[hash872]

I'm a bit skeptical that you absorbed these 3 pieces in the time it took you to respond (they are 27, 29, and 63 pages, respectively), but they find a range of effect sizes here- the other two a bit more strongly. I feel comfortable with my original statement, though I suppose there's always room for nitpicking

[hn_throwaway_99]

No, I completely read the first article. It was quite clear in what percentage of the decline in labor's share that it attributed to differences in statistical assessment of sole proprietors. I then looked at the abstracts of the other two. The third one basically completely agreed with the first ("We find that reallocating activity to the form it would have taken prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 accounts for 30% of the decline in the corporate sector labor share between 1978 and 2017."), and that's when I wrote my reply.

Frankly, I don't know how you can call this "nitpicking". In no definition in the English language is "one third" remotely the same as "mostly".

[hash872]

You read a 63 page paper today?