Search

Abstract Using data from the 2008-2011 waves of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997, this study explores the job search methods and strategies utilized by young workers. Although women [...]

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.03.004 Byline: Jeffrey J. Yankow Abstract: OLS regression identifies a 19 percent wage advantage for workers in large urban areas. Fixed-effects estimation suggests that two-thirds of this premium can be explained by cities attracting workers of higher unmeasured skills and ability. The remaining wage premium is shown to consist of both level and growth elements. The wage level effect is consistent with a productivity advantage for firms located in cities. The wage growth effect is shown to relate in part to a cumulative advantage in the returns to job mobility for urban workers. This last finding highlights the importance of coordination in urban labor markets. Author Affiliation: Department of Economics, Furman University, 3300 Poinsett Highway, Greenville, SC 29613 Article History: Received 2 May 2005; Revised 17 March 2006 Article Note: (footnote) [star] An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2002 Meetings of the Eastern Economic Association, Boston, MA.

Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, this study examines the pattern of early career job mobility and migration in a sample of young male workers. Primary interest lies in the between-job wage change accompanying job transitions as well as the extended time-profile of migrant earnings. When the sample of job transitions is partitioned by education level, contemporaneous returns are found only for workers with twelve or less years of completed schooling. In contrast, highly educated workers demonstrate significant extended returns to migration with the bulk of pecuniary rewards accruing with a lag of nearly two years.

This study demonstrates that migration measures predicated on cross-boundary movement introduce significant misclassification error into both migrant and non-migrant samples. The former is shown to occur when across-boundary moves cover only relatively short distances, while the later results from long distance residential movement occurring within the boundary. Using a unique sample of geocoded data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, I find that over half of all intercounty moves and one-third of all interstate moves cover distances of less than fifty miles. In contrast, more than half of all within-state moves (of at least ten miles) cover distances of more than fifty miles while over thirty-five percent cover at least one hundred miles. Estimation results from a standard discrete-choice model of migration propensity are shown to be highly sensitive to distance suggesting that inferences based on a particular migration definition will often not generalize across alternative measures.