... 1990-2006 data or 1990-2016 data. It was a mistake, and DRBS show no evidence to the contrary, to use DLR's evidence to argue that higher MWs don’t reduce employment, and even more to argue that DLR's results were more credible and should supplant the earlier evidence. 19/19

… or log emp weights—which ensure that results are not disproportionately influenced by outliers—again shows significant disemployment effects. We discussed log weights in our paper, so it’s surprising (or maybe just cherry-picking) that DRBS ignored these results. 11/19

… the relevant variable in DLR and JNR is log employment, and iii) with our CBP data, log emp in their “ever treated” and “never treated” groups follow similar trends, with a 99.8% correlation in levels and a 95.7% correlation in one-year first differences (see plot in levels).7/19

We have now looked carefully at the @arindube.bsky.social-Reich “response” (DRBS) to our forthcoming JPE Micro replication of DLR (2010). DRBS is not a response to my paper with Jha and @neumarkecon.bsky.social. Instead, it is a misleading piece of obfuscation, deflection, and goalpost shifting.1/19