MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193006050

Wages, Skills, and Skill-Biased Technical Change: The Canonical Model Revisited

2021· preprint· en· W3193006050 on OpenAlexaff
Audra J. Bowlus, Lance Lochner, Chris Robinson, Eda Suleymanoglu

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic Growth and Productivity
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsTechnical changeEconometricsInvestment (military)Technological changeCounterintuitiveWageRecessionLabour economicsProductivityMacroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The canonical supply-demand model of the wage returns to skill has been extremely influential; however, it has faced several important challenges. Several studies show that the standard approach sometimes produces theoretically wrong-signed elasticities of substitution, yields counterintuitive paths for skill-biased technical change (SBTC), and does not account for the observed deviations in college premia for younger vs. older workers. This paper shows that these failings can be explained by mis-measurement of relative skill prices and supplies (based on standard demographic composition-adjustments) and by inadequate ad hoc functional form assumptions about the path for SBTC. Improved estimates of skill prices and supplies that account for variation in skill across cohorts within narrowly defined groups help explain the observed deviation in the college premium for younger vs. older workers, even with perfect substitutability across age. Re-estimating the model with these prices and supplies produces a good fit with better out-of-sample prediction and robustly yields positive elasticities of substitution between high and low skill workers. The estimates suggest greater substitutability across skill and a more modest role for SBTC. We implement two new approaches to modelling SBTC. First, we study the extent to which recessions induce jumps or trend-adjustments in skill bias and find evidence that both features are important (but differ across recessions). Second, we link SBTC to direct measures of information technology investment expenditures and show that these measures explain the evolution of skill bias quite well. Together, these approaches suggest that the ad hoc assumptions for SBTC previously employed in the literature are too crude to fit the data well, leading to the incorrect conclusion that SBTC slowed during the early-1990s and under-estimates of the elasticity of substitution between high and low skill workers.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicEconomic Growth and ProductivityFrench-language works237,207