自1970年代中期以来,美国劳动力市场上“坏工作”的流行率急剧上升,以工资停滞为特征,不稳定的工作时间表,和有限的附带福利。学术上,政策,公开辩论仍在继续,然而,关于这些工作是否可以作为跨代工作质量流动性的垫脚石,或者是“贫困陷阱”。“虽然奖学金越来越认识到工作质量的多维度性质,先前关于代际工作流动性的研究绝大多数只估计工资流动性,通常侧重于估计流动性的程度,排除促进这种流动性的环境和机制。我们利用2017年至2022年期间从8600名服务部门小时工收集的新面板数据来估计短期进入好工作的流动性。定义为支付至少15美元/小时,有稳定的工作时间表,提供带薪病假,雇主赞助的健康保险,和退休福利。总的来说,我们发现,进入这样的“好工作”的流动性很低。然而,我们表明,过渡到“好工作”的速度受到当地劳动力市场条件的强烈制约:在“大辞职”期间和州月失业率较低的时期,在不利的环境中,几乎两倍的工人过渡到“好工作”,特别是那些改变行业的工人,而不是留在同一家公司或在服务业从事新工作。值得注意的是,在劳动力市场紧张时期,留在同一雇主的工人进入“好工作”的比例与在该行业内更换雇主的工人相似。
Since the mid-1970s, there has been a sharp rise in the prevalence of \"bad jobs\" in the U.S. labor market, characterized by stagnant wages, unstable work schedules, and limited fringe benefits. Scholarly, policy, and public debate persists, however, about whether these jobs can serve as steppingstones to intra-generational job quality
mobility or are instead \"poverty traps.\" While scholarship increasingly recognizes the multi-dimensional nature of job quality, prior research on intra-generational job mobility overwhelmingly estimates only wage
mobility and generally focuses on estimating the degree of
mobility, to the exclusion of the contexts and mechanisms that foster such
mobility. We draw on new panel data collected from 8600 hourly service sector workers between 2017 and 2022 to estimate short-run
mobility into good jobs, defined as paying at least $15/hour, having a stable work schedule, and offering paid sick leave, employer-sponsored health insurance, and retirement benefits. Overall, we find that
mobility into such \"good jobs\" is low. However, we show that the rate of transition into \"good jobs\" is strongly conditioned by local labor market conditions: during the \"Great Resignation\" and in low state-month unemployment periods, nearly twice the share of workers transitioned to \"good jobs\" as in less favorable contexts, particularly workers who changed sector as opposed to staying at the same firm or taking new jobs in the service sector. Notably, during periods of labor market tightness, workers who stayed at the same employer had similar rates of mobility into \"good jobs\" as those who changed employers within the sector.