• Brin Hartley posted an update 3 weeks, 4 days ago

    Note that when changing jobs, workers seek similar occupations and industries to their origin (Parrado et al., 2007; Moen, 2005). Similarly, based on the specific ability of the individual, the adjustment of the worker within a sector should be less costly than between sectors (Elliott and Lindley, 2006). Workers who change jobs but remain in the same industry, get higher returns because of their experience (Neal, 1995).In situations where the worker is more linked to the sector than to the company, his mobility will be higher and the flow of knowledge between firms will be intense (Dahl, 2004). In this case, workers will receive compensation for some skills that are neither general nor specific to particular company, but rather specific of an industry or line of work.Contact with R & D activities allows a group of workers accumulate general human capital, in this case, one can interpret employment in intensive sector R & D as a type of training (Magnani, 2006) capable of increasing the marginal productivity of workers. To Mincer (1993), on-the-job training deepen specific knowledge of the worker, making him less likely to change jobs, so there would be a negative relationship between experience and mobility, i.e., the higher experience the lower the probability of changing jobs. Reinforcing this argument, Elliott and Lindley (2006) state that the most qualified individuals possess a specific skill to the industry making them less mobile.Parrado et al. (2007), although they find that individuals with higher education levels tend to remain in the same occupation and industry recognize that education has positive and negative effects on the mobility of workers. While more educated workers have higher chances of early in the career find the desired job and would therefore be less likely to change jobs later, on the other hand, more skilled workers possess a larger stock of human capital and therefore would be able to develop a greater variety of activities (greater general knowledge) thus giving better opportunities to change their occupations. Thus, we observe that the empirical literature has no consensus on the relationship between educational level and likelihood of changing jobs.For the United States, Magnani (2009) finds that innovation and technological GW788388 have different effects on intersectoral labor mobility. The knowledge spillovers increase the likelihood of this migration, being this result more consistent for workers in low-tech sectors. Regarding innovation, the author highlights an ambiguous relationship between this variable and interfirm worker mobility, which may present a negative relationship, in the case of technological innovation be specific to the sector, and positive when this innovation technologically approaches two sectors. Thus, among those belonging to the low-tech sectors, innovation increases the probability of change of firm between sectors at the 2-digits, but, keeps a negative relationship with changes in firms across sectors and within the 3-digit sectors.Empirical strategyBased on the theoretical framework used by Magnani (2009) to characterize the influence of technological innovation and diffusion in intersectoral workers mobility, a representative firm h, belonging to the i-th sector, at time t, has a production function based on the number of skilled workers employed in terms of the internal labor market, L, and of a measure of current technological knowledge specific of the industrial sector . Being K the capital stock, the function will be represented as . Thus, will be the assessment made in the steady state for a skilled worker, of the value of employment in the h-th firm in industry i period t:where r is an market interest rate determined exogenously, and W (.), is the wages of the worker, determined by the firm\’s production function. The value being employed in another sector j must consider the cost of changing work places, which depends on the transferability of one\’s ability from one job to another. Therefore, it is assumed that the use of skill in another post is inversely proportional to the technological distance between the sectors of origin and destination, i and j respectively, formally represented by, . Consequently, the value of the new job is defined as:being the loss that the individual faces due to the fact that its human capital is only partially transferable when it changes from i to j. Thus, . As a result, the impact of technological innovation on the mobility between sectors will depend on how the technology change in the current employment sector will affect the value given to jobs and the loss suffered because of the change of position.