Working Papers:
Meetings
(with David J. Deming, Katrine V. Løken, and Alexander Willén)
NBER Working Paper: 35706
Abstract
Why do we have so many meetings? Few workplace features are so scorned, yet seemingly so necessary. This paper provides the first large-scale economic evidence on workplace meetings using an original survey of more than 9,000 workers linked to matched employer–employee administrative data from Norway. We show that meetings are both common and costly, consuming an average of 12 percent of work hours and 14 percent of firm wage bills. Planning, problem solving, information sharing, and project coordination account for the majority of meeting activity. High-paying and high-revenue firms devote more resources to meetings despite facing a substantially higher opportunity cost of employee time. Meeting frequency and intensity are positively related to worker wage growth. Workers in meeting-intensive firms report greater on-the-job learning, and interactions with more senior colleagues are associated with stronger wage growth, suggesting that knowledge transmission within firms is an important mechanism. Meetings are the broccoli of work – widely disliked, but probably good for us anyway.
Does Coursework Matter? Uncovering the Role of Skills in the Returns to College
EdWorkingPaper: 26-1484
Abstract
The continuing shift of the U.S. economy toward a high-skill base has increased the demand for college-educated workers. To understand how higher education prepares students for this evolving economy, a large body of literature in labor economics has focused on the causes and consequences of college enrollment, institutional selectivity, and major choice. Much less attention has been paid to a key dimension that shapes the skills students acquire in college—coursework. In this paper, I develop new methods to identify the skills taught in college courses and credibly estimate their causal impacts on labor market outcomes, helping to explain earnings variation among students within the same major. I first scrape and compile a new dataset of detailed course descriptions from Texas public universities. Using a large language model (GPT-4), I extract the skills students are likely to acquire from each course, focusing on two widely taught and consistently identifiable domains: quantitative and writing. I then link these course-level skill measures to Texas administrative records that track students’ educational histories and quarterly earnings. To estimate the returns to coursework-based skills, I implement an instrumental variables strategy that exploits variation in course offerings across cohorts within the same major. I find substantial early-career earnings returns to coursework-based quantitative skills, but no detectable returns to writing skills. These returns are especially large for underrepresented minority (URM) students and for students in less quantitatively intensive majors, suggesting that expanding access to quantitative coursework within majors may serve as a new lever for narrowing racial earnings gaps.
Mobile Internet and Mental Health
(with Lipeng Chen)
Abstract
Has the expansion of mobile internet improved or worsened mental health? We study the rollout of 3G mobile internet across the United States by combining coverage data from 2007 to 2020 with the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Exploiting geographic and temporal variation in 3G availability, we find that access to mobile internet significantly worsens mental health. A 10 percentage point increase in 3G coverage increases the number of poor mental health days by 0.02 per month (0.6 percent), with larger effects among younger adults and women. Evidence on mechanisms points to increased social media use, reduced offline social interaction, and lower physical activity.
Causal Inference in Staggered Adoption Panels: The Correct Comparison Units Depend on Your Intervention
(with Ian Lundberg)
Abstract
A powerful data structure for causal inference is staggered adoption: many units are observed over many time periods, and some units never become treated while other units adopt a treatment at staggered time points. Popular methods that apply in this setting include difference in difference, fixed effects, matching, and synthetic control. All of these methods use untreated or not-yet-treated units to answer the question: what would have happened if the treated unit had not become treated? We show that this question may actually hide two very different causal questions interest. The first question is what would have happened if a treated unit had never become treated over many time points. The second question is what would have happened if a treated unit had not become treated at the particular time point when they in fact became treated. Popular methods such as synthetic control are often interpreted with respect to the former question (about a longitudinal treatment). We show that they actually answer the latter question (about a point-in-time treatment). The distinction is especially relevant if many units become treated at many time points, a common setting when these methods are applied in demography.