10:30:35 From Lita-NBER Staff : Welcome to the NBER Summer Institute 2020 EFMM Workshop 10:36:38 From Greg Kaplan to All panelists : hello 10:57:02 From Carlos Garriga to All panelists : Good morning everyone. Thanks for making it happen this year. 10:57:44 From Gianluca Violante : Erik, Greg and Gianluca invite you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Break out room EFG-Micro data Macro Models Time: Jul 13, 2020 01:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://princeton.zoom.us/j/91397425368 Meeting ID: 913 9742 5368 11:02:50 From Mariacristina De Nardi to All panelists : no. cannot see neither the link, nor the video of all panelists 11:04:15 From Gianluca Violante : Erik, Greg and Gianluca invite you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Break out room EFG-Micro data Macro Models Time: Jul 13, 2020 01:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://princeton.zoom.us/j/91397425368 Meeting ID: 913 9742 5368 11:11:14 From De Veirman Emmanuel to All panelists : What about any differences in access to credit? 11:15:31 From Peter Ganong to De Veirman Emmanuel and all panelists : hi — this is a great question. we expect that there are differences in access to credit and are hoping to look at this in they future. to be honest, we were surprised that differences in liquid assets alone explained so much of the differences in consumption smoothing in a statistical sense. but that isn’t a reason not to run down other channels. 11:37:59 From Simon Mongey to All panelists : (i) I don't understand whether the shocks are anticipated or not. The discussion of what the shocks are seems to suggest they are anticipated. How do I then think about the consumption response in month t or t+1 (ii) if the variation is the firm *forcing* workers to work more, then are workers off their labor supply curves? 11:43:50 From Simon Mongey to Lita-NBER Staff(Privately) : can u mute Peter Ganong? 11:47:05 From Simon Mongey to All panelists : Now I'm confused, re: my previous question, how are you mapping the reduced form estimates into \beta. If these are predictable changes then its not \beta_\theta 11:48:03 From Laura Pilossoph to All panelists : Agree with above… 11:48:29 From Christian Moser to All panelists : Have you looked into differences in the income process across subgroups, e.g., by race? I wonder if getting a pay cut of $X means something different for a black vs. a white worker, for example, in terms of what is their expectation about the income path going forward. 11:52:37 From Simon Mongey to All panelists : Similar question to Chris^. I guess Pascal answered that the persistence of shocks seems the same across types 11:53:40 From Peter Ganong : 7K is mean for whites, but the median is 2.2K 11:54:35 From Peter Ganong : this is less than one months labor income. further, this 2.2K includes funds that you need to cover expenses during the month (Greg and gianluca made this point in prior work) 11:54:41 From Pedro Brinca to Lita-NBER Staff(Privately) : hi! is the youtube live private? how can people in general access it? 11:59:29 From Damon Jones to All panelists : RE Simon’s question: this is a good point that the welfare calculation we presented treats the income as unanticipated, but the empirical results relied on changes that are a mix. We can instead plug in the estimates from our empirical specifications that try to focus more on unanticipated income changes. This will results in larger welfare costs and disparities. Or, we can amend the model to incorporate both unanticipated and anticipated changes in income. (In the paper, we use also estimate a structural model where we can perhaps make some progress on this) 12:02:07 From Peter Ganong : Christian — even if ex post the persistence is the same across races, one interpretation of our results is that blacks and Hispanics expect the shocks to be more persistent 12:03:53 From Christian Moser to All panelists : @Peter: Very interesting — thanks! 12:04:29 From Peter Ganong : we variance for blacks and Hispanics, even with similar persistence). we would like to answer this for the next draft. 12:04:38 From Simon Mongey to All panelists : @Peter …. but if that's true then how do you talk about welfare? if my preferences are formed under my beliefs regarding persistence then there is no welfare loss. I thought you'd want to make this super simple. Argue that the stochastic process for shocks is the same across types. Show that the differences are accounted for my levels of liquid assets. 12:05:31 From Peter Ganong : oh dear — my message to Christian got cut off. it could be that variance is higher for blacks and Hispanics, even if persistence is the same. we hope to measure variance by race in the next draft. 12:09:11 From Christian Moser to All panelists : @Peter: agreed, and I think this would be of independent interest! 12:09:19 From Peter Ganong : @simon — I am open to that model, but I don’t know yet that it is correct. 12:41:40 From Titan Alon to All panelists : One thing not discussed is that there is a lot of evidence, at least in advanced economies, that female labor supply acts as a household insurance channel to smooth cyclical variation in their husband’s or familial income. This seems important in terms of macroeconomic implications. If I believe these family considerations drive a lot of female labor market attachment and job choices, how would this channel influence your estimates? 12:42:36 From Dirk Krueger to All panelists : Do unmarried women without kids look closer to males than women in general, in terms of the three facts you show? 12:43:05 From Titan Alon to Dirk Krueger and all panelists : @Dirk, I am wondering the same thing 12:45:37 From Iacopo Morchio to All panelists : Thanks for the questions, both very good points: related to Titan's question, this in our data is likely reflected in part in the sorting of women in different employers. Possibly some firms are easier to access for workers that have less stable employment histories, for instance women that want to change their labor supply to smooth cyclical variation. In our estimates, this is going to possibly translate into those firms exhibiting better nonpay characteristics 12:47:03 From Iacopo Morchio to All panelists : @Dirk: as Chris pointed out, we do not see family structure directly but we can use parental leave to infer something about what happens around childbirth, for instance. We also find a child penalty (as Kleven et al.) but this does not seem to be significantly associated to the role of firms. In terms of the facts we show, we can try to redo them for women who never have children to understand this point better. Thanks! 13:08:37 From Adam Guren to All panelists : i see chris not laura 13:09:02 From Greg Kaplan to Adam Guren and all panelists : Change to gallery 13:22:20 From Laura Pilossoph to All panelists : Totally thought you were gonna bring that up when you raised your hands! 13:22:30 From Albanesi, Stefania to All panelists : what are the differences by gender in EN flows, and what role doe they playin the structural estimation of he model in determining gender wage gaps? 13:24:45 From Albanesi, Stefania to All panelists : finding that taste based discrimination is more important in less competitive settings, what does that mean? is it just that it is inefficient, and less competition allows for more inefficiencies to “survive” in the model? 13:28:12 From Iacopo Morchio to All panelists : to add something to what Chris said: Stefania is absolutely right, less competition allows for more inefficiencies to survive in the model. We take into account the differences in flows by gender through the wage equation in our structural estimation. At the end of the day these differences are not large so they do not play a quantitatively important role but, among other things, women exhibit fewer job-to-job transitions than men and this is taken into account 13:30:16 From Gianluca Violante : Erik, Greg and Gianluca invite you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Break out room EFG-Micro data Macro Models Time: Jul 13, 2020 01:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://princeton.zoom.us/j/91397425368 Meeting ID: 913 9742 5368 13:39:06 From Christian Moser to All panelists : Erik, Greg and Gianluca invite you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Break out room EFG-Micro data Macro Models Time: Jul 13, 2020 01:30 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://princeton.zoom.us/j/91397425368 Meeting ID: 913 9742 5368