David Slichter
@davidslichter.bsky.social
Labor econ, econometrics, econ of ed. Associate Prof at Binghamton. Fellow at IZA.
Website: https://sites.google.com/site/slichterdavid/
Website: https://sites.google.com/site/slichterdavid/
Aren't you not disinclined to decline to not provide a reference? (Y/N)
November 7, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Aren't you not disinclined to decline to not provide a reference? (Y/N)
Like, if costs were linear in SE reduction (ok, false) and all we cared about is power (ok, also false), this would be a proof that 80% power cannot possibly by the optimal point to stop. The current norm is "let's stop making hay as soon as the sun starts shining."
October 24, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Like, if costs were linear in SE reduction (ok, false) and all we cared about is power (ok, also false), this would be a proof that 80% power cannot possibly by the optimal point to stop. The current norm is "let's stop making hay as soon as the sun starts shining."
If anything, it's a justification to go beyond 80% power. Once you're at that point, there's a higher power payoff per SE reduction than there is at essentially any other power level, so unless the cost per unit SE reduction is skyrocketing, it's almost certainly worth your while to past 80%.
October 24, 2025 at 4:06 PM
If anything, it's a justification to go beyond 80% power. Once you're at that point, there's a higher power payoff per SE reduction than there is at essentially any other power level, so unless the cost per unit SE reduction is skyrocketing, it's almost certainly worth your while to past 80%.
Your firm sells N sandwiches for the market price of $10 each. The n-th sandwich costs $n to make. Profit-maximization: produce until marginal cost is $10. Your framework: stop after the first sandwich, it has the highest benefit/cost ratio ($10/$1).
October 24, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Your firm sells N sandwiches for the market price of $10 each. The n-th sandwich costs $n to make. Profit-maximization: produce until marginal cost is $10. Your framework: stop after the first sandwich, it has the highest benefit/cost ratio ($10/$1).
This sounds like an argument *against* optimality: Why stop at 80% power if, at the margin, you're getting amazing benefits per unit of cost?
October 24, 2025 at 3:48 PM
This sounds like an argument *against* optimality: Why stop at 80% power if, at the margin, you're getting amazing benefits per unit of cost?
MIT names professorships after its professors, and I find it funny that they *don't* do this. Like, why is the Peter A. Diamond Professor anyone other than Peter A. Diamond? Surely he is the most Peter A. Diamond-ish professor available.
October 23, 2025 at 2:58 AM
MIT names professorships after its professors, and I find it funny that they *don't* do this. Like, why is the Peter A. Diamond Professor anyone other than Peter A. Diamond? Surely he is the most Peter A. Diamond-ish professor available.
Conceptually, what goes in your school VA? Sulagna and I found that variation in school quality within county/district was ~80% teacher quality, but there are substantial county/district effects which are not explained at all by teacher quality.
Looking forward to reading your paper!
Looking forward to reading your paper!
October 9, 2025 at 11:45 PM
Conceptually, what goes in your school VA? Sulagna and I found that variation in school quality within county/district was ~80% teacher quality, but there are substantial county/district effects which are not explained at all by teacher quality.
Looking forward to reading your paper!
Looking forward to reading your paper!
Reasonable people can absolutely update their views about causal questions based on evidence which does not involve obviously as good as random assignment of treatment! Famous examples: effect of smoking on lung cancer, effect of CO2 on global temperature.
October 7, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Reasonable people can absolutely update their views about causal questions based on evidence which does not involve obviously as good as random assignment of treatment! Famous examples: effect of smoking on lung cancer, effect of CO2 on global temperature.
This is a factual question and the answer is that there exist sets of assumptions which do not include exogeneity but which identify causal parameters.
October 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM
This is a factual question and the answer is that there exist sets of assumptions which do not include exogeneity but which identify causal parameters.
But also, if we average across many research questions, some methods will usually perform better than others. This is how I usually interpret the idea of the hierarchy of evidence. This doesn't mean that, say, RCT is universally better than DiD regardless of sample size, context, etc.
October 5, 2025 at 10:11 AM
But also, if we average across many research questions, some methods will usually perform better than others. This is how I usually interpret the idea of the hierarchy of evidence. This doesn't mean that, say, RCT is universally better than DiD regardless of sample size, context, etc.
Sure, not a strict hierarchy. But the typical distance between the parameter you want and the estimate you get is not the same for all methods.
October 5, 2025 at 9:04 AM
Sure, not a strict hierarchy. But the typical distance between the parameter you want and the estimate you get is not the same for all methods.
(2) If so, is the ratio of long-run to test score effects for these policies similar to the implied ratio e.g. in that JPAM paper, in which variation is not necessarily even coming from any state-level policy, let alone the same one? (3) Would the same thing happen if other states tried to copy?
October 3, 2025 at 8:32 AM
(2) If so, is the ratio of long-run to test score effects for these policies similar to the implied ratio e.g. in that JPAM paper, in which variation is not necessarily even coming from any state-level policy, let alone the same one? (3) Would the same thing happen if other states tried to copy?
Absolutely, things which increase test scores usually help long-run outcomes. My main uncertainties: (1) Were these trends actually caused by the state ed policies people have in mind?
October 3, 2025 at 8:32 AM
Absolutely, things which increase test scores usually help long-run outcomes. My main uncertainties: (1) Were these trends actually caused by the state ed policies people have in mind?
This is a nice article and the story makes sense. But worth remembering that the logical step "this place is doing well in standardized testing, therefore everyone should copy what their school system is doing" involves assumptions which don't always hold:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
Test scores, schools, and the geography of economic opportunity
Do standardized test scores in a community indicate whether schools there are effective at producing human capital? Counties with high average test sc…
www.sciencedirect.com
October 1, 2025 at 7:47 PM
This is a nice article and the story makes sense. But worth remembering that the logical step "this place is doing well in standardized testing, therefore everyone should copy what their school system is doing" involves assumptions which don't always hold:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
AnotherSpaceSavingTipIsThatIfYouCapitalizeTheFirstLetterOfEveryWordYouDon'tNeedSpaces
September 15, 2025 at 2:13 AM
AnotherSpaceSavingTipIsThatIfYouCapitalizeTheFirstLetterOfEveryWordYouDon'tNeedSpaces
Both policies produce winners and losers, so I wouldn't call either one costless. If you mean housing reforms increase the size of the pie, well, cutting taxes reduces DWL. But utility gains from housing reforms are more widely shared across income brackets, because indirect effects are stronger.
September 9, 2025 at 6:28 PM
Both policies produce winners and losers, so I wouldn't call either one costless. If you mean housing reforms increase the size of the pie, well, cutting taxes reduces DWL. But utility gains from housing reforms are more widely shared across income brackets, because indirect effects are stronger.
I'd define trickle-down as directly helping rich people with the expectation/excuse that this will indirectly help poor people. Helping the poor via vacancy chains is exactly that! But in housing, unlike taxes, the indirect effects are actually large enough for the argument to make sense.
September 9, 2025 at 3:00 PM
I'd define trickle-down as directly helping rich people with the expectation/excuse that this will indirectly help poor people. Helping the poor via vacancy chains is exactly that! But in housing, unlike taxes, the indirect effects are actually large enough for the argument to make sense.
(Though I can't vouch for the accuracy of claims about the psychology literature contained within...)
September 8, 2025 at 6:55 PM
(Though I can't vouch for the accuracy of claims about the psychology literature contained within...)
I always really liked this piece:
www.alfiekohn.org/article/five...
www.alfiekohn.org/article/five...
Five Reasons to Stop Saying “Good Job!” (**)
YOUNG CHILDREN September 2001 Five Reasons to Stop Saying “Good Job!” By Alfie Kohn NOTE: An abridged version of this article was published in Parents magazine in May 2000 with the title “Hooked on Pr...
www.alfiekohn.org
September 8, 2025 at 6:51 PM
I always really liked this piece:
www.alfiekohn.org/article/five...
www.alfiekohn.org/article/five...
For OLS, this is simpler than Aronow and Samii (2016 AJPS) (or pretending you had an IV equal to treatment residualized on controls) because you don't have to construct residuals and inference is simpler.
September 3, 2025 at 8:12 PM
For OLS, this is simpler than Aronow and Samii (2016 AJPS) (or pretending you had an IV equal to treatment residualized on controls) because you don't have to construct residuals and inference is simpler.
How does the estimated effect in the first year compare with the OLS correlation between income and subjective well-being?
September 3, 2025 at 2:30 AM
How does the estimated effect in the first year compare with the OLS correlation between income and subjective well-being?
In that case, prices of imported goods increase, then stay (let's say) 15% elevated forever. That makes all future prices high relative to today, but doesn't make prices 30 months from now high relative to 29 months from now; so, it doesn't increase inflation measured 30 months from now.
August 29, 2025 at 4:32 PM
In that case, prices of imported goods increase, then stay (let's say) 15% elevated forever. That makes all future prices high relative to today, but doesn't make prices 30 months from now high relative to 29 months from now; so, it doesn't increase inflation measured 30 months from now.
Both apply. To an approximation, tariffs cause a one-time price increase. I would also bet on the courts ruling against the claimed tariff authority.
August 29, 2025 at 3:43 PM
Both apply. To an approximation, tariffs cause a one-time price increase. I would also bet on the courts ruling against the claimed tariff authority.