Rob Schofield at NC Policy Watch recently touted a Yale University study claiming to “debunk” the common-sense notion that paying people more to stay at home than to return to work would on the margins incentivize people to stay home.
When an academic study claims to prove something so at odds with even basic common sense, it usually warrants closer scrutiny.
That’s what Monday’s Wall Street Journal did, and unsurprisingly found the study’s methodology to be lacking (paid subscription required).
“(T)he study offers limited evidence for this conclusion, which is contradicted by other data and real-world evidence,” WSJ begins.
For starters, “the study excluded part-time workers and those who hadn’t been working at a business in their sample last year. In other words, the study focused on workers with more loyalty to their employers.”
Basic selection bias. Researchers at Yale should know better.
A separate component of Yale’s study, notes WSJ, examined employment trends only through early May, well before much of the re-hiring that did occur actually began.
In short, the Yale study is woefully inadequate, and its findings should be readily dismissed by anyone with sincere concerns about portraying reality.
