Discussion

Steven Davis opened the discussion by questioning whether mancessions or shecessions are more socially harmful. He listed some reasons why mancessionsmaybemore harmful, including thatwomen aremore likely to be secondary earners, women have better alternative uses of time (i.e., will spend less nonwork time pursuing sleep or leisure activities), there is a larger psychic cost of male joblessness, andmale joblessness is more associated with increased crime, drug/alcohol use, and physical abuse of spouses/children. The authors responded by saying they are not making a statement on which is worse, but rather they argued that the responses of men and women to job loss are distinct, and this has macroeconomic implications. For example, differences in labor supply flexibility can have aggregate impacts. If a secondary earner (which on average ismore likely to be a woman) loses their job, the primary earner (on average the man) has nomargin for adjustment because they are alreadyworking full-time. In contrast, if a primary earner loses their job, the secondary earner has a margin to adjust and work more. Martin Eichenbaum then followed up this discussion, to ask whether the difference between male and female sensitivity should be interpreted as a market failure, and whether this pattern says anything about efficiency. The authors responded that they do not think this points to any fundamental inefficiency, but the interaction of joint labor supply with policy can certainly create some. For instance, how taxation, unemployment benefits, and retirement entitlements treat secondary versus primary earners could interact with joint labor supply decisions in a way that creates inefficiency.