Our Local-Projections DiD offers a unified approach that encompasses many popular alternatives as specific instances; allows for extensions; and does it all using an OLS regression.
Why yet another DiD estimator?
* Simple, fast, easy to code (single regression command with an "if" statement)
* Flexible (eg, recurring treatments)
* Easily allows matching on pre-treatment outcomes and covariates
2/
Baseline version of LP-DiD: estimate a LP regression limiting to "clean controls" 3/
Baseline, unweighted, approach identifies a VW ATT.
Identical to the "stacked approach" of Cengiz Dube Lindner Zipperer ('19). But can do it without stacking!
4/
But that's just the beginning...LP-DiD can do many things!
Example: we derive the VWATT weights, so can easily re-weight & estimate an equal weighted ATT. We show the re-weighetd LP-DiD is numerically identical to Callaway and Sant'Anna ('20) but very easy/fast to compute.
5/
And if you reweight + use a broader pre-treatment period for differencing the outcome, the LP-DiD estimate is shown to be very close to the Borusyak, Jaravel, Spiess imputation estimator.
6/
You want more? We got more.
LP-DiD easily takes covariates (of course it does, it's an OLS regression!), including pre-treatment outcomes. The latter can be useful for constructing a counterfactual that guards against certain types of violations of parallel trends.
7/
Give us even more, you say? OK, you got it!
Easily incorporates continuous treatment (with additional assumptions needed for interpretation) or non-absorbing treatments (like minimum wages) where truly never-treated units rarely exist.
8/
For more, including performance in terms of MSE, bias, as well as computational speed, check out the paper!
I think some people are getting really confused about what it means when there is inflation and real wage declines. Textbook models of wage and price Phillips curve tells us that if price growth>nominal wage growth, it's unlikely from labor market tightness.
This comes right off the 1999 analysis by @lkatz42 and Krueger in their BPEA. Take the difference between equations 4 and 5: that's the real wage growth. Tightness will raise nominal wage and price similarly. If price growth > nominal wage growth, gap likely from supply shocks.
This is where having simple formal models can help clarify logic of arguments and avoid talking in circles. Doesn't mean the model is right. Just disciplines conversations and arguments.
I'm pretty sure that if an overly tight labor market were the primary cause of the current (too high) an inflation rate, it would require a simpler diagram.
The reality is that real wages are rising only at the bottom, workers who contribute a very small amount to labor costs
It's a reasonable argument that pent up demand and savings is getting spent today, at a time of supply restrictions, causing too high an inflation. And that this is somewhat incidental to labor market tightness.