MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413468524 · doi:10.1017/s0022109025101816

Labor Market Power and Financial Leverage: Evidence from Online Job Postings

2025· article· en· W4413468524 on OpenAlexaff
John Bai, Massimo Massa, Chi Wan, Yan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicLabor market dynamics and wage inequality
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)BusinessContent (measure theory)Power (physics)FinanceComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the near universe of online job postings from 2007 to 2021, we construct a firm-level metric of labor market power. We find that firms with higher labor market power tend to have higher financial leverage. Our findings are not driven by product market competition or correlated labor market characteristics. The evidence is less pronounced among firms hiring in occupations with high labor mobility and skill transferability. To establish causality, we exploit the establishment of Amazon HQ2 in Crystal City as a shock to the labor market power of local firms and show consistent findings with our baseline results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial and Quantitative AnalysisSame topicLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityFrench-language works237,207