The Real Cost of Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination with Emily Nix

Home Resources The Real Cost of Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination with Emily Nix
The Real Cost of Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination with Emily Nix
About The Episode Transcript

Join us for an important conversation about gender and the workplace as we explore topics ranging from confirmation bias to gender-based violence and the subtleties of power gap relationships. Our guest is Emily Nix, Assistant Professor of Finance and Business at the USC Marshall School of Business and a labor economist who studies the economic impacts of violence against women, the gender income gap, inequality, and human capital accumulation. Her research and expertise have been featured in the Economist, the Guardian, the Financial Times, NPR, and more.

We talk about her research on violence against women at work, the impact of Dobbs on job applications to companies offering abortion travel benefits, and more. We discuss her research on violence against women at work, the complexities of workplace romances, the impact of power dynamics on career trajectories, and the cultural reflections of these issues as portrayed in popular media. We also talk about reproductive rights in the US and their influence on businesses, the evolution of the field of economics, particularly in gender-focused research, and more!

You can find Emily at and


Episode Chapters:

(0:00:06) - Navigating Confirmation Bias in the Workplace We address confirmation bias in the workplace and offer insight on navigating bias from authority figures.

(0:11:33) - Exploring Workplace Violence and Gender Dynamics Economics and social issues intersect, examining gender inequality, violence, and harassment in the workplace and their economic impact.

(0:17:26) - Power Gap Relationships in the Workplace Power gap romances in the workplace, gendered dynamics, and potential impact on career advancement and earnings.

(0:25:24) - Workplace Relationships and Gender Dynamics Workplace relationships, retention effects, power dynamics, harassment, and cultural reflections are discussed in this chapter.

(0:33:10) - Exploring Same-Sex Couples and Workplace Dynamics Nature's dynamics of same-sex couples and workplace dating, using Finnish data to study violence against women and global relevance.

(0:37:14) - Addressing Violence Against Women Findings Workplace violence, economic costs of rape, unemployment outcomes, gender dynamics, criminal justice, economic opportunities, and addressing violence against women.

(0:47:08) - Impact of Reproductive Rights on Businesses Corporate stances on political and social issues, gender, political polarization, and reproductive rights have repercussions on workplace culture and healthcare provision.

(0:55:47) - Changing Economics and Gender Landscape Goldin's work on gender economics aims to influence policy and improve outcomes for violence, harassment, and workplace issues.

(1:00:55) - Geeking Out and Book vs Show Debate Geeking out over "Lessons in Chemistry," following Emily Nix on Twitter, and her focus on economics research.

0:00:06 - Rachel Murray Hi and welcome to the She Geeks Out podcast, where we geek out about workplace inclusion and talk with brilliant humans doing great work, making the world a better and brighter place. I'm Rachel and I'm Felicia. Let's get into it.

0:00:22 - Felicia Jadczak I feel like it's the let's get ready to rumble. You just need to yell that at the top of every podcast in Shiggy Sao.

0:00:29 - Rachel Murray Let's get into it. Well, it is funny that you say that because, as you know, this is definitely not what we had said that we were going to talk about before. But it's really worth mentioning is I've been watching a lot of the Fast and Furious movies. Of course, we are both fans. I know I'm a very new fan. Came to it very late and I believe it was six or seven I can't remember the kind of blend together, but they talked about I think it was seven Race Wars, the Race Wars, yes, what.

0:01:11 - Felicia Jadczak Sorry, listeners are like what's happening. I mean, if you know, you know, okay, let me just I'll share really quickly, in case anyone's like. Why are they talking about Race Wars. That sounds really violent and terrible.

0:01:23 - Rachel Murray The work that we do.

0:01:24 - Felicia Jadczak In the universe of the Fast and Furious. They theoretically are car drivers, although they become like superheroes at some point. But there's this whole like desert car race and they call it race wars in the sense of the racing, as car racing, not racial wars, but it's a very problematic thing, yeah, especially because the woman asks the guy oh, did we get?

0:01:51 - Rachel Murray were we involved in this? And he's like involved in this, we created it.

0:01:57 - Felicia Jadczak We created Race Wars.

0:02:01 - Rachel Murray Anyway, just a little levity.

0:02:03 - Felicia Jadczak You know, sometimes you just need a little, you need levity you need levity and may I recommend if anyone's not already listening, see how did this get made podcast series. They also are huge Fast and Furious fans and they do sort of takedowns of every single episode I have not yet seen or heard 10. That's been something I've been saving for myself, but you may recall, Rachel, that a year or two ago I did put a presentation together talking about how the Fast and Furious taught us lessons that we could apply to SGO. It's about family.

0:02:37 - Rachel Murray It's all about family, which is funny because that's not what work is, but in their life, for them, it is. It's all about family, which is which is. And I will plus one to the how did this get made? Adam Scott is a huge fan and is a guest star on that to talk through the movies, and they did happen to mention Race Wars, so it was really fun to actually see it come to life as a late as a late adopter of these, and I love that you refer to them as episodes, because they do kind of feel like just very long episodes.

0:03:10 - Felicia Jadczak Yes.

0:03:10 - Rachel Murray Of a television show, neither here nor there. Apologies for the for for bringing that up, but it was just.

0:03:17 - Felicia Jadczak Hey, I, we are doing public service and people do not know about this already. They should know and if they do, I hope you enjoyed laughing along with us.

0:03:26 - Rachel Murray But we do have something more serious to talk about which is probably a little bit more relevant to to the work.

0:03:32 - Felicia Jadczak Transition from race wars to work wars. To work bias work bias which, left unchecked, could lead to.

Anyway yeah, I'm going to that. So, yes, I, as folks may know, we love to do all sorts of different series, and one of our series here that we love is called ask SGO, and we have little sort of questions and answers, and so I'll do sort of like a little mini ask SGO right now, because I was just telling Rachel earlier that I had a question pop up at a client that I was at a few weeks ago and they had been asking me about a specific type of bias, and so when we talk about bias in our trainings, we talk about different cognitive biases that may show up, and for me as a facilitator, I like sharing these couple of different specific types of biases because I think that it helps people understand them a little bit better, because when you start talking about unconscious bias, it feels like a really big topic where people sort of have heard it a lot, so it doesn't really land as well If you talk about something specific and then you start to understand oh, this happens all the time, or I'm not familiar with this. So one of the ones that I like using is called confirmation bias, and it's basically when you create a story in your mind and then you look for information that proves that story to be true and then if you have other info that's kind of counteracting that story, sort of dismiss it and you don't really talk about it a lot. So at the training someone had asked about confirmation bias and we talked a bit more after the training and so basically the situation is that I'll tell you the situation first, rachel, and you let me know what you think and I'll tell you what I told this person and we'll see if we're in alignment or not.

But basically, this woman came up and they were a little bit older and they said that they had not graduated from college and so they did not have a college degree, but they have been very successful in their career and that they had a boss who was really supportive and was really amazing. And then recently the boss had transitioned into a different position. And so now this person has a new manager and the new manager has said things where they've basically been dismissive of people who don't have college educations, and this person that came up to me was saying that they believe that the manager may have confirmation bias against them because this person, they believe, holds a belief that people who did not graduate college are not as educated, skilled, able to make it in the job, etc. Etc. As their college educated counterparts, and so they were basically asking, like, how do you deal with it when your boss is the one who may have the confirmation bias against you? So I'll pause there. What do you think? Have you experienced that on either end, or what are some thoughts?

0:06:23 - Rachel Murray Yeah. So, and just to confirm so, confirmation bias in this instance is, let's say, she does something that isn't for lack of a better word perfect or excellent, and therefore the boss will say, well, it's might be, probably, it's probably because you weren't didn't get a college education. I don't know that I've had anyone be that clear about the bias with me and I don't know that I've ever been clear about that bias, but it doesn't mean that it isn't in there somewhere. But it is really tricky because the power dynamics are what they are. So do you feel safe enough to actually say something to your, to this person who you know is in charge of your fate in some ways?

0:07:10 - Felicia Jadczak Yeah, it is. It is tricky, and I'm glad you mentioned that because I think the power dynamic is a is a big factor here, because, as we were talking, it's really different to have a conversation with a peer or someone who's you know reporting to you or sort of even a different department, versus someone who you know holds your career in their hand, so to speak. And so one of the things that we had talked about that I suggested was does this person who came to me, do they have anyone trusted who they feel like they could share some of this with? And we talked about the fact that, again, the former boss, who was a big champion, is still around. I forget what the reporting relationships were, but that was one avenue, or one person, and especially because that person had experience. And you know the other thing that we talked a little bit about and we didn't really come to a resolution per se, but we did discuss the possibility of just having a really open conversation with the manager and saying, hey, you know, I've noticed a couple times you said you know these things about your beliefs around people who didn't have this level of education. I don't have that level of education. Is that what you think about me. Now that's obviously super direct. It's definitely an avenue that a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable taking.

I don't know if the person would go that route or not, but it is one possibility, I think, especially if you do happen to have a little bit more trust with your manager. I think that can be a great way to do it, because and I'll just speak from experience like you and I are both managers, sometimes we don't have any idea of what's coming off, you know, or how we're showing up in a space. And then I had some of my people come to me and be like oh, you know, I thought you were really angry about XYZ or you know some. You had this belief about something. And I've had a completely different internal experience, and so I've really appreciated at various points in time when people have shared directly with me, because then we can address the communication and if it's a lack on my end or if there's just a misunderstanding and I'd rather have that be upfront and maybe have a slightly uncomfortable conversation to be able to deal with it, versus letting sort of unchecked, you know, thoughts or stories go.

But again, depending on where you are, who you are working with your title, your tenure. That's sometimes just not possible, and so you know. The other thing is, of course you can always bring an HR if you have HR that's available to you, and again, different people have different levels of trust or, you know, sort of credence in HR, but that is another possibility as well. But really I think, when it comes to confirmation bias, who really want to discuss how the fact is that there is other evidence that will contradict the story, and so it's really about leaning into that as much as possible.

0:09:51 - Rachel Murray Amazing. Thank you so much, genius, as always. All right, let's get. Let's get, let's get to the meat of it. Let's get to the meat of it. So I'll do a quick intro and then we'll we'll kick it over. So we are so excited to introduce you to Emily Nix. Prepare yourself to be wowed by her research and dedication to her work. Really, she's exceptional. She's an assistant professor of finance and business at the USC Marshall School of Business and a labor economist who studies the economic impacts of violence against women, the gender income gap, inequality and human capital accumulation. Her research and expertise have been featured in the economists, the guardian, the financial times, npr and more. We got into it. We talked, we geeked out with her about her research on violence against women at work, the impact of jobs on job applications and so much more, and we hope that you enjoy it.

0:10:47 - Felicia Jadczak Let's do it All right. Hello Rachel, hey Felicia and hi Emily, so excited to have you here with us. Yeah, it's great to be here, excited to join you. So we're just going to dive right on in and I'd love to just kick off with having you share a little bit about your journey and how you became an economics professor, focusing on gender and violence in the workplace, and actually let me just interrupt real quick and I will cut this out.

0:11:12 - Rachel Murray I forgot to say, emily, that we actually recorded an intro with your bio, like before this, so don't so, just so you know there's. There's context.

0:11:21 - Felicia Jadczak Ah, okay. So yeah People will feel like who is this person? Who is this person, yeah. So apologies, I wish you said that before. I know, usually I I remember saying I forgot.

0:11:28 - Rachel Murray So apologies, so please continue and this will just be cut out. Okay, great.

0:11:33 - Emily Nix So, um, when I was a high school student and a college student, I had a really deep interest in kind of trying to figure out how do we address, you know, deep issues related to inequality. How do we think about women participating equally in the labor market? How do we address issues related to poverty? Um, and at the time I would never have thought of economics. As you know, this is the way to solve these issues, and I remember I had this quite transported meeting with Peter Henry, I believe he was Dean of a NYU at the time, at the CERN Business School, um, but I had this meeting with him.

I sat down and he said look, if you want to rigorously measure these problems and understand the scope of these problems and rigorously measure how you address these problems, economics is actually a very powerful toolkit to do that, um, and so, fortunately for me, I was already studying a lot of math, um, because nowadays you kind of need to have a math degree to do an Econ PhD, um, and so I finished up my math degree, um, and went to a great uh graduate program, had a great slew of advisors who were really encouraging of this agenda, um, and started right off the bat, um, starting in my third year, I was, uh, doing work on, you know, women entrepreneurs and Sub-Saharan Africa and kind of where that gender gap was coming from and their earnings, um, and then I haven't looked back since, uh, and so my more recent work has been much more focused on a lot of issues related to violence and harassment and even the more complicated question of dating in the workplace and so how, and then also a series of work on, like what might be holding women back in the workplace.

0:13:03 - Rachel Murray Wow, that was amazing, speedy. Love it here for it. Um, we have to. There's so much research that you've done and I just wanted to say it's incredible, like the, the amount you are. You are the Stephen King of gender workplace research, and I mean then the highest compliment, because I love Stephen King. Uh, it's very prolific, um, but I would love to I think when we first started chatting, you were it was particularly over uh, research that you had done around, um, women in violence and the workplace, and I would love for you to just share more about that with our listeners, what that research is, and then I'm sure we'll have a bunch of other things to discuss.

0:13:46 - Emily Nix Yeah, so I think myself like many other women. Um, after when me too happened, I remember sitting in circles with my female friends, with my mom, with my sister, and we just started talking about, well, what, what has any of this happened to you? You know this. This was part of the impetus of me too. This happened to so many women, and I remember sitting in those circles and just looking around and seeing how many of us had experienced violence in the workplace, harassment in the workplace, being asked out in a very uncomfortable way by your boss in the workplace. Um, and this seemed like, I mean, this was an international movement. So it seemed like super important to try and understand this in a really rigorous way, and so we had these incredibly powerful anecdotal accounts. So we know Harvey Weinstein did these atrocious things to his subordinates and we kind of know what happened to him. We know what happened to his subordinates. But what I felt very passionate about looking at is what happens to your average every day, say, walmart employee, when she's harassed or assaulted by her boss, or Starbucks employee, or McDonald's employee, and these women were coming forward during me too as well, and saying this happened to me and it's much harder to hold random manager at McDonald's accountable than it is to hold someone super famous who has a New York Times set of reports written about him and about the horrible things he's done. And both of these are horrible things. And so what I would then ensued is, you know, many years of trying to find the data and the, the, the place where I could study this and say, let's take someone, like you know, my friend or my family member who experiences this, and it's not some famous man attacking them, but what happens to them after the assault and what happens to their manager.

Um and so that was the first paper we wrote, and then we've since expanded this research agenda, and so I had a second set of questions, which is the much more complicated question of well, how do we deal with, you know, dating the boss and how do we deal with relationships in the workplace that have a power gap? And that's way more complicated in lots of ways, because you can think of good examples and you can also think of atrocious examples. And so we have a second paper that just recently came out, that was just featured in the financial times, looking at dating the boss, and so there's a kind of two main papers that focus much more on kind of the questions that came out of me too. Um, I also have a series of papers looking at violence against women more generally.

So, looking at domestic violence, um, I wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post on um that paper, um, so kind of thinking about what happens when you move in with someone who's going to be financially abusive and physically abusive, but really we're focused on the financial aspect of it what happens to your economic outcomes. And then I have a very, very brand new paper that I was just presenting at Stanford last week on the economic cost of rape and so thinking very carefully about what happens to women when they experience such a horrific violation of their personhood and what are the spillovers in their families and what can the criminal justice system do about it. That's kind of a broad overview of it All. A lot of my recent work and and I would say it was a years long process to get the data, and now we're kind of trying to say something hopefully important on on an actionable on these issues.

0:16:46 - Felicia Jadczak Well, let's, we have a lot to dig into here. Um, you mentioned the financial times article that just came out. It's like a fresh new article out there. For anyone who's listening we'll put a link in the show notes, but it's titled our workplace romances as savvy investment and so maybe could you talk a bit more about, sort of you know, what you dug into there, because I think that's such an interesting dynamic around you know, not just the romance part of it, but that, that power dynamic. And I'm curious because just my initial thought process is that, uh, I immediately think of, like you know, the boss as like an older man with a younger woman, and I'm curious if that, that gender dynamic, came up, or was it flipped or what you found. So, yeah, I'd love to hear more about that.

0:17:26 - Emily Nix Yeah, so this was our second paper because it's so much more complicated. So the first paper looked at kind of full assaults. We hopefully all have a lot of moral clarity although unfortunately that's not always true that you can never assault or harass your subordinate. Unfortunately, it still happens way too much. What I think is really hard for firms is, well, what if we have a consensual relationship where there is a power dynamic? And so the example I give, given giving in a lot of my talks, is the Obama's.

Some of you may not know this but, um, michelle Obama was actually, you know, a Barack Obama was actually Michelle Obama's intern at the law firm. Um, and so I give this example a lot when I, you know, talk about this issue, because we can look at the Obamas and we can say, oh, they got married, it was a loving relationship, they have two beautiful children. Depending on your politics, they've been very successful, um, and so you know, we can look at these relationships and we can say, wow, that seems great. You know, yes, they were really successful. There was a bit of a power dynamic. She was, you know, associate at the law firm and he was an intern, but, you know, it worked out well, um, and you can think, like you know, bill and Melinda Gates I know they've gotten divorced, but they didn't have a long, presumably happy marriage with kids, and and that was a power gap.

I think the problem is it's super complicated when you bring romance into the workplace. There's just this added dimension of complication. Um, and I think what's less controversial is when equals date each other. So when we're, we're amongst equals, and I and I think the reason this is so complicated is cause, like I personally know many relationships, especially amongst equals, where they're very happy together, and this is love, and you know you, you can't, you can't always help me fall in love with, which is not an excuse for inappropriate behavior. But where it becomes even more complicated as me too it's, it's came out in me too was when there's a power gap, and so I think, like there was the conversation in me too about the Harvey Weinstein type events, like there's an assault, and then there was a separate conversation about, well, how do we deal with power gap relationships in general?

Now, once again, this is an area where there's basically no research, so there's a little bit of theoretical work in sociology, but we have this unique data and I said, okay, we can answer this question. We can look at, you know, in the. So, basically, I have a lot of amazing data from in the country of Finland, but I think a lot of me too was an international movement. It happened very similarly across the world, um and same with these power gaps. And so what we do is we say, okay, well, what we can do in the data is we can see when people move in together. So, you know, this data is amazing. We don't see when you go on your first date. That would be a little creepy. So we see when you move in together.

And we can go and survey data says that well over 70% of people move in together within two years of dating. And so we can do is we go back in time and say, okay, two years before, was this guy who you move in with your boss or not? And then we can map out what happens. And so that's that's how we identify co-working couples. We say, two years before, were you working in the same firm and was this person your boss? And to your question, we find that it is much more common that women are dating their boss than the other way around. The Obama example is a bit of an outlier. Um, so Barack Obama was the, you know, potentially a strong, confident man. He was comfortable with dating his boss Uh, his quote unquote boss or superior, um, but we do find that it's a. It's a small minority of couples where men are dating their female bosses. It tends to be women dating their male bosses. So there is definitely a gendered aspect to this and what we map out is three really important outcomes. So first, we say what happens when you get together and we find that for women who date their male bosses, there's a 9% increase in their earnings.

And there's kind of three possible interpretations of this. One is just pure nepotism. I say, dating this woman and I give her a raise because I'm, you know, having a very romantic personal relationship with her. The other two, at first glance might not seem so bad, which is, you know, I. I start dating this woman and I realized, wow, she's so talented, you know she deserves a promotion. We should have promoted her long ago. And so now I promote her and give her a raise, or I give her a ton of mentoring and I tell her this is who you should talk to to get that big project, this is who you should, you know, interact with to to move up in the firm. Now, those latter two at first glance they're like oh, that's great, you know she's learning new skills or her, her talent is being recognized. But from my point of view and this is putting my own preferences on this, but from my point of view, these are actually organizational failures as well, because it's the best way for me, as a woman, to advance in the firm is to date my boss. That doesn't seem like a good world to be living in. You should be able to get this mentoring, you should be able to get this recognition of your talent without having to have a romantic relationship with someone. So that's the first set of results, this next two set of results as well.

What happens when you break up? And really sadly, we see that when women and what I will say too is men who date their boss get actually even larger bumps to their earnings. But it's a very small sample size. Now, what happens when you break up? Well, when women break up with their boss, we see them statistically significant increase in unemployment, so they literally drop out of the workforce, and so I think, if I'm an organization, you have to be aware that this is a huge potential cost. It's always going to be uncomfortable to co-work with someone who you were dating.

So, even amongst equals, we find a significant drop off in employment, but it's tiny and it's much, much larger if it was your boss and you can imagine how this plays out, which is I broke up with my boss. We're not speaking to each other Now. I can never move up in the firm and I'm just totally you know, for lack of a better word screwed when it comes to trying to advance in this workplace, and so I just drop out of employment, and it's pretty persistent. The last thing I want to know is an organizational problem, which is, if you're a manager and you're thinking about, should we have regulations on this? It turns out that these relationships don't just affect the people in them. They affect other workers as well, and I call this my selling sunset effect, because if you are, you are speaking our language.

0:23:02 - Felicia Jadczak Yes, I am a fan of trashy TV.

0:23:06 - Emily Nix I watch trashy reality TV when I'm coding and yeah, so I love selling sunset Sadly, I'm embarrassed to say, but as you have been. If you watch the show, the owner of that real estate firm has dated multiple subordinates of his, and one of the plot points of the TV show is these other women say well, you know, these people are only getting the listings because they're sleeping with the boss, and one of them ends up leaving the real estate firm in part because of that, and so I was like, well, we should look at this. What happens to other workers? And what we find is we find a pretty substantial four percentage point drop in retention of other workers. So this is really large. It's driven more by small firms, as you would expect.

When it's like it's like the selling sunset effect, when it's a small real estate firm, and it's very obvious, this person seems to be getting all the advantages, and I'm not. So when this couple gets together, the woman's subordinate's income goes up. When that's happening, the other workers leave, and so I think what this speaks to is a lot of organizations in the US are starting to have policies in place to try and protect people in these situations and protect the firm and I think our research suggests that these aren't maybe bad policies. We want to be very careful when we bring power gap relations, when we have bring relationships in the workplace, specifically power gap relationships, because we do have these significant spillovers and other workers huge impacts on the woman. If the relationship doesn't last and not every case is going to be like the Obamas- so interesting.

0:24:32 - Felicia Jadczak I have a really quick follow question, if you don't mind, rachel. In your research, emily, were you looking specifically at direct boss employee relationships or did you also look at I don't know what the right terminology would be, but basically like that power gap relationship where maybe it wasn't a direct boss, but it was someone who was like also more steep level or yeah, and like maybe like a separate department or you know, not like a direct line relationship? I'm curious about that.

0:25:02 - Emily Nix So this is a great question. This is one of my newest papers I just presented at National Bureau of Economic Research a couple of weeks ago, and right now the way we're defining power gap relationships is the usually it's the man. You know, the numbers are the counterpoint, but the man is a manager in the firm and the woman is not, and unfortunately we can't really see the direct reporting relationship within the firm. We could try and do more in terms of like looking within the same occupation and see if it's a stronger effect. What I will say is the retention effect, for example, is stronger and smaller firms, which is kind of makes sense because if it's like there could be cases where you have a manager but he's in this, like other, and when I say firm what I really mean is workplace. So I think McDonald's around the corner, not McDonald's corporate, and so these are like small workplace, like the physical workplace, so you are in the same physical location. But we do have some like factories that are quite large and so there you can think about a manager being here and the support of being out here, and like those relationships tend to be less complicated. We think and right now we don't have a way to kind of look at just this type of relationship direct report versus maybe different groups and that were firm and we can imagine those would be different. So we'll keep playing around with the data to see if we can get out that we're just.

You know, it's just very striking these first results we're getting on this project, because I think it is such a complicated question that firms are grappling with, which is because the other point I'll bring up is these couples actually stay together longer than like women who date managers in different firms. And then you know other couples and so in some sense, like it could be that a lot of these, it could be that a decent chunk of these relationships are the Obama's and are very healthy relationships. That doesn't deny the fact that we have these, you know, potential repercussions on other workers. One less caveat we cannot see someone, a boss who asked out a subordinate, who says no, what happens to her?

And I think there is an exceptionally fine line between asking out your subordinate and harassing your subordinate, and far too many people don't know that line, and so this is what makes it so complicated is like yes, there can be these beautiful relationships that emerge from this type of workplace environment, but there are so many cases, I think, where there is harassment and a separate set of work. We're trying to kind of get at that angle, like thinking about when we have more permissive environments with dating in the workplace, with no regulation, is this, is harassment more rampant, and that's a really hard thing to get out with data, and then we're in the process of looking at it. But I just want to make sure that we're aware of that issue, because that's that's a group we cannot see in our current data.

0:27:30 - Rachel Murray Wow, that's all so interesting and I'm really glad also that you mentioned selling sunset, but not to make this completely about pop culture. But I'm curious if you've seen the morning show at all.

I saw the first season but I need to catch up, yeah you know, in the first season was a lot about me to this last season, though, addresses the issue of relationships in the workplace and power dynamics and in particular the, the aspect of having the different staff respond and how the particularly the woman was viewed more negatively than the man. So it goes exactly to what you spoke to around having people leaving, but I would wonder, to like with relationships, and more quickly, would the woman be more likely to leave and go somewhere else because of those, those dynamics and how other people are judging her?

0:28:25 - Emily Nix So this is something we look at. It turns out, actually, the subordinate woman is much more likely to stay at the firm, and her manager is also more likely to stay at firm, but she's more likely than him to stay at the firm, and if you think about, like, the earnings gains that are happening, this isn't totally crazy. I think where things get really awful for this word, as we show in the data, is when the relationship doesn't work out. That's when things get really horrific. Now, we could drill down in that a little more and think about, like, if you were like, think about if there's heterogeneity in the effects of whether you stay longer, so on, and we haven't done that yet. Speaking of the morning show, though, one thing I will point out is for those of you who don't know the show if I remember incorrectly, there is this really tragic plot point about him having assaulted a subordinate and she basically leaves, and you know, has a tragic end and it's, it's horrible. What I will say is we've seen we saw examples of that with Harvey Weinstein as well. There was a really powerful bad written by Marina Chu, who experienced an assault at the hands of Harvey Weinstein. She talked about how, you know, I left the firm.

I had so much trouble regaining my career and we were really curious in our first paper on workplace violence, and violence gets women at work, and when we stop to leave the firm, we find the exact opposite. So we find is that when women are attacked at work, when they're assaulted at work, the woman who is assaulted has a very high percentage in unemployment effects. So she goes straight to unemployment and it is larger qualitatively than what happens to the perpetrator. And what's also striking even more striking still is we can compare when men attack women to win, men attack men like colleagues of theirs and what we find is that men who attack women in the firm are significantly less likely to become unemployed than men who attack men who are colleagues. Now we dig into that a lot in the paper and we show that this is really because women are much more likely to be attacked by their managers and being in that position of power insulates you from quite a bit of the repercussions. If you attack someone, you're unlikely to fire yourself.

But this is, I think that you know. We could have guessed this for me too, but it was so striking. We have these incredible graphs showing this asymmetry that, you know, the women's Abordinate seems to be the hardest hit, and she is the one who experienced the assault, and so we have to do better about this, like and. And. The glimmer of hope in that paper, though, which I will plug, is that it turns out and then we have a negative spill over on other women in the firm, so not only does the woman who is a victim leave, but other women in the firm also leave the firm.

Now it turns out there's one group of firms where we find a smaller spillover effect, so we we don't find any impact on other women in the firm. The victim is still negatively impacted but we find that the other women are able to emerge unscathed, and that's when we have women managers, and what we show in the paper is that women managers are just much more likely to force the perpetrator into unemployment, and so I think this speaks to like. This is a management issue. If you're an organizational leader, we fire people for financial fraud, we fire people for all sorts of things, and for whatever reason, we tend to sometimes require a higher burden of proof when it comes to an assault of a woman, and I think we need to really think to ourselves why we're, why we're doing that, and and really think about all the negative repercussions that our paper outlines. Not only is the victim life dramatically changed, forever more, but the other women in the firm are very negatively impacted if you do not address this issue.

0:32:01 - Felicia Jadczak I can't wait to read this, first of all because it sounds just incredible and you keep referencing all these like little tidbits and I really want to dive in. I'm curious and it sounds like this might be maybe like a future phase, but you know, you obviously looked at a gender dynamic of women and men. Did you look at same-sex couples at all, or is that something that you're thinking about in the future?

0:32:20 - Emily Nix So I am very interested in same-sex couples. I have a totally separate paper looking at the impact of children on women's labor force participation. For those who don't know, there's a fact known and this is not a great word for it because you know, children can be wonderful, but there's a fact in economics called the child penalty, which is that women tend to be much more likely to drop out of labor force than men on the birth of their first child. And for that paper we had enough same-sex couples who were having children, specifically same-sex female couples, where we could say, okay, well, let's look at what happens to these couples, because that might shed light on why there is such a differential impact of children on men versus women. And we found in that paper is that for same-sex female couples, the woman who actually literally gives birth, her income declines a little more than her partner in the first year, but then she catches up to her partner and then they both catch up a little bit, and so it speaks to the fact that parenting does not have to have this unequal impact between the couples.

I would love to look at same-sex couples who date in the workplace as well. My guess is we're going to have too small of a sample size. We haven't pulled them yet. We certainly can try for the next iteration of the paper, but we're going to be pulling a small sample most likely, but it would be interesting to see, because we'll have some yeah to think about the gender dynamic versus the power dynamic, and can we separate out those two yeah?

0:33:33 - Felicia Jadczak because I would be just. I think it'd be so interesting to think about, using men as an example, what that dynamic looks like, given what you shared about the violence aspect of men on men versus men on women, and how does that then relate to dating and all that. So, anyway, yes, there's so much future work to get into, but I did want to go back to something you mentioned briefly earlier, which was around your data set and how you got your data set from Finland, and I was wondering if you could maybe talk a little bit more about why you had to use data from Finland and how that might compare if you had had access to US-based data.

0:34:07 - Emily Nix Yeah, no, that's a great question. Finland is a country not many people know that much about. It's a lovely country. It's also a country that I think people in the country are very interested in rigorous policy research, and so they've been very open to letting us link data, and so what we needed is we needed a country where we could access data, and a lot of this stuff I'm talking about is based on police report data, and what we were able to obtain in Finland is police data where we have both the victim identification and the perpetrator identification. So what you should be thinking of is like basically, we have every crime that was reported to police in Finland for the past 20 or so years well, since 2006 where we could get the everything we need and we have basically victim and perpetrator social security numbers, and they've led us to link that to the tax records, so then we could see all of your income and earnings and so on, and so when we're thinking about violence against women, when we're thinking about economic costs of rape, when we're thinking about domestic violence all those really important economic issues we can talk about them because we've got this unique data that we can link. This took quite a while Christine and I met on my postdoc in London and we spent quite a few years putting together all this data. So, basically, we have a series of police data, a series of court data, which is allowing us to look at things like if you have a higher clearance rate for sexual crimes, how does that help victims? We have some cool new results on that, and so we have the court data, the police data, linked to the tax data. We can see all the family relationships, so it just allows us to do some really extraordinary things. I think that haven't been done in this literature before. There are some other great researchers in Europe starting to do some similar things or who have been doing some other similar things, so I'll plug. So, for example, johanna Rigny and Oli Falk have some amazing work on harassment, rcts and administrative data work, and so I think there's a very exciting hub of activity. Now I would love to do more of this in the US as well.

The one thing I will say about domestic violence, rape, me Too, dating in the workplace these seem to be universal issues, and so when we saw the Me Too movement happen, it wasn't women in the US saying this happened to me too.

It was women in Finland and Sweden and the UK and Australia and New Zealand, everywhere was saying this is just an international issue we're grappling with in the workforce, and so I think you can. This is a particular question where you can say, okay, let's take this unique data from this particular country and I think it has a lot of external validity to talk about what would happen in the US. That being said, our criminal justice system in the US is in some ways a bit different than in Europe. So, for example, one of my co-authors on our Dating the Boss paper, where we look at these power gap relationships, he was shocked to hear that US firms have regulations on really an, you know, inter-frozenization and apparently this is not a really a thing in Finland. And so I think you know you do have different norms in different countries and so, for better or worse, oh, those free-loving Europeans.

0:37:07 - Rachel Murray So a lot of what you had said, I think, maybe isn't necessarily shocking. To a lot of it sounds like you've validated a lot of it. I'm curious if there's anything in the research that you found that was really sort of surprising.

0:37:19 - Emily Nix Yeah, so a couple of things. So I was quite surprised well, I wasn't surprised that there were such negative impacts on impacts when you're assaulted by your boss. I guess I was super surprised by the asymmetry with male-on-male versus male-on-female crimes, namely that male men who attacked men were significantly less likely, significantly more likely to enter unemployment than men who attacked women. A priori that wasn't clear, that that should come out and it just came out over and over again. Even when we compare not just to not having a crime at all If we compare a woman who is attacked by a man in her workplace versus a woman who is attacked by a man not in her workplace, the man in her workplace is still less likely to become unemployed. And the reason for that is he's our manager and he has the power to hire and fire, and so that is still quite shocking to me. But I guess it's not surprising. When you look at Harvey Weinstein, you think he did this over and over and over again and it was an open secret and he was never fired. But Harvey Weinstein is extremely rich and powerful and so taking every day manager. I did not expect them to have that level of power, I guess, and so I think this is like throughout the distribution of managers, this is an issue, it's not just a Harvey Weinstein issue. So that was super surprising.

I have a very heavy, very sad but, I think, important recent paper that I just presented at Stanford on the economic cost of rape and there the cost that we are finding well, I always thought they would be large. They're astoundingly large and the spillovers we're finding on mothers and sisters so mothers and sisters are both making significantly less earnings they're surprising. But the surprising that's a very hopeful thing that I never thought we would actually have come out, but it came out is we do this exercise in that paper where we say, okay, what if police have a higher clearance rate? So what if you know what if in the criminal justice system, more of these cases end up in court, in the sense of like what if certain municipalities take this more seriously and I shouldn't do air quotes like actually take it more seriously, there's a higher clearance rate and what we do. So basically, you can think of, like we took all the different cities and we say, well, how many, what share of these rape cases end up in court, and it could have gone either way, and this is why it's surprising, because court can be really traumatic if you're a victim so it can be, you know, revictimizing almost, but at the same time, having your case being taken seriously can be really important as a victim. And what we find is that, while the impacts of experience in rape are horrifically bad on your employment and your earnings, if the court takes it more seriously, if you have a higher clearance rate, we find a significant reduction in those negative impacts.

And I think this speaks to the fact that you know, as a society, as a criminal justice system, we do not have a great track record of addressing violence against women, whether it be at work, whether it be at home, whether it be just a random assault on the street. We do not have a great history of taking these events seriously. We don't fire the perpetrators who attack women at work. We have a backlog of untested rape kits in the US. We don't clear these courts to clear these cases to court at nearly the same rate we do of, say, robberies or homicide, and so what we're showing in our research is if we could do better on that. If you fire the guy who assaults a subordinate at work, less women leave. If you clear more cases, rape cases, to the court. If you get them more of them to be prosecuted, victims end up better off.

And so I think this to me is a glimmer of hope, like we can do so much better on these issues organizationally and the criminal justice system and so on. And that's surprising because I think sometimes people throw their hands up and they're like nothing works. And a third on this theme, I'll add, is with our domestic violence paper. What we show is that when women experience higher economic outside opportunities so like there's the labor market is better for women in their city these women are more likely to break up with their abusive partners. So once again, we tend to fail these women, but we can do better. And so it's very hopeful to me this piece of each paper where I was surprised that we found such positive, actionable things people can do that actually do help victims or the broader people impacted.

0:41:28 - Felicia Jadczak Are there any other specific actions that you either hope or the data is showing that perhaps leaders, legislators, could take to address some of these issues that you're raising in your research? So you know you mentioned, like clearing the court or the clearing the cases to court more and getting a higher percentage. Anything else that's kind of emerged or that you're thinking about as you're looking through all the findings?

0:41:51 - Emily Nix Yeah, so for our workplace violence paper. I think I've gotten a lot of comments when I presented about like well, but it's really hard to fire someone. We should let the criminal justice system take care of this. And the problem is, like I said, the criminal justice system has a terrible history of aggressively prosecuting crimes against women and so if you're going to wait, and if you're going to wait for that system to fix itself, you could be waiting a long time. I'd like my research to be part of the policy solution. So you know the next stages are bringing these results to policymakers, trying to get this to lead to actionable changes and criminal justice system.

But I would also implore managers in our workplace violence paper we show that you can play a really big role in mitigating the negative impacts of a me too type of salt in your firm. And it takes a lot of guts to say I'm going to take. You know I'm going to. This is a he said, she said case. This is a really hard case. I empathize with you. It is a very they tend to be hard cases. It's very intense. It's very hard for you as a manager to have to address this, but shoving it out of the rug has these broad repercussions for your firm, which more women leave. And so I would say, as a manager, you are responsible for what happens in your firm and you fire people for other things all the time. So think to yourself why not this Like, why am I not going to take this seriously? And of course we, you know we want to have due process. We don't want to just, you know, willy nilly, fire people. But what I would say is that in economically, talk about type one versus type two errors, let me put this in layman's terms.

I think in society we are so worried about firing someone who maybe didn't commit this crime. We think probably he did. 90% of the time we think he did, but maybe in this case he didn't, even though we have three different people telling him he did, telling us he did. So we're so worried about incorrectly firing someone. And if you send that risk down to zero, we're never going to incorrectly fire someone. Guess what? You're never going to fire anyone for these crimes.

And then what's the other trade off? Well, if you make reporting extremely hard and you never act on it, no one's going to ever report. And so you know, in an ideal world we would never have a false report and we would always take action against, you know, correct reports. We will never be in the ideal world, so we have to think about that trade off and so there's always going to be some risk of, you know, this action being incorrect. There's a huge risk also, I think, which our paper is showing, of not acting at all, and so you have to weigh that balance.

But I think we've kind of gone too far in the like well, unless we have 100%, 25 different forms of proof, it's not five pieces of proof is enough. We need to have 40 pieces of proof. We need to have incontrovertible, 100% evidence. And I would say, like sending someone to prison, yes, we want to have a really high bar, putting someone in a different work group because they are harassing young women. You don't need to have maybe as high of a bar as you need to have to send someone to prison and that you know that's an ethical trade off we have to make. But you are making that trade off. You are saying, when you require that we have to send this false report to zero, you're implicitly saying that, well, we're never going to take these things seriously and that that, I think, is super important and I don't know the right back. I think for every manager it's going to be a hard balance. But just be aware you're making that trade off.

0:45:02 - Rachel Murray You literally anticipated the follow up question that I was going to ask you about that and I just really appreciate it because it does feel like it's there's there's fear of retaliation, maybe more so from a man and there is from a woman. I would extrapolate from from some who had just said, and that that just makes so much sense. And you're right, it's really, really difficult and I'm glad that you are. You know taking people to task and you know making sure that people are informed and have the information to make choices, and I think that's what your research really does. So thank you for that.

I would love to switch gears a little bit to talk about some of your other research, particularly related to the post row, where companies you found companies offering to pay for abortion travel, excuse me. You found that there was an 8% uptick in job posting interest for companies that offer this, but a downgrade on Glassdoor, largely from male dominated industries, implying that men may be less than thrilled about the abortion travel benefit, or at least that's what the headlines seem to have grabbed. So I would just love for you to sort of share more about that and if you think this is, this is largely a gendered issue and yeah, we love your thoughts.

0:46:24 - Emily Nix Yeah. So that's a paper we dropped last summer and it got a bunch of media buys, yeah, which is very nice to see, actually very. You know, sometimes you can always control how media covers your work, but they did a nice job. So just to put that, some of those results in context. So the 8% increase in interest, this is clicks on job postings and indeed, indeed partnered with us on this research, including some of their economists phenomenal partnership and indeed is, like you know, the largest job board. So we were basically able to see the universe of real time action in terms of job seekers, almost like a huge swath of it, and, to put that in context, having 8% higher clicks on your job posting, that's equivalent to what you would get if you raise your posted wage on your job posting 12%. So these are big increases and increase.

Now the flip side, like you mentioned, is there's this trade off, which is we find a big decline in negative reviews. So basically, we have an increase in negative reviews of your firm on glass door Look where you know, predominantly concentrated like management and culture, and we show that this seems to be driven by men, as we proxy, for most of the negative views are coming from people in male dominated occupations, we don't see gender enough to be able to nail man exactly, but we use this as a proxy, and so what I think this speaks to is partly gender, partly political polarization today. So we have an increasingly polarized political environment, which has led to a lot of controversy around issues related to gender, issue related to LGBTQ, it like black lives matter, and so on. We've seen companies increasingly step into this fray and kind of offer their opinions, and you know, the question we had in this paper is well, what would be the intention of that? Well, part of it could be the CEO just thinks this is the right thing to do. But it could also be because I'm trying to, you know, to train and recruit certain workers, and we find this leads to a huge, you know sorting, and so it seems like in this case, men are pretty unhappy with it, especially men and more conservative leaning states, and so they are, you know, trashing the company on glass door. They're especially over 300% more likely to write in the con section. We show that the company is too woke, and so there's funny, funny anecdotes, so we pull some of the reviews and they'll be people who say, like you know the company is engaging too much in politics and not focusing enough on making just cool motorcycles, and so it's like very funny to kind of actually see what people are saying.

And so I would say it's like Companies are increasingly stepping in to the fray to potentially, in this case, possibly substitute for the lack of abortion access. But what we find is that it's tends not to be companies in states where these trigger laws were in place. So I think one thing we made this paper thinking about is like is this going to be a replacement for the lack of abortion access? Because now you can have an employer who can fly you out if you feel you're going to need it. And while we do find a significant increase in clicks from women, it's short lived, but a significant increase in clicks from women in trigger states, which suggests there is demand for this type of amenity. We find that it's mostly firms who are in non trigger states who most of their employees are non trigger states. Firms whose majority of their employees are non trigger states are more likely to make these announcements.

So I think we just have this cultural divide in the country that's going to become potentially even stronger and stronger as we keep sorting to different workplaces, sorting to different areas, and this is going to change how, potentially, you are treated as a woman, as a person of color, in your workplace, and different firms who have different cultural identities, and we could worry about this in lots of dimensions. One that we were particularly worried about is the political polarization angle, which is, if you are never interacting with someone who has a miscarriage and needs reproductive care and can't access it, are you going to become less aware of this potential side effect of the dobs ruling which you know no one probably wanted which is, you know, miscarriage care was inhibited and if you're not seeing that and talking to someone, if you don't have a woman in your workplace, you don't have people of different views in your workplace, we're just going to become increasingly isolated and I think that could be quite bad for us in society in the United States.

0:50:30 - Rachel Murray And just a quick follow up, because it's making me think about just the pervasiveness of remote work, which is just, you know, the fact of life that's not going anywhere. So there are, of course, you know, companies, headquarters are in place, but so how does this weigh into all of that?

0:50:46 - Emily Nix Yeah, there's a fascinating set of researchers looking at remote work more explicitly. We try to look at remote work a little bit. We're still working on that angle Because another project that we're interested in as a part of this you know this set of this research agenda is our people actually moving across state to try and access states that have, you know, access to reproductive care. And so I know abortion and we talk about this in the paper incredibly controversial issue, but I just want to make you know people who aren't.

I'm sure everyone's already aware of this, but there was also a lot of implications for if you have a miscarriage and having bad access to reproductive care, and so I think this will speak to remote work.

So do people or people in you know California who might have moved to Texas, more likely to take a full or the remote job because they're worried if I get pregnant I'm going to be at risk for not having this type of care I would normally have, and I don't want to be in a situation where, when I have an uptalk of a pregnancy and I have to wait 10 more hours to get all the lawyers to approve that, you can do the DNC, as I'm like getting sepsis and dying. I'm not a medical expert so I don't know if that's the correct chain of events, but I know I've read some very harrowing accounts of this happening, and so you know we've got some anecdotal evidence on this. For example, certain states that have very severe trigger laws are having a hard time attracting obi-gyne residents, obi-gyne doctors, and so we're going to see less and potentially less care available to women in those states, and, and you know, none of us should be happy about that, no matter what your views on abortion.

0:52:12 - Felicia Jadczak Are you planning any follow up to this research? Because, given what Rachel just brought up and what you kind of clarified around sort of like looking at remote work and where companies are headquartered and where people are working and moving to and living, and you know, it's very timely, but I just saw today and this is early December that in New Hampshire the New Hampshire Republicans have proposed a 15 day abortion ban, which is beyond wild to me, and so I know and I can't even decide that I imagine I know that this is just going to continue to be such a important topic and so I'm curious if that's something that you're planning out future follow ups for this particular line of research.

0:52:54 - Emily Nix Yeah, so we're hoping to look at interstate migration by individuals. So are people starting to search for jobs in states that have more reproductive health care and what does that mean for, like you're going to lose talent in your state potentially, if high income, high skill women, high skilled women are more likely to leave, you can attract OB guidelines. We could potentially look at that because we look at obi-gyne postings and whether they get way less interest if they're in these trigger states versus non trigger. I mean, 15 days is before most people know they're pregnant, so this is like a very hard restriction to grapple with and so, yes, this is going to be hopefully an active research agenda moving forward. I also will plug Caitlin.

Myers has some amazing work. So she was part of the group that put together a amicus brief for the Supreme Court ruling before it happened, in that you know, between the leak and the actual ruling and she's done some really incredible work, kind of looking at what happens to women themselves when you are denied an abortion because of these laws and so looking at what happens to their employment and what their earnings. And she also has a very impressive and so you can go to her website. She has an attractive, impressive she's collecting the data in real time, kind of tracking where the clinics are and which clinics were closing and so on. As a result of these areas, I think there's like a really nice group of economists working on this.

Kelly Jones is also another person who's done some really impressive work on labor market impacts of access to abortion and so on and so yeah. So I think there is not just me, I think there's a set of women and men, but you know, also women in economics kind of really focusing on one of the economic implications of this and that's our comparative advantage. I'm sure there's some amazing doctors and so on looking at the health cost, but I think understanding that these are economic issues has been. You know, violence against women, lack of reproductive care all of these things are pivotally tied to women's economic outcomes and their ability to fully participate in the labor market is just a huge part of my entire research agenda.

0:54:48 - Rachel Murray Wow, well, and thank you for all those other women that you listed, so we'll just have to knock on their virtual doors and come on as well, and so I think that's a great segue into my next question, which is when we talked originally, you were saying how it's kind of rare for an economics professor to sort of dive into these topics. I would just love I was like kind of surprised, but also not surprised by by by your sharing that Can you share how you're convincing colleagues that it really is critical? I'm not making a wonderful case right now, but if you want anything for maybe for other folks that are trying to do this work and maybe you're meeting with a little bit of resistance, yeah.

0:55:29 - Emily Nix So I do think there are still people in the field who think that these types of topics are not real economics, and real economics is only looking at the interest rates or unemployment or these other issues which we do look at unemployment outcomes.

So I think there is a group of economists who are not very open to this. What I will say is it is rapidly changing. So if you're someone who's thinking about doing a PhD in economics or thinking about entering this field, like I was just at this conference in Stanford that I co organized and the title of the conference was the economic cost of violence and harassment against women, and basically we brought together a group of some of the best minds working on this issue in this day and age and it's just a phenomenal group. I mean, just the breath of people. And then there's a couple of great folks at Stanford who are doing great work on gender. And then you know, claudia golden just won the Nobel Prize for her work on a lot of her, for her incredible body of work. But part of her research agenda is looking at gender and she was one of the early vanguards who kind of paved the way. And you know, I all kudos to her because she did it at a time when people really didn't think this was real economics. And so there's. You know I'm falling in the footsteps of giants here.

Nonetheless, there are some people who have been slow to get on board. You know, economics is still a majority male, vastly majority male profession, and for lots of reasons. But I think it's changing and I think you know what I would say is that I think it's changing because you have people like Claudia and hopefully my work will be in her vein as well but like you have people who are doing the most rigorous work possible and never sacrifice quality. You even more so on these issues, like when we think of cost of me to this issue is so important, so policy relevant, everything I do has to be right, because this hopefully this will go on to impact policy, go out and impact management decisions, and if that's going to be true, then I really needed to be right. If it's just an esoteric never going to see the light of day, real world topic, then who cares? If it's true, you know I mean you kind of care, but I really care you really have to have these issues be so high quality, so rigorous, and so I think, you know, with Claudia, started this with doing such extraordinary, historical and, you know, a conometric work like sorting these things out.

And then many of us have been followed and I think we've been able to prove that these have violence against women, harassment have huge economic consequences, have huge labor market consequences. These are issues that happen in the workplace or that percolate into the workplace when it comes to, say, rape or domestic violence or so on, and if you don't understand that, you're missing a huge part of the picture, and so I think our colleagues have started to be very receptive to these, these points, and so and I hope that continues so I, there's, we, we were just I was just reading a lot of job market applications and we have a ton of, you know, young PhD students, men and women, who are doing really exciting work in these areas, and so I think it's going to be a growing field.

0:58:34 - Felicia Jadczak Well, that's encouraging to hear. With that in mind, final sort of official, formal question here what are your? You know, like your big hopes and dreams beyond. What we really hope is rest, because you sound like you've been very busy and it's very important, but what's kind of next on the horizon for you?

0:58:54 - Emily Nix Yeah, so for each of the papers we've written with my fabulous, wonderful co-authors, so with each of those papers, we usually try to end on some glimmer of hope. So, for example, the recent paper on rape you know, if you have higher clearance rates, the victims are less negatively impacted. With the paper on violence against women, if you, you know, when women managers get, you know, force the perpetrator into unemployment, you don't have this drop off of other women in the firm, and so for and for this domestic balance paper, when you give women resources, they're able to leave a really, really bad relationship. And so, in my next steps, one thing that I'm really hoping to do is, you know, I feel like I've done a very nice job, hopefully, of convincing people that these are economically very costly. And where I'd like to go next is try and think about very carefully okay, well, how do we help police have higher clearance rates? I, you know, let's take the assumption that most police want to do better on sexual violence and these are just really hard crimes. And so let's figure out how to do better. Let's figure out how to, you know, protect women in this process, make it not revictimizing, make it not re-traumatizing.

Let's think about with managers. Why is it that some managers aren't firing perpetrators when they assault a woman at work? Is it because these guys are super productive and then we need to have some you know ethical conversations about that? Is it because some other reason? So I'd like to figure out what is holding some of these managers back from acting on this very important issue and how can we help you do better on that.

And so that's my dream is to kind of figure out like these are the. We have some action steps from our prior research, but develop that even further and then bring it to the policy makers. And so I also working closely with the criminal justice system to figure out what works and then help the criminal justice system adopt what works, because I think most people go into their careers wanting to do good, and this is true of police, this is true of managers, this is true of many people, and sometimes it's just hard to figure out how to do the right thing, and we can hopefully help you with that research and help you then implement it. So that's where I'd like to go.

1:00:51 - Rachel Murray And beautiful. Let us know how we can help, definitely. Thank you so much, of course, so just we don't have a ton of time, so, but we always have to ask the number one, most important question, although I feel like selling sunset was a really good, solid answer to this question, but if you wanted to add to it, what are you currently geeking out about? That is nothing to do with your work.

1:01:12 - Emily Nix So one thing I'm geeking out about is lessons in chemistry. They have the new mini series, but if you have not read the book, I mean as an academic, it's very close to my heart. It actually is exactly a me too event and I just gave it away. You should very spoiler alert before that. But lessons in chemistry is in, a phenomenal book. Love it, and right now I'm watching the mini series. I need to catch up. I was away last week and traveling a lot, so so that I'm definitely geeking out on very related to these topics, but just a credible, right right or credible book.

1:01:45 - Rachel Murray Well, we just can't get away from it. You know I'm foolish and I are in the same boat. I feel like everything we watch, there's always that lens of you know something related to the work that we do.

1:01:54 - Felicia Jadczak So, but obviously it's pervasive, I mean, and that's quite so important. You know exactly, as on Apple.

1:02:00 - Rachel Murray TV, right, apple TV? I think, yes, yeah, they have the best. They have the best scripted shows. Okay, do we have time for one more before we wrap it up?

1:02:09 - Felicia Jadczak Oh, I, think we might actually. Oh my gosh, I'm like well, can I ask like an off? It's a related, yet off topic fun in quotes question, because you mentioned lessons in chemistry as both a book and a show. So this actually aligns with a very spirited debate that I had last night when I was at dinner with some friends, which is what do you think's better read the book first or watch the show or the movie first? Read the book.

1:02:35 - Emily Nix Always read the book A woman after my own heart. Okay.

1:02:40 - Felicia Jadczak Let me tell you, there are some folks out there who do not agree. I don't know, rachel, what do you think?

1:02:44 - Emily Nix I don't think you read the book if you watch the show first.

1:02:47 - Rachel Murray Yeah, I think it's true, it's like the shortcut. Yeah, I think it's really inspired. But yeah, I think by and large. Yeah, you kind of want to read the book, but I have heard this question recently where some people made the argument the reverse way. But I think this space, I think we're all aligned. Yes, we're on the same page.

1:03:05 - Felicia Jadczak The same book page, if you will, nerd.

1:03:10 - Rachel Murray I love it Wonderful. Well, where are the best places that people can find you?

1:03:16 - Emily Nix So I am on Twitter. I believe my handle is Emily Nix 100.

1:03:20 - Rachel Murray Yeah, I just followed you.

1:03:22 - Emily Nix Perfect, I was like I'm trying to remember my.

I mean Twitter being a bit of a mess, but I can't add another social media. I do Twitter, that's it, and a little bit of Instagram, privately, but just privately, so just Twitter. So I'm on Twitter and that's where I post a lot of things about my research. That's super accessible, so I'm from there. You can find my website, it's LinkedIn, my bio, but if you go there I'll post about news coverage of some of our work, my working papers, as soon as they're released, other people's work. That I think is really powerful because I don't want to say it all. There's so many people doing great work on this in economics, and so I plug a lot of that other work there as well, so it's a great place to understand what's going on on this issue in economics.

1:04:05 - Rachel Murray And Emily, don't make me get back on Twitter. Is there any way I can convince you to do anything on LinkedIn? Is there any way?

1:04:11 - Emily Nix I could potentially move to LinkedIn eventually. Right now, maybe post tenure. You know, right now I'm limiting my social media intake.

1:04:17 - Rachel Murray Let me just get through this. All right, get through it.

1:04:20 - Felicia Jadczak Yeah, I followed you, even though I'm not technically active, because Twitter is, you know all the issues with it. But yeah, we'll definitely we'll share that. We'll share your website and people can also Google you and find all the amazing things that you're working on.

1:04:33 - Rachel Murray Yeah, we'll be sure to include the research and a lot of them. We have a ton of links from you, so it's really great. Well, thank you so much for spending time with us. We really enjoyed. It learned a ton, yeah, and thank you.

1:04:48 - Emily Nix Thank you guys so much, and thank you so much for what you're doing. This is very exciting work You're spearheading here, so I'm honored to be a part of it.

1:04:59 - Felicia Jadczak Woohoo, we hope you enjoyed listening to our interview with Emily as much as we enjoy the conversation. So much to get into there, we just barely scratched the surface.

1:05:09 - Rachel Murray I know. I really encourage you all to listen sorry, to read all of her research and to follow her in all the places, because she's really doing some important work. Thank you so much for listening. Please don't forget to rate, share and subscribe. It does make a huge difference in the reach of this podcast and, by extension, this work. Visit us on YouTube, instagram and LinkedIn to stay up to date on all things SEO. Oh, and, of course, visit our website too, at Bye, bye.