Returns vs. Endowments in the Earnings Attainment Process for Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Men and Women1

Abstract Three explanations typically are offered for differences in earnings: (1) individuals have different levels of human capital and hold different jobs (endowments differ), (2) rewards to human capital and job characteristics differ (returns differ), and (3) some combination of differences in endowments and returns explain variations in earnings. We argue that the structure of labor markets in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas differs from that in metropolitan (metro) areas such that returns, as well as endowments, vary. These variations in returns favor metropolitan workers, explaining the predominant portion of the metro/nonmetro earnings gap. We examine the earnings differences for metro and nonmetro men and women in both 1977 and 1987, showing that returns outweigh endowments in explaining that gap for both men and women, although their importance decreases over the ten-year period. Research to improve our understanding of how differences in labor market structure produce differential returns has begun and may yield yet another avenue for action for policymakers interested in reducing metro/nonmetro inequalities.     

EXPONENTIAL DISPERSION MODELS AND THE GAUSS-NEWTON ALGORITHM

It is known that the Fisher scoring iteration for generalized linear models has the same form as the Gauss-Newton algorithm for normal regression. This note shows that exponential dispersion models are the most general families to preserve this form for the scoring iteration. Therefore exponential dispersion models are the most general extension of generalized linear models for which the analogy with normal regression is preserved. The multinomial distribution is used as an example.     

Ethnic-sensitive work with Hmong refugee children

This article examines three distinguishing characteristics of Hmong culture, and gives examples of the problems these differences can create in serving Hmong children and their families.     

The relation of gender and sexual orientation to measures of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny: a further analysis

Data from a survey of 58 gay men and 58 lesbians are compared to college men and women on Spence and Helmreich's (1978) Personality Attributes Questionnaire measures of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny. Lesbians had higher M scores than college women, and gay men had lower M scores than college men, with F scores being similar across sexual orientation groups, within gender. Androgyny measures differed only by gender, not by sexual orientation. Further analysis shows that lesbians' high M scores come largely from their high self-ratings as independent, while college men's high M scores reflect strong competitiveness. Questions are raised about the validity of these measures for comparing these groups.     

Key Characteristics of the Large Innovating Firm*

Large innovating firms are a major source of the world's technology, and in the 20th century have shown great resilience in absorbing successive waves of radical innovations. The key characteristics of these firms derive from the properties of their innovative activities. First, given the specific, differentiated and cumulative nature of technological development, the range of possible choices about both product and processed technologies open to the firm depends on its accumulated competence. Second, given functional and professional specialization, the implementation of technological choices requires organization and orchestration across disciplinary, functional and divisional boundaries. Third, given cumulative development and uncertainty, the improvement of these competences requires continuous and collective learning. Fourth, in the light of these characteristics, systems for allocating resources must take into account the benefits of learning by doing, as well as the benefits of outcomes. As a consequence, the technical function in large firms involves not just the implementation of innovations, but also the definition of appropriate divisional objectives and boundaries, the exploration of radical technologies, and the formation of technological expectations about the future.