😇

Unfortunately, we can't see this in the data. We don't distinguish between the types of exit from the firm, so the longer employment spell for the worker could be due to any number of reasons (lower risk of layoff, increased job satisfaction, etc.). If you're interested, we discuss it in the paper.

In the Appendix, we do also show that subordinates in these relationships are more likely to stay in the firm. And after breakup, they are (much) more likely to leave the firm vs. the control group

The retention results mentioned in the abstract refers to spillover effects, i.e. retention of colleagues at the workplace who we compare to a matched firm where no manager-subordinate relationship exists

Thank you for the shout! This paper has been a very interesting project to work on!

I might be just a naïve early-career researcher, but shouldn't obviously fake citations be a cause for retraction? Or is the argument that the research/analysis is good nonetheless, so no need? It undermines the credibility of our profession regardless.

As a doctoral student myself, I have to agree. A six-year standard length for econ PhDs is not a good equilibrium for us, but it is hard/impossible to finish earlier when everyone else spends six years perfecting their papers.

See, the reason this wouldn't work is that people go to Wikipedia to know more about things instead of less.

Mostly annoyed by the color coding. Purple-->blue-->purple again?

Is there any economics research using this setting to study labor supply?