{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024830699774266364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.045146726862302484, 'mean_word_length': 4.759740259740259, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Has the large firm training advantage declined during the 2000s?

ABSTRACT The study examines data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) and finds a falling incidence of job training in the United States during the period between 2001 and 2009. It also reveals that the firm size-training advantage in which larger firms are more likely to provide employer-paid training than their smaller counterparts has diminished. For the workforce overall, 34.5 percent (for males) to 25.4 percent (for females) of the difference in training between 2001 and 2009 is attributable to a decline in the large firm training advantage. For younger prime-age workers, the falling firm size-training effect is an even larger part of the overall decline in training, amounting to 51.8 percent of the difference in training between 2001 and 2009 for males and 33.9 percent for females.