MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Living Wage Policies at the San Francisco Airport: Impacts on Workers and Businesses

2004· article· en· W1606459157 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Reich, Peter Hall, Ken Jacobs

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Relations A Journal of Economy and Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarningsWageLiving wageRevenueLabour economicsWork (physics)Hourly wageEconomicsCost of livingBusinessDemographic economicsEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the costs, benefits and related impacts of living wage policies implemented at the San Francisco Airport (SFO). Unlike other living wage ordinances, the policies at SFO cover a large proportion of the low‐wage labor force in a distinct labor market. The authors find that about 73 percent of the ground‐based non‐managerial workers at SFO received substantial wage increases as a direct or indirect result of the policies; the proportion of these workers earning under $10 per hour fell from 55 percent to 5 percent, significantly reducing earnings inequality. Other benefits to workers included enhanced health benefits and an arrest of declines in quality of life indices. The costs of the policies to employers amounted to an average of 0.7 percent of fare revenue, or $1.42 per airline passenger. We observe a series of dynamic adjustments that reduced those costs, including dramatically reduced turnover, improved worker morale and greater work effort. We find some limited evidence of worker‐worker substitution, but no evidence of employment decline.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial Relations A Journal of Economy and SocietySame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207