Labor economics Why is labor behaviorally interesting? Important in scale People sell themselves (identity, appreciation) Natural social comparison with others Quality assurance problem + room for rationalization Firms’ problem is endogenous sorting & incentive Behavioral effects in labor markets: “Gift exchange” and supra-marginal wages Crowding out Critique of the single-activity agency model Labor supply: Cabs 1. Too-high wages and unemployment Efficiency wages vs gift exchange Price P supply Wage w demand Quantity Q unemployment at w Why are wages too high? Efficiency wages (Stiglitz et al) Pay “too much” so workers have something to lose if they shirk Why don’t workers bid for jobs? Role for nepotism, social networks, “hiring bonusses” ($5k consulting firm “bounties”) “Gift exchange” (Akerlof-Yellen) Pay “too much” so workers reciprocate with high (uncontractible) effort Consistent with resistance to wage cuts (Bewley) Experimental evidence (Fehr et al, PJ Healy,…) Moral hazard in contracting: Theory and experimental evidence Fehr setup: Firms offer w Firms earn 10e-w Workers choose e Workers earn w-c(e) No reputations (cf. PJ Healy) Competition does not drive wages down…firms choose high wage offer workers & expect reciprocity 2. Crowding out Do extrinsic ($) incentives crowd out intrinsic motivation? Do puzzles for $ or no-$. After $ removed, no$ group does more puzzles (Deci et al) Female tennis players: Play for fun as kids… …later on tour, quit after getting appearance fee Q: Is it a “strike” or permanent decrease in incentive? Benabou-Tirole REStud 03 Workers infer task difficulty or skill from wage offer (“overjustification”, “self-perception”, “looking glass self”) Worker exerts effort 0,1, cost is c in [c*,c*] Worker gets signal σ correlated with c Success pays V to agent, W to firm Θ is probability of success given effort Firm offers bonus b Worker exerts effort c(σ,b)<Θ(V+b) works if σ>σ*(b) Prop 1: In equilibrium Bonus is short-term reinforcer: b1<b2 σ*(b1)>σ*(b2) Rewards are bad news: b1<b2E[c|σ1,b1] < E[c|σ2,b2] Empirical leverage: Negative effect occurs only if firm knows more about task difficulty or worker skill than the worker knows 3.Critiques of standard agency model Standard model (one activity) Firms pay wage package w=f+b(e+θ) Workers choose hidden effort e b is “piece rate”, θ is “luck” Risk-neutral firms earn Π(e)-w Risk-averse workers earn w-c(e)-var(w) Tradeoff: “High powered incentive” b increases motivation… …but creates bad variance in wages Behavioral critiques Workers don’t know c(e) (prefs constructed) U(W-r) depends on reference point Previous wages, wages of others Workers care about procedures or income source Psychic income: meaning and appreciation Crowding out of intrinsic motivatoin Biases in separating e and θ Hindsight bias (agents should have known) Diffusion of responsibility in group production (credit-blame) Attribution error (blame agent skill, not situation difficulty) Workers overconfident about luck or productivity Zink et al (Neuron 04): Earned money more rewarding than unearned money 4. Labor supply Basic questions: Does supply rise with wage w? Participation (days worked) vs hours A: Very low + supply elasticities for males …but most data from fixed-hours Intertemporal substitution Do workers work long hours during temporary wage increases (e.g. Alaska oil pipeline)? (Mulligan JPE 98?) Alternative: Amateur “income targeting” Cab driver “income targeting” (Camerer et al QJE 97) Cab driver instrumental variables (IV) showing experience effect Farber (JPE 04) hazard rate estimation: Do hrs worked or accumulated income predict quitting? Note: If workers are targetting, why isn’t the income distribution more spiky? Do they quit because of hours or $? Getting tired is a stronger regularity than targetting Note: Which has more measurement error, hours or $? Big tip experiment! Farber is puzzled… Why do drivers lose $? A: Experienced do not Why be puzzled? Results were predicted… Calendar date effects? Let’s look… Date Range: TodayPast 7 DaysPast 30 DaysPast 90 DaysPast YearSince 1981Custom Date Range 1851-1980 From: to Sort by: Closest Match | Newest First | Oldest First1 - 10 of 43 Results 1. FASHION; In New York, Easy Dressing Is the Rule for Spring ... Easy Dressing Is the Rule for Spring ...View free preview November 8, 1988 - By BERNADINE MORRIS (NYT) - Fashion and Style - News - 774 words 2.SCIENCE WATCH; Bacteria May Be Weapon In the Battle Against PCB's ... Be Weapon In the Battle Against PCB's ... November 8, 1988 - (NYT) - Science - News - 391 words 3. CAMPAIGN TRAIL; Perhaps He Pruned The Wrong Stop ... Perhaps He Pruned The Wrong Stop ...View free preview November 8, 1988 - By Bernard Weinraub (NYT) - National - News - 211 words 4.Quotation of the Day ... Quotation of the Day ... November 8, 1988 - (NYT) - New York and Region - News - 27 words 5.THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; Time Agrees to Set Up Fortune, Italian Style ... THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; ... November 8, 1988 - By RANDALL ROTHENBERG (NYT) - News - 119 words 6.THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; Wrestling Federation To Introduce Fragrance ... THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; ... November 8, 1988 - By RANDALL ROTHENBERG (NYT) - News - 168 words 7.THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; Kornhauser & Calene Loses Vice Chairman ... THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; ... November 8, 1988 - By RANDALL ROTHENBERG (NYT) - News - 171 words 8. Sports of The Times; Some Extra Sugar in the Punch ... Sports of The Times; Some Extra Sugar ... Extra Sugar in the Punch ...View free preview November 8, 1988 - By DAVE ANDERSON (NYT) - Sports - News - 918 words 9.Dixville Notch Gives Bush the Lead, 34-3 ... Notch Gives Bush the Lead, 34-3 ... November 8, 1988 - AP (NYT) - National - News - 105 words 10. Living With the Computer Whiz Kids ... Living With the Computer Whiz Kids ...View free preview November 8, 1988 - By JOHN MARKOFF (NYT) - National - An Analysis - 974 words Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next » 27 36 43 Possibility of Poisoning Is Raised In the Death of a Haitian Colonel ... Is Raised In the Death of a Haitian Colonel ... November 8, 1988 - AP (NYT) - International - News - 431 words Critic's Notebook; Tokyo, City of the $12 Movie ... , City of the $12 Movie ...View free preview November 8, 1988 - By VINCENT CANBY, Special to the New York Times (NYT) Movies - News - 1250 words Save the Catskills Also ... Save the Catskills Also ... November 8, 1988 - (NYT) - Editorials and Op-Ed - Letter - 121 words Interviews: Great idea! Q: From passage above, do you think others did interviews too? Were they more or less systematic than Farber’s? (his are admittedly “not systematic”) Farber on experience effect “Overall”? TRIP sample only CBLT have 2 other samples Alan Krueger 6/26/03 NYTimes column Now their findings are being debated. First, Gerald S. Oettinger of the University of Texas at Austin published a paper in the Journal of Political Economy on the daily work decisions of food and beverage vendors at a major-league baseball stadium. The vendors were independent contractors, required to work until the seventh inning, but they could choose which games to work. Vendors make more when the number of fans is high and the number of other vendors is low. Professor Oettinger found that vendors were more likely to go to work when the expected payoff was higher -- for example, on days when a larger crowd was expected because of a pivotal game or a quality opponent. The decision of whether to work at all on a high-payoff day -- as opposed to how much to work -- was not considered in the cabdriver study. A: YES IT WAS. PERHAPS KRUEGER DID NOT READ OUR PAPER. And most recently, my Princeton colleague Henry S. Farber revisited the question of cabdrivers, studying a different set of drivers. He found that cabdrivers quit after they work a lot of hours and grow weary. How much they have earned to that point has little or nothing to do with their decision. Moreover, the amount the drivers earn varies substantially from day to day, suggesting that their target income levels, if they have them, fluctuate wildly. He suggests that the earlier findings possibly resulted from reporting errors in the data: because daily wages were derived by dividing total revenue by hours worked, any mistake in reported hours would cause a mistake in the opposite direction in the calculated wage, inducing a negative correlation between wages and hours worked. A: REPORTING ERRORS ARE NOT ENOUGH BECAUSE WE USED IV ESTIMATION. MUST BE REPORTING ERRORS *AND* SPECIFICDATE SHOCKS TO LABOR SUPPLY. Big tip experiment Prediction of reference-dependent model: A large windfall will lead to lower labor supply Example: Give drivers a big surprising tip… predict they will quit early (or street musicians etc) Tip must not be an indication of wage shift Do it? Only if it would convince true-believer labor economists Thaler asked Kevin Murphy: “They might just go home to celebrate” Implication: Some labor economists will not commit to reputational bets about whether theories are true Goette and Huffman: Early windfall increases work, then decreases A misleading abstract No test of intertemporal substitution What are “problems with conception and measurement”?
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz