Twitxy Saved

David Neumark

@NeumarkEcon

Joined August 2022
353 Following 1.1K Followers 4.6K Posts

Latest posts 5

David Neumark @NeumarkEcon
Hard to imagine a dumber take. Is it really that hard to understand job creation?
Furkan Gözükara Verified account @FurkanGozukara 1d
Tim Snyder on billionaires leaving the US if taxed: "If they're not paying taxes anyway, it doesn't matter, right? Let them go plague some other country... if they're not going to pay taxes here, let them not pay taxes somewhere else, because it is actually no loss."
View quoted post on X
David Neumark @NeumarkEcon
The wealth tax was defeated in the mist liberal state in the country, but keep screaming.
Bernie Sanders Verified account @BernieSanders 14h
This election showed that the American people want BOLD change:

- Medicare for All
- A wealth tax on billionaires so that we can build affordable housing, have universal childcare and free tuition at public colleges and universities.
- Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour.
- End the war in Iran and U.S. military aid to Israel

LET’S DO IT
View quoted post on X
David Neumark @NeumarkEcon
This is obvious, no? And you still haven't clarified where you stand on Zucman advocating very strongly and actively for a particular tax. That's a goal not an instrument, right? Or does it depend whose goals?
Isabella M Weber Verified account @IsabellaMWeber 20h
The key is distinguishing goals and instruments. Economics should provide instruments. Democracy should set goals.

Tariffs are an instrument not a goal.

Market intervention is a set of instruments.

Markets are an allocation instrument.

Affordability is a goal.
View quoted post on X
David Neumark @NeumarkEcon
Here's a different kind of take on this question, w.r.t. "clean event studies" of #minimumwage effects. Our focus is in part on how bias enters via researcher discretion w.r.t. defining so-called "clean events."
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Davide Proserpio Verified account @dade_us 1d
New working paper: "Do Modern Difference-in-Differences Estimators Change Published Findings in Business Research?"

Peter Hull's recent meta-analysis found that in economics, two-way fixed effects and heterogeneity-robust DiD estimators rarely disagree. Using Claude, I ran his protocol on seven business journals, screening 1,829 papers, and re-estimated every eligible design in Management Science and Marketing Science, the two with public replication archives. That gave 355 published staggered-adoption specifications from 40 papers, re-estimated with Callaway-Sant'Anna (CS) and Borusyak-Jaravel-Spiess (BJS). On the comparisons that pass Hull's leverage screen, from 28 (CS) and 29 (BJS) papers:

- Correlations between TWFE and modern estimates are 0.61 and 0.70, against 0.88 and 0.93 in economics.

- Estimates change sign in 25 and 18 percent of comparisons, and 10 and 7 percent show a statistically significant difference.

- Modern standard errors are 1.6 and 1.3 times those of TWFE.

- Disagreement concentrates in unbalanced panels and in designs without never-treated units.

Every table and figure rebuilds from the public repository; re-estimating a specification from scratch requires the journal's replication package.

Paper: lnkd.in/gXmtvfBC
Code, protocol, and estimates: lnkd.in/gZijx_dy
View quoted post on X