arbiter
JournalsAccount

Racial Differences in Time at Work Not Working: Rejoinder

William Darity et al.

ILR Review (Industrial and Labor Relations Review)2026https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939261425247article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Hamermesh, Genadek, and Burda (HGB) ( ILR Review 2021) found that Black and non-Black Hispanic workers spent more time at work, not working, compared to Whites. They argued that observed racial gaps in earnings might be explained by racial disparities in time at work and not working. Darity, Hamilton, Myers, Price, and Xu (DHMPX) ( ILR Review 2021), noting the sensitivity of these results to structural form, responded and argued that Oaxaca decompositions reveal no sizeable racial differences in time at work not working. Hamermesh, Genadek, and Burda’s response (HGB-II) ( ILR Review 2022) claimed that the techniques used by DHMPX are outdated. This rejoinder provides a robust defense of the decomposition techniques applied in DHMPX but also includes new Gelbach decompositions using individual microdata. Estimates in this article confirm that time use choices do not explain the observed racial earnings gap.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939261425247

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{william2026,
  title        = {{Racial Differences in Time at Work Not Working: Rejoinder}},
  author       = {William Darity et al.},
  journal      = {ILR Review (Industrial and Labor Relations Review)},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/00197939261425247},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Racial Differences in Time at Work Not Working: Rejoinder

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.