Paolo Santini
@paolosantini.bsky.social
Labor economist interested in inequalities, workers' voice, and minorities. I like history and politics. Now postdoc at IAB, INTER department.
https://sites.google.com/view/paolo-santini/home-page
https://sites.google.com/view/paolo-santini/home-page
Very interesting, althouth I wonder how much people weighted in the main criticism about the violation of the exclusion restriction. Personally, that is enough to take the main AJR result as at best suggestive, even if the data were all correct.
October 11, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Very interesting, althouth I wonder how much people weighted in the main criticism about the violation of the exclusion restriction. Personally, that is enough to take the main AJR result as at best suggestive, even if the data were all correct.
Are you sure the data for the graph on the left is correct? The turnout in Florence was 45.6%. This is indeed the case for question 5. All questions had a very similar turnout rate. Maybe some issues with the averages?
June 13, 2025 at 12:35 PM
Are you sure the data for the graph on the left is correct? The turnout in Florence was 45.6%. This is indeed the case for question 5. All questions had a very similar turnout rate. Maybe some issues with the averages?
I think excluding non-voters in this case is highly misleading, as not voting was a specific recommendation from some parties to make the "no" win.
Would your argument work even in that case? Certainly, the South would not come out as a stronger supporter than the North.
Would your argument work even in that case? Certainly, the South would not come out as a stronger supporter than the North.
June 13, 2025 at 11:48 AM
I think excluding non-voters in this case is highly misleading, as not voting was a specific recommendation from some parties to make the "no" win.
Would your argument work even in that case? Certainly, the South would not come out as a stronger supporter than the North.
Would your argument work even in that case? Certainly, the South would not come out as a stronger supporter than the North.
Does the fact that Musk significantly helped Trump's win not count? Are you saying that all money spent in electoral campaigns in the US does not influence it?
If not, your definition is, in my opinion, way too narrow.
If not, your definition is, in my opinion, way too narrow.
June 6, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Does the fact that Musk significantly helped Trump's win not count? Are you saying that all money spent in electoral campaigns in the US does not influence it?
If not, your definition is, in my opinion, way too narrow.
If not, your definition is, in my opinion, way too narrow.
Even more after reading your paper! Applying what I learnt to "our" specific case: I do not see the numb. of PhDs as a collider, as you are ASKING for more money to spend on PhDs. So, to me, you are in a chain situation, A-->B-->C, and not A-->B<--C. Again,
May 29, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Even more after reading your paper! Applying what I learnt to "our" specific case: I do not see the numb. of PhDs as a collider, as you are ASKING for more money to spend on PhDs. So, to me, you are in a chain situation, A-->B-->C, and not A-->B<--C. Again,
Your paper speaks about *causal* identification... I was not. If people misuse or overinterpret a method, the method itself is not the issue.
P.S. Do you know the other guy who liked this comment? Cause I don't, and I do not understand why he liked it 🤷♂️
P.S. Do you know the other guy who liked this comment? Cause I don't, and I do not understand why he liked it 🤷♂️
May 29, 2025 at 12:51 PM
Your paper speaks about *causal* identification... I was not. If people misuse or overinterpret a method, the method itself is not the issue.
P.S. Do you know the other guy who liked this comment? Cause I don't, and I do not understand why he liked it 🤷♂️
P.S. Do you know the other guy who liked this comment? Cause I don't, and I do not understand why he liked it 🤷♂️
Very cool indeed, although I would interpret their results more broadly than just war.
May 15, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Very cool indeed, although I would interpret their results more broadly than just war.
Super interesting, although I would not say employers' political leaning. Those are the employees' averages, and I can think of many cases where employers and employees substantially differ in their political views. Actually they could easily be at the opposite (e.g., large industrial firms).
April 6, 2025 at 9:16 PM
Super interesting, although I would not say employers' political leaning. Those are the employees' averages, and I can think of many cases where employers and employees substantially differ in their political views. Actually they could easily be at the opposite (e.g., large industrial firms).
As others pointed out, you are not comparing the real times. 9h vs 6.30h as someone said seems more reasonable. In any case, nobody said low emissions were easy, they are necessary.
January 2, 2025 at 6:44 PM
As others pointed out, you are not comparing the real times. 9h vs 6.30h as someone said seems more reasonable. In any case, nobody said low emissions were easy, they are necessary.