Earnings and Employment Probabilities of Men by Education and Birth Cohort, 1982-96: Evidence for the United States, Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we analyse the earnings and employment probabilities of men by education level, birth cohort and age in the United States, Canada and Australia using a series of cross-sectional surveys for each country spanning the years 1982 through 1996. For all three countries, more recent birth cohorts of less-skilled men have experienced worse labour market outcomes than men from the same skill group but of earlier birth cohorts, ceteris paribus. In the United States, the deteriorating labour market outcomes appear as lower earnings but not lower employment probabilities. In Canada and Australia, the less skilled men from more recent birth cohorts experience lower employment probabilities and lower earnings, with the magnitude of the earnings decline by cohort being smaller than was the case for the U.S. This is consistent with the hypothesis that labour market institutions in Australia and Canada have prevented wage levels from declining sufficiently to avoid the need for reductions in employment probabilities. In the United States, wage flexibility may have removed the need for reductions in employment probabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".