Gender differences in task allocations may sustain vertical gender segregation in labor markets. We examine the allocation of a task that everyone prefers be completed by someone else (writing a report, serving on a committee, etc.) and find evidence that women, more than men, volunteer, are asked to volunteer, and accept requests to volunteer for such tasks. Beliefs that women, more than men, say yes to tasks with low promotability appear as an important driver of these differences. If women hold tasks that are less promotable than those held by men, then women will progress more slowly in organizations.

In a recent contribution to the AER, Koopman, Wang, and Wei (2014) proposed a decomposition of a country's gross exports into value-added components and double-counted terms. It is motivated by complex manipulation of basic accounting identities. In this comment we provide an alternative framework based on “hypothetical extraction.” This parsimonious approach provides a clear definition of domestic value added in exports and has a natural extension into decompositions of bilateral export flows.

Following Grossman and Rossi-Hansberg (2008) we present a model in which tasks of varying complexity are matched to workers of varying skill in order to develop and test predictions regarding the effects of immigration and offshoring on US native-born workers. We find that immigrant and native-born workers do not compete much due to the fact that they tend to perform tasks at opposite ends of the task complexity spectrum, with offshore workers performing the tasks in the middle. An effect of offshoring and a positive effect of immigration on native-born employment suggest that immigration and offshoring improve industry efficiency.

Approaches to Estimating the Health State Dependence of the Utility Function by Amy Finkelstein, Erzo F. P. Luttmer and Matthew J. Notowidigdo. Published in volume 99, issue 2, pages 116-21 of American Economic Review, May 2009

Labor supply theory predicts systematic heterogeneity in the impact of recent welfare reforms on earnings, transfers, and income. Yet most welfare reform research focuses on mean impacts. We investigate the importance of heterogeneity using random-assignment data from Connecticut's Jobs First waiver, which features key elements of post-1996 welfare programs. Estimated quantile treatment effects exhibit the substantial heterogeneity predicted by labor supply theory. Thus mean impacts miss a great deal. Looking separately at samples of dropouts and other women does not improve the performance of mean impacts. We conclude that welfare reform's effects are likely both more varied and more extensive than has been recognized.

Money Does Matter! Evidence from Increasing Real Income and Life Satisfaction in East Germany Following Reunification by Paul Frijters, John P. Haisken-DeNew and Michael A. Shields. Published in volume 94, issue 3, pages 730-740 of American Economic Review, June 2004

Changing Labor-Market Opportunities for Women and the Quality of Teachers, 1957-2000 by Sean P. Corcoran, William N. Evans and Robert M. Schwab. Published in volume 94, issue 2, pages 230-235 of American Economic Review, May 2004

Some Evidence on Race, Welfare Reform, and Household Income by Marianne P. Bitler, Jonah B. Gelbach and Hilary W. Hoynes. Published in volume 93, issue 2, pages 293-298 of American Economic Review, May 2003

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act was enacted to monitor minority and low-income access to the mortgage market. The data collected for this purpose show that minorities are more than twice as likely to be denied a mortgage as whites. Yet variables correlated with both race and creditworthiness were omitted from these data, making any conclusion about race's role in mortgage lending impossible. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston collected additional variables important to the mortgage lending decision and found that race continued to play an important, though significantly diminished, role in the decision to grant a mortgage.