MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122530344

Employment-At-Will Exceptions and Jobless Recovery

2013· preprint· en· W3122530344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James DeNicco

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnemploymentEconomicsQuarter (Canadian coin)Percentage pointRecessionEconometricsUnemployment rateGreat recessionLabour economicsDemographic economicsMacroeconomicsFinanceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I study the effects on jobless recovery of diminishing the power of an employer to fire an employee through Employment-At-Will Exceptions (EWEs). I do so by using a dynamic panel with quarterly data ranging from 1976 to 2010 for the 50 states in the United States. I test both changes in state unemployment rates and state-weighted GDP growth in single variable regressions and VAR regressions. My contribution to the literature is threefold. First, I show two of the three EWEs contribute significantly to jobless recovery in the U.S. The statistical tests in this paper show that Implied Contract Exceptions slow decreases in the unemployment rate during recovery from recession by between 0.025 and 0.033 percentage points per quarter, and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Exceptions do so by between 0.039 and 0.055 percentage points per quarter. Second, I lend support to the predictions of theory that increased firing costs decrease the rate of hiring during recoveries. Third, I resolve differences in the various sources documenting the three types of EWEs in different states.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality→French-language works237,207→