DiscussionofEndogenousWageIndexa.onandAggregateShocks,
byCarrillo,PeersmanandWauters
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
GiorgioPrimiceri NorthwesternUniversity
Seventh BIS CCA Research Conference Lima,May19,2016
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n StandardDSGEmodel
✚ WorkerscanchoosetheindexaKonschemeoftheirlaborcontractCanindexto:Ø pastinflaKonØ CentralBankinflaKontarget
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n StandardDSGEmodel
✚ WorkerscanchoosetheindexaKonschemeoftheirlaborcontractCanindexto:Ø pastinflaKonØ CentralBankinflaKontarget
= Non-trivialextension
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n StandardDSGEmodel
✚ WorkerscanchoosetheindexaKonschemeoftheirlaborcontractCanindexto:Ø pastinflaKonØ CentralBankinflaKontarget
= Non-trivialextension
n Modelcalibratedandthensolvedusingnonlineartechniques
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n Results
1. ModelmatchestheavailableempiricalevidenceonwageindexaKon
2. WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinfla-on-targetshocksareprevalent
3. Thedecentralizedequilibriumdiffersfromtheplanner’sØ PlannerprefersindexaKontopastinflaKonwhendemandshocksareimportant
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n Results
1. ModelmatchestheavailableempiricalevidenceonwageindexaKon
2. WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinfla-on-targetshocksareprevalent
3. Thedecentralizedequilibriumdiffersfromtheplanner’sØ PlannerprefersindexaKontopastinflaKonwhendemandshocksareimportant
n State-of-the-artDSGEmodelingexercise
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Thispaper
n Results
1. ModelmatchestheavailableempiricalevidenceonwageindexaKon
2. WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinfla-on-targetshocksareprevalent
3. Thedecentralizedequilibriumdiffersfromtheplanner’sØ PlannerprefersindexaKontopastinflaKonwhendemandshocksareimportant
n State-of-the-artDSGEmodelingexercise
n PotenKallyimportantfindings
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
WhydoIsaypoten.ally?Mycomments
1. MoKvaKonandevidence
2. Well-executedpaper,butliZleeconomicintuiKonfortheresults
3. InteresKngresult:inefficiencyofprivatewageindexaKonchoice
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.MoKvaKon
n LargeliteratureonstructuralbreaksinUSpostwarmacrodynamics
n Hofmann,PeersmanandStraub(2012)Ø Long-runeffectofshocksonpricesandwagesisstrongerinthe1970sthan80sØ ChangesinMPrulenotenoughtoexplainthispaZernØ MostlikelyexplanaKon:higherwageindexaKoninthe1970s
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.MoKvaKon
n LargeliteratureonstructuralbreaksinUSpostwarmacrodynamics
n Hofmann,PeersmanandStraub(2012)Ø Long-runeffectofshocksonpricesandwagesisstrongerinthe1970sthan80sØ ChangesinMPrulenotenoughtoexplainthispaZernØ MostlikelyexplanaKon:higherwageindexaKoninthe1970s
n NaturalquesKon:WhydidindexaKonchange?
➥ ThispaperendogenizeswageindexaKonchoice
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.Empiricalevidence
n COLAcoverageØ ProporKonofunionworkersinlargecollecKvebargainingagreementswith
explicitcontractualwageindexaKonclauses
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
COLAcoverageTables and figures
Figure 1: Presumed wage indexation in the U.S.
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time
COLA
inde
x
Note: The COLA index gives the proportion of union workers in large collective bargaining agreementswith explicit contractual wage indexation clauses. The series is annual from 1956-1995. Source: Raganand Bratsberg (2000).
30
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.Empiricalevidence
n COLAcoverageØ ProporKonofunionworkersinlargecollecKvebargainingagreementswith
explicitcontractualwageindexaKonclausesØ FracKonofworkerscoveredbyunionsissmallandshrinking
n 23%in1983to12%in2014
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.Empiricalevidence
n COLAcoverageØ ProporKonofunionworkersinlargecollecKvebargainingagreementswith
explicitcontractualwageindexaKonclausesØ FracKonofworkerscoveredbyunionsissmallandshrinking
n 23%in1983to12%in2014
n AnyevidenceofwageindexaKoninnon-unionsector?
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
1.Empiricalevidence
n COLAcoverageØ ProporKonofunionworkersinlargecollecKvebargainingagreementswith
explicitcontractualwageindexaKonclausesØ FracKonofworkerscoveredbyunionsissmallandshrinking
n 23%in1983to12%in2014
n AnyevidenceofwageindexaKoninnon-unionsector?
n AlternaKveapproach:differentwage-sefngmodelaltogetherØ ChrisKano,EichenbaumandTrabandt(2015):realwagesaredeterminedby
alternaKngofferbargaining
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
n My(staKc)intuiKon…
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.My(staKc)intuiKon
n Forsimplicity,assumeØ EconomywithonlytechnologyshocksØ Theeconomyisinsteadystate
n Workeriisrandomlyselectedtore-setherwageØ WillsetwagetosteadystateØ Subsequentperiods:shehastobereadytosupplyasmuchlaborasdemanded
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P No indexation
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P No indexation
indexation
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.My(staKc)intuiKon
n Forsimplicity,assumeØ EconomywithonlytechnologyshocksØ Theeconomyisinsteadystate
n Workeriisrandomlyselectedtore-setherwageØ WillsetwagetosteadystateØ Subsequentperiods:shehastobereadytosupplyasmuchlaborasdemanded
n SupposenowtheeconomyishitbyaposiKvetechnologyshockØ Labordemand⬆⇒shemustworkmoreatthesamenominalwageØ InflaKon⬇⇒herrealwage⬆⇒lesscostlytoworkmore
n WillshechoosetoindexherwagetoinflaKon?Ø Ifshedoes,realwageapproxconstantandsheismoreoffherlaborsupplyØ Theoppositeofthepaper’sfindings
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
n My(staKc)intuiKon…isnotenough
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
n My(staKc)intuiKon…isnotenough
Ø Istheresomethingmoresubtleinthedynamics?
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Responsetoatechnologyshockintheaggregate
0 5 10 15 20-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05:
0 5 10 15 200
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2log(w/p)
0 5 10 15 20-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10
0.1log(L)
0 5 10 15 20-1.25
-1.2
-1.15
-1.1
-1.05
-1log(MUC)
𝛑
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Responsetoatechnologyshockforthe“Calvo”worker
0 5 10 15 200
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1log(w/p)
0 5 10 15 20-1
0
1
2
3
4log(L)
0 5 10 15 20-2
0
2
4
6log(L*W/P)
0 5 10 15 20-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15log(w/p)
0 5 10 15 20-5
0
5
10
15log(L)
0 5 10 15 20-5
0
5
10
15log(L*W/P)
No indexation Indexation
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
n My(staKc)intuiKon…isnotenough
Ø Istheresomethingmoresubtleinthedynamics?Ø IsconsumpKonsmoothingthekey?
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.EconomicintuiKon
n WorkerspreferindexingwagestopastinflaKonwhentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalent
n Why?
n My(staKc)intuiKon…isnotenough
Ø Istheresomethingmoresubtleinthedynamics?Ø IsconsumpKonsmoothingthekey?Ø Isthelaborsupplyschedulereallyflat?
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P No indexation
indexation
LD desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
2.StaKcintuiKon:AposiKvetechnologyshock
L
W/P No indexation
indexation
LD
desired LS
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
3.Decentralizedequilibriumvsplanner’ssoluKon
n IndexaKontopastinflaKonØ Workers:whentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalentØ Planner:whendemandshocksareprevalent
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
3.Decentralizedequilibriumvsplanner’ssoluKon
n IndexaKontopastinflaKonØ Workers:whentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalentØ Planner:whendemandshocksareprevalent
n Planner’ssoluKoniseasiertounderstandØ Plannerwantstoachievethefirstbest:
n Economyshouldrespondtotechnologyshocksn Economyshouldnotrespondto“demand/inefficient”shocks
Ø IndexaKonreducesthevariaKonofrealwagesØ Desirableonlywith“demand/inefficient”shocks
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
3.Decentralizedequilibriumvsplanner’ssoluKon
n IndexaKontopastinflaKonØ Workers:whentechnologyorinflaKon-targetshocksareprevalentØ Planner:whendemandshocksareprevalent
n Planner’ssoluKoniseasiertounderstandØ Plannerwantstoachievethefirstbest:
n Economyshouldrespondtotechnologyshocksn Economyshouldnotrespondto“demand/inefficient”shocks
Ø IndexaKonreducesthevariaKonofrealwagesØ Desirableonlywith“demand/inefficient”shocks
n Conjecture:Planner’srankingofindexaKonschemesmightbemorerobustthatprivateranking
Primiceri DiscussionofCarri l lo, PeersmanandWauters
Mycomments
1. MoKvaKonandevidenceØ EvidenceofwageindexaKoninnon-unionsector?
2. Well-executedpaper,butliZleeconomicintuiKonfortheresultsØ IntuiKonisimportanttoevaluategeneralityofthefindings
3. InteresKngresult:inefficiencyofprivatewageindexaKonchoiceØ Conjecture:Planner’srankingofindexaKonschemesmightbemorerobust
thanprivateranking