|
|
|
|
|
by gruez
52 days ago
|
|
>but it seems almost childlike that the paper doesn't address the obvious confounding variable: I thought that's the reason why they used "Evidence from Labor Market Shocks"? The idea is that when "Labor Market Shocks" (ie. mass layoffs) happen, the people who lose their jobs are somewhat random, so there isn't the confounding variable of low performers/sick people. |
|