We show that early joiners—non-founder employees in the first year of a startup—play a critical role in shaping firm performance. We use administrative employer-employee matched data on US startups and utilize premature death as a natural experiment that exogenously separates talent from startups. We find that losing an early joiner has large negative effects on employment and revenues that persist for at least ten years. In contrast, losing a later joiner yields only a small and temporary decline in firm performance. Our results imply that organization capital, an important driver of startup success, is embodied in early joiners.

We measure unit value electricity prices using 2 million annual observations on U.S. manufacturing plants from 1963 to 2000. These prices display tremendous cross-sectional dispersion, 85–95% of which reflects differences by plant location and purchase quantity. Spatial differentials decline markedly until the late 1980s for large purchasers but rise over time for small purchasers. Unit value price gaps between larger and smaller purchasers are enormous, diminish through the late 1970s, and then stabilize at still-high levels. There are major differences across states in cost and regulatory factors that we relate to the changing structure of unit value prices.

The view that small businesses create the most jobs remains appealing to policymakers and small business advocates. Using data from the Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics and Longitudinal Business Database, we explore the many issues at the core of this ongoing debate. We find that the relationship between firm size and employment growth is sensitive to these issues. However, our main finding is that once we control for firm age, there is no systematic relationship between firm size and growth. Our findings highlight the important role of business start-ups and young businesses in U.S. job creation.

We analyze nonlinear adjustments of capital and labor using plant data from the Colombian Annual Manufacturing Survey, allowing for interdependence in adjustments of the two factors. We find nonlinear employment and capital adjustments. We also find that capital shortages reduce hiring, and labor surpluses reduce capital shedding. Moreover, we find that job destruction and capital formation increased after factor market deregulation in Colombia. Finally, we find that completely eliminating frictions in factor adjustment would yield a substantial increase in aggregate productivity through improved allocative efficiency, but that the actual impact of the Colombian deregulation on productivity was modest.

The U.S. retail trade sector underwent a massive restructuring and reallocation of activity in the 1990s with accompanying technological advances. Using a data set of establishments in that sector, we quantify and explore the relationship between this restructuring and reallocation and labor productivity dynamics. We find that virtually all of the labor productivity growth in the retail trade sector is accounted for by more productive entering establishments displacing much less productive exiting establishments. The productivity gap between low-productivity exiting single-unit establishments and entering high-productivity establishments from large, national chains plays a disproportionate role in these dynamics.

A longstanding issue in empirical economics is the behavior of average labor productivity over the business cycle. This paper provides new insights into the cyclicality of aggregate labor productivity by examining the cyclical behavior of productivity at the plant level as well as the role of reallocation across plants over the cycle. We find that plant-level productivity is even more procyclical than aggregate productivity, because short-run reallocation yields a countercyclical contribution to labor productivity. At the plant level, we find that cyclicality of productivity varies systematically with long-run employment growth. Over the course of the cycle, plants that are long-run downsizers exhibit significantly greater procyclicality of productivity than do long-run upsizers. When we control for the direction of a cyclical shock, we find that the fall in productivity from an adverse cyclical shock for long-run downsizers is significantly larger in magnitude than is the fall in productivity from an equivalent adverse cyclical shock for long-run upsizers. We argue that these findings raise questions about one of the most popular explanations of procyclical productivity: changing factor utilization over the cycle.

In recent years a growing number of countries have constructed data series on job creation and job destruction using establishment-level data sets. This paper provides a description and detailed comparison of these new data series for the United States and Canada. First, the Canadian and U.S. industry-level job creation and destruction data are remarkably similar. Industries with high (low) job creation in the United States are evidenced by high (low) job creation in Canada. The same is true for job destruction. In addition, the overall magnitudes of gross job flows in the two countries are comparable. Second, the time-series patterns of creation and destruction are qualitatively similar but do differ in a number of important respects. In both countries, job destruction is much more cyclically volatile than job creation. This cyclical asymmetry is, however, more pronounced in the United States. In addition, the pace of job reallocation exhibits a pronounced upward trend in Canada but is essentially trendless in the United States.