Open Access

Trade shocks and youth jobs

Michael Olabisi
Michael Olabisi
   | Oct 02, 2020
IZA Journal of Labor Policy's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Oct 02, 2020
Page range: -
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/izajolp-2020-0011
Keywords
© 2020 Michael Olabisi, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Employment growth rates for US youth: 2002–2016. The graph plots year-on-year employment growth for persons aged 14–24 years as linked circles on the vertical axis, and for the rest of the US population as squares. (Data from the U.S. Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators Database [QWI]). The following states were excluded because of incomplete data between 2001 and 2016: Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.
Employment growth rates for US youth: 2002–2016. The graph plots year-on-year employment growth for persons aged 14–24 years as linked circles on the vertical axis, and for the rest of the US population as squares. (Data from the U.S. Census Quarterly Workforce Indicators Database [QWI]). The following states were excluded because of incomplete data between 2001 and 2016: Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.

Figure 2

Input–output linkages between US sectors. The graph shows linkages between the US sectors, to illustrate the concept of upstream and downstream sectors. The arrows show the direction of flow for materials; so for example, one can see that Electric Utilities are downstream of the coal- and oil-mining sectors. Similarly, the figure illustrates how the food manufacturing sector is upstream of restaurants but downstream of crop and animal farming (Data from the BEA 2002 Benchmark Input–Output Tables).
Input–output linkages between US sectors. The graph shows linkages between the US sectors, to illustrate the concept of upstream and downstream sectors. The arrows show the direction of flow for materials; so for example, one can see that Electric Utilities are downstream of the coal- and oil-mining sectors. Similarly, the figure illustrates how the food manufacturing sector is upstream of restaurants but downstream of crop and animal farming (Data from the BEA 2002 Benchmark Input–Output Tables).

Figure 3

Estimated coefficients of import exposure by age group for 2000–2007. The graph shows the estimated coefficients and confidence intervals for US import trade exposure, in the simple specification that corresponds to columns 1 and 2 of Table 1. The estimates are constructed separately for each age group. T-tests of differences between the youngest age group and the others yield the following p-values: 0.175, 0.000054, 0.0099, 0.0007, and 0.000049.
Estimated coefficients of import exposure by age group for 2000–2007. The graph shows the estimated coefficients and confidence intervals for US import trade exposure, in the simple specification that corresponds to columns 1 and 2 of Table 1. The estimates are constructed separately for each age group. T-tests of differences between the youngest age group and the others yield the following p-values: 0.175, 0.000054, 0.0099, 0.0007, and 0.000049.

Main results: Employment and trade shocks

Dependent variable: Employment change
(2000–2007)(2010–2017)
(<25)(Ages 25+)(<25)(Ages 25+)
Import exposure−0.01

p < 0.01

−0.01

p < 0.01

−0.002−0.003

p < 0.01

(0.002)(0.001)(0.002)(0.001)
Import exposure (downstream)−0.05

p < 0.01

−0.0010.04

p < 0.01

0.01

p < 0.05

(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)(0.01)
Import exposure (upstream)−0.01

p < 0.01

−0.01

p < 0.01

−0.00000.0004
(0.003)(0.002)(0.004)(0.002)
Export exposure0.08

p < 0.05

0.07

p < 0.05

0.050.01
(0.04)(0.03)(0.05)(0.02)
Production workers’ share−0.45

p < 0.01

−0.33

p < 0.01

−0.22−0.11

p <

(0.12)(0.08)(0.13)(0.06)
Computer purchase−0.001−0.002−0.01

p < 0.01

−0.01

p < 0.01

(0.003)(0.002)(0.003)(0.002)
High-tech investment−0.02

p < 0.01

−0.01

p < 0.05

0.001−0.01

p < 0.05

(0.01)(0.003)(0.01)(0.002)
Capital to value-added ratio0.003−0.005−0.05

p < 0.01

−0.01
(0.02)(0.01)(0.02)(0.01)
Log wages (in year 2000)−0.03−0.14

p < 0.01

0.16

p < 0.01

−0.07

p < 0.05

(0.06)(0.04)(0.06)(0.03)
Change in log wages−0.030.070.49

p < 0.01

0.11

p < 0.05

(0.14)(0.09)(0.10)(0.04)
Change in sector employment share0.200.59

p < 0.01

−0.15−0.10
(0.29)(0.19)(0.24)(0.11)
Constant0.751.70

p < 0.01

−1.111.00

p < 0.01

(0.70)(0.43)(0.70)(0.31)
Observations369369363363
R20.620.640.480.54
eISSN:
2193-9004
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
Volume Open
Journal Subjects:
Business and Economics, Political Economics, Microeconomics, Macroecomics, Economic Policy, Mathematics and Statistics for Economists, Econometrics
Journal RSS Feed