Reconciling Occupational Mobility in the Current Population Survey

Abstract

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.

The Changing Value of Employment and Its Implications

“…In Appendix I we examine the relationship between compensating differentials and occupational mobility (Kambourov and Manovskii, 2008;vom Lehn et al, 2022) by using workers' gross flows across occupation pairs as a proxy for the cost of occupational mobility (see Cortes and Gallipoli, 2018). Appendix Table 23 shows that compensating differentials respond to changes in mobility across occupation pairs.…”

“…We use retrospective data to measure annual occupational mobility from the March CPS (vom Lehn et al, 2022) and obtain weighted flow data from the CPS. We match each model year with the corresponding year in the CPS and the two adjacent years, to increase sample sizes.…”

How does the dramatic rise of nonresponse in the Current Population Survey impact labor market indicators?

“…There is a separate literature studying misclassification of labor market variables in the CPS. For example, seePoterba and Summers (1986),Chua and Fuller (1987),Elsby et al (2015),Kudlyak andLange (2018), andVom Lehn et al (2022).4 Appendix A in the supporting information shows that rotation group bias for the labor force participation rate has risen alongside nonresponse rates, but the same cannot be said for the unemployment rate.…”