The Health Wedge and Labor Market Inequality

IF 2.7 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Pub Date : 2024-02-15 DOI:10.1353/eca.2023.a919363
Amy Finkelstein, Casey McQuillan, Owen Zidar, Eric Zwick
{"title":"The Health Wedge and Labor Market Inequality","authors":"Amy Finkelstein, Casey McQuillan, Owen Zidar, Eric Zwick","doi":"10.1353/eca.2023.a919363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Over half of the US population receives health insurance through an employer with premium contributions creating a flat \"head tax\" per worker, independent of their earnings. This paper develops and calibrates a stylized model of the labor market to explore how this uniquely American approach to financing health insurance contributes to labor market inequality. We consider a partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which employer-provided health insurance is instead financed by a statutory payroll tax on firms. We find that, under this counterfactual financing, in 2019 the college wage premium would have been 11 percent lower, noncollege annual earnings would have been $1,700 (3 percent) higher, and noncollege employment would have been nearly 500,000 higher. These calibrated labor market effects of switching from head tax to payroll tax financing are in the same ballpark as estimates of the impact of other leading drivers of labor market inequality, including changes in outsourcing, robot adoption, rising trade, unionization, and the real minimum wage. We also consider a separate partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which the current head tax financing is maintained, but 2019 US health care spending as a share of GDP is reduced to the Canadian share; here, we estimate that the 2019 college wage premium would have been 5 percent lower and noncollege annual earnings would have been 5 percent higher. These findings suggest that health care costs and the financing of health insurance warrant greater attention in both public policy and research on US labor market inequality.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":51405,"journal":{"name":"Brookings Papers on Economic Activity","volume":"224 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brookings Papers on Economic Activity","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2023.a919363","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over half of the US population receives health insurance through an employer with premium contributions creating a flat "head tax" per worker, independent of their earnings. This paper develops and calibrates a stylized model of the labor market to explore how this uniquely American approach to financing health insurance contributes to labor market inequality. We consider a partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which employer-provided health insurance is instead financed by a statutory payroll tax on firms. We find that, under this counterfactual financing, in 2019 the college wage premium would have been 11 percent lower, noncollege annual earnings would have been $1,700 (3 percent) higher, and noncollege employment would have been nearly 500,000 higher. These calibrated labor market effects of switching from head tax to payroll tax financing are in the same ballpark as estimates of the impact of other leading drivers of labor market inequality, including changes in outsourcing, robot adoption, rising trade, unionization, and the real minimum wage. We also consider a separate partial-equilibrium counterfactual in which the current head tax financing is maintained, but 2019 US health care spending as a share of GDP is reduced to the Canadian share; here, we estimate that the 2019 college wage premium would have been 5 percent lower and noncollege annual earnings would have been 5 percent higher. These findings suggest that health care costs and the financing of health insurance warrant greater attention in both public policy and research on US labor market inequality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康楔形效应与劳动力市场不平等
半数以上的美国人通过雇主购买医疗保险,保险费的缴纳为每个工人带来了与收入无关的统一 "人头税"。本文建立并校准了一个风格化的劳动力市场模型,以探讨这种美国独有的医疗保险融资方式是如何导致劳动力市场不平等的。我们考虑了一个部分均衡的反事实,即雇主提供的医疗保险改由企业缴纳法定工资税来资助。我们发现,在这种反事实融资下,2019 年大学生的工资溢价将降低 11%,非大学生的年收入将增加 1700 美元(3%),非大学生就业人数将增加近 50 万。从人头税转向工资税融资对劳动力市场的这些校准效应,与对劳动力市场不平等的其他主要驱动因素(包括外包、机器人应用、贸易增长、工会化和实际最低工资的变化)的影响的估计值相差无几。我们还考虑了一个单独的局部均衡反事实,即维持当前的人头税融资,但将 2019 年美国医疗保健支出占 GDP 的比重降至加拿大的水平;在此,我们估计 2019 年的大学工资溢价将降低 5%,非大学年收入将提高 5%。这些研究结果表明,在公共政策和美国劳动力市场不平等研究中,医疗成本和医疗保险融资问题值得更多关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
International consensus recommendations on the diagnostic work-up for malformations of cortical development
IF 38.1 1区 医学Nature Reviews NeurologyPub Date : 2020-09-07 DOI: 10.1038/s41582-020-0395-6
Renske Oegema, Tahsin Stefan Barakat, Martina Wilke, Katrien Stouffs, Dina Amrom, Eleonora Aronica, Nadia Bahi-Buisson, Valerio Conti, Andrew E. Fry, Tobias Geis, David Gomez Andres, Elena Parrini, Ivana Pogledic, Edith Said, Doriette Soler, Luis M. Valor, Maha S. Zaki, Ghayda Mirzaa, William B. Dobyns, Orly Reiner, Renzo Guerrini, Daniela T. Pilz, Ute Hehr, Richard J. Leventer, Anna C. Jansen, Grazia M. S. Mancini, Nataliya Di Donato
Diagnostic pitfalls in patients with malformations of cortical development
IF 3.1 3区 医学European Journal of Paediatric NeurologyPub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2022.01.017
Jan Fischer, Nataliya Di Donato
Diagnostic work-up in malformations of cortical development
IF 3.8 2区 医学Developmental Medicine and Child NeurologyPub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.15882
Ellen Rijckmans, Katrien Stouffs, Anna C. Jansen
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (BPEA) is a semi-annual academic conference and journal that pairs rigorous research with real-time policy analysis to address the most urgent economic challenges of the day. Working drafts of the papers are presented and discussed at conferences typically held twice each year, and the final versions of the papers and comments along with summaries of the general discussions are published in the journal several months later. The views expressed by the authors, discussants and conference participants in BPEA are strictly those of the authors, discussants and conference participants, and not of the Brookings Institution. As an independent think tank, the Brookings Institution does not take institutional positions on any issue.
期刊最新文献
Why Do We Dislike Inflation? Changing Central Bank Pressures and Inflation Sustained Debt Reduction: The Jamaica Exception The Emergence of a Uniform Business Cycle in the United States: Evidence from New Claims-Based Unemployment Data The Evolution of Banking in the 21st Century: Evidence and Regulatory Implications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1