论文标题
美国男性收入波动的和解趋势:调查和行政数据的结果
Reconciling Trends in U.S. Male Earnings Volatility: Results from Survey and Administrative Data
论文作者
论文摘要
关于劳动经济学,家庭融资和宏观经济学的收入和收入波动的大量文献。在过去的几十年中,其中一系列的文献研究了个人的收入波动是否在美国上升还是下降。关于这个重要问题的经验文献中存在强烈的分歧,一些研究表现出向上的趋势,一些显示向下趋势,有些则没有显示趋势。一些研究表明,差异是使用有缺陷的调查数据而不是更准确的管理数据的结果。本文总结了一个项目的结果,该项目试图将这些发现与四个不同的数据集和六个不同的数据系列进行调和 - 三个调查和三个管理数据系列,其中包括两个将调查受访者数据与其管理数据相匹配的。使用常规规格,波动率的度量以及数据的其他处理,六个数据系列中的四个表明,在过去20到30年以上,男性收入波动率的长期趋势缺乏适当地解释数据集的差异。第五个数据系列(PSID)显示出正净趋势,但幅度很小。仅自1998年以来才获得的第六,行政,数据集,1998 - 2011年没有显示净趋势,此后只有很小的下降。数据系列之间的许多剩余差异可以通过其收入的横截面分布的差异来解释,尤其是下尾的大小的差异。我们得出的结论是,我们已经进行了分析的数据集,其中包括许多最重要的可用的数据,几乎没有证据表明自1980年代中期以来男性收入波动的任何重大趋势。
There is a large literature on earnings and income volatility in labor economics, household finance, and macroeconomics. One strand of that literature has studied whether individual earnings volatility has risen or fallen in the U.S. over the last several decades. There are strong disagreements in the empirical literature on this important question, with some studies showing upward trends, some showing downward trends, and some showing no trends. Some studies have suggested that the differences are the result of using flawed survey data instead of more accurate administrative data. This paper summarizes the results of a project attempting to reconcile these findings with four different data sets and six different data series--three survey and three administrative data series, including two which match survey respondent data to their administrative data. Using common specifications, measures of volatility, and other treatments of the data, four of the six data series show a lack of any significant long-term trend in male earnings volatility over the last 20-to-30+ years when differences across the data sets are properly accounted for. A fifth data series (the PSID) shows a positive net trend but small in magnitude. A sixth, administrative, data set, available only since 1998, shows no net trend 1998-2011 and only a small decline thereafter. Many of the remaining differences across data series can be explained by differences in their cross-sectional distribution of earnings, particularly differences in the size of the lower tail. We conclude that the data sets we have analyzed, which include many of the most important available, show little evidence of any significant trend in male earnings volatility since the mid-1980s.