Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01x920fw86t
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorQuintana-Domeque, Climenten_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T01:58:15Z-
dc.date.available2011-10-26T01:58:15Z-
dc.date.issued2008-05-01T00:00:00Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01x920fw86t-
dc.description.abstractI attempt to explain why compensating differentials for job disamenities are difficult to observe. I focus on the match between workers’ preferences for routine jobs and the variability in tasks associated with the job. Using data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, I find that mismatched workers report lower job satisfaction and earn lower wages. Both male and female workers in routinized jobs earn, on average, 12% less than their counterparts in non-routinized jobs. Once preferences and mismatch are accounted for, this difference decreases to 8% for men and 5% for women. Accounting for mismatch is important when analyzing compensating differentials.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorking Papers (Princeton University. Industrial Relations Section) ; 525en_US
dc.subjectwage diffententialsen_US
dc.subjectpreferencesen_US
dc.subjectjob attributesen_US
dc.subjectroutine tasksen_US
dc.subjectmismatchen_US
dc.titlePreference, Comparative Advantage, and Compensating Wage Differentials for Job Routinizationen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
pu.projectgrantnumber360-2050en_US
Appears in Collections:IRS Working Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
525.pdf573.73 kBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in Dataspace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.