Table 4: Mechanisms on agglomeration effects for college graduates

||||Log|wage|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||(1)|(2)|(3)|(4)|(5)|(6)|
|Log work city size|0.0215<br>(0.0114)<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.0191<br>(0.0106)<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.0198<br>(0.0105)<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.0178<br>(0.0105)<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.0172<br>(0.0103)<sup>_∗_</sup>|0.0173<br>(0.0100)<sup>_∗_</sup>|
|Log college city size|0.0723<br>(0.0078)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0503<br>(0.0083)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0587<br>(0.0091)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0597<br>(0.0080)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0494<br>(0.0079)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0535<br>(0.0090)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Log high school city size|-0.0067<br>(0.0046)|-0.0068<br>(0.0043)|-0.0075<br>(0.0045)<sup>_∗_</sup>|-0.0099<br>(0.0038)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0093<br>(0.0038)<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|-0.0097<br>(0.0039)<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|
|Average Saber 11 in college||0.1582<br>(0.0115)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|||0.0936<br>(0.0106)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>||
|Tier 1 (highest quality)|||0.2521<br>(0.0353)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|||0.1654<br>(0.0293)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Tier 2|||0.0760<br>(0.0343)<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|||0.0390<br>(0.0336)|
|Tier 3|||0.0500<br>(0.0259)<sup>_∗_</sup>|||0.0398<br>(0.0255)|
|Tier 4|||0.0498<br>(0.0221)<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|||0.0474<br>(0.0190)<sup>_∗∗_</sup>|
|Standardized Saber 11||||0.1100<br>(0.0062)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0863<br>(0.0042)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0888<br>(0.0035)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Female|-0.0957<br>(0.0045)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0808<br>(0.0054)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0846<br>(0.0050)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0603<br>(0.0053)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0591<br>(0.0058)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0600<br>(0.0057)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Ethnic origin|-0.0740<br>(0.0265)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0174<br>(0.0251)|-0.0333<br>(0.0227)|-0.0120<br>(0.0215)|0.0081<br>(0.0222)|0.0031<br>(0.0202)|
|Technological school|-0.1002<br>(0.0179)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0093<br>(0.0173)|-0.0231<br>(0.0149)|-0.0444<br>(0.0146)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.0026<br>(0.0180)|-0.0092<br>(0.0126)|
|t&tinstitute|-0.4361<br>(0.0689)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.2953<br>(0.0750)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.3192<br>(0.0603)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.3181<br>(0.0606)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.2602<br>(0.0698)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|-0.2686<br>(0.0584)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Experience|0.1110<br>(0.0058)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.1074<br>(0.0043)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.1067<br>(0.0041)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0994<br>(0.0044)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0997<br>(0.0040)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|0.0990<br>(0.0037)<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup>|
|Observations|184,719|184,719|184,719|184,719|184,719|184,719|
|_R_<sup>2</sup>|0.2345|0.2565|0.2567|0.2660|0.2723|0.2744|

_Notes_ : All specifications include a constant and indicator variables for age, year and 2-digit economic sector. We use standardized Saber 11 scores to calculate averages for each college. Tier 5 (lowest quality) is the omitted category. Coefficients are reported with robust standard errors in parenthesis, which are clustered by urban area of work.<sup>_∗∗∗_</sup> ,<sup>_∗∗_</sup> , and<sup>_∗_</sup> indicate significance at the 1, 5, and 10 percent levels. t&t for technical and technological.

we use the terms ‘migration paths’ for these combinations; ‘college (work) movers’ and ‘college (work) stayers’ for those who move and do not move for college (work), respectively.

Table 5 reports summary statistics for each of the six migration paths, conditional on whether they did not move for college (columns 1 to 3) or did move for college (columns 4 to 6). The existence of mobility frictions is clear: 67 percent of individuals in our sample do not move at all; 82 percent do not move for college; and 55 percent of those who move for college do not move for work.

Relative to college stayers, college movers are slightly more able and have attended public high schools at higher rates. Most college movers (81 percent, weighted average across columns 4 to 6) come from a small high school city, whereas most college stayers (61 percent, weighted average across columns 1 to 3) come from a big high school city. College movers are more likely than 11