Labor Economics

You are currently browsing articles tagged Labor Economics.

Suppose you look at health care spending in two different regions and observe a significant difference.  You may want to know what the cause of this difference is.  Is it because one region has a mix of people who are sicker; or is because the reason treat patients with a given disease more intensively?

One way to answer this question is to use the Oaxaca decomposition.  This approach was originally formulated by Ronald Oaxaca. This document provides a nice overview of how to use the Oaxaca Decomposition and I apply that framework to the health spending case.

Differences in Health Spending

Assume that there are two regions: Region A and Region B. The spending for the two regions can be modeled using a linear regression framework:

  • YA = βAX + εA
  • YB = βBX + εB

The Y term represents spending and the variable X represents the patient’s health status. Health status could be measured as a vector of factors or as a single indicator (e.g., healthy or sick). The term β describes much an area spending on medical resources to treat a patient with a health status of X. Thus, average difference in spending per person the two regions is:

  • YA – YB = βAXA – βBXB

where XA is the average case mix in the area.

Determinants of Health Spending Differentials

Now the question is whether case mix or spending practices conditional on case mix is the key driver of the differences in spending between regions A and B. One can differentiate these two components using the following Oaxaca Decomposition:

  • YA – YB = ΔXβB + ΔβXA
  • YA – YB = ΔXβA + ΔβXB

In the first equation, the differences in health status (X‘s)are weighted by the coefficients for region B and the differences in the coefficients are weighted by the X’s from region A, whereas in the second, the differences in the X‘s are weighted by the coefficients of from region A and the differences in the coefficients are weighted by the X‘s of from region B.

There are basically three factors that effect health spending in the region: i) differences in health status across regions ii) differences in treatment patterns conditional on health status, and iii) the interaction of health status and conditional treatment effects. One can see this clearly below:

  • YA – YB = ΔXβB + ΔβXB + ΔXΔβ
  • YA – YB = H + T + HT

The equations above show the health status effect (H), the treatment effect (T) and the interaction (HT).

The specification chosen for the Oaxaca decomposition determines whether the interaction effect is placed with the health status effect or the treatment effect.  More precisely:

  • YA – YB = ΔXβB + ΔβXA = H + (HT + T)
  • YA – YB = ΔXβA + ΔβXB = (H+ HT) + T

In effect, the first decomposition specification incorporates the interaction term with the treatment effect whereas the second specification places the interaction term together with the health status effect.

Sources:

Tags: , , ,

What is multifactor productivity?

Multifactor productivity (MFP) is a measure of real output per combined unit of labor and capital, reflecting the contributions of all factors of production.  A change in multifactor productivity reflects the change in output that cannot be accounted for by the change in combined inputs. As a result, multifactor productivity measures reflect the joint effects of many factors including new technologies, economies of scale, managerial skill, and changes in the organization of production.

Who cares?

Economists care because we care how efficient different sectors of the economy are.  Healthcare workers should also care.  Why?  An August 2010 CMS memo states “the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), as amended, calls for a reduction in payment rate updates equal to the increase in economy-wide multifactor productivity.”

Today, I will review how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates MFP.

Calculating MFP

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: ,

In this blog, I have frequently discussed the concept of Job Lock.  Job Lock occurs when you don’t leave a job that you wish to leave (either because it is low paying or you do not like the work) simply because you do not want to lose your health insurance.  Leaving your current job for one that is more lucrative may not be worthwhile if you lose health insurance.  Even if a new job’s potential salary is more than your salary+benefits at your old job, you may still not leave since the price of group health insurance is much less than the price of non-group health insurance, especially for those with pre-existing conditions.

Yesterday, Reuters reported on another phenonmenon: Job Stretch.  Take a look at the following excerpt from the article:

Real estate agent Lisa DeWaal serves coffee at a Starbucks outlet for four hours every morning before she goes to the office to start her “day job.”  The reason has little to do with the state of the housing market and everything to do with the one big perk that 20 hours a week at the coffee counter provides: affordable health insurance for her and her three children.

Job Stretch is a term (that I just invented) where individuals take a second (or third) job in order to get health insurance.  Taking a second job in and of itself is not evidence of Job Stretch; many people prefer additional income over additional leisure time. However, when high-skilled workers take low-skill jobs just for health insurance benefits, this is an example of a labor market inefficiency.  The inefficiency is caused by a system of health insurance provided at the employer level.

Now we have two labor market inefficiencies to worry about: Job Lock and Job Stretch.



Tags: , ,

Does marriage cause men’s wages to rise?  This is the question addressed by UCSD professor Kate Antonovics and Robert Town in their 2004 paper in AER cleverly titled “Are all the good men married?

It has been shown that married men earn more money than non-married men with similar characteristics.  Why is this?  A few explanations are:

  1. Married men are more productive since they specialize in non-household production,
  2. Employers could discriminate in favor of married men, or
  3. the unobservable characteristics that make men more productive in the labor market also make them more attractive in the marriage market.
A simple way to figure out the marriage wage premium is to run an OLS regression.
  • wij = βMij + γXij + μij + fj + uij   (1).
  • M: married, X: other variables, μ: individual fixed effect, f: family fixed effect, u: error term 
  • For OLS, the residual is equal to μij + fj + uij   (1).

Using OLS, the authors find that married men earn a 19% wage premium over non married men.  However, this specification does not solve the selection problem.  If it is true that unobservable factors affect wages and marriage eligibility, then the marriage dummy variable will be correlated with the residual and β may be biased upwards.  

How do the authors solve the endogeneity problem?  They use data from the Socioeconomic Survey of Twins.  For a pair of monozygotic twins, we can rewrite equation (1) as follows:

  • w1j= βM1j + γX1j + μ1j + fj + u1j  (2)
  • w2j = βM2j + γX2j + μ2j + fj + u2j  (3)

Since twins are in the same family, we know that fj in both equation is the same.  Further, we assume that the genetically determined, individual specific earnings endowment is the same across twins (i.e., μ1j = μ2j). Thus we can difference out the two equations so that we are left with:

  • w1j – w2j = β(M1j – M2j) + γ (X1j – X2j) + (u1j – u2j)  (4)
Using this specification on the twin data, the authors find that marriage confers a 26% wage increase.  Because of the similarity between the OLS and twin data, the authors claim that “men are not selecting into marriage based on unobserved heterogeneity in earnings capacity.”

Tags: , ,

Many economists have noted that wage growth has not kept up with overall economic growth over the past few decades.  We observe widening wage inequality since the 1970s.  Are workers getting poorer relative to the owners of capital?  Is a communist revolution needed to equalize the playing field?

Economist Martin Feldstein thinks not.  

Feldstein concludes that…measurement mistakes have led some analysts to conclude that the rise in labor income has not kept up with the growth in productivity. The first is a focus on wages rather than total compensation: because of the rise in fringe benefits and other non-cash payments [such as health insurance], wages have not risen as rapidly as total compensation. Feldstein feels it is important to compare the productivity rise with the increase in total compensation rather than the increase in the narrower measure of just wages and salaries.

Since health insurance costs have been increasing more than inflation over time, overall employee compensation has risen at about historical rates.  Of the compensation workers receive, however, a larger and larger percentage is going towards health insurance.  This is especially true for low income workers. This is a point I made in a post in January 2007.

Tags: , , ,

The WSJ Real Time Economics blog reviews a paper by Michael Lechner which finds that “sports-playing adults saw a boost in income of about 1,200 euros per year over 16 years when compared to their less active peers. That translates into a 5-10% rate of return on sports activities, roughly equal to the benefit of an extra year’s worth of education.” How can playing sports increase income?

The simplest mechanism is that playing sports increases one’s health level. Healthier people are less likely to get sick and more likely to be able to work to earn income. This health difference, however, only explains a portion of the income differential. Dr. Lechner claims that playing sports builds a social network which helps to increase pay (e.g., your friends are the ones who recommend you for jobs). In fact, Lechner finds that sports-playing men display a higher level of “social functioning” than did the less active men.

One worry of this study is that of reverse causation. If someone is very sick, they are not able to play sports. Further, if you are sick, you are probably less likely to engage in social activities. Thus, health–and not sports playing–may be a hidden, unobserved feature which may be driving these results.

Tags: , ,