哪些工人承受着社会疏远的负担?

IF 3.6 3区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Journal of Economic Inequality Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-08-02 DOI:10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6
Simon Mongey, Laura Pilossoph, Alexander Weinberg
{"title":"哪些工人承受着社会疏远的负担?","authors":"Simon Mongey, Laura Pilossoph, Alexander Weinberg","doi":"10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using data from O<sup>∗</sup>NET, we construct two measures of an occupation's potential exposure to social distancing measures: (i) the ability to conduct that job from home and (ii) the degree of physical proximity to others the job requires. After validating these measures with comparable measures from ATUS as well as realized work-from-home rates during the pandemic, we employ the measures to study the characteristics of workers in these types of jobs. Our results show that workers in low-work-from-home and high-physical-proximity jobs are more economically vulnerable across various measures constructed from the CPS and PSID: they are less educated, of lower income, have fewer liquid assets relative to income, and are more likely renters. Consistent with the idea that high physical proximity or low work-from-home occupations were more exposed to the Coronavirus shock, we show that the types of workers predicted to be employed in them experienced greater declines in employment during the pandemic. We conclude by comparing the aggregate employment losses in these occupations to their employment losses in the 2008 recession, and find evidence that these occupations were disproportionately exposed to the pandemic shock, and not just comprised of more cyclically sensitive workers.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6.</p>","PeriodicalId":51559,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Inequality","volume":"19 3","pages":"509-526"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328128/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which workers bear the burden of social distancing?\",\"authors\":\"Simon Mongey, Laura Pilossoph, Alexander Weinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Using data from O<sup>∗</sup>NET, we construct two measures of an occupation's potential exposure to social distancing measures: (i) the ability to conduct that job from home and (ii) the degree of physical proximity to others the job requires. After validating these measures with comparable measures from ATUS as well as realized work-from-home rates during the pandemic, we employ the measures to study the characteristics of workers in these types of jobs. Our results show that workers in low-work-from-home and high-physical-proximity jobs are more economically vulnerable across various measures constructed from the CPS and PSID: they are less educated, of lower income, have fewer liquid assets relative to income, and are more likely renters. Consistent with the idea that high physical proximity or low work-from-home occupations were more exposed to the Coronavirus shock, we show that the types of workers predicted to be employed in them experienced greater declines in employment during the pandemic. We conclude by comparing the aggregate employment losses in these occupations to their employment losses in the 2008 recession, and find evidence that these occupations were disproportionately exposed to the pandemic shock, and not just comprised of more cyclically sensitive workers.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"volume\":\"19 3\",\"pages\":\"509-526\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8328128/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Inequality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Inequality","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

利用来自 O∗NET 的数据,我们构建了两种衡量一种职业可能受到社会疏远影响的指标:(i) 在家中从事该工作的能力;(ii) 该工作所要求的与他人的实际接近程度。在用 ATUS 的可比指标以及大流行病期间的实际在家工作率验证了这些指标之后,我们采用这些指标来研究从事这些类型工作的工人的特征。我们的研究结果表明,从 CPS 和 PSID 的各种指标来看,从事低离家工作和高物理距离工作的工人在经济上更加脆弱:他们受教育程度较低、收入较低、相对于收入的流动资产较少,而且更有可能是租房者。与高就近性或低离家工作的职业更容易受到冠状病毒冲击的观点一致,我们显示,在大流行期间,预计受雇于这些职业的工人类型经历了更大的就业下降。最后,我们将这些职业的总体就业损失与其在 2008 年经济衰退中的就业损失进行了比较,发现有证据表明这些职业受到大流行病冲击的影响不成比例,而不仅仅是由对周期更为敏感的工人组成的:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Which workers bear the burden of social distancing?

Using data from ONET, we construct two measures of an occupation's potential exposure to social distancing measures: (i) the ability to conduct that job from home and (ii) the degree of physical proximity to others the job requires. After validating these measures with comparable measures from ATUS as well as realized work-from-home rates during the pandemic, we employ the measures to study the characteristics of workers in these types of jobs. Our results show that workers in low-work-from-home and high-physical-proximity jobs are more economically vulnerable across various measures constructed from the CPS and PSID: they are less educated, of lower income, have fewer liquid assets relative to income, and are more likely renters. Consistent with the idea that high physical proximity or low work-from-home occupations were more exposed to the Coronavirus shock, we show that the types of workers predicted to be employed in them experienced greater declines in employment during the pandemic. We conclude by comparing the aggregate employment losses in these occupations to their employment losses in the 2008 recession, and find evidence that these occupations were disproportionately exposed to the pandemic shock, and not just comprised of more cyclically sensitive workers.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10888-021-09487-6.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Journal of Economic Inequality provides a forum for analysis of ''economic inequality'', broadly defined. Its scope includes: ·         Theoretical and empirical analysis·         Monetary measures of ''well-being'' such as earnings, income, consumption, and wealth; non-monetary measures such as educational achievement and health and health care; multidimensional measures·         Inequality and poverty within and between countries, and globally, and their trends over time·         Inequalities of opportunity·         Income mobility and poverty persistence·         The factor distribution of income·         Differences in ''well-being'' between socioeconomic groups, for example between men and women, generations, or ethnic groups·         The effects of inequality on macroeconomic and other phenomena, and vice versa·         Related statistical methods and data issues ·         Related policy analysis  Papers need to prioritize the ''economic inequality'' dimension. For example, papers about trade and inequality, or inequality and growth, should not primarily be about trade or growth (in which case they should target a different journal). The same is true for papers considering the inter-relationships between the income distribution and the labour market, public policy, or demography.  Officially cited as: J Econ Inequal
期刊最新文献
Martin Ravallion Distributional impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and the CARES Act. Collective negative shocks and preferences for redistribution: Evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in Germany. COVID-19 and income inequality: evidence from monthly population registers. Growing up poor but doing well: Contextual factors that predict academic success.
×
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