• Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • Curriculum vitae
  • More
    • Home
    • Research
    • Teaching
    • Curriculum vitae
  • Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • Curriculum vitae

William M. Cockriel

William M. CockrielWilliam M. CockrielWilliam M. Cockriel

Ph.D. Candidate in Economics

Ph.D. Candidate in EconomicsPh.D. Candidate in EconomicsPh.D. Candidate in Economics

Job Market Paper

Boots & Shoes: Long Run Impacts of Job Destruction

I examine the long term effects of a negative shock to the human capital of shoemakers in the 19th century. A new machine called the McKay stitcher made shoemaker specific skills redundant and the same task could be completed with a lower skill worker operating the machine. Prior to the McKay stitcher, shoemakers represented almost 2% of the labor force in 1860. Using a simple model of trade, I motivate a county-industry level measure of exposure to this technology that is driven by the transportation network in 1860. Reduced form estimates show that shoemakers living in places with the greatest initial exposure saw lower wealth 10 years later and a large increase in exiting the industry. Migration was not a source of adjustment for shoemakers. Many shoemakers switched into the lower paying factory jobs and saw larger negative wealth effects. Building on evidence of generational effects of wealth and human capital, children of shoemakers were less likely to be in the labor force in 1900 between the ages of 30 and 50 relative to the children of other craftsmen. Children of shoemakers were much more likely to work in the shoe industry despite the strong evidence of negative displacement effects on their parents. Children of shoemakers in high exposure counties were less likely to own a home in 1900. Using a model of occupation switching, I find that the primary cost of the McKay stitcher was in occupation switching costs, with each switch costing approximately 4 years of shoemaker wages.

Fast Facts

Greater exposure leads to:

  • More job changing
  • Property value loss
  • No change in migration probability

Children of shoemakers:

  • Had lower paying jobs in 1900
  • Were more likely to work in shoe factories

Who was the least affected?

  • Individuals that migrated mitigated many of the negative displacement effects
  • Changing jobs was better than staying (selection effects)

Full Draft (Coming soon)

Copyright © 2023 William M. Cockriel - All Rights Reserved.


Powered by GoDaddy

This website uses cookies.

We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.

Accept