RUHR - ECONOMIC PAPERS - Technological Change and Returns to Training #1058

Analyzing whether returns to training are different for training that is accompanied by new technology from returns to other types of training is important, given that individuals’ willingness to bear the costs of training (either the monetary costs or the cost of time and effort) crucially depends on the size of the return. [...] However, note that the sum of the training effect and of the interaction term is close to zero and statistically not significant (0.009 – 0.008 = 0.001 with an F-statistic of 0.10 and a p-value of 0.758) and the sum of the training effect, of the technology effect and of the interaction term is small as well and not significant (0.009 + 0.003 – 0.008 = 0.004 with an F-statistic of 1.07 and a p-val. [...] This implies that training has no significant effect on job change if it is accompanied by new technology adoption in the same year (the F- test of significance of the sum of the training effect and the training x new technology interaction is 0.00 with a p-value of 0.987 and the F-test of significance of the sum of the training effect and the new technology effect and the training x new technolog. [...] To learn more about the sorting in terms of unobservables, column (1) of Table A.2 in the Appendix presents results from an analysis similar in spirit of Bartel and Sicherman (1999) where the prediction of the fixed effect from Specification (3) of Table 3 is used as outcome and regressed on information on the frequency of training participation and new technology adoption within the four-year per. [...] For level of education (see Table A.4), we find that the return to training on wages is absent for low educated individuals (while the interaction term is not significant, the point estimate of the interaction with low education is larger and of opposite sign to the training effect in the baseline group and an F-test of significance of the sum of the baseline training effect and low education inte.