n method accounts f o r t h e lack
of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h e f i r m - s i z e c o e f f i c i e n t i n Model lA, i t was
rerun as Model 1C using only observations f o r which no imputations were made
i n computing wage rates o r t h e assignment o f workers t o small o r l a r g e firms.

The r e s u l t s f o r Model 1C based on t h e nonimputed data are shown i n Table 2.7

As can be seen t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f threee a d d i t i o n a l variables are found t o be

s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant.      Wage growth f o r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a Master's o r

higher degree i s now greater than f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who l a c k a Bachelor's degree.
I n d i v i d u a l s who are l i m i t e d i n t h e amount o r k i n d o f work they can do a r e
found t o experience l e s s wage growth than those without a work 'limitation*
And wage growth i s found t o be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o residence i n a metropolitan
area, perhaps because o f e x t e r n a l i i e s associated w i t h urbanization.
                                           t                                                                   Other

variables, e.g.,           union status, s t i l l remain unrelated t o wage growth.                            And of

inportance f o r t h i s study, once again no association f s found between f i r m
s i z e and wage growth. 8
                                       Table 2
                           Regressi on Results: Wage Growth
                           Over 16 Months, SIPP Waves 1-4,
                          1984 Panel (Excluding Imputations)
                                          Regression Equati onsa-

                         -
                         Mean         Model LC        Model 1 D     Model 2B
Intercept                                                            1.506*
Large Firm                                                             .212*
Fem                                                                  -.194*
Black                                                                  .lo5
Span'                                                                0.066
Mar
Health
BA
                                                                     -..084***
                                                                         103**
                                                                       .246*
MA                                                                     .241*
Uni on                                                                 .126*
S S
 MA                                                                    .076*
South                                                                    052*
Man                                                                     ,061**
Tran
Ret
Prof
                                                                      -.
                                                                       .120**
                                                                         132*
                                                                       .351*
Cler                                                                    .223*
Mech                                                                    .249*
Yrs Worked
Yrs worked2                                                           -..026*
                                                                         0004*
Fem x Large Firm
BA x Large F i r m
MA x Large Firm
Black x Large Firm
Span x Large Firm
Mar x Large Firm
       e
Mar x Fm
~2
F Ratio
Prob > F


a Dependent variable i s 4, w i n Models 1 C and 10 and In w i n Model 28.
  *      Significant a t 1%level.
 ++      Significant a t 5%level.
***      Significant a t 19% level.
Sanple size 1,891.
I n order t o determine whether firm s i z e i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s wage growth, f4odel
1C was expanded t o include several i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s .          Even though no d i r e c t
1i n k betweeen f i r m s i z e and wage growth has been found, i t i s possible t h a t

t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between, say, gender and wage growth i n d i r e c t l y depends on
whether i n d i v i d u a l s are employed i n a small o r l a r g e f i r m .         For exanple, i t

might be argued t h a t women have more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r advancement in l a r g e

f irms beacuse of t h e d i v e r s i f ied occupati ona1 s t r u c t u r e of such fi
                                                                                     rms               .
To t e s t whether p a r t i c u l a r groups o f workers experience greater wage growth
i n firms of d i f f e r e n t s i z e t h e education, race, Spanish o r i g i n , gender, and
m a r i t a l s t a t u s variables were i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t h e f i r m s i z e variable.       Based

on t h e r e s u l t s o f Model 1D t h e only i n d i r e c t e f f e c t on wage growth t h a t i s
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s t h e one between f i r m s i z e and having a Bachelor's

degree.      Re1a t i v e t o those who d i d not complete college, i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a
Bachelor's degree increased t h e i r wage r a t e by an a d d i t i o n a l $1.41 an hour
over t h e 16 month period i f they worked i n a small f i r m r a t h e r than a l a r g e
one.     A p l a u s i b l e explanation f o r t h i s outcome i s t h a t i n small f i rms l e s s
educated persons may not be able t o t r a n s l a t e general t r a i n i n g i n t o greater
p r o d u c t i v i t y and b e t t e r educated persons may have such speci a1ized know1edge
t h a t s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g o f f e r s them t h e most rewarding channel, but n o t neces-
s a r i l y t h e most remunerative one, f o r expanding on s k i l l s learned i n a formal
educational setting.


From Model 1D i t i s a1so appears t h a t women, b1acks, Hispanics, and married

persons experience t h e same wage growth whether they work i n a small f i r m o r
l a r g e firm.    O f some i n t e r e s t t h e l a s t i n t e r a c t i o n terms i n Models 28 and 10
i n d i c a t e t h e a1though married persons, re1a t i ve t o nonmarri ed persons, earn

l e s s i f they are women, t h e r e i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between wage growth and t h e
    gender o f married persons, suggesting t h a t women receive l e s s t r a i n i n g than
    men because of t h e i r gender r a t h e r then t h e i r m a r i t a l status.


    It should be noted t h a t w h i l e no r e l a t i o n s h i p i s found between f i r m s i z e and

    wage growth, t h i s can not be taken t o imply t h a t Leighton and Mincer's finding,
    i.e.,     t h a t t h e minimum wage adversely impacts on t r a i n i n g , i s put i n question.
    T r a i n i n g may be i n h i b i t e d i n low wage, small f i r m s b u t not a l l small f i r m s pay
    low wages.          Our f i n d i n g s only i n d i c a t e t h a t f o r workers w i t h t h e same charac-

    t e r i s t i c wage growth i s no l e s s i n t h e average small f i r m than in t h e average
    large firm.           S I P P does not provide information on t h e average wage p a i d by t h e

    firms i n which respondents are employed and hence t h i s aspect of human c a p i t a l

    formation,         i.e.,     whether wage growth i s l e s s i n low wage, small firms than i n
    h i g h wage, small firms, could not be examined.                    As mentioned no f i r m s i z e effect
    on wage growth i s apparent when 1ow and high wage f i r m s are grouped together
    w i t h i n f i r m s i z e classes.


    The reader i s cautioned t h a t i n assessing these r e s u l t s t h e h i s t o r i c a l context

    of t h e U.S.       economy a t t h e time t h e survey data were c o l l e c t e d should not be
    ignored.                                                       rm
                     The economy was j u s t beginning t o recover fo t h e 1982 recession.

    The e f f e c t o f t h a t recession on subsequent wage growth i small and l a r g e
                                                                     n
    firms i s not self-evident.                 Nonetheless t h e SIPP data do provide a basis f o r

    a t l e a s t a t e n t a t i ve conclusion regarding t h e re1a t i o n s h i p between f i r m s i z e
    and i n d u s t r i a l t r a i n i n g .


    S t i l l another caveat t h a t should be borne i n mind i s t h a t t h e data p e r t a i n t o

!   money earnings r a t h e r than compensation and, hence, omit empl oyer c o n t r i b u t i o n s


u   t o h e a l t h insurance, 1i f e insurance, p r i v a t e pension plans, and o t h e r nonwage
    compensation which may be r e l a t e d t o f i r m size.              Due t o l a c k of i n f o r m a t i o n

1   about employer costs f o r f r i n g e b e n e f i t s f u r t h e r refinement of t h e data i s not
    possi b l e.
6.     Concl u s i on

I n t h i s study absolute wage growth i s used t o proxy a l l forms o f on-the-job
t r a i n i n g whether s p e c i f i c o r general and whether informal o r formal.                Empi r-

i c a l regression models are estimated t o determine how f i r m s i z e a f f e c t s wage

growth.       As expected h o l d i n g f i r m s i z e and o t h e r variables constant wage growth

was found t o depend on a worker's l e v e l of education, gender, and amount of
work experience.


The major conclusion o f t h e study i s t h a t workers who are otherwise a l i k e

experience t h e same wage growth whether they work f o r a small f i r m o r l a r g e
one.      While l a r g e f i r m s do more s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g , small f i r m s do more general
t r a i n i n g ; on balance t h e t o t a l amount of t r a i n i n g i s t h e same i n both groups
Of   firms.      It a l s o appears t h a t workers w i t h given c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s receive t h e

same amount o f t r a i n i n g i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e s i z e o f t h e f i r m a t which they
work.      The one exception p e r t a i n s t o i n d i v i d u a l s who have a Bachelor's degree

(but not a higher degree).              R e l a t i v e t o workers without a c o l l e g e degree,
those w i t h only a Bachelor's degree have higher wage growth ifthey work a t a
small f i r m than ifthey work a t a l a r g e one.


Of methodological i n t e r e s t our study indicates t h a t t h e imputation of missing
val ues i n 1ongi t u d i n a l household surveys can introduce e r r o r s i n t o t h e data
which lead t o r e s u l t s t h a t d i f f e r from expectations.          Fortunately t h e data of

t h i s study permit one t o d i s t i n g u i s h between reported and imputed data.
                                               FOOTNOTES


1 T r a i n i n g was found t o be more prevalent among l a r g e firms than small ones
  when prevalency was a l s o measured by t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f a f i r m ' s most recent
  h i r e recei v i ng informal t r a i n i n g by management, informal t r a i n i n g by co-
  workers, and t r a i n i n g i n v o l v i n g watching others do t h e i r job.

2 The c r i t e r i o n o f a c t u a l l y working 35 hours o r more per week covers a l l jobs.
  Hence, some i n d i v i d u a l s are included who may have worked more than 35 hours
  a week as a r e s u l t o f having moon1ighted a t a second job. Such i n d i v i d u a l s
  would have also had t o u s u a l l y work 35 hours o r more a t t h e i r primary j o b
  f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e analysis.

  The independent variables u t i 1i z e d i n t h e model are l i s t e d i n t h e Appendix                   ,
  Table.

  An a l t e r n a t i v e explanation i s suggested by Mincer (1981), namely, t h a t a
  l a r g e r proportion o f union workers' compensation is i n t h e form of f r i n g e
  benefits, i n c l u d i n g pension benefits, which reduces t h e i r propensity t o
  leave an employer and, hence, i n h i b i t s t h e i n c e n t i v e f o r undertaking general
  training.

  Leighton and Mincer and S c h i l l e r i n c l u d e only men i n t h e i r study and n e i t h e r
  Barron, Black, and Lowenstein o r Keeley report how gender a f f e c t s wage growth.

  For a r e l a t e d discussion see L i l l a r d , Smith, and Welch (1986).
7 The remaining models i n Table 2 are a l s o estimated using t h e nonimputed data.
8 A s i m i l a r f i n d i n g i s obtained when wage growth i s measured i n r e l a t i v e terms
  by I n ( w l l w o ) , using t h e imputed observations and excluding them. I n both
                                                             .
  instances t h e t-values f o r t h e f i r m s i z e v a r i a b l e f e l l short of s t a t i s t i c a l
  significance a t t h e .lo s i g n i f i c a n c e 1eve1
                                                     REFERENCES


    Barron, John, Dan Black and Mark Lowenstein, "Employer Size: The I m p l i c a t i o n s
    f o r Search, Training, Capital Investment, S t a r t i n g Wages, and Wage Growthsu
    Purdue University, Ind., 1984.

    Barron, John, Dan Black and Mark Lowenstein, "Worker Heterogeneity and On-The-
    Job Training," Purdue University, Ind., 1985.

    Barth, James, Joseph Cordes and Shel don Haber, "Employee C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
    F i r m Size: Are t h e r e Systematic Empi t i c a l Relationships?," Applied Economics,
    A p r i l 1987, pp. 555-567.
    Brown, James N., "Are Those Paid More Really No More Productive? Measuring
    t h e R e l a t i v e Importance o f Tenure Versus On-the-Job Training i n Explaining
    Wage Growth," I n d u s t r i a l Relations Section, Princeton University, N.J.,   1983-
    Haber, Shel don, " P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n I n d u s t r i a1 T r a i n i n g Programs ,"U.S.    Bureau
    Of t h e Census, SIPP Working Paper 8813, June 1988.

                          .
    Keel ey , Michael "The Economics o f F i r m Size: Imp1ic a t i ons f ram Labor-Market
    studies ,"~conomi Review, Federal Reserve Bank o f San Francisco, Winter
                      c
    1984, pp. 3-21.

    Lazear, Edward, "Agency, Earnings Prof 1 les, P r o d u c t i v i t y and Hours Restrictions,"
    Ameri can Economi c Review , September 1981, pp. 606-620.

    Leighton, Linda and Jacob M i ncer, "The Effects o f Minimum Wages on Human
    Capital FormationsY in Simon Rottenberg, ed., Economics o f Legal Minimum
    Wages, 1981, pp. 155-173.

    L i l l a r d , Lee and Hang Tan, " P r i v a t e Sector Training: Who Gets i t and What
I   Are I t s Effects," The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Cal., 1986.

                            .                                      e
    L i l lard, Lee, James P Smith, and F i n i s Welch, "What Do W R e a l l y Know About

I   Wages? The Importance o f Nonreporting and Census Imputations", Journal of
    Pol i c a l Economy, June 1986, pp. 489-506.
           ti

    Lucas, Robert, Jr., "On t h e Size D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Business Firms,"                   Bell
I   Journal of Economics, Autumn 1978, pp. 508-523.
    M i ncer, Jacob, "Union Effects: Wages, Turnover, and Job Training,"                                  National
I   Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Mass., November 1981.

    O i , Walter, 'Heterogeneous Ff rms and t h e Organization o f Product ion,"                            Economi c
    Inquiry, A p r i l 1983a, pp. 147-171.
I
I
    O i , Walter, 'The Fixed Employment Costs o f Specialized Labor,' i n Jack
    Trip1 e t t , ed. , The Measurement o f Labor Costs, Uni v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press,
I   Chicago, I l , l . 1983b, pp. 63-116.
    Rosen, Sherwin, "Authority, Control and t h e Distribution of Earnings ,' Be1 1
    Journal of Economics, Autumn 1982, pp. 311-323.
    Sal op, Joanne and Steven Sal op, 'Self -Se1 e c t i on and Turnover i n t h e Labor
    Market ,"Quarterly Journal of Economics, November 1976, pp. 619-627.
    Schil l e r , Bradley, "Human Capital Transfers from Small t o Large Firms, "U.S.
-   Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, July 1982.
    Simpson, Wayne, "An Econometric Analysis of Industrial Training f n Canada, '
    Journal of Human Resources, Fall 1984, pp. 435-451.
    Williamson, 01 i ver, "Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size,'         Journal of
    P o l i t i c a l Economy, Apri 1 1967, pp. 123-138.
                                           Appendi x Tab1 e

                           Independent Variables i n t h e Wage
                              Growth Regression Equations


Variable Name                                                 Description
 Large Firm                           Equals 1 i f number o f employees i s over 100;
                                      0 otherwise

 Fern                                 Equals 1 i f female; 0 otherwise
 B l ack                              Equals 1 if black; 0 otherwise
 Span                                 Equals 1 i f Hispanic; 0 otherwise
 Mar                                  Equals 1 if married, spouse present; 0 otherwise

 Health                               Equals 1 i f disabi 1i t y which l i m i t s t h e k i n d of
                                      amount of work t h a t can be done; 0 otherwise

                                      Equals 1 ifBachelor's degree; 0 otherwisea

                                      Equals 1 i f Master's degree, Ph.D.,          or profe~sional
                                      degree; 0 otherwisea
 Union                                Equals 1 if covered by a union contract; 0 otherwise

 SMSA                                 Equals 1 i f metropolitan area; 0 otherwise
 South                                Equals 1 ifs t a t e i n t h e South; 0 otherwise




a Degree a t t a i n e d base group    -- less than a Bachelor's         degree.
                                   Appendi x Tab1 e (cont 'd )
                           Independent Variables i n t h e Wage
                              Growth Regression Equations

Variable Name                                                  Description
Man                                 Equal s 1 i f mining; construction; and manufacturing ;
                                    0 otherwiseb
Tran                                Equal s 1 i f t r a n s p o r t a t i on, c o m n i c a t i ons, and
                                    other p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s ; 0 o t h e n i s e b
 Ret Pers                           Equals 1 i f r e t a i l trade; persona1 service,
                                    entertainment , and r e c r e a t i o n services ; 0 otherwi seb
 Prof                               Equal s 1 ifexecuti ve, admi n i s t r a t i ve, manageri a1 ;
                                    professional speci a1t y ; and t e c h n i c a l and r e l a t e d
                                    support occupati ons ; 0 otherwi seC
 C ler                              Equal s 1 i sales and admi n i s t r a t ive support,
                                                      f
                                    i n c l u d i n g c l e r i c a l occupations ; 0 o t h e n i sec
 Mech                               Equal s 1 i f mechanics and repai r e r s , c o n s t r u c t i on
                                    and e x t r a c t ive ; p r e c i s i o n production occupations ;
                                    0 otherwi sec
 Yrs Worked                         Number o f years worked s i x months o r more since
                                    f i r s t year worked s i x s t r a i g h t months o r longer




                           --
b I n d u s t r y base group wholesale trade; finance, insurance.' r e a l estate;
    busi ness and repai r s e r v l ces; and p r o f e s s i onal and re1ated s e r v i ces.

  Occupation base group       --  aachl ne operators, assemblers and inspectors ;
   Servi ce occupat i , except household ; t r a n s p o r t a t i on and materi a1
                         ons
   m v i ng ; hand1e r s , equi pment cleaners, he1pers, laborers ; and f arIUing,
   forestry, and f i s h i n g occupations (excluding those i n agriculture).

								
To top