| Title |
The role of location in evaluating racial wage disparity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Labor Economics, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-8997-2-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dan A Black, Natalia Kolesnikova, Seth G Sanders, Lowell J Taylor |
| Abstract |
A standard object of empirical analysis in labor economics is a modified Mincer wage function in which an individual's log wage is specified to be a function of education, experience, and an indicator variable identifying race. We analyze this approach in a context in which individuals live and work in different locations (and thus face different housing prices and wages). Our model provides a justification for the traditional approach, but with the important caveat that the regression should include location-specific fixed effects. Empirical analyses of men in U.S. labor markets demonstrate that failure to condition on location causes us to (i) overstate the decline in black-white wage disparity over the past 60 years, and (ii) understate racial and ethnic wage gaps that remain after taking into account measured cognitive skill differences that emerge when workers are young. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Colombia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 16 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 32% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2022.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Labor Economics
#990
of 1,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,402
of 204,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Labor Economics
#11
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 204,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.