<p>Fujita et al. (2019) compute a preliminary answer here:</p>
<p><a href="https://cps.ipums.org/cps/resources/other_docs/Fujita_et_al_Measuring_Employer-to-Employer_Reallocation.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://cps.ipums.org/cps/resources/other_docs/Fujita_et_al_Measuring_Employer-to-Employer_Reallocation.pdf</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-14T05:13:21.013Z
2022-07-14T05:13:21.013Z
Michael Lachanski
<p>There is no problem calculating the number of hires or the job-finding rate within different sub-groups of the population.</p>
<p>Usually one wants to have individual panel data to observe labor market transitions (employers) across time. A hire is someone who has a different employer in period t than in the period before. It can be a hire from employment, then the person was employed in both periods but at a different employer. Or it can be a hire from nonemployment, in which case the person was not employed in t-1 and is employed in t.</p>
<p>In the US, the most common source is the <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CPS</a>. If 10-year frequency is enough, you might also consider using the <a href="https://usa.ipums.org/usa/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Census</a>.</p>
<p>Two issues to think about:</p>
<ol>
<li>Total hires or just out of non-employment? The latter is what labor
economists usually care more about and call the job-finding rate.</li>
<li>Numbers of hires or shares? Usually, these measures are scaled by the relevant total. This will depend on what you consider for 1. If you use hires from non-employment, then the denominator should be all people in non-employment in t-1, if you use all hires it's probably better to scale according to total labor force.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-12T13:30:03.907Z
If I understand it correctly, then this is not a satisfactory answer. Both of these approaches compute U-J moves: the number of people moving from unemployment to a job. Most moves are from job to job (J-J) and so this will miss the bulk of hiring variation.
Michael Lachanski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-12T14:43:35.750Z
As mentioned at the beginning, with individual-level data you can compute job-to-job moves if people have a different employer and where employed in both periods. But agreed that the second part with Shimer does not. I have removed it.
Papayapap
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-11T12:50:09.297Z
2022-07-12T14:45:33.290Z
2022-07-12T14:45:33.290Z
Papayapap
<p>For the U.S., is there any known way to compute say, annual, new hires (not the hiring rate) by demographic group, e.g. men, women, aged 50 and over, etc? What data sources are used for this?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-10T07:39:17.743Z
Are you asking if this could be done in theory, or have seen it done somewhere and are wondering what data source was used? A snapshot of this statistic could in theory be calculated from census data.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-12T13:27:11.650Z
I know this can be done in theory. I do not think that this statistic can be computed from ACS data. The QWI and JOLTS indices compute this statistic, but not at any appropriate level of granularity.
Michael Lachanski
<reference-request><business-cycles><demographics><demography><cps>
How do economists compute new hires by demographic group?
Michael Lachanski
# How do economists compute new hires by demographic group?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-09)

For the U.S., is there any known way to compute say, annual, new hires (not the hiring rate) by demographic group, e.g. men, women, aged 50 and over, etc? What data sources are used for this?

**Tags:** reference-request, business-cycles, demographics, demography, cps

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Are you asking if this could be done in theory, or have seen it done somewhere and are wondering what data source was used? A snapshot of this statistic could in theory be calculated from census data.  
> **username_0**: I know this can be done in theory. I do not think that this statistic can be computed from ACS data. The QWI and JOLTS indices compute this statistic, but not at any appropriate level of granularity.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-07-14. Score: 0 | Accepted answer

Fujita et al. (2019) compute a preliminary answer here:

<https://cps.ipums.org/cps/resources/other_docs/Fujita_et_al_Measuring_Employer-to-Employer_Reallocation.pdf>


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2022-07-11. Score: 1

There is no problem calculating the number of hires or the job-finding rate within different sub-groups of the population.

Usually one wants to have individual panel data to observe labor market transitions (employers) across time. A hire is someone who has a different employer in period t than in the period before. It can be a hire from employment, then the person was employed in both periods but at a different employer. Or it can be a hire from nonemployment, in which case the person was not employed in t-1 and is employed in t.

In the US, the most common source is the [CPS](https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps.html). If 10-year frequency is enough, you might also consider using the [Census](https://usa.ipums.org/usa/).

Two issues to think about:

1. Total hires or just out of non-employment? The latter is what labor
   economists usually care more about and call the job-finding rate.
2. Numbers of hires or shares? Usually, these measures are scaled by the relevant total. This will depend on what you consider for 1. If you use hires from non-employment, then the denominator should be all people in non-employment in t-1, if you use all hires it's probably better to scale according to total labor force.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: If I understand it correctly, then this is not a satisfactory answer. Both of these approaches compute U-J moves: the number of people moving from unemployment to a job. Most moves are from job to job (J-J) and so this will miss the bulk of hiring variation.  
> **username_2**: As mentioned at the beginning, with individual-level data you can compute job-to-job moves if people have a different employer and where employed in both periods. But agreed that the second part with Shimer does not. I have removed it.  

---

