Takahashi (2014) has uncovered coding errors in our paper, Chang and Kim (2007)—henceforth, CK. We acknowledge and are embarrassed by these mistakes. We are grateful to Takahashi for uncovering them. While the correction decreases the volatility of the labor market wedge, we find that the main message of CK remains valid: the measured labor market wedge arises endogenously in an economy with incomplete capital markets and indivisible labor supply. For example, our model accounts for 18 percent of the volatility in the labor market wedge in the data; it was 43 percent in CK.

We construct a family model of labor supply that features adjustment along both the intensive and extensive margin. Intensive margin adjsutment is restricted to two values: full-time work and part-time work. Using simulated data from the steady state of the calibrated model, we examine whether standard labor supply regressions can uncover the true value of the intertemporal elasticity of labor supply parameter. We find positive estimated elasticities that are larger for women and that are highly significant, but they bear virtually no relationship to the underlying preference parameters.

We demonstrate that aggregate employment and consumption can increase without a corresponding movement in productivity in a model with heterogeneous agents where the only aggregate disturbance is a productivity shock. The interaction between incomplete capital markets and indivisible labor results in a low employment-productivity correlation and creates a time-varying wedge between the marginal rate of substitution (for commodity consumption and hours) and productivity. Our results caution against viewing the measured wedge as an inefficiency due to a failure of labor-market clearing or as a fundamental driving force behind business cycles.