TheNationalLmginMrmfSurveys(NL-S)programsuppommanystudiesdesigned

toimrcaseunderstanding ofthelakermarketandmethodsofdatacollection. TheDis.

cussionPapersseriesincorporatessameoftheresearchcomingmu oftheprogram

Many ofOw papersinh smieshavebeendelivered astiidreportscommissioned as

partof an ezuamurdgmm Pgram, underwhichgrantsareawardedthrougha

COII@tiVepMCeS5.TheseIie5isintendedtocirculate Ihfindings toimerested renders

withinandabidetheBureauofLaborStatistics.

Personsinterested inobtaining acopyofanyDiscussionPaper,okz NLS repxt.s,or

gad informationabout the Nf.S FOSILUIIsmdSUIVCYSshouldcontacttheBureauof

L&or Statistics, OfficeofEconomicResearch, Washington, OC 20212-0001(202-606-

7405).

Materie.f inddspublication isithepublicdomainand.Withappropriate credkmay

bereproduced withoutpatnission.

Opinionsandconclusions expressedinthisdccumentarethoseoftheauthor(s)

anddonotnecessarily represent anofficial position oftheBureauofLaborStatistics

ortheU.S.DepartmentofLab-or.
Informal Training: A Review of Existing Data

and Some New Evidence

Mark Lowenstein

James Spletzer

Bureau of Labor Statistics

November 1994

The views expressedhere sre those of the authorssnd do not necessarilyreflect the views of the U.S.

Depsrbrrentof Laber.
Abstract

Researchers’ limited understardhrg of on-the-job human capital investments is partly explained

by the fact that a great deal of on-the-job training is informal and difficult to measure. This

paper reviews the informal training information in existing surveys, and then presents an

extensive cross-sectional analysis of a new source of informal training data from the 1993

National Longitudinal Survey of Youtfr. Among other things, our findings indicate that the new

informal training questions in the 1993 NLSY are picking up a sizable number of relatively short

episodes of skill upgrading that the formal training questions miss. Our findings also suggest

that formal and informal training are to some extent complementary, but formal training may

have a higher return.
I. Introduction

As suggested some time ago by Becker (1962) and Mincer (1962), on-the-job training

investments are Iiiely responsible for a significtit part of the Wagegrowth that occurs in the

early years of tenure. W]leeconotisk havelongbeen awaeofthe impoflance ofon-the-job

mtining, mmntbowledge about itsqu"mti~ mdibmtums isstill relatively scmt. Thkisin

large part due to the fact that much on-the-job training is informaf.

In a paper comparing the training information in the early National Longitudhral Surveys, the

.Tamrary1983 Current Population Survey Supplement, and the first wave Employment

Opportunity Pilot Project survey, LWwd and Tan ( 1992) conclude that “only the more formal

klndsofbaining tend bgetrepofled but... tieyappem to berepotied consistently. In fact, orrr

results using these measures are remarkably consistent despite the different types of information

covered by the data sources, the d]fferent tim”eintervals that they reflect, and the different groups

ofworkers that they inchrde.” Incontmt to formal tmining, whose incidence does notdtiferdl

that greatly across data sets, the incidence of informal training varies drastically across the few

surveys that have tried to measure it.1 Whereas 94 percent of newly hked workers in the second

wave of the Employment Opportunity Pilot Project survey received informal training of some

type (see Barron, Black, and Loewensteirr (1987)), the incidence of informal training among 32

1 ‘fheincidenceof foma] on-the-jobtrainingappearstobe about25 percent or slightly less.

Using data from the Current Population Survey supplements, Pergamit and Shack-Marquez

(1987) report that 14 percent of rdl workers have received formal company training on their

current job, and Loewenstein and Spletzer ( 1993a) report that 17 percent of all workers have

received formal company training on their current job. Altonji and Spletzer (1991) report that 28

percent of 32 year olds in the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972

have received formal employer provided on-the-job training while at their current job. Using

data from the second wave of the Employment Opportunity Pilot Project survey, Barren, Black,

and Loewenstein (1987) report that 13 percent of workers in their first three months of tenure

receive on-site formal training. Using data they collected themselves with a questionnaire

simifar to that used in the Employment Opporhmi~ Pilot Project, Barron, Berger, and Black

(1993a) tind that 25 percent of workers in their first four weeks of tenure receive on-site fo~l

training. Finally, using data from the 1979-1983 surveys of the National Longitudinal Survey of

Youth, Lynch (1992) reports that 4 percent of young non-college graduates receive on-the-job

training that is four weeks or longer. However, using dah from later years of the same survey

that did not have a four week minimum for reported training, Veum (1993) repofis that 24

percent of young adults receive company training between 1986 and 1991.
2

year olds in the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 is 20 percent (as

reported by Altonji and Spletzer (1991)), and the incidence of informal training in the Current

Population Survey is 16 percent (as reported by both Loewenstein aud Spletzer (1993a) arrd

Pergamit and Shack-Marquez (1987)).

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) survey included questions about

informaf training for the fust time in 1993. Besides the usual questions about formal training in

the current year, individuals were reuospectively asked about various types of formal and

informal training when they started their job, and they were also asked about the various types of

training they received during the current year because changes at work required that they learn

new job skills. In thk paper, we analyze the training data from the 1993 NLSY.

Before Iooklng at the information in the 1993 NLSY, we first provide a general critique of the

infornral training information in existing surveys. In the process, we highlight the importance of

differences in question wording (including employer based versus individual based questions and

differences in routing patterns), sample differences, and censoring problems. We thenturntoan

extensive cross-sectional analysis of the 1993 NLSY data. We begin this anafysis by examining

the incidence and duration of informal training in the new NLSY survey. We next estimate

incidence equations that enable us to determine the effects of gender, ability, and edncation on

the likelihood of training. We then conclude the empirical anrdysis by estimating wage

regressions.

Among other things, our findings indicate that the new informal trtilng questions in the 1993

NLSY are picking up a sizable number of relatively short episndes of skill upgrading that the

forrnrd training questions miss. Our findings also suggest that formal and informal training are to

some extent complementary, but formal training may have a h~gherreturn.
3

IL A Critical Review of What is Known about Informal Training

As mentioned in the introduction, much of our lack of knowledge regarding on-the-job

training is attributable to the fact that much on-the-job training is informal. As Brown (1989)

notes:

WMle there are dlfticulties in measuring formal training,”what we would liie to measure is

relatively well-defined an individual is either in a training program or not, formal training has an

identifiable start and end, and one should ireprinciple be able to determine either how marry

hours the worker spent or how many dollars the employer spent on any particular training

program.

Irscontrast, informal training is produced jointly with the primary output of the worker, and is

therefore more elusive. Workers Ieam from watching other workers, may share easier ways to do

the work either while working or during breaks, and are indirectly instmcted whenever a

supervisor constructively criticizes their work. Knowing whether informal training is happening

in any given week is difficult to determine; one hopes that for most workers it never ends.

Three surveys have to our knowledge attempted to obtain explicit information about whether

workers have participated in informal training activities and, if they have, about how much time

they have devoted to these activities. These surveys’ @ainingmeasures are summarized in Table

1. The Current Population Survey (CPS) is one source of information on informal training. In

Jamrary 1983 arrd January 1991, the CPS obtained supplementiuy information about individuals’

training. This information came from individuals’ responses to two questions. Fkst, individuals

were asked, “Since you obtained your present job dld you take any trainhg to improve your

skills?” Individuals who iudicated that they had received training were then asked, “Did you take

the training in school, a formal company training program, informal on the job, [and/or] other?”

As reported by Pergamit and Shack-Marqnez (1987) and Lnewenstein and Spletr.er (1993a), 16

percent of workers in the CPS receive informal training.

The National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 72 (NLSHS72) is a second

data set with information on informal training. In the 1986 follow-up survey, individuals who

held a full-time job between October 1979 and February 1986 were asked the question,

“Considering the most recent full-time job you have held, dld you receive or participate in any
type of employer-provided training benefits or training programs?” Irrdividuals who answered

yes were then asked to indicate the number of hours per week and the total number of weeks that

they spent in the following types of programs: “formal registered apprenticeship, employerprovided job training during hours on employer premises, informal on-the-job training (e.g.,

assigned to work with someone for instruction or guidance, etc.), employer-provided education

or training during workhg hours away from employer premises, tuition aid and/or financial

assistance for attendhrg educational institutions after working hours, or other”. As reported by

Altonji and Spletzer (1991), 20 percent of workers indicate that they received informal training.

The third data set with infimrnation on informal training is an employer survey that was

carried out in conjunction with the Employment Opportunity IWot Project (EOPP).2 The

training questions are asked in the second of a two-wave longitudinal survey. Unlike the CPS

supplement and the NLSHS72 survey, which dld not attempt to obtain very detailed information

about training activities in general and informal training in particular, the EOPP survey asked

employers about several specific types of formal and informal training. After first requesting

each employer to determine tiie last worker hired, the survey next asked questions about the

training offered tfre typical worker in this individual’s position. Specifically, employers were

asked about the number of hours during the first three months of employment that a typical new

employee in the position spetids: a) “away from normal work activities filling out forms and

being told about the company history, benefits, and rules” and b) “in training activities in which

he or she is watching other people do the job rather than doing it himself.” Later in the survey

employers were asked about the total number of hours during the first three months of

employment a) “spent on formal training such as self-paced learning programs or training done

by specially trained personnel”, b) “management and line supervisors spent away from other

activities giving informal indhfidualized trainirig or extra supervision” and c) “ co-workers who

2 Bmon, Berger, and Black’s (1993a) recent survey for the Small Business AdministmtiOn

adopts basically the same methodology as EOPP and obtains similar estimates of training

incidence and duration.
5

are not supervisors spent away from their normal work giving informal indlvidrralized training or

extra supervision”. As reported by Barron, Black, and Loewenstein (1987), the incidence of the

various types of informaf maining activities are 61 percent for informal training by co-workers,

79 percent for watchhrg others, and 87 percent for informal training by supervisors. Further

calculation reveals that 94 percent of newly hmed workers receive at least one of these three

types of informal training.

Comparing the training information that is contained in the various surveys, we see that the

incidence of informal training is notably higher in EOPP than in CPS and NLSHS72: while the

incidence of informal training is. 16 in the CPS supplement and .20 in the NLSHS72 survey, it is

.94 in the EOPP survey. There are several important differences between the EOPP survey and

the CPS and NLSHS72 surveys that may explain thk result. First, and most obvious, while the

CPS and NLSHS72 are surveys of individuals, EOPP is an employer survey, and an employer

and a worker may have different notions about what constitutes training. For example, there may

be some amb@rity aa to whether the time that a supervisor spends with a new worker constitutes

tra.inhg or merely supervision and monitoring. Interestingly, however, Barron, Berger, and

Black (1993b) have recently condncted a new survey that asks EOPP type questions of both new

workers and their employers. WMe the workers’ responses are only imperfectly correlated with

those of their employers, employers’ training estimates are not appreciably higher than those of

their workers.

Second, the samples for the surveys are different. While the CPS sample is a representative

cross section of the employed, the NLSHS72 sample consists only of 32 year olds who graduated

High School and the EOPP questions pertain to those workers whom employers most recently

hued. A sample of workers whom employers most recently hired will not be representative of all

workers since it will tend to have a disproportionate number of younger and higher turnover

workers. In addition, the EOPP survey deliberately oversampled employers with a relatively

high proportion of low wage workers. Interestingly, this last consideration would lead one to

expect a lower training incidence in the EOPP data, aa there is strong evidence across data sets
6

that workers in higher training positions receive h@er wages. One would also ex~ct h]gher

turnover workers to be hired for jobs that require less training.

The relationship between tenure and reported training is unclear a priori. If most training

takes place early in the employment relationship, recall bias will be less serious for the shorter

tenured workers EOPP inquires about, so that the lower informal training incidence in NLSHS72

and especially CPS coufd be due to the fact that workers with longer tenure have forgotten that

they received informal training when they started their current job. Of course, m-dikeNLSHS72

and CPS, EOPP wi[l not pick np belated training that occurs after the first threemonths of

employment. Our anafysis of the CPS data indicates that reported training is positively related to

tenure, which suggests that the second effect is fiiely to dominate.

The thkd and perhaps most important difference between the surveys fies in the instruments

used to measure training. In the CPS and the NLSHS72, individuals were fust asked if they had

received training. Only if they answered yes to this question were they asked whether they

participated in informal training. Individuals who might not have thought that informaf training

was supposed to be counted as “training” would not have responded yes to the initial incidence

question. In contrast, the EOPP survey does not employ an initial incidence question, but aflows

zero as an acceptable response to the question ”... what was the total number of hours ...”

Furthermore, while tfte CPS and NLSHS72 ask about “informal training,” the CPS does not give

the respondent any indication as to what is meant by informal training and NLSHS72 only lists

one example. fn contrast, the EOPP survey explicitly asks about different types of informal

training (e.g., time the new hire spends watchkg others).

Given the dtiferences in stiey constmction, one might expect that the EOPP survey would

be Iiiely to pick up short (and perhaps relatively insignificant) training spells that are missed by

the CPS and NL,SHS72 surveys. fndeed, condhionrd on receiving informal training, the average

length of an informal training speH is 233 hours in NLSHS72 while the mean number of total

hours devoted to informal training (the sum of watching others, informal training by supervisors,

and informal tmiuing by co-workers) is only 129 in EOPP, and thk number may well be an
7

overstatement because of possible double counting across the indlvidnal training components.

However, tfrk comparison is somewhat misleadhrg because EOPP only asks about training

during the fwst three months of employment. Training spells that last longer than three months

will therefore be censored. In fact, about one-thiid of afl spells in EOPP are censored. When

one performs the experiment of censoring spells in NLSHS72 at three months, the mearr number

of hours of informal training falls to 116, whkh is roughly comparable to that in EOPP. Even

more amazingly, the entire boors dktributions appear to be nearly identical.

In summary, there are some important things that we have learned about on-the-job trainhg

from the existing surveys. For example, there is evidence that formrd and informal on-the-job

training are botb associated with higher wages and higher wage growth, that workers with higher

ability and education tend to be sorted into jobs offering more tfilng, that women tend to fill

jobs that offer shorter training spells, and that larger firms tend to offer more training. However,

as the above discussion makes clear, our knowledge about informal training is still very limited.

Comparisons across surveys are hampered by differences in the wording of training questions,

different sample compositions, and censoring problems. The estimates of informal training

incidence and duration vary sigrrificantfy across surveys (for example, informal training

incidence may lie anywhere between. 16 and .94), so that it is hard to teff how important tilng

actnafly is.
8

III. The 1993 NLSY Trafning Questions

hr an attempt to improve our knowledge about informal on-the-job training, the National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) began asking detailed questions about informal on-the-job

training in the 1993 survey. The NLSY is a survey of individuals who were aged 14 to 22 in

1979. These youths have been interviewed amrrrally since 1979, and the response rate has been

90 percent or higher in each year.3 The survey’s wealth of information regarding individual

demographic characteristics, employment history, schooling, and ability offers a ~wat advantage

for the study of the acquisition of and the returns to training.

While the NLSY has been obtaining information on formal training for some time -- see

Lynch (1992) for a detailed description and analysis of the 1979-1983 surveys, and see

Loewenstein and Spletzer (1993b) and Veum (1993, 1994) for a detailed description and analysis

of the 1988-1991 surveys -- the questions regarding the harder to measure informal training

appemed for the first time in 1993. The informal training information is collected in twO

different parts of the survey. The first section is intended to measure training at the start of the

job. The second section is intended to measure training that occurred in the previous 12 months,

and is asked immediately following the sequence of formal training questions. Besides asking

about spells of training that are clearly informal, the new training questions also ask about spells

of more formrd training that might be missed by the sequence of formal training questions.

The survey leads into the training questions at the start of the job by first asking, “Earlier we

talked about your main activities or duties for [employer name]. Tbisrkng of the main activities

or duties you do now, what month and year dld you start doing this kind of work for [employer

name]?” The survey then asks, “When you started doing this kind of work for [employer name],

about what percentage of the duties you currentiy do were you able to perform adequately?” If

an individual responds that he was not able to perform afl of his duties adequately, then he is

3 me ~sY had rmoriginal sample sizeof 12686. This was reduced to 11607 in 1985 when

interviewing of the full military sample ceased. Jn 1991, the sample was ftier reduced to 9964

persons when the eccmmrricallydk.advantaged white supplemental sample was eliminated.

Starting in 1994, individuals will be interviewed every other year.
9

asked a lengthy sequence of training questions concerning how he learned to perform hk job

duties. In the rest of thk paper, we will refer to thk traitring as “Start Job Training.” If the

individual responds that he was able to perform 100 percent of his duties adequately when he

started his current work, he is not asked the sequence of “Start Job Training” questions.

The remaining questions in the “Start Job Training” sequence have to do with the ways that

individuals learned to perform their job duties, and are presented in the left-hand column of table

2. Pmticipation in classes or seminars is the first training activity an individual is asked about

(question 63 in table 2). An individual who answers that he participated in classes in order to

learn how to do hk job adequately is asked about the nnmber of weeks and the number of hours

per week that he attended classes (questions 65 in table 2). Next the individual is asked, “Who

explained or showed you how your job tasks should be done? Was it your supervisor, your coworker(s) or both?” He is then asked, “Did you make use of any self-study material or selfinstmction packages, such as manuals, workbooks, or computer-assisted teachhg programs?”

Fhrafly, the individual is asked, ‘!Canyou think of anythhg else that you did that helped you

learn to do the kind of work you are doing for [employer name]?”4

The NLSY training questions have some features in common with the questions in the CPS

and NLSHS72 surveys and some features in common with the EOPP questions. Similar to tbe

NLSHS72, individuals in the NLSY are asked the number of hours and weeks they spent being

trained only if they responded that they had received a specific type of training. The EOPP

survey, on the other hand, encompasses both duration and incidence (zero hours of duration) in a

single question by asking about the total hours spent in a particular type of training. One’s initial

suspicion is that tire use of the incidence screener question in the NLSY will cause the survey to

4 AS is tme for ~ individual who indicated that he participated in classes or seminars, ~

individual who answers that hk supervisor (co-workers) showed hlm how to do his job is asked

the number of weeks and the number of hours per week that he spent kith hk supervisor (coworkers) learning how to do the job. Similarly, individuals are asked about the amount of time

that they spent using self-teaching packages. However, they are not asked about the amount of

time that they spent receiving “other” training.
10

nrissshort spells oftraining.5 SimiIar to EOPP, tfreNLSYrrsks explicitly about various sources

of training classes and seminars, instruction provided by supervisors andlor co-workers, and

seIf-strrdy. hconmast, the CPS~SHS720nly asks about mindividti's ''infomal''titimg,

leaving the definition of informal up to the respondent.

Individuals in the NLSY are asked not only about the training they received when they first

started their current work, but later in the survey they are asked about any training they might

have received in the previous 12 months that was not already recorded in the preceding sequence

of formal training questions.6 After the respondent answers the formal training questions, the

interviewer asks bim whether he had to learn new job skills in the past 12 months because of any

of the following changes at work:

(His) employer introduced a new product or service

(Hk) employer introduced new equipment arrd/or repair procedures

(His) employer needed to upgrade employees’ basic skills such as math, reading, or writing

(His) employer needed employees toacquire or upgrade their computer skills

Work teams were created or changed

(HIs) work site was reorganized in other ways

Changes have occurred in (his) employer’s policies such as compensation, benefits, pensions,

and safety

New government regulations went into effect

Changes have occurred in the work rules for reasons other than new government regulations.

5 One Cm also interpret the question about the percentage of duties that the individual WaS able

to perform adequately as an incidence screener question: those individuals who were able to

perform all their duties adequately are implicitly assumed not to receive training, and are thus not

asked the duration questions. We will return to thk issue more fully in the next section.

6 me que$tions abOutformal mining, which were also asked in preceding Yeas, ~ as fOllowsl%t, individuals are asked, “ since [tfredate of the last interview], dld you attend any training

program or any other on-the-job training designed to help people find a job, improve job skills,

or learn a new job?” If the respmrdent answers yes to this question, he is asked, “WMch category

best describes where you received this training business school, apprenticeship program, a

vocational or technical institute, a correspondence course, ford company training mn by your

employer or ruifhary training, seminam or mining programs at work run by someone other than

empIoyer, seminars or training programs outside of work, vocational rehabilitation center, or

other?” The worker is then asked a series of questions, inchdkg “Altogether, for how many

weeks dld you attend thk tmining [conditional on having completed tminirrgl ?“ and “How many

hours per week did you usually spend in this training?” These training questions have been

asked annually since 1988, and the resultant training measures have been analyzed by

Loewenstein and Spletzer (1993b) and Veum (1993, 1994).
11

The worker is then asked, “Have there been any (other) changes in the past year than have made

it necessary for you to learn new job skills?” If the respondent answers that there has been a

change that made it necessary to learn new job skills, then he is asked whether he learned these

skills by participating in classes, whether his supervisor or co-workers showed hlm how the

changes at work would affect his job, whether he made use of self-study materiafs, whether he

learned the new skills on hk own, or whether anything else helped him learn how the changes

would affect hk job. The individual who responds that he received training is then asked how

many weeks and how many hours per week he participated in the training activity. In the rest of

thk paper, we will frequently find it convenient to the refer to thk training as “New Skills

Training.” The questions about “New Skills Training” are fisted on the right hand side of table 2.

Note that they paraflel the questions about “Start Job Training” except for the fact that own

learning is added as a possible source of “New Skills Trtilrrg.”

We will sometimes use the label “informal training” to distinguish the two new sequences of

training questions from the sequence of formal training questions. Note, however, that the

categories “Start Job Training” and “New Skills Training” are both quite broad and that the

individual training components are of varying degrees of informshty. WMe training where

supervisors or co-workers show an individual how do to his job corresponds quite closely to

what is typically meant by “irrformaJtraining,” classes and seminars and possibly self-study

might perhaps be thought of as “formal training.” We will pay special attention to d-is in the

empirical work to follow.
12

IV. Empirical Analysis of the 1993 NLSY Training Questions

Intable 3, we present descriptive statistics concerning the incidence arrddaration of both

informal and formal training in the 1993 NLSY. Our sample selection is quite straightforward.

Of the 9008 individuals who answered the 1993 NLSY interview, we restricted the sample to the

7568 persons who were currently employed and answered the training questions. “Start Job

Training” refers to tfretraining received by the 36.13% of the individuals who indicated that they

were not able to adequately perform all of their job duties when they started doing the work that

they are currently doing. In many cases, this is a retrospective measure since only 24.8% of

working individuals in the 1993 survey indicated that they have been in their job less than one

year. “New Wills Training” refers to the training that was received in the previous twelve

months for the 39.27% of the sample for whom changes occurred at work that required learning

new skills. RecaIl that this measure involves training that was not measured in the regular

section of the questionnaire designed to measure formal training. Finally, “Formal Traim”ng”

refers to formal training spells that are measured by the formal training section of the 1993

questionnaire.

Of those persons who were not able to perform all of their duties adequately when they started

their job, 26.54 percent indicated that they participated in classes or seminars, 66 percent

responded that they were shown how to do their job by their supervisor, 65.92 percent stated that

were shown how to do their job by their co-workers, 48.08 percent answered that they spent time

with self-study materials, and 23.66 percent said that they participated in some other type of

training. The fact that the sum of the incidence for each type of training exceed 1(XIpercent

indicates that quite a sizable fraction of workers participated in more than one type of training at

the start of the job.7

7 Although not repoficd in the table, we have also calculated the probability OfKXeiving aUY

given type of start job training conditional on receiving some other type of start job training.frr

most cases, the conditional and uncondhional probabilities are nearly identical. For example,

while 65.92 percent of individuals who were not initially able to perform afl of their job duties

adequately received training from a co-worker, 65.71 percent of individuals who receive training

from a supervisor also receive training from a co-worker. We can conclude that having one type
We have obtained a “composite total” by aggregating across the individual training

components (classes and seminars, supervisor traisr@, training by co-workers, self-study, and

other training). As seen in the top panel of table 3.98.03 percent of those persons who were not

able to perform all of their duties adequately when they started their job received tfrk training.

‘His appeam to be closer to the informal training incidence in the EOPP data than the incidence

in the CPS or NLSHS72 data (see table 1).8 However, because the NLSY training questions are

asked of only a subset of workers, we do not really know the incidence of informal training for

all workers. The implicit assumption in the routing pattern of the NLSY questiomaire appears to

be that workers who were able to perform all of their duties adequately when they started their

job received no informal training. Under this assumption that the 63.87 percent of workers who

were able to perform all of their duties adequately when they started their job received no

training, one would conclude that 35.43 percent of workers receive informal training at the start

of their job (see table 3), which appears to be nearer to that in the CPS and NLSHS72 data. The

top panel of Table 3 disaggregate thk 35.43 percent statistic into its component parts.

Unfortunately, the new NL-SYtraining questions do not resolve the existing confusion in the

fiteratnre regardktg the incidence of informal training. Our initial suspicion was that the

individuals who reported that they were able to perform all of their duties adequately when they

started their job were likely to have informal training spells of short, but positive, duration, while

those individuals who indicated that they were not able to perform all of their duties adequately

(the 36.13 percent of the sample for whom we do have training information) were Iiiely to have

spells of longer dqration. However, analysis of the data indicates that the hours dktributions of

of start job training does not significantly affect the probability of having another type of

training.

8 Whi]e thereadermight objecttoour grouping more formal start job training in the fOrmOf

classes and seminars and self-study with less formal training from supervisors, co-workers and

other sources, we should point out that our composite measure is essentially driven by these last

three types of traising. If we were to only include training supervisor training, co-worker

training,and other traMrg in our composite measure of start job informal training, W?would

still fmd that 93.78 of those persons who were not able to perform all of their duties adequately

when they started their job received informal training at the start of their job.
14

informal training are similar in NLSY, NLSHS72 and EOPP once one controls for the fact that

the training spells in the EOPP data are censored at three months. (For exampIe, if one censors

the NLSY start job training spells at three months, the mean Iesrgthof an initial informal training

spell is 125 hours; as noted earlier, an informal training spell has a mearr length of 129 hours in

EOPP and 116 hours in NLSHS72).9

Conditional on a worker having received training at the start of his or her job, the top panel of

table 3 reports the quantities of training received. For the composite measure of start job

training, the mean training received was 19.21 hours per week and 16.84 weeks, resulting in a

mean of 293.70 total hours. 10 The standard deviation for tofal hours is 632.65, which suggests

that the dktribution of total hours has a long right hand tail. 11 We will return to this point a

little later. Dkaggregating the composite measure start job training reveals that the mean number

of hours per week ranges from 12.32 for self-study to 21.83 for being shown how to do yogr job

by co-workers. The mean number of weeks ranges from 6.82 weeks for classes and seminars to

9.11 weeks for being shown how to do your job by co-workers, The mean number of total hours

ranges from 89.61 hours for self-study to 198.08 hours for being shown how to do your job by

co-workers.

The middle panel of table 3 presents the incidence and durations of new skills training spells.

The inciderrces in the first column are computed over the 39.27 percent of the sample that

reported that changes occurred at work that required them to learn new skills. The 91.08 percent

incidence statistic for composite total tells us that 91.08 percent of those who reported changes at

9 me first qumtik of the censored hours distribution is 25 hours in NLSY, 32 hours in EOPP,

and 20 hours in NLSHS72. Second quartiles in the three data sets are 68 hours, 76 hours, and 60

hours. Third quartiles are 173 hours, 163 hours, and 148 hours. 90th percentiles are 351 hours,

318 hours, and 320 hours.

10 me qumtity of “composite total” training does not include “Other” since durations were not

asked for thk type of training. The measure of our composite total incidence falls from 98.03

percent to 95.98 percent when “Other” is excluded.

11 We shouldnok herethatinobtaining oursamplewe have omitted those observations that are

clearly outliers (roughly two percent of all reported durations).
15

tie workplace reported one of the following six activities: classes and seminars, supervisors or

co-workers showing the indlvidnal how to do his job, self-study, own learning, or other. We

should note that this is an under-estimate of training caused by workplace changes because

individuals are instructed not to include training that was afready reported in the formal training

section of the questionnaire. 12

Similar to training at the start of the job, the routing pattern of the NLSY questionnaire

implicitly assumes that the 60.73 percent of workers who dld not experience changes at the

workplace requiring the learning of new skills dld not receive any training in the past year.

Under this assumption, one would conclude that 35.77 percent of all workers received new skills

training in the current year (see the middle panel of table 3). ‘fire middfe panel of Table 3

decomposes thk composite measure into its component parts.

The middle panel of table 3 reports the quantities of the different types of new skills training,

conditional on a worker’s having received this type of training in the current year. These

durations, whether measured by hours per week, number of weeks, or total hours, are much

shorter than the training spells at the start of the job. The mean number of total hours of new

sk]lls training is 6034 hours -- with the large standard deviation again suggesting a large right

hand tail of the distribution. We should note that one problem in interpreting thk duration

measure is that we do not know whether or not a training spell is completed, if a training spell is

still ongoing, then the number of weeks measure will be right censored (the same problem

appfies to st~ job training, albeit to an arguably much lesser extent).

The incidence and duration of formal trti]ng are presented in the bottom panel of table 3 (the

exact wording of the formaf training questions are given in footnote 6). In 1993, the formal

12 HOwever,when asked(iiquestion39A of table 2), 40.1 percent of workers who list ChSeS

or seminam in tbe new skills trairing section indicate that they afready reported this training in

the formal training section of the questionnaire. Our 19..55percent measure of classes and

seminars in table 3 only includes the spells that are not double counted. If we were to exclude

classes and seminars from our composite total, we would still find that 88.19 percent of those

reporting changes at the workplace received new skills training.
16

training questions were asked immediately prior to the new skills trtilng questions. We see in

the bottom panel of table 3 that 19.50 percent of workers received formal trainhrg in the current

year. TIrk is only about half as large as the percentage of workers for whom there occurred

workplace changes necessitating tfrat new skills be learned. Wkfr respect to the duration of

completed formaf training spells, the mean hours per week is 18.43, the mean number of weeks is

6.36, and the niearr number of total hours is 110.95 (with a large standard deviation again

suggesting a long right hand tail).

We notethat a formaf spell lasts a somewhat greater number of weeks than a new skills

training spell (6.36 versus 5.59). In addition, tire intensity of formal training as measured by

hours per week is more than double the intensity of the more informal new skillstrtilng(18.43

versus 8.14). The combined effect is a mearr number of totaf hours that is significantly higher for

formaf than informal training (110.95 hours versus 60.34 hours). ‘fhis total hours difference is

even greater when one looks at the medkm, with the medkm total hours of formal trainhg (32

hours) being over twice as large as the medkm totaf hours of the more informal new skills

training (15 hours).

The above comparisons should serve to highlight the importance of the new “informaF

training questions for improving our understanding of skill upgradlrrg (or continual learning, as it

is sometimes referred to). The formal trairring questions obviously miss quite a sizable

percentage of training that occurs. Based on incidence and drmtidn, we can conclude that the

new skills training questions in the 1993 NLSY are picking up a sizable number of relatively

short episodes of skill upgrading that the formal training questions miss.

fn order to assess our earlier assertion concerning the right hand tails of the training durations,

table 4 presents additional information on the dktributions. Recall that a start job training spell

has a mean duration of 293.70 hours (see table 3). The third quartile for thk duration measure is

260 hours, telfing us that 75 percent of all reported durations are less than the mean. The long

right hand tail of the total hours d~tribution is primarily the result of a skewed distribution for

number of weeks. WMe the mean number of weeks is 16.84, the medkm number of weeks is 5.
(Me&m hours per week is 16, which is almost as high as the mean of 19.21.) The same pattern

holds for all the separate types of training that individuals receive at the start of their job. The

median number of weeks is 2 for classes and seminars, 1 for supervisors showing the individual

how to do his job, 3 for co-workers showing the indNidual how to do his job, and 2 for selfstudy. These me all lower than the correspondhg means in table 3.

We can infer from the above comparisons that the distributions of weeks and total hours of

start job trtilng and its components are highly skewed by some very long spells. Thus, it may

well be appropriate for amdysts and policy makers to dkcomrt the mean durations in table 3 in

favor of the distributional statistics in table 4. The same conclusion holds for new SKMStraining,

albeit with less force given thk training’s much shorter mean duration (of course, as noted above,

the relatively short reported duration may be partly due to the fact that some current year training

spells are still ongoing). As reported in table 3, while the mean duration of a new skills training

spelI is 60.34 hours, mediarr total hours is only 15.
18

V. Regression Analysis

a. Determinants of Training

Table 5a presents estimates of ttilng incidence equations, where the reported probh

coefficients are the effects of the explanatory variables on the training probability evaluated at

the sample mean. Asterisks indicate statistical significance at the five percent level. Cohurrns

(1) and (2) report the results from an equation in which the dependent variable is a O-1dummy

indlcatirrg whether or not an irrdlvidual receives training at the start of the job, as measured by

our composite total. We should remind the reader that we are forced to assume that indlvidnals

who indicated that they were initially able to do their work adequately received no training at the

start of their job. Stated differently, since 98 percent of those who were not able to perform their

duties adequately report having received training, we are essentially estimating equations for

initially doing work adequately and interpreting these as training equations.

The coet%cients in cohurrrr( 1) indicate that the incidence of initial training increases with

ability as measured by the armed forces qualifying test (AFQT) score, and High School drnpouts

receive significantly less training at the start of the job relative to persons who graduated from

High School but dld not attend college. 13 Note that besides demographic characteristics, we

have also included sevemf job characteristics in the various regressions. Working at a firm with

multiple sites increases the probability of receiving training at the start of the job by

approximately five md one-quarter percentage points (this effect is large in magnitude as start

job training has a mean of only 35 percent), training increases with firm size, and unionized

13 MI previous str.rtles have found that training increases with education, although this

relationship may become negative for those with graduate school. Interestingly, tbe theoretical

prediction about the relationship between education and training is nnclear. On the one hand, if

education and training impart similar skills and if there are diminishing returns to these skNs in

production, then the return to training a more poorly educated person will be higher than the

retrim to training a more highly educated one, thk effect will be reinforced by the fact that the

OppO*nitY cost of a poorly educated person’s time is lower thm that of a more educatedperson.

On the other hand, if training and education are complementary (which often seems to be the

case), then there will be greater benefit from training more hlgh]y educated persons. In addition,

edncation may serve as an indicator of ability and (as suggested by the positive AFQT

coet%cient) training and ablfity are fikely to be complements in production.
19

workers receive less training at the start of the job. Column (2) differs from column (1) in that

we have included controls for 7 industries and 8 occupations. Including the industry and

occupation controls in the regression nearly doubles the negative gender coefficient, so that it

now becomes significantly different from zero.

Columns (3) through (5) in table 5a report resufts from equations in which the dependent

variable is a 0-1 dummy indicating whether an individual receives the composite measure of new

skills training during the current year. Again, it is worth noting that we are forced to assume that

individuals who indicated that there were no changes in their job receive no new skills training.

Mincer (1988) and Altonji and Spletzer (1991) have presented evidence that for a given

individual training incidence is correlated overtime. What can we learn about the correlation of

training over time from the training irrforrnation in the NLSY? The only explanatory variables in

the equation in cohurrrr (3) are start job training and formal training in the previous year. Note

that the receipt of either type of previous training significantly increases the probability of

receiving new skills training, but controlling for incidence the effect of an addkional hour of

previous training is both small in magnitude and insignificant. Evatrrated at the mean of total

hours, a person who received start job training has a 20.6 percent higher probability of receiving

new skills training [.1979 + .0284 *(293.70/10UO)],and a person who received formaf training

last year has a 19.6 percent higher probability of receiving new skills training. Adding

demographic and employer controls reduces the magnitude of these effects, but they still remain

statistically different from zero. In contrast to training at the start of the job, the gender

coefficients in cohmrrrs (4) and (5) indicate that females receive a higher incidence of new skills

training. H]gher ability persons and persons working at either multiple site fms or larger firms

rdso receive more new skills training.

Columns (6) though (8) in table 5a report results from equations in which the dependent

variable is a 0-1 dummy variable indicating whether an individual receives formal training in the

current year. Whether or not control variables are included in the specification, the receipt of

formal training in the previous year has a large and statistically significant effect on the
20

probability of current year forrnaf trainirig. The estimated forrnrd training coefficient of .2651 in

coImmr (7) even exceeds the mean of the dependent variable. Evafuated at the mean hours of

totaf training, the coefficients in column (7) imply that a person who haa received formal training

last year has a 24.7 percent higher probability of receiving formal training in the current year. In

contrast, the start job coefficients in colmnn (7) are small in magnitude and statistically

insignificant. Interestingly enough, the demographic and job characteristic controls have sirnikw

magrritrrdesand sigrs in the formal training regression as they do in the new skills training

regression.

Table 5b presents incidence equations for each of the separate training components. As with

the composite measures, AFQT has a significantly positive effect on the incidence of each

training component. Most of the other explanatory variables also have similar effects on the

separate training components aa on the composites. Two exceptions to tfrk mle are post college

education and gender.

While increased education is generally associated with more training, post college education

only increases the more formal types of training and actually reduces informal training. In the

case of start job training, persons with post-college education receive significantly more training

in classes and sernirrars but signiticantfy less instruction from c~ivorkers showing them how to

do their job. In the case of new skills training, indlviduafs with a post college education receive

more self-study and are more likely to engage in own learning, but receive less instruction from

their supervisor showing them how to do their job.

The results in table 5a indicate that women are less likely to receive start job trtimg and

more likely to receive formal and new skills training in the cm-rentyear, suggesting that women’s

training is more fiiely than men’sto be delayed. From table 5b, we see that women’s lower start

job training primarily takes the form of their receiving less instruction from supervisors showing

them how to do their job while women’s increased new skifls training is mainly due to their being

more Iiiely to participate in classes and seminars and in self-study. Taken in conjunction with
21

the positive formal training coefficient in table 5a, the pattern that emerges in table 5b is that

women’s trainiig is more likely than men’s to be both delayed arrd formal.

Our finding that formal training in the previous year is a significant determinant of the

Iiielibood of receiving new sfdfls training holds for each component of new skifls training.

However, while the receipt of training at the start of the job is a significant determinant of the

likelihood of receiving instruction from one’s supervisor and co-workers in the current year and

on the likelihood of own learning, training at the start of the job has essentially no effect on the

probability of participating in classes and seminars and on self-study during the current year. In

light of start job training’s insignificant effect on formal training in table 5a, this is consistent

with onr conjecture that training in the form of classes and seminars ismore formal than t&ring

from supervisors or co-workers.

b. Returns to Training

Labor economists have reached a consensus botlr theoretically and empirically that training

increases wages. The standard human capital model predicts that completed spells of training

increase a worker’s productivity and therefore his wage, and many of the studies cited in the

references have shown thk to be true -- see Akonji and Spletzer (1991), Barrnn, Black and

Loewenstein (1987, 1989, 1993), Loewenstein and Spletzer (1993a, 1993b), Lynch (1992),

Mincer (1988), and Pergarnit and Shack-Marquez (1987). Beyond this simple important

realization, however, lies an area of research that has only barely started to be investigated. One

major question that we hope to shed some light on in thk section is what are the returns to formal

and informal traisimg?

As far as we are aware, there is little previous research examining the differential effects that

formal and informal training have on wages. Using CPS data, Pergamit and Shack-Marquez

(1987) find that while formal training increases wages by 10.3 percent (t=8.84), irrformal trtimg

irrcreases wages by only 1.9 percent (t=1.79). Unpublished regressions using Altonji arrd

Spletzds (1991) NLSHS72 data reveal that on-the-job training irrcreases wages by 6.0 percent
22

(t= 2.96), off tfrejob training increases wages by 12.1 percent (t=5.45), and employer financed

education increases wages by 4.7 percent (t=1.68), but inforrnaf training has an insignificant

negative effect on wages of 2.0 percent (t=O.9I). Unpublished regressions using the EOPP data

also irrdlcate that formal training haa a stronger effect on wages than does irrformaf training

(although both effects are positive and significant). In conclusion, while formal training

significantly increases wages in all data sets, the effect of informal training tends to be smafler

and is often insignificant.

Table 6a shows the results of using our NLSY data to estimate OLS wage equations where the

dependent variable isthelogarhhmo fthehourlyw agerate. Again weshould rernindtlre reader

that we are forced to assume that iudlviduals who indicated that they were initially able to do

tfreir work adequately received no start job training and individuals who indicated that there were

no changes in their job received no new skills training.

The explanatory variables in Colmrrrr 1 of table 6a are 0-1 dummy variables indicating

whether an individual haa received the various types of training. The estimated ccet%cients

indicate that individuals who received traiuing at the start of the job have an hourly wage that is

7.66 [exp(.0738)=1 .0766] percent higher than that of those who dld not start job training,

individuals who received current year new skllk training have an hourly wage that is 16.70

percent higher than that of those who dld not receive such training, individuals who received

formal training in the previous year have an hourly wage that is 9.75 percent higher than that of

those who dld not receive this tmining, and individuals who completed a formal training spell

this year have a wage that is 14.99 percent higher than that of those who did not. Each of these

estimates is statistically different from zero. The regression equation reported in column 2

includes hours spent in the different types of training as explanatory variables, thereby allowing

the return to training to vary with the length of the spell. The estimated coefficients on hours of

formaf training are negative, implying that shorter spells of formrd trairrhrgactoafly have higher

returns than longer spells. However, these hours effects are small in magnitude (note that the

hours variables are divided by 1000) and not statistically different from zero. fn contrast, hours
23

of start job training has a statistically significant positive coefficient, implying that Ionger spells

of start job training have higher returns. Evaluated at the mean of total hours, the coefilcients in

column (2) imply that the average spell of start job training is associated with a 7.85 percent

increase in wages [exp{.0460+ .1008*(293.70/1000)]].

As originally pointed out by Barren, Black and Loewenstein (1989), a regression equation

that does not contrnl for differences in abifhy will produce upward biased estimates of the

training coeffiicii%tsbecause individuals who receive training are not a random sample of the

employed. The incidence equations in table 5a confirm this selection effect -- recall in particular

that high ability persons are more likely to receive training. To determine how thk consideration

affects the training coefficients, the wage regression in column 3 includes not only the training

measures as independent variables, but afso a multitude of demographic and job characteristic

variables.

Comparing columns 2 and 3, we see that as expected the effects of training on the wage fall

dramatically when individual and job clmracteristics are included as explanatory variables as a

means of controlling for the heterogeneity that may exist between those who receive training and

those who do not. For example, note that the coefficient on new skills tratilng incidence falls to

.0535, a 65 pefcerrtdecline from the coefficient of .1515 without heterogeneity controls, and the

coeftlcient on current year completed formal training incidence falls 63 percent from. 1534 to

.0572. The coefficients on new skills training and current year formal training incidence remain

positive and statistically different than zero (as in the equation without heterogeneity controls,

the coeftlcients oir the hours of formal tmining last year and new skifls training are not

statistically different from zero). interestingly, the coefficient on start job training incidence falls

from .0460 to -.0339, and the coefficient on hours of start job training falls from .1008 to .0514.

These estimates imply that long spells of initial training increase the current wage, but short

spells of start job training actually lower the wage. The break-even point is 674 hours, which lies

somewhere between the 75th and the 95th percentile of the total hours distribution (well above
24

the mean start job training duration of 293.70 hours, as reported in table 3), thereby implying

that all but the very longest of initial training spells decrease the current wage.

Evaluated at the means of total hours, the coefficients in column (3) imply that receiving

training at the start of the job decreases wages by 1.86 percent, receiving new sk]lk training

increases wages by 5.20 percent, receiving formal training last year increases wages by 4.11

percent, and having completed formal training during the current year increases wages by 5.57

percent. Adding industry and occupation controls in cohmm (4) reduces these estimates to

-3.47,3.01,2.68, and 3.62, respectively. The coefficients on the other explanatory variables are

consistent with previous estimates in the economics literature: females have lower wages,

married persons earrr more (presumably because they work harder, are more able, anrf/or have

lower turnover rates), wages rise with education and ability, and wages are higher for union

members and for workers at larger firms arrd firms with multiple sites.

One of the more interesting conclusions from table 6a is that when one includes individual

and job characteristic variables to control for the heterogeneity that may exist between those who

receive training and those who do noL the return to most spells of training at the start of the job

is negative, but the return to new sk]lls training is positive and not that much less than the return

to current year formal training. Since the two training measures that we have labeled as

“informaf” are composites, one naturaIly wonders how the retains to the training components

compare with each other and, more spectilcafly, exactly which training components are

responsible for the negative coefficient on strut job training. To answer these questions, we

estimate equations in table 6b that are identical to those in table 6a except for the fact that we

have replaced the composite informal training measures with the individual components.

Looking at cohnnn (3) of table 6b, we see that classes and seminars at the start of the job have

a large positive impact on curfent wages. hut except for a very few exceptionally long spells,

tratilng where supervisors and co-workers show the individual how to do hk job have negative

returns (in fact, the estimated returns are negative even in the specifications where we do not

control for individual and job characteristics). With respect to new skills training, cIasses and
25

seminars, self study, and own learning all have significantly positive returns, except for a few

unusually long spells. Training where supervisors show the worker how to do his job has a

negative wage return, and training from co-workers has essentially a zero return when individual

and job characteristics are included as controls. 14

As pointed out above, our composite training measures are quite broad, encompassing forms

of training that are quite varied. Classes and seminars, and perhaps self-study, should perhaps be

thought of as “formal” training while training where supervisors or co-workers show an

individual how do to his job seem tn correspond quite closely to what is typically meant by

“informal” training. The NLSY data indicate that like other “formal training,” classes and

seminars, and to a lesser degree self-study, have a relatively low incidence and a substantial

return in the form of higher wages. Training from supervisors and co-workers has a much higher

incidence, but also a higher duration variance. TIds training has a positive wage return only

when the training spell is extremely long.

14 Because the trtiing coefficients willpickup any worker heterogeneity that is not picked up

in the demographic and job characteristic contrnl variables, a possible explanation for our results

is that employers may assign their more able workers to classes and have supervisor and coworkers provide help to their less able workers. Of course, it is difficult to reconcile this

hypothesis with the fact that AFQT has a positive effect on the incidence of all types of training,

both formal and informal.
26

VI. COtICk+iOIIS

Although economists have recognized the importance of a worker’s on-the-job human capital

investments since the setial papers by Becker (1962) and Mkrcer ( 1962), micro-datasets

containing expficit measures of on-the-job training have started to become available only

relatively recently. The existing data have been armfyzed fairly thoroughly in a number of

studies, and researchers agree that the human capital model’s prediction that a worker’s wage is

positively related to pa$.tinvestments in KIStraining is supported by the data, even after one

controls for the fact that those who receive training have different characteristics than those who

do not. However, researchers have not reached a consensus concerning the incidence or the

duration of informal training.

While data from the Current Population Survey tmirrirrgsupplements and from the National

Lmrgitmdkd Survey of the H]gh School Class of 1972 indicate that the incidence of informal

training is approximately twenty percent, data from the Employment Opportunity Pilot Project

Survey indicate that the incidence of informal training is about ninety-five percent. The most

liiely explanation appears to be the differences among the surveys in the wording of the training

questions.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth is the major source of much of our current

knowledge about formal training. However, the survey began asking questions about the harder

to measure informal training only in 1993. The 1993 survey (along with the surveys to follow in

the future) constitutes an important new source of information on informal training. The new

NLSY training questions incorporate the detail of the EOPP employer survey (multiple sources

of training such as classes or seminars, instruction from supervisors and/or co-workers, or selfstrrdy) within a survey of individuals. Used in conjunction with the wealth of information that

the NLSY contains on individual demographic characteristics, employment hktory, schooling,

and tillity, the new informal training questions have the potential to significantly improve oar

knowledge about the acquisition and the returns to training
27

We have presented an extensive cross-sectional empirical analysis of the informal training

information in the 1993 NLSY dataket in sections IV and V of this paper. The 1993 NLSY

informal training measures appem to be picking up a sizable number of relatively short episodes

of sKU upgrading that me missed by the NLSY’Sformal training questions. And some important

patterns in the NLSY data are consistent with those in other datasets: women receive training of

shorter duration, workers at larger employers and with more education are more likely to receive

training, training is more likely for workers with higher ability (as others have speculated, but

have not had the appropriate data to verify explicitly), and current wages are positively related to

past training.

interestingly, our results indicate that the incidence of training is 98 percent for persons who

were not able to perform all of their job duties adequately when they started their job and at least

91 percent for persons for whom changes at work witiln the past year required learning new

skills. Wfile these figures are consistent with the EOPP data, the routing patterns in the NLSY

are such that the remaining two-thirds of workers are not asked any training questions, the

impficit assumption Wing that they do-not receive any informal training. If thk assumption is

correct, then the incidence of informal training is approximately 35 percent, which is only a little

higher than the incidence of informal training in the CPS and the NLSHS72.

Our initial suspicion was that individuals who reported that they were able to perform all of

their duties adequately when they started their job were likely to have informal training spells of

short, but positive, duration, so that the NLSY’Srouting pattern would cause it to miss short

spells of training. Surprisingly, however, the informal training durations for individuals in the

NLSY who have received start job training are similar to the durations in the NLSHS72, and

when censored at three months, to those from the EOPP. Another reasonable hypothesis is that

although the NLSY (afong with EOPP) is not systematically screening out spells of a given

length, it is screening out certain types of spells. In future work, we plan both a more detailed

compmison of the incidence and duration of the various types of training in the different data

sets.
28

Our results indicate that for a given individual training incidence is correlated overtime.

Interestingly, formal training in the past year raises the probdilit y of both formal and informal

training in the current year, while informal training at the start of the job only raises the

probability of informal training in the current year. The complementarily between past year

formal training and current year training holds not only for our broad current year training

components, but also for each of the separate training components.

Not surprisingly, when we decompose our start job and new skllk trafilng composites, we

find that formal training has a much lower incidence than informal training. We also find that

women’s training is more likely than men’sto be more formal. Interestingly, our regression

results indicate that more formal training in the form of classes and seminars and self study

yields a significantly higher wage return than informal training from supervisors and co-workers.

In fact, informrd training yields a positive wage return only when the training spell is extremely

long. This may reflect the fact that informal training from supervisors and co-workers is not so

important after all. Casual experience and intuition suggest that in many jobs most learning may

not come from instruction fcom co-workers and supervisors, but simply from experience and

experimentation. TMs “learning by doing” may well be what Brown had in mind when he stated

that “one hopes that for most workers (training) never ends.”

Although learning by doing is by its nature subjective and thus more difficult to measure than

training, EOPP, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and the NLSY afl contain measures of

learning by doing. EOPP attempts to measure learning on the job by asking the question, “How

marry weeks does it take a new employee to become fully trained and qualified if he or she has

no experience in this job, but has had the necessary school-provided trainkg.” A similar

question appears in the PSID. As reported in Table 2 (question 61AA). the NLSY asks every

worker who indicates that he could not perform 100 percent of hk initial duties adequately the

question, “How long dld it take before you were fully comfortable doing this kind of work on

your own?” Evidence of thk variable’s potential importance is provided by Barron, Black, and

Loewenstein’s ( 1993) finding that it explains a signflcant part of the gender wage gap -- even
29

though hours of training during the first three months of employment are similar for men arrd

women.

Consistent with Barren, Black, and Leewenstein’s tinding with the EOPP data, analysis of the

NLSY data also indicates that women are in jobs that require less time to be fully comfortable.

In this respect, the learning by doing variable appears to be similar to informal training (see

Table 5b). 15 However, after controlling for the incidence and hours of start job training, the

length of time until a worker is fully comfortable in his job still has a statistically significant

positive effect on a worker’s wage. This leads us to conclude that the learning by doing variable

contains some information that is not picked up by the NLSY formal and informal training

measures. Anextensive malysis of therelationship between themeaswes ofinformaltmining

and learning by doing -- in both the NLSY arrd the other data sets -- remains a topic for future

research.

15 &is&e case with botfr formal and informal training, there is a positive correlation between

AFQT and the length of time until a worker is folly comfortable in hk job. Iirterestingly, unlike

botfr formal and informal training, learning by doing appears to be negatively related to firm size.
30

VII. References

Altonji, Joseph G. and James R. Spletzer. 1991. “Worker Characteristics, Job Characteristics,

and the Receipt of On-the-Job Training.” Industrial and Labor ReIations Review, pp. 58-79.

Barron, John M., Mark C. Berger, and Dan A. Black. 1993a. “Do Workers Pay for On-the-Job

Training?” University of Kentucky Working Paper # E-169-93.

Barrmr, John M., Mark C. Berger, and Dan A. Black. 1993b. “New Evidence on the

Measurement of Training Matched Employee and Employer Responses.” Unpublished

paper, University of Keriilicky.

Barron, John M., Dan A. Black, and Mark A. Loewenstein. 1987. “Employer Size The

Implications for Search, Training, Capital Investment, Starting Wage, and Wage Growth?

J~ pp. 76-89.

Baron, John M., Dan A. Black, and Mark A. Locwenstein. 1989. “Job Matchhrg and On-theJob Trairing.” JCUMI?al of Labor Economics, pp. 1-19.

Barron, John M., Dan A. Black, and Mark A. Loewenstein. 1993. “Gender DhTerences in

Training, Capital, and Wages.” Journal of Human Resou rces, pp. 343-364

Becker, Gary S. 1962. “Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis.” JoumaJ of

Political Economy, pp. 9-49.

Brown, Charles. 1989. “Empirical Evidence on Private Training: In Investimz in People,

Background Papers, Vol. 1, Washington D.C.: Commission on Workforce Quality end Labor

Market Efficiency, U.S. Department of Labor, pp. 301-320.

Llllard, Lee A. and Hong W. Tan. 1992. Private Sector Training Who Geta It and What Are Its

Effects? Research in Labor Economic& pp. 1-62.

Loewensteirr, Mark A. and James R. Spletzer. 1993a. “Training, Tenure, and Cost-Sharin~

Evidence from the CPS.” Unpublished paper presented at the 1993 Western Economic

Meetings.

Loewenstsin, Mark A. and James R. Spletzer. 1993b. “Trtimg, Tenure, and Cost-Sharing”

Unpublished paper presented at the 1994 American Economic Association Meetings.

Lynch, Lk.a M. 1992. “Private Sector Training and the Hlngs of Young Workers.” ~

Economic Review, pp. 299-312.

Mincer, Jacob. 1962. “On-the-Job Tmining Costs, Returns, and Some Implications.” Journal of

Political EConom v, pp.50-79.

Mkcer, Jacob. 1988. “Job Trairrhg, Wage Growth, and Labor Turnover.” NBER Working

Paper #2690.
31

PergamiL Michael R. and Janice Shack-Marquez. 1987. “Earnings and Different Types of

Training.” Bureau of Labor Statistics Working Paper #165.

Verrm, Jonathan R. 1993. “Training among young adults: who, what kind, arrd for how long?”

Mont hlv Labor Review, pp. 27-32.

Veum, Jonatbmr R. 1994. “Sources of Trti]ng and their Impact on Wages.” Indrrstrial and

LaborRelations Review, forthcoming.
Table 1

Informal Training Information in Existing Surveys

Current Population Survey, January 1991a

Since you obtained your present job did you

take any trairrhg to improve your skills? Mean training incidence is 42.43%

Dld you take the training in

a) school, Mean incidence of informaf on-the-job

b) a formal company training program, training is 16.27’%..Conditional on a

c) informal on-the-job, yes response to the previous question,

d) other the mean is 38.35%.

NLSHS72b

Considering the most recent full time job you

have held, dld you receive or participate in any

type of employer-provided training benefits or

trairing programs?

(Indicate each type) of training benefit or

program you participated in. Then record

the number of hours per week and the

total number of weeks:

Formal rc@ered apprenticeship

(your state or labor union)

Employer-provided job training during

hours on employer premises

Informal on-the-job training

(e.g., assigned to work with someone

for instruction or guirfance, etc.)

Employer-provided education or training

during working hours away frum

employer premises

Tuition aid and/or financial assistance for

attending educational institutions

after working hours

Other

Mean Incidence of tmining is 45.7%

Mean Incidence of informal training is

19.7%. Condbiomd on a yes response

to the previous question, the mean

incidence of informrd training is 43.1%.

Conditional on receiving informal

training, the mean number of weeks is

11.3, the mean number of hours per

week is 22.2, and the mean number of

total hours is 233.
Table 1 (continued)

Employer Opportunity Pilot Projec&

In the fwst three months of employment,

aPPmximateIy how many total hours does a

typical new employee in ...’sposition spend

away from normal work activities filling out

forms and being told about the company

hktory, benefits, and roles?

Dnnng the fust three months, how many total

hours does tfre average new employee spend in The mean incidence of “watching

training activities in which he or she is watchkg others” is 79%. Condkionalon

other people do the job rather than doing it receiving training, the mean number

himself? of hours watching others is 50.8.

Is there formal training, such as self-paced learning

pregmrns or training done by specially trained

personnel, for people hired in ...’sposition, or is all

the training done as informal on tfrejob training?

During the fust three months of work what

was the total number of hours spent on formal

training such as self-paced learning programs

or training done by specially trained personnel

ofyour typical worker in ..’sposition?

...during their first three months of work,

what was the total number of hours management The mearr incidence of “informat

and line supervisors spent away from other training by supervisors” is 87%.

activities giving informal indlvidnaked training Conditional on reeeiving training, the

or extra supervision to your typical worker in mean number of hours of informaI

in ...’sposition? training by supervisors is 52.4.

During the first three months of work what

was the total number of hours co-workers The mean incidence of “co-workers’

who are not supervisors spent away from informal training” is 61Yo.Conditional

flreir normal work giving informal trairdng on receiving tratiIng, the mean number

or extra supervision to your typical worker of hours of co-workers’ informal

in ...’sposition? tratilng is 25.3.

‘Means are obtained from Loewenstein and Spletzer (1993a).

bMearrsare obtained from Altorrji rmd Spletzer (1991).

Wfearrs are obtained from Barron, Black and Loewenstein ( 1987).
Table 2

Informal Training Questions in the 1993 NLSY

s~~tart pJew Skills Trar‘ning

59B) Earlier we talked about your tin activities

or duties for [employer naroe]. Tldnkhrg of the

main activities or duties you do now, what month

and year dld you start doing this kind of work for

[employer name]?

60A) When you started doing tbk kind of work 36A) From time to time changes occnr at work

for [employer name], about what percentage of the that make it necessary to learn new job skills. On

duties you currently do were you able to perform thk card are a number of examples. As I read

adequately? each example, tell me whether these changes have

<100%: Continue to 61AA required you to learn new job skills in the past 12

=100%: Exit InformwlTraining Questions months?

Yes: Continue to 39

No Exit Informal Training Questions

61AA) How long dld it take before yon were fully

comfortable doing this Kind of work for [employer

name] on your own?

63) There are a variety of ways that people learn 39) As a result of these changes at work, did you

to do their jobs. Please think about the [time in participate in any classes or seminars to learn how

61AA] when you were learning to perform your the changes would affect how you do your job?

job duties for [employer name]. In learning how Yes Continue to 39A

to perform these duties, dld you participate in any No Skip to 40

classes or seminars?

Yes: Continue to 65C

NO Skip to 67

39A) Have you already told me about these

classes or seminars?

Yes: Skip to 40

No: Continue to 39B

65C) D]d you pmticipate in these classes or

seminars during more than one week?

Yes: Ask 65E and 65F

No Ask 65D

65D) How numy hours did you spend in these

classes or seminars?

65E) Over how many weeks dld you attend these

classes or seminars?

65F) During the [65E] weeks that you attended

these classes or seminars, how many hours per

week did you spend in them?

39B) Dld you participate in these classes or

seminars during more than one week?

Yex Ask 39D and 39E

NO Ask 39C

39C) How many hours did you spend in these

classes or seminars?

39D) Over how many weeks dld you attend these

classes or seminars?

39E) During the [39D] weeks that you attended

these classes or seminars, how many hours per

week dld you spend in them?
Tsble2 (continued)

67) Who explained or showed you how your job

tasks should be done. Was it your supervisor,

vour coworker(s). .,. or both?

“Supervisor”: Continue to 67C

“Coworker(s)”: Skip to 67J

“Both”: Ask 67C and 67S

“Neither”: Skip to 68

67C) Dld you spend any time during more than

one week with your supervisor learning how to do

tire kind of work you are now doing?

Ye%Ask 67E and 6’7F

No: Ask 67D

67D) How many hours did you spend with your

supervisor learning how to do this kind of work?

67E) Over how many weeks did you spend time

with your supervisor Ieaming how to do this kind

of work?

67F) During the [67E] weeks you spent time with

your supervisor learning how your job tasks

should be done, how many hours per week did

you spend?

67J) Did you spend any time during more than one

week with coworkers who showed you how to do

the kind of work you are now doing?

Yes Ask 67L and 67M

No Ask 67K

67K) How many hours did you spend with

coworkers Iearning how to do tlrk kind of work?

67L) Over how many weeks dld you spend time

with coworkers learning how to do this kind of

work?

67M) During the [67L] weeks you spent time with

coworkers learning how your job tasks should be

done, how many hours per week did you spend?

68) In learning to do the kind of work you are now

doing, did you make use of any self-study matmid

or self-inshuctionaf packages, such as manuals,

workbooks, or computer-assisted teaching

programs?

Yes: Continue to 68C

No Skip to 69A

40) Who explained or showed you how these

changes at work would affect how you do your

job. Was it your supervisor, your coworker(s), or

both?

“Supervisor”: Continue to 40A

“Coworker(s)”: Skip to 40E

“Both”: Ask 40A and 40E

“Neither”: Skip to 41

40A) Did you spend any time duriug more than

one week with your supervisor learrring how the

changes would affect how you do your job?

Yes: Ask 40C snd 40Ca

No: Ask 40B

40B) How many hours did you spend with your

supervisor learning how the changes would affect

how you do yourjob?

40C) Over how many weeks did you spend time

with your supervisor Iearniug how the changes

would affeet how you do your job?

40Ca) During the [@C] weeks you spend with

your supervisor learning how to do your new

duties, how many hours per week dld you spend?

40E) D1d you spend any time during more than

one week with coworkers who showed you how

the changes at work would affect how you do your

job?

Yes: Ask 40G and 40H

NO Ask 40F

40F) How many hours did you spend with

coworkers learning how the changes would affect

your job?

40G) Over how many weeks did you spend time

with coworkers learning how the changes would

affect how you do your job?

40H) During the [400] weeks you spent time with

coworkers learning how the changes would affect

how you do your job, how many hours per week

did you spend?

41) In learning how these changes at work would

affect how you do your job, did you make use of

any self-study material or self-instructional

packages, such as manusds, workbooks, or

computer-assisted teaching programs?

Yes: Continue to 41A

No SkiP to 41G
Table2(continued)

68C) D]d you spend any time during more than

one week using these self-teaching packages in

learning how to do the kind of work you are now

doing?

Yes: Ask 68E and 68F

Nrx Ask 68D

68D) How many hours did you spend using selfteachmg packages?

68E) Over how marry weeks did you spend time

using self-teaching packages?

68F) During the [68E] weeks when you were

using self-teaching packages, how many hours per

week did you spend?

41A) Did you spend time during more than one

week using these self-teaching packages to learn

how to do your new duties?

Ye% Ask 41Carrd 41D

NO Ask 41B

41B) How marry hours dld you spend using selfteaching pa&ages?

41C) Over how many weeks did you spend time

using self-teaching packages?

41D) During the [41C] weeks when you were

using self-teaching materials, how many hours per

week dld you spend?

41G) Sometimes people learn new skills on their

own in order to move up in the company, get a

different job, or keep up with their current job.

Apart from any training or instruction your

employer has provided in the past year, have you

spent any time learning new skills on your own?

Yes: Continue to 41J

No: Skip to 42A

41J) How many hours dld you spend learning uew

sk]lls on yourown?

69A) Besides what we’ve tafked about so far, can 42A) Besides what we’ve tatked about so far, can

you think of arrythmg else that you dld that helped you thk of arrythiig else that YOUdld that helped

yon learn tu do the fdrrd of work you are doing for you learn how the changes woufd affect your job?

[employer name]?
Table 3: Descri@ive Statistics, 1993 NLSY data

Standard Deviations in parentheses.

Start Job Tr~

. .

Composite Total

Classes/Seminars

Supervisor Show You

Coworkers Show You

Self-Study

Other

a .%rmle Size=2735 (

dut;es adequately)

a

-Incidence

98.03%

26.54.%

66.00%

65.92%

48.08%

23.66%

mse who ini

b

~

35.43%

9.59%

23.85%

23.82%

17.38%

8.55%

Conditional on Receiving Training

~H #w r

19.21 16.84 293.70

(14.10) (32.21) (632.65)

21.39 6.82 105.33.

(15.43) (13.87) (169.31)

17.78 7.37 139.22

(15.18) (16.48) (429.39)

21.83 9.11 198.08

(15.75) (16.36) (438.72)

12.32 8.58 89.61

(12.10) (16.23) (259.58)

1

ally performed less than 100% of their current

b Sample Size=7568 (Those who initially performed 100% of their current duties

adequately are assumed not trained)

New Skills Tra inina

Composite Total

Classes/Seminars

Supervisor Show You

Coworkers Show You

Self-Study

Own Learning

Other

a Sample Size.2972 (

a

~

91.08%

19.55%

58.04%

29.54%

44.11%

29.32%

4.11%

b

Incidence

35.77%

7.68%

22.79%

11.60%

17.32%

11.51%

1.61%

Conditional on Receiving Training

Hours /week # Weeks Total Hours

8.14 5.59 60.34

(10.04) (13.85) (187.85)

10.47 2.22 19.72

(11.95) (4.46) (42.88)

7.21 2.28 22.89

(10.30) (6.11) (134.40)

10:48 3.09 35.88

(12.88) (7.41) (149.43)

7,82 5.25 35.49

(9.41) (11.10) (108.67)

44.22

(84.29)

lose for whom workplace c1

b saP~e Size=7568 (Those With” no workplace changes assumed not trained) .

mges rewired new skills]

a

I Conditional on Completed Trainingb I

Forma 1 Tr~o. .

Incidence Hours /Week # Weeks Total Hours

Current Year 19.50%’ I 18.43 6.36 110.95 I

~~

a Sample Size.7568.

b 23 .1% of CUrent year training spells are not completed and have no

reported durations.
Tabla 4: Descriptive Statistics, 1993 NLSY data

I

First Third ~5th

Start Job Tramu-m

. .

~~ dian

Composite: Total Hours 11 28 84 26o 1340 9450

Hours per Week 11 6 16 31 40 60

Number of Weeks 11 2 5 16 72 416

Classes/Seminars: Hours 11 16 40 120 450 1728

Hours per Week I 1 8

20 40 40 60

Number of Weeks 11 1 2 6 28 104

Supervisor Show You: Hours \ 1 8 2.4 80 600 5200

Hours per Week 11 5 12 30 40 60

Number of Weeks 11 1 1 4 52 104

Coworkers Show You: Hours 11 16 48 160 1000 468o

Hours per Week IL .7 20 40 40 60

Number of Weeks 1 2. 3 8 52

:1

104

Self-Study: Hours .8 20 64 400 6000

Hours per Week 11 4 8 16 40 60

~ Wk 1 2

I First Third ~5th

New SkiJJJ . in

~&&3.n inim Ouartile Percent Max mum

i

Composite: Total Hours II 4 15 48 240 43.60

Hours per Week 11 2 4 10 32 60

Number of Weeks 1 1 2 3“

“11-3

24 157

Classes/Seminars: Hours 8 20 80 520

Hours per Week [1 2 6 15 40 60

Number of Weeks [1 1 1 1 8 52

Supervisor Show You: Hours I 1 1 3 10 60 3200

Hours per Week 11 1 3 8 40 60

Number of Weeks 11 1 1 1 6 80

Coworkers Show You: Hours 11 2 8 24 150 3120

Hours per Week 11 2 5 15 40 60

Number of Weeks 1 1 1 2

:1

10 52

Self -Study”: Hours 3 8 24 150 2080

Hours per Week 11 2 4 10 30 60

Number of Weeks II 1 1 3 36 70

?-p._+ng: Ho.~ 7

Formal Training 1 ...

First Third I

~5th

1 on c~u.m Ouartile M.dian Ouartj 1e Percent

Current Year: Total Hours II 12 32 80 480 3840 I

Hours per Week il 6 15 31 40 60 I

~ f 6
–-t–––—–—–––––––

. .

.:

——————— —————————

Table 6a: wage Regr.sssions, 1993 NLSY f3ata

Varidble I (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 if Start Job Training

Hours Training /1000

1 if New Skills Training

Hours Training /10 00

1 if Formal Training

Last Year

Hours Training /1 000

1 if Current Year

Formal Training

1 if Training Current

at Interview

Hours Training /100 O

1 if Nonwhite

1 if Female

0.0738 *

(0.0142)

0.1544 *

(0.0146)

0.0930 =

(0.01911

0.1397 *

(0.0199)

-0.1072 *

(0.0361)

0.0460 *

(0.0150)

0.1008 *

(0.0182)

0.1515 *

(0.0150)

0.0072

(0.0624)

0.1082 *

[0.0203)

-0.1021

(0.0605)

0.1534 *

(0.0206)

-0.1266 *

(0.0365)

-0.1646 *

(0.0522)

1 if Msrried

AFQT (Ability)

1 if Education <Ii

1 if Education 13-15

1 if Education 16

1 if Education =.16

1 if Firm Size 10 - 50

1 if Firm Size 50 – Z=

1 if Finn Size > 250

1 if Multiple Site Firm

1 if union

Ln@str. k O.c...tion — No No

-0.0339 *

(0.0126)

0.0514 *

(0.0151)

0.0535 *

(0.0126)

-0.0470

(0.0514)

0.0398 *

(0.0168)

.0.0032

(0.0498)

0.0572 *

(0.0172)

-0.0660 *

(0:0300)

-0.0272

(0.0430)

0.0056

(0.0130)

-0.1816 *

(0.0118)

0.0538 *

(0.0114)

0.0053 *

(0.0004)

0.0116

(0.0187)

0.1164 =

(0.0150)

0.3485 *

(0.0190)

0.4130 *

(0.0255)

0.0275

(0.0167)

0.0568 *

(0.0179)

0.1414 *

(0.018S)

0.0318 *

(0.0130)

0.1622 *

(0.0157)

-0.0465 .

(0.0120)

0.0381 *

(0.0144)

0.0347 *

(0.0120)

-0.0834

(0.0487)

0.0304

(0.0159)

-0.0291

(0.0472)

0.0397 *

(0.0163)

-0.0536

(0.0284)

-0.0371

(0.0407)

0.0016

(0.0124)

-0.1726 *

(0.0123)

0.0356 *

[0.0109)

0.0040 *

(0.0004)

0.0076

(0.0177)

0.0776 *

(0.0144)

0.2587 ●

(0.0190)

0.2875 *

(0.0256)

0.0508 *

(0.0159)

0.0806 *

(0.0173)

0.1456 *

(0.0182)

0.0216

(0.0125)

0.1699 *

(0.0151)

~

OLS coefficients (standard ert-or*). .%mple Size= 695!7. The mean of the DeDendent

Variable is 2.2614. * implies statistically significant at the 5% level.

A1l equations include an Intercept and an indicator for working last year.

Equations 3 and 4 include experience arid tenure quadratics, age, school

enrollment in the past year, and indicators for part-time, government, and

self. employment.
Table 6b: Wa.zeRegressions, 1993 WLSY data

or-v variable

1 if start Job Training

Classes/Seminars

supervisor Show You

coworkers Show You

Self Study

Hours Training 11000

1

Classes/Seminars

Supervisor Show You

Coworkers Show YOU

Self Study

if New Skills ‘Training

Classes/Seminars

Supervisor Show YOU

Coworkers Show YOU

Self Study

Own Learning

Hours Training /10 00

Classes /seminars

Supervisor Show YOU

Coworkers Show YOU

Self Study

Own Learning

Explanatory Variables

Io.dust.. k o~io.

I

I

OLS

All

coefficients (standa

(2J (2) (3) (4)

0.2268 *

(0.0257)

-0.0141

(0.0195)

0.0022

(0.0195)

0.0705 *

(0.0218)

0.1073 *

(0.0257)

-0.0379 *

(0.0181)

0.0637 *

(0.0226)

0.1247 *

(0.0204)

0.0940 *

(0.0226)

No

CJ.2094 *

(0.0286)

-0.0249

(0.0201)

-u.0063

(0.0204)

0.0643 *

(0.0223)

0.1035

(0.1273 )..

0.1029 *

(0.0352)

0.0574

(0.0329)

0.0387

(0.0617)

0.3.167 *

(0.0278)

,0.0359 *

(0.0182)

0.0604 *

(0.0233)

0.1338 *

(0.0209)

0.0752 *

(0.0247)

-0.5237

(0.5894)

-0.0885

(0.1071)

0.1448

(0.1989)

-0.2361

(0.1519)

0.4303

(0.2326)

No

0.0781 *

(0.0239)

-0.0400 *

(0.0167)

-0.0327

(0.0170)

0.0277

(0.0185)

0.0063

(0.1055)

Q. Q854 *

(0.0292)

0.0199

(0.0274)

-0.0034

(0.0511)

0.0482 *

(0.0231)

-0.0194

(0.0152)

0.0047

(0.0194)

0.0606 *

(0.0174)

0.0439 *

(0.0205)

-0.4300

(0.4876)

-0.0188

(0.0886)

0.0060

(0.1647)

-0.2048

(0.1257)

-0.1110

(0.1932)

Yes

0.0579 *

(0.0227)

-0.0426 *

(0.0159)

-0.0323 *

(0.0161)

0.0133

(0.0176)

0.0270

(0.1003)

0.0583 *

(0.0277)

0.0162

(0.026Q)

-0.0031

(0.0484)

0.0416

(0.0219)

-0.0111

(0.0144)

-0.0070

(0.0184)

0.0398 *

(0.0166)

0.0304

(0.0195)

-0.3282

(0.4625)

-0.0442

(0.0840)

-0.0017

(0.1562)

-0.2740 *

(0.1194)

-0.1053

(0.1833)

Yes

NC No No Yes

errors ) Saxmle Size= 6959. The mean of the DependeI

Variable is 2.2614. * implies statistically significant at the 5% level.

e~ations include an Intercept, formal training in the previous and current

year, and an indi~tox for working last year. ExplanatOIy Variables in

columns 3 and 4 include Nonwhite, Female, Married, AFQT. Education, Firm Size,

Multiple Site Firm. Union, experience and tenure quadratics, age, school

enrollment in the past year, and indicators for part-time, government, and

self employment.