4.2 Article

The K-Shaped Recovery: Examining the Diverging Fortunes of Workers in the Recovery from the COVID-19 Pandemic Using Business and Household Survey Microdata

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 527-550

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1007/s10888-021-09506-6

关键词

Closures; Coronavirus; COVID-19; Employment; Income; Inequality; Recession; Unemployment; Wages

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the pandemic in the United States, low-wage workers in low-wage establishments experienced the steepest declines in employment, with many sectors showing that the lowest wage quintiles had the worst outcomes. Additionally, the probability of low-wage workers becoming part-time for economic reasons increased during this time.
This paper examines employment patterns by wage group over the course of the coronavirus pandemic in the United States using microdata from two well-known data sources from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: the Current Employment Statistics and the Current Population Survey. We find establishments paying the lowest average wages and the lowest wage workers had the steepest decline in employment and experienced the most persistent losses. We disentangle the extent to which the effect observed for low wage workers is due to these workers being concentrated within a few low wage sectors of the economy versus the pandemic affecting low wage workers in a number of sectors across the economy. Our results indicate that the experience of low wage workers is not entirely due to these workers being concentrated in low wage sectors - for many sectors, the lowest wage quintiles in that sector also has had the worst employment outcomes. From April 2020 to May 2021, between 23% and 46% of the decline in employment among the lowest wage establishments was due to within-industry changes. Another important finding is that even for those who remain employed during the pandemic, the probability of becoming part-time for economic reasons increased, especially for low-wage workers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据