In this study of the medium-term effects of trade displacement on American workers, Kletzer uses worker-level data from the US Displaced Worker Surveys to examine the pattern of reemployment following trade-related job loss. She also analyzes regional and local labor market variations, and concludes by exploring the implications of her findings for US policy on linking the labor market and international trade.
The Impact of Losing Your Job builds on findings from life course sociology to show clearly just what effects job loss has on income, family life, and future prospects.
Job search is and always has been an integral part of people's working lives. Whether one is brand new to the labor market or considered a mature, experienced worker, job seekers are regularly met with new challenges in a variety of organizational settings. Edited by Ute-Christine Klehe and Edwin A.J. van Hooft, The Oxford Handbook of Job Loss and Job Search provides readers with one of the first comprehensive overviews of the latest research and empirical knowledge in the areas of job loss and job search. Multidisciplinary in nature, Klehe, van Hooft, and their contributing authors offer fascinating insight into the diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives from which job loss and job search have been studied, such as psychology, sociology, labor studies, and economics. Discussing the antecedents and consequences of job loss, as well as outside circumstances that may necessitate a more rigorous job hunt, this Handbook presents in-depth and up-to-date knowledge on the methods and processes of this important time in one's life. Further, it examines the unique circumstances faced by different populations during their job search, such as those working job-to-job, the unemployed, mature job seekers, international job seekers, and temporary employed workers. Job loss and unemployment are among the worst stressors individuals can encounter during their lifetimes. As a result, this Handbook concludes with a discussion of the various types of interventions developed to aid the unemployed. Further, it offers readers important insights and identifies best practices for both scholars and practitioners working in the areas of job loss, unemployment, career transitions, outplacement, and job search.
As millions of Americans struggle to find work in the wake of the Great Recession, politicians from both parties look to regulation in search of an economic cure. Some claim that burdensome regulations undermine private sector competitiveness and job growth, while others argue that tough new regulations actually create jobs at the same time that they provide other benefits. Does Regulation Kill Jobs? reveals the complex reality of regulation that supports neither partisan view. Leading legal scholars, economists, political scientists, and policy analysts show that individual regulations can at times induce employment shifts across firms, sectors, and regions—but regulation overall is neither a prime job killer nor a key job creator. The challenge for policymakers is to look carefully at individual regulatory proposals to discern any job shifting they may cause and then to make regulatory decisions sensitive to anticipated employment effects. Drawing on their analyses, contributors recommend methods for obtaining better estimates of job impacts when evaluating regulatory costs and benefits. They also assess possible ways of reforming regulatory institutions and processes to take better account of employment effects in policy decision-making. Does Regulation Kills Jobs? tackles what has become a heated partisan issue with exactly the kind of careful analysis policymakers need in order to make better policy decisions, providing insights that will benefit both politicians and citizens who seek economic growth as well as the protection of public health and safety, financial security, environmental sustainability, and other civic goals. Contributors: Matthew D. Adler, Joseph E. Aldy, Christopher Carrigan, Cary Coglianese, E. Donald Elliott, Rolf Färe, Ann Ferris, Adam M. Finkel, Wayne B. Gray, Shawna Grosskopf, Michael A. Livermore, Brian F. Mannix, Jonathan S. Masur, Al McGartland, Richard Morgenstern, Carl A. Pasurka, Jr., William A. Pizer, Eric A. Posner, Lisa A. Robinson, Jason A. Schwartz, Ronald J. Shadbegian, Stuart Shapiro.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) provides academic and business economists, government officials, and members of the financial and business communities with timely research on current economic issues.
Over the past five years, business and education groups have issued a series of reports indicating that the skill demands of work are rising, due to rapid technological change and increasing global competition. Researchers have begun to study changing workplace skill demands. Some economists have found that technological change is "skill-biased," increasing demand for highly skilled workers and contributing to the growing gap in wages between college-educated workers and those with less education. However, other studies of workplace skill demands have reached different conclusions. These differences result partly from differences in disciplinary perspective, research methods, and datasets. The findings of all of these strands of research on changing skill demands are limited by available methods and data sources. Because case study research focuses on individual work sites or occupations, its results may not be representative of larger industry or national trends. At a more basic level, there is some disagreement in the literature about how to define "skill". In part because of such disagreements, researchers have used a variety of measures of skill, making it difficult to compare findings from different studies or to accumulate knowledge of skill trends over time. In the context of this increasing discussion, the National Research Council held a workshop to explore the available research evidence related to two important guiding questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of different research methods and data sources for providing insights about current and future changes in skill demands? What support does the available evidence (given the strengths and weaknesses of the methods and data sources) provide for the proposition that the skills required for the 21st century workplace will be meaningfully different from earlier eras and will require corresponding changes in educational preparation?
World-renowned economist Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, explains that we have an opportunity to shape the fourth industrial revolution, which will fundamentally alter how we live and work. Schwab argues that this revolution is different in scale, scope and complexity from any that have come before. Characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, the developments are affecting all disciplines, economies, industries and governments, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human. Artificial intelligence is already all around us, from supercomputers, drones and virtual assistants to 3D printing, DNA sequencing, smart thermostats, wearable sensors and microchips smaller than a grain of sand. But this is just the beginning: nanomaterials 200 times stronger than steel and a million times thinner than a strand of hair and the first transplant of a 3D printed liver are already in development. Imagine “smart factories” in which global systems of manufacturing are coordinated virtually, or implantable mobile phones made of biosynthetic materials. The fourth industrial revolution, says Schwab, is more significant, and its ramifications more profound, than in any prior period of human history. He outlines the key technologies driving this revolution and discusses the major impacts expected on government, business, civil society and individuals. Schwab also offers bold ideas on how to harness these changes and shape a better future—one in which technology empowers people rather than replaces them; progress serves society rather than disrupts it; and in which innovators respect moral and ethical boundaries rather than cross them. We all have the opportunity to contribute to developing new frameworks that advance progress.
