Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

Strong Employers and Weak Employees

How Does Employer Concentration Affect Wages?

Efraim Benmelech, Nittai K. Bergman and Hyunseob Kim
Journal of Human Resources, April 2022, 57 (S) S200-S250; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0119-10007R1
Efraim Benmelech
Efraim Benmelech is Harold L. Stuart Professor of Finance at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University ()
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Nittai K. Bergman
Nittai K. Bergman is Professor of Economics at the Berglas School of Economics and Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hyunseob Kim
Hyunseob Kim is Senior Economist at the Economic Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Trends in Average Local-Level Employment Concentration, 1978–2016

    Notes: This figure plots trends in the employment-weighted average of the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) of employment by firms computed at the county (Panel A) or commuting zone (Panel B) four-digit SIC industry–year level. The computed HHI is averaged across county–four-digit industry–year cells within each of the ten-year periods (the last period includes nine years, 2008–2016) using the number of employees in each cell as weights. Thus, the average HHI represents the degree of employer concentration the average worker faces in the labor market.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary Statistics on Plant Observations from the CMF and ASM Sample

    MeanSD
    Total value of shipment ($m)  97.92 445.90
    Total wages ($m)  10.95  35.78
    Total employees 299.80 732.50
    Total labor hours (000) 717.106465.00
    HHI (SIC3–county–year)   0.520   0.347
    HHI (SIC4–county–year)   0.651   0.338
    HHI (SIC3–CZ–year)   0.338   0.308
    HHI (SIC4–CZ–year)   0.481   0.343
    HHI (SIC3–county–year) = 1   0.211   0.408
    HHI (SIC3–CZ–year) = 1   0.080   0.271
    Log labor productivity   4.49   0.86
    Average wage ($000)  41.54  14.18
    Average wage ($000), production  36.82  13.65
    log(employment, SIC3–county–year)   6.24   1.61
    log(employment, SIC4–county–year)   5.75   1.56
    log(employment, SIC3–CZ–year)   7.10   1.63
    log(employment, SIC4–CZ–year)   6.40   1.60
    Plants per segments (SIC3)  15.17  34.08
    Plants per firm  50.88  72.68
    Plant age  16.49  10.80
    Unionization rate   0.198   0.123
    Observations (plant–years)946,000
    • Notes: This table presents descriptive statistics on the manufacturing plant–year observations used in the analysis from the CMF and ASM databases for the period 1978–2016. We require each observation in the sample to have all variables necessary to compute average wages, labor productivity, and value added per worker (and their lagged values). Total value of shipments is TVS in the CMF and ASM databases and a measure of sales from plants in million dollars. Total wage is the sum of wages for production and nonproduction workers in million dollars. Total employees is the number of total employees. Total labor hours is the production worker equivalent human hours in thousands. HHI (SIC3 or 4–employment by firms at the industrycounty or CZ–year) is the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) of employment by firms at the county or commuting zone (CZ)–industry (three- or four-digit)–year level. HHI (SIC3–county or CZ–year) = 1 is an indicator variable equal to one if HHI = 1, and zero otherwise. HHI (SIC3 or 4–year) is the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI) of employment by firms at the industry (three- or four-digit)-year level. log(employment, SIC3 or 4–county or CZ–year) is the log number of employees at the county or CZ–industry (three- or four-digit)–year level. Labor productivity is defined as output divided by total labor hours (a quantity-based measure of labor productivity). Average wage is computed as total wage divided by total employees (in thousand dollars). Average wage, production is computed as production employee wage divided by total production employees (in thousand dollars). log(employment, SIC3 or 4–county or CZ–year) is the log number of employment at the county or CZ–industry (three- or four-digit)–year level. Plants per segment is the number of plants in a given three-digit SIC industry segment of a given firm. Plants per firm is the total number of plants of a given firm. Plant age is the number of years since a plant’s birth, which is proxied either by the flag for plant birth in the Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) or by its first appearance in the CMF or ASM database, whichever is earliest. Unionization rate is the industry-level percentage of the workforce covered by collective bargaining collected from the CPS. The number of observations is rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Local Employer Concentration and Wages

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    Countycz
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC4
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC3
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    SIC4
    (9)
    SIC4
    (10)
    log HHI (ind–local–year)-0.010-0.009-0.012-0.011-0.022-0.009-0.010-0.012-0.011-0.008
    -3.16-3.13-4.21-4.14-4.04-3.15-3.17-3.92-3.76-1.85
    log(emp, ind–local–year) 0.033 0.032 0.030 0.031 0.034 0.033 0.032 0.031 0.031 0.035
    36.3934.1239.9138.4714.4633.2930.5735.9433.4110.26
    log(labor productivity) 0.072 0.069 0.067 0.064 0.154 0.071 0.068 0.066 0.063 0.155
    48.0841.5442.8836.8151.9439.934.3835.0730.5438.88
    log(plants per segment)-0.007-0.008-0.005-0.007-0.041-0.006-0.007-0.005-0.006-0.043
    -5.08-5.48-4.62-4.77-21.92-4.3-4.65-4.22-4.04-22.17
    log(plants per firm)-0.007-0.0060.038-0.008-0.0070.039
    -4.38-4.2931.88-4.46-4.3327.84
    Plant age (/100) 0.266 0.275 0.257 0.264 0.321 0.285 0.293 0.274 0.281 0.349
    30.5731.0929.9729.6821.9430.1331.4628.5828.7119.51
    Year fixed effectsYYYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000
    R20.5710.65490.58470.67280.20150.57160.65560.5860.67410.1995
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(emp) are lagged by one year. Columns 1–5 (Columns 6–10) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 6–5 (Columns 3–5 and 8–10) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Subsample of Firms with One Industry Segment across Multiple Plants

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year)-0.012-0.011-0.014-0.011-0.017-0.017-0.018-0.017
    -3.57-2.97-4.44-3.31-4.21-3.50-4.53-3.42
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0280.0290.0280.0310.0260.0270.0270.029
    22.2819.5022.3219.7019.1516.0819.1616.78
    log(labor productivity)0.0470.0410.0420.0360.0460.0400.0410.035
    15.339.7812.517.7113.108.5611.197.25
    log(plants per segment)0.0020.0060.0010.004
    0.320.780.080.48
    log(plants per firm)-0.013-0.014-0.012-0.012
    -1.88-1.94-1.66-1.72
    Plant age (/100)0.3590.3710.3620.3730.3730.3840.3780.390
    29.3025.2027.5323.7729.0224.7627.2823.23
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations226,000226,000187,000187,000226,000226,000187,000187,000
    R20.63480.74230.64630.75230.63520.74300.64690.7531
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants using a subsample of plants owned by firms that have multiple plants in only one industry segment. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(employment) are lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Local Employer Concentration and Wages Controlling for Labor Value Added

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year)-0.010-0.009-0.013-0.011-0.010-0.010-0.012-0.012
    -3.28-3.24-4.34-4.25-3.26-3.24-4.02-3.83
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0320.0320.0300.0310.0320.0320.0300.031
    36.1033.9239.4438.1533.1330.4635.5233.17
    log(labor productivity)0.0620.0600.0570.0560.0610.0590.0570.054
    36.1830.6931.6926.9430.2425.9125.8222.74
    log(labor VA)0.0110.0100.0100.0090.0110.0100.0110.009
    15.5912.6915.2611.3816.1713.0115.2511.72
    log(plants per segment)-0.007-0.008-0.006-0.007-0.006-0.007-0.005-0.006
    -5.12-5.46-4.75-4.83-4.33-4.64-4.33-4.10
    log(plants per firm)-0.007-0.006-0.008-0.007
    -4.50-4.38-4.58-4.41
    Plant age (/100)0.2650.2740.2560.2630.2840.2910.2730.280
    30.4330.9829.8429.5830.0031.3728.4528.60
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,00094,6000
    R20.57150.65520.58500.67300.57200.65590.58640.6743
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants including an additional control for labor productivity—valued added (total value of shipments + net increase in inventories of finished goods and works in progress—material and energy costs) scaled by labor hours. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(employment) are lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log (employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Local Employer Concentration and Wages Controlling for National Concentration

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC4
    (2)
    SIC3
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year)-0.010-0.013-0.010-0.012
    -3.16-4.27-3.19-4.04
    log(HHI, ind–year)0.0020.0050.0040.007
    1.173.212.064.62
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0330.0300.0330.030
    36.3339.8133.1335.45
    log(labor productivity)0.0720.0670.0710.067
    48.1742.9140.0835.15
    log(plants per segment)-0.007-0.006-0.006-0.005
    -5.09-4.72-4.36-4.35
    log(plants per firm)-0.007-0.006-0.008-0.007
    -4.45-4.42-4.55-4.51
    Plant age (/100)0.2660.2570.2850.274
    30.5629.9730.1328.6
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000
    R20.57110.58470.57160.5860
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants, including an additional control for employer concentration at the national level. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(employment) are lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Local Economic Conditions and Plant Opening or Closure

    Dep. Var.: Log # Plant OpeningsDep. Var.: Log # Plant Closures
    SIC3 Level
    (1)
    SIC3 Diff.
    (2)
    SIC4 Level
    (3)
    SIC4 Diff.
    (4)
    SIC3 Level
    (5)
    SIC3 Diff.
    (6)
    SIC4 Level
    (7)
    SIC4 Diff.
    (8)
    Unemp-pop. ratio, [t – 1]-0.422-0.229-0.178-0.1430.2150.6820.2870.558
    -8.15-5.78-5.15-4.283.7514.716.1214.12
    log(median HH income), [t – 1]0.0040.000-0.0020.0000.011-0.0020.005-0.001
    0.770.05-0.96-0.031.49-2.041.20-1.41
    Year fixed effectsYYYYYYYY
    Industry-county fixed effectsYYYYYYYY
    Observations3,340,0003,340,0004,830,0004,830,0003,340,0003,340,0004,830,0004,830,000
    R20.38680.38670.33060.33060.46010.46010.39350.3936
    • Notes: This table examines the relation between local economic conditions and plant opening and closure using a sample of industry–county–year observations constructed using the LBD. In Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8), the dependent variable is the log (one plus) number of plant openings or closures in a given industry–county–year cell. Local economic conditions are proxied for by the one-year-lagged unemployment-to-population ratio and log median household income, either in level (odd-numbered columns) or first-difference (even-numbered columns). Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute the log number of plant openings or closures. The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Local Employer Concentration and Wages: Instrumental Variables Estimates Using Mergers and Acquisitions

    Dep. Var.: ΔlogHHI (ind–local–year)t–5→t
    SIC3
    5% Market Share Threshold10% Market Share Threshold
    CountyCZCountyCZ
    M&A: (log N merged)Plants
    (1)
    Emp.
    (2)
    Plants
    (3)
    Emp.
    (4)
    Plants
    (5)
    Emp.
    (6)
    Plants
    (7)
    Emp.
    (8)
    Panel A: First Stage
    M&At–10.2290.0370.2010.0350.3300.0490.3170.051
    15.3312.2011.4512.0415.6915.3514.2115.20
    M&t–20.2030.0330.1900.0320.2990.0440.2950.047
    10.1913.1313.2613.6315.6114.9112.6915.97
    M&At–30.1790.0310.1630.0300.2640.0390.2260.039
    8.9511.8911.8514.4812.2912.518.0013.25
    M&At–40.1540.0270.1360.0250.2260.0330.1850.035
    8.1110.108.7010.728.628.405.5711.17
    M&At–50.1820.0310.1470.0280.2750.0400.2000.038
    7.3710.886.9411.037.588.684.5010.90
    Δlog(emp, ind–local–year)t–5→t-0.167-0.167-0.214-0.214-0.167-0.167-0.214-0.214
    -28.13-28.07-23.48-23.47-28.01-28.02-23.39-23.36
    Δlog(labor productivity)t–5→t-0.010-0.010-0.010-0.010-0.010-0.010-0.010-0.010
    -6.02-6.03-4.85-4.82-5.97-5.96-4.78-4.81
    Δlog(plants per segment)t–5→t-0.006-0.007-0.002-0.002-0.006-0.006-0.002-0.002
    -2.54-2.61-0.94-1.00-2.54-2.53-0.65-0.67
    Δlog(plants per firm)t–5→t0.0090.0090.0090.0090.0090.0090.0090.009
    5.295.35.835.885.35.315.945.97
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYYYYYY
    F-stat53.7955.7040.1451.4965.2266.4750.8169.72
    Observations468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000
    R20.09390.09480.10450.10610.09360.09370.10270.1037
    Panel B: Second Stage
    ΔlogHHI (ind–local–year)t–5→t, IV-0.047-0.041-0.047-0.043-0.061-0.055-0.040-0.030
    -2.29-2.36-2.52-2.97-2.62-2.67-2.26-2.02
    Δlog(emp, ind–local–year)t–5→t-0.012-0.011-0.014-0.013-0.014-0.013-0.012-0.010
    -3.3-3.56-3.26-3.89-3.57-3.76-3.14-3.08
    Δlog(labor productivity)t–5→t0.0160.0160.0160.0160.0160.0160.0160.016
    12.3112.4210.9111.0512.1512.2710.8310.98
    Δlog(plants per segment)t–5→t-0.002-0.002-0.002-0.002-0.002-0.002-0.002-0.002
    -2.11-2.09-1.87-1.87-2.15-2.13-1.87-1.87
    Δlog(plants per firm)t–5→t0.0040.0040.0040.0040.0040.0040.0040.004
    6.296.246.476.536.446.416.386.33
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYYYYYY
    Observations468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000468,000
    R20.02450.02560.02270.02370.02110.02280.02460.0266
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on wages using an instrumental variable (IV) approach. The instrument is the lagged (one to five years, M&At–1 to M&At–5) value of the log number of plants or employment involved in mergers of two firms in a given local labor market, defined by three-digit SIC codes and counties or CZs. We define a merger as an ownership change of a given plant between two firms that already had plants in the local labor market one year before the merger using the LBD. To ensure that the instruments for employment concentration are relevant, we require that the combined employment share of both the acquiring and target firms in the local labor market was at least 5 percent (Columns 1–4) or 10 percent (Columns 5–8) one year before a merger. Panel A presents estimates for the first-stage IV regression, in which the dependent variable is ΔlogHHI (ind–local–year)t–5–t, the change in log(HHI) from five years before to the current year. Panel B presents estimates for the second-stage IV regression, in which the dependent variable is Δlog(Avg. wages)t–5–t, the change in average wages from five years before to the current year. All control variables in Panels A and B, such as Δlog(labor productivity)t–5→t, are also changes from five years before to the current year. The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousands to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Employer Concentration and Wages by Ten-Year Time Period

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    1978–1987
    (1)
    1988–1997
    (2)
    1998–2007
    (3)
    2008–2016
    (4)
    2008–2010
    (5)
    Panel A: Counties as Local Areas
    log(HHI, SIC3–county–year)0.000-0.009-0.015-0.020-0.020
    -0.11-2.58-4.30-7.53-6.26
    log(emp, SIC3–county–year)0.0410.0370.0260.0180.019
    30.6628.2119.4515.1212.06
    log(labor productivity)0.1000.0730.0510.0500.050
    40.2132.5227.1827.2621.12
    log(plants per segment)-0.002-0.012-0.010-0.008-0.008
    -1.45-5.43-5.11-3.64-2.65
    log(plants per firm)-0.002-0.003-0.0060.000-0.017
    -1.26-1.55-2.400.00-2.05
    Plant age (/100)0.7430.4610.2940.1800.197
    18.6622.6624.1920.3716.71
    Year fixed effectsYYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYYY
    Observations248,000250,000238,000209,00069,000
    R20.65360.61810.53620.57850.6054
    Panel B: Commuting Zones as Local Areas
    log(HHI, SIC3–CZ–year)-0.001-0.011-0.014-0.018-0.018
    -0.48-3.41-3.48-5.85-5.46
    log(employment, SIC3–CZ–year)0.0380.0350.0280.0200.022
    31.1123.3120.0914.2212.62
    log(labor productivity)0.0980.0720.0500.0490.050
    33.6728.1624.2925.5820.89
    log(plants per segment)-0.002-0.005-0.0070.000-0.018
    -1.20-2.12-2.54-0.10-2.06
    log(plants per firm)-0.002-0.011-0.009-0.008-0.008
    -0.92-5.11-4.88-3.71-2.66
    Plant age (/100)0.8150.4900.3060.1860.204
    19.6922.5825.1220.7716.38
    Year fixed effectsYYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYYY
    Observations248,000250,000238,000209,00069,000
    R20.65150.61860.5380.58040.6076
    • Notes: This table examines the basic effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants by ten-year period for 1978–2016. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(employment) are lagged by one year. The table presents estimates using three-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). Panels A and B present estimates using counties and CZs to compute HHI and log(employment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 9

    Local Employer Concentration, Unions, and Wages

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log(HHI, SIC3–county–year)-0.017-0.014-0.017-0.015-0.017-0.015-0.016-0.017
    -4.51-3.94-4.51-4.30-4.18-3.63-4.44-4.02
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0330.0320.0300.0310.0330.0320.0310.031
    36.5533.6741.9940.5733.4230.6335.9533.52
    log(labor productivity)0.0720.0690.0670.0640.0710.0680.0670.063
    47.9246.3946.2641.9839.9234.2735.0930.48
    Union0.1860.2210.1540.2050.2680.162
    14.133.8912.3512.004.2210.91
    log HHI × Union0.0360.0280.0220.0220.0380.0310.0240.028
    4.193.002.382.354.063.092.702.68
    log(plants per segment)-0.007-0.008-0.005-0.007-0.006-0.007-0.005-0.006
    -5.15-5.88-4.82-4.75-4.38-4.76-4.25-4.06
    log(plants per firm)-0.007-0.006-0.008-0.007
    -4.53-4.43-4.64-4.44
    Plant age (/100)0.2670.2750.2570.2640.2860.2930.2750.281
    30.6533.2832.4731.7830.4231.5828.7028.75
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000
    R20.57140.65500.58490.67280.57200.65570.58620.6741
    • Notes: This table examines the interactive effects of employer concentration in a local labor market and industry union coverage rates on the wages of plants. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI), log(employment), and Union are lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 10

    Employer Concentration and Sensitivities of Wage Changes to Productivity Changes

    Dep. Var.: Δlog Avg. Production Worker Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year)0.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.0010.001
    3.854.223.964.754.164.823.875.09
    Δlog(labor productivity)0.1140.1090.1150.1100.1090.1050.1100.106
    56.3952.4560.1655.8945.3242.4947.5045.80
    log(HHI) × Δlog(labor productivity)-0.009-0.009-0.011-0.012-0.008-0.008-0.011-0.011
    -4.69-4.77-4.18-4.17-5.24-5.25-4.76-4.84
    log(plants per segment)0.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
    0.06-0.190.960.510.03-0.240.980.51
    log(plants per firm)0.0000.0000.0000.000
    -0.31-0.70-0.27-0.59
    Plant age (/100)-0.007-0.008-0.007-0.008-0.007-0.008-0.007-0.008
    -3.11-3.44-3.14-3.32-2.68-3.10-2.72-3.01
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000
    R20.08770.29710.08800.30870.08770.29710.08810.3088
    • Notes: This table examines how employer concentration shapes sensitivities of changes in production worker wages to changes in labor productivity. The dependent variable is the log change in average wages per production worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) is lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log (employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 11

    China Import Penetration, Local Employer Concentration, and Wages

    Dep. Var.: Log Avg. Wages
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC4
    (2)
    SIC3
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year)-0.009-0.015-0.004-0.008
    -3.02-5.32-1.25-2.99
    China exposure (ind–year)0.000-0.0010.000-0.001
    -2.99-7.06-2.37-6.90
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0260.0230.0270.024
    17.3616.8414.5113.40
    log(labor productivity)0.0780.0780.0780.078
    38.3438.0032.8132.74
    log(plants per segment)-0.020-0.016-0.020-0.017
    -11.00-9.01-9.76-8.14
    log(plants per firm)-0.004-0.007-0.005-0.007
    -1.85-3.41-1.88-3.04
    Plant age (/100)0.3410.3370.3570.352
    26.7426.2127.0925.82
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations350,000350,000350,000350,000
    R20.53490.53270.53450.5330
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on wages controlling for the effect of import penetration from China on wages. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(employment) are lagged by one year. China exposure is defined as total value of import from China to the U.S. scaled by total employment at the industry by year level. Columns 1 and 2 (Columns 3 and 4) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1 and 3 (Columns 2 and 4) present estimates using three- (four-) digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousands to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table 12

    The Exposure to Chinese Imports and Local Employer Concentration

    Dep. Var.: Log(HHI, ind–local–year)
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC4
    (2)
    SIC3
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    China exposure (ind-year)0.0040.0020.0040.002
    6.183.883.982.17
    log(emp, ind–local–year)-0.431-0.326-0.522-0.435
    -13.49-11.65-15.81-14.68
    log(labor productivity)-0.005-0.0040.0120.007
    -0.82-0.621.511.00
    log(plants per segment)0.0330.0090.0560.027
    4.931.615.542.54
    log(plants per firm)-0.044-0.027-0.053-0.035
    -6.12-4.26-6.56-4.67
    Plant age (/100)0.9290.9390.7810.950
    19.1720.1312.0620.46
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations350,000350,000350,000350,000
    R20.61600.55570.66840.6294
    • Notes: This table examines how exposure to China import penetration affects local-level employer concentration. The table uses three-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, China exposure, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The dependent variable is log(HHI) as defined in Table 1. t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table A1

    Contemporaneous Local Employer Concentration and Wages

    Dep. Var.: Log(Avg. Wages)
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log(HHI, ind–local–year), [t]-0.012-0.011-0.014-0.013-0.011-0.011-0.013-0.013
    -3.57-3.69-4.50-4.65-3.50-3.59-4.26-4.20
    log(emp, ind–local–year), [t|0.0320.0310.0300.0300.0320.0310.0300.030
    34.8332.3636.8235.1631.7229.0332.6130.19
    log(labor productivity)0.0730.0700.0680.0640.0720.0690.0670.064
    48.4641.6143.2436.7440.5634.8435.8330.92
    log(plants per segment)-0.007-0.008-0.006-0.007-0.006-0.007-0.006-0.006
    -5.14-5.33-4.88-4.73-4.43-4.59-4.51-4.07
    log(plants per firm)-0.007-0.006-0.008-0.007
    -4.63-4.57-4.66-4.54
    plant age (/100)0.2800.2900.2710.2800.2980.3070.2870.296
    31.3232.0330.9330.8431.1732.4629.6129.68
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations941,000941,000941,000941,000941,000941,000941,000941,000
    R20.57350.65540.58710.67330.57420.65620.58840.6746
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of contemporaneous employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(emp) are contemporaneous with the log of average wages per worker. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log(employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

    • View popup
    Table A2

    Local Employer Concentration and Wages without Plant-Level Controls

    Dep. Var.: Log(Avg. Wages)
    CountyCZ
    SIC3
    (1)
    SIC3
    (2)
    SIC4
    (3)
    SIC4
    (4)
    SIC3
    (5)
    SIC3
    (6)
    SIC4
    (7)
    SIC4
    (8)
    log (HHI, ind–local–year)-0.009-0.008-0.012-0.010-0.009-0.008-0.011-0.010
    -2.85-2.69-3.78-3.53-2.76-2.56-3.40-3.06
    log(emp, ind–local–year)0.0340.0340.0320.0330.0340.0340.0320.034
    37.4235.4141.3640.4033.6931.1136.0434.08
    Year fixed effectsYYYY
    Industry fixed effectsYYYY
    industry–year fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm fixed effectsYYYY
    Firm-year fixed effectsYYYY
    Observations946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000946,000
    R20.55390.64180.57020.66220.55420.64230.57140.6633
    • Notes: This table examines the effects of employer concentration in a local labor market on the wages of plants, without controlling for plant-level covariates. The dependent variable is the log of average wages per worker as defined in Table 1. log(HHI) and log(emp) are lagged by one year. Columns 1–4 (Columns 5–8) present estimates using counties (CZs) to define local labor markets. Columns 1–2 and 5–6 (Columns 3–4 and 7–8) present estimates using three- and four-digit SIC industries to compute HHI, log (employment), and log(plants per segment). The t-statistics based on standard errors adjusted for sample clustering at the county or CZ level are reported below the coefficient estimates. The numbers of observations are rounded to the nearest thousand to follow the U.S. Census Bureau’s disclosure rules.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 57 (S)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 57, Issue S
1 Apr 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Strong Employers and Weak Employees
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Strong Employers and Weak Employees
Efraim Benmelech, Nittai K. Bergman, Hyunseob Kim
Journal of Human Resources Apr 2022, 57 (S) S200-S250; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0119-10007R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Strong Employers and Weak Employees
Efraim Benmelech, Nittai K. Bergman, Hyunseob Kim
Journal of Human Resources Apr 2022, 57 (S) S200-S250; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0119-10007R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Data and Key Variables
    • III. Empirical Analysis
    • IV. Conclusion
    • Appendix 1
    • Appendix 2
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Labor Market Concentration, Wages and Job Security in Europe
  • Labor Market Concentration
  • Labor Market Concentration, Earnings, and Inequality
  • Monopsony in the Labor Market: New Empirical Results and New Public Policies
  • Labor Monopsony and the Limits of the Law
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Owning the Agent
  • Understanding the Educational Attainment Polygenic Index and its Interactions with SES in Determining Health in Young Adulthood
  • Unexpected colonial returns
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • E24
  • J51
  • J61
  • J62
  • L13
UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire