Advertisement

The effect of automation levels on US interstate migration

  • Chigusa OkamotoEmail author
Original Paper
  • 143 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigates the extent to which job process automation, which has resulted in wage inequality and job polarization in the USA and has affected US interstate migration over the past two decades. The level of automation in each state is calculated using data on the degree of automation of each occupation. In particular, this study examines how the difference in the levels among states explains the movement of migrants. The results show that people move to states with more automation in skilled occupations and less automation in unskilled occupations. This finding implies that automation has a complementary (substitution) effect on skilled (unskilled) occupations. The results also show that the former effect is larger and more robust than the latter one. Further analyses use migration flow data classified into several subgroups and find that both skilled and unskilled workers in most occupations move to states with more automation in skilled occupations and less automation in unskilled occupations.

JEL Classification

J24 R23 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Takatoshi Tabuchi, Marcus Berliant, Michael Pflüger, Yasuhiro Sato, and Atsushi Yamagishi. I am also indebted to an anonymous referee and the editor-in-chief, Martin Andersson, for their helpful comments and suggestions. The author also thanks the participants of the JEA meeting at Ritsumeikan University, the Asian Seminar in Regional Science at National Taiwan University, and of seminars at Tohoku University, Kyushu Sangyo University, Kyoto University, the University of Tokyo, and Kagawa University.

References

  1. Accetturo A, Dalmazzo A, De Blasio G (2014) Skill polarization in local labor markets under share-altering technical change. J Reg Sci 54(2):249–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acemoglu D, Restrepo P (2017) Robots and jobs: evidence from US labor markets, NBER Working Paper No. 23285Google Scholar
  3. Autor DH (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. J Econ Perspect 29(3):3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Autor DH, Dorn D (2013) The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. Am Econ Rev 103(5):1553–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Autor DH, Levy F, Murnane RJ (2003) The skill content of recent technological change: an empirical exploration. Quart J Econ 118(4):1279–1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger T, Frey CB (2016) Did the computer revolution shift the fortunes of U.S. cities? Technology shocks and the geography of new jobs. Reg Sci Urban Econ 57:38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies PS, Greenwood MJ, Li H (2001) A conditional logit approach to U.S. state-to-state migration. J Reg Sci 41(2):337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Executive Office of the President of the United States of America (2016) Artificial intelligence, automation, and the economy. Technical representative, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2017) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol Forecast Soc Change 114:254–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fu Y, Gabriel SA (2012) Labor migration, human capital agglomeration and regional development in China. Reg Sci Urban Econ 42(3):473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaspar J, Glaeser EL (1998) Technology and the future of cities. J Urban Econ 43:136–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goos M, Manning A (2007) Lousy and Lovely Jobs: the rising polarization of work in Britain. Rev Econ Stat 89(1):118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenwood MJ (1997) Internal migration in developed countries. Handb Popul Family Econ 1(PART B):647–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood MJ, Hunt GL (1989) Jobs versus amenities in the analysis of metropolitan migration. J Urban Econ 25(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Handel MJ (2016) The O*NET content model: strengths and limitations Stärken und Grenzen des O*NET-Models. J Labour Mark Res 49(2):157–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Michaels G, Natraj A, Reenen JV (2014) Has ICT polarized skill demand? Evidence from eleven countries over twenty-five years. Rev Econ Stat 96(1):60–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Modestino AS, Dennett J (2013) Are American homeowners locked into their houses? The impact of housing market conditions on state-to-state migration. Reg Sci Urban Econ 43(2):322–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Molloy R, Smith CL, Wozniak A, Perspectives E, Smith L (2014) Internal migration in the United States. J Econ Perspect 25(3):173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pingle JF (2007) A note on measuring internal migration in the United States. Econ Lett 94(1):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plantinga AJ, Détang-Dessendre C, Hunt GL, Piguet V (2013) Housing prices and inter-urban migration. Reg Sci Urban Econ 43(2):296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poncet S (2006) Provincial migration dynamics in China: borders, costs and economic motivations. Reg Sci Urban Econ 36(3):385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sasser AC (2010) Voting with their feet: relative economic conditions and state migration patterns. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(2–3):122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. US Census Bureau (2018) Understanding and using American Community Survey data: What all data users need to know. Tech. Rep. July, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Zabel JE (2012) Migration, housing market, and labor market responses to employment shocks. J Urban Econ 72(2–3):267–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research and Education in Program Evaluation, Faculty of EconomicsThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations