Wage changes after different types of dismissal in Denmark of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
wage changes after different types of dismissal in
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Wage changes after different types of dismissal in Denmark of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 13, 2023 39 likes •262 views

Wage changes after different types of dismissal in Denmark of dismissal in Denmark Simon Bodilsen Niels Westergaard Nielsen C Center for Corporate Performance f C P f Aarhus University 15/05/13 1 Introduction Introduction

slide-1
SLIDE 1

“Wage changes after different types

  • f dismissal in Denmark”
  • f dismissal in Denmark

Simon Bodilsen Niels Westergaard‐Nielsen C f C P f Center for Corporate Performance Aarhus University

15/05/13 1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Introduction Introduction

  • Wage loss for movers due to reasons for

Wage loss for movers due to reasons for moving and dismissal

– Collective dismissals survivors and casualties – Collective dismissals, survivors and casualties – Moving with and without unemployment

H th i i h d th tt ?

  • Has the crisis changed the pattern?

15/05/13 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Institutional setting Institutional setting

  • Relative easy to lay workers off

Relative easy to lay workers off

– Denmark is number 7 on OECD scale for individual job protection and 25 for collective dismissals job protection and 25 for collective dismissals – Institutions

  • UI where most workers are members

UI where most workers are members

  • Relatively high UI
  • Duration of UI
  • Retirement pension systems
  • Vacation pay

15/05/13 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Consequences of easy lay offs Consequences of easy lay offs

  • Firms lay off more and are more reluctant to

Firms lay off more and are more reluctant to cut wages

  • Relatively high UI makes workers less reluctant
  • Relatively high UI makes workers less reluctant

to accept lower wages,

b t th d th f th i i i d th 2008 – but the depth of the crisis may induce them, 2008 – (change in 2010: duration of UI limited to 2 years)

15/05/13 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Data Data

  • Danish Register data – IDA database

g

  • 2000 – 2009
  • Private sector only
  • 1.5 million observations per year
  • Of which around 260.000 move per year
  • Hourly wage (CPI adjusted), so no bias due to non

work

  • November employment in t compared with
  • November employment in t compared with

November employment in t+1

  • Problem with wage statistics in 2003

g

15/05/13 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Sample description Sample description

Full sample Aged 25‐55 25‐55 and 10+ employees Movers p g p y 2000 1489435 1047087 884456 126918 2001 1516116 1065793 902063 134192 2002 1516978 1064082 899121 125262 2003 1506492 1047862 882451 110270 2004 1480827 1027739 858709 107503 2004 1480827 1027739 858709 107503 2005 1424363 981259 817543 110539 2006 1453211 992439 827624 131455 2007 1503052 1012817 843895 138117 2008 1547137 1033664 862173 147173 2009 1552823 1024546 858684 100159

15/05/13 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Movers with and without job Movers with and without job

16 0 18.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 8.0 10.0 2 0 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Moved with job Not employed Moved with job Not employed

15/05/13 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Wage growth Wage growth

0 06 0.08 0.02 0.04 0.06 ‐0.02 0.00 ‐0.08 ‐0.06 ‐0.04 ‐0.12 ‐0.10 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 movers stayers

15/05/13 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Model Model

  • Wage (per hour) growth between t and t+1

age (pe

  • u ) g o t bet ee t a d t
  • Displacement happens between t and t+1

– Mass dismissal at firm level – Surviving mass dismissal – Incidental lay offs/moves

  • Controls for

– Length of education, occupation level, age, gender, i region – Industry – UI membership UI membership

15/05/13 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Identification strategy Identification strategy

  • Mass dismissal: Reduction in staff of 30% or at

Mass dismissal: Reduction in staff of 30% or at least 5 persons from t to t+1

  • More likely laid off: Movers with subsequent
  • More likely laid off: Movers with subsequent

unemployment L lik l l id ff M i h

  • Less likely laid off: Movers without

unemployment in connection to job change

15/05/13 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Reasons for separation l d Accumulated

20 0 14 0 16.0 18.0 20.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 0.0 2.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Mass dismissed or firm closure Survived mass dismissal Changed job, unemployment spell Changed job, no unemployment spell

15/05/13 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Moving versus dismissal Moving versus dismissal

  • Data tell us if a person has moved from a firm

Data tell us if a person has moved from a firm but hard to distinguish between

– Moving for a better job? – Moving for a better job?

  • We know from Bingley and W‐N that people on average

earn 2/7 of their total life time income by moving.

– Or moving because of dismissal?

15/05/13 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

15/05/13 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

15/05/13 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15/05/13 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

15/05/13 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

What do we find? What do we find?

  • Changed job without unemployment has the

Changed job without unemployment has the highest wage growth in accordance with B&W‐N B&W N

  • Mass dismissal and closure do not scar people

S i i d i d

  • Surviving mass destruction does not scar

either

  • Laid off workers (moved and unemployed)

have the lowest wage growth

15/05/13 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

The Crisis The Crisis

  • Hits in the Fall of 2008 and in 2009

Hits in the Fall of 2008 and in 2009

  • W‐N and Neamtu, 2012 show based on a

survey that firms react by laying off workers. survey that firms react by laying off workers. We loose 20% of all jobs in manufacturing and about 10% of all jobs in private sector.

  • Firms indicate that they did not reduce wages,

but that they intend to freeze wages in 2012.

  • But this does not rule out that firms lower the

wage for newly employed.

15/05/13 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

15/05/13 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Regression results 2007‐2009 Regression results 2007 2009

2007 2008 2009 Wage growth Wage growth Wage growth Mass dismissal/firm closure in current year 0.0123*** 0.0354***

  • 0.1263***

0.0026 0.0021 0.0019

Survived mass dismissal in current year 0.0048***

  • 0.0008
  • 0.0138***

0.0018 0.0011 0.0009

Change in job in current year and no unemp. 0.0199*** 0.0300***

  • 0.1123***

0.001 0.0011 0.0013

Change in job in current year and unemp.

  • 0.0091***

0.0063**

  • 0.1194***

0.0022 0.0028 0.0022

Constant 0.1202*** 0.0724*** 0.0036**

0.0015 0.0017 0.0015

Observations 639018 634120 596381 R2 0.012 0.016 0.054 Robust standard errors in parentheses. Controls for personal information, occupation and firm characteristics.

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01

15/05/13 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

UI membership UI membership

  • Voluntary insurance system (as in B, S, F, IS)

y y ( , , , )

– About 65% of all in private sector insured

  • Non insured will get social assistance if eligible (

t t d) means tested)

  • We should expect that UI‐members will be less

likely to accept lower wages than non‐members likely to accept lower wages than non members

  • But a problem that some groups are more likely

to insure than others. Crisis affected groups that l ff d were not previously affected.

  • Estimation of interaction effect on only hourly

paid paid

15/05/13 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Effect of UI membership? Effect of UI membership?

2007 2008 2009 Wage growth Wage growth Wage growth Mass dismissal/firm closure in current year*UI-member

  • 0.0475***
  • 0.0199***
  • 0.0036

0 0104 0 0076 0 0077 0.0104 0.0076 0.0077

Survived mass dismissal in current year*UI-member 0.0065 0.0065 0.0078**

0.0065 0.0042 0.0037

Change in job in current year and no unemp.*UI-member

  • 0.0199***
  • 0.0168***
  • 0.0235***

0.0041 0.0045 0.0051

Change in job in current year and Change in job in current year and unemp.*UI-member

  • 0.016

0.0186

  • 0.0022

0.0182 0.0128 0.0111

controls Observations 419209 399026 360510 R2 0.009 0.013 0.045

15/05/13 22