 So these are really interesting facts. And do you have any hope of trying to pick up any causal effect? Do you have any program? I thought I remembered some time ago reading a paper on Chile and women's labor force participation in the entry of these nursery schools or daycare centers and they didn't find much of an effect. But I don't remember very much more about that paper, but yeah, any hope? Yes, I wanted to add to that question if it's possible. I mean, I know these are time use surveys, but it would be great. I don't know if we have any surveys in Latin America that would allow you to have the effect of these childcare services, for example, on the decision to work of women or the decision to separate to divorce and those type of things that gives much more freedom to women when they already have a child. I don't know if it's that possible, but it would be interesting to find causal effects for that. Any other questions or comments? Okay, well, about the possibility of trying to find a causal effect, we were talking with Mariana. We have to find some place where we can exploit the geographical expansion of the services and also that the survey is, yeah, because these services, these services are, as I said, they have like some quality problems. It's the only data that we have to explore this, but in the case of Mexico, I think we may have some hope of trying to understand the expansion of childcare facilities that took place. And as they have, they have time, they have service that we have many years of service and we may try to see if there is any variation, but yes, the idea is trying to like to clarify, it's quite intuitive and obvious to put numbers to this intuition that what is operating there is the reduction in hours dedicated to childcare. And about the effects, for example, in separation, maybe the same kind of thing can be applied to see, because you would need panel data for trying to see if a couple splits if there is something of that, but it would be, yeah, nice. So two questions, one was, so you show that informality increases and also part-time work increases. So does that imply that formal work, participation in formal work decreases? And second question is related to the, I think Chile and Mexico in the graph that you showed men sort of had a pre-trend where the employment was increasing and then it flattened for men. And so one could interpret that as saying that they were increasing trend, but sort of due to the birth of the child, they stopped increasing. So how do you, can you address the pre-trend or can you do something for that? Thanks. And our question, have you checked also, and I think it will be super interesting to do your work, the comparison between single mothers and married mothers, because typically like, you know, household decisions and say regarding a bit with Raquel comment, there is this Vanderbroek, Vanderbroek, and I don't know how to say from the Fed of San Luis that he did actually like some stories about married and single gender gap, wage marriage gap. And actually what he shows is say for example, for the U.S., and I've seen that in Colombia also applies, married men are the highest earners in the economy while say this gap is not for women between single and married. So I mean, of course there is this idea, as Raquel was saying, is not that males are not doing anything, it's true that they are maybe increasing the labor market participation a bit and having more full-time jobs. So yeah, I think that of course, there is a lot of household decisions going on. And as the other partner here said, there is this trend that is say in a way maybe is saying that they anticipate, you know, and they are increasing the labor participation then they decide. So yeah, I mean. That was a really cool talk. Just a question about your point that ideally for the last part of your paper, see how the effect differs in different places with different gender norms, but there are only four countries. I was wondering if there's any way to exploit differences across regions within countries and like variation within countries in policy might be harder, but certainly within these kind of large countries, there's a lot of variation across places in gender norms and see if you could, there's any way you could use the data to see how the effect differs across kind of places within countries consistent with some of your hypotheses and that gives you kind of more variation to work with. I mean, I think that it is interesting the anticipation effect that you're finding for men because it does differ from other countries and it seems to be there for at least some of the Latin American countries. So I wouldn't try to make that result go away or, you know, I wouldn't try to hide that result. I would emphasize that result because everything else that you get is standard. So that at least gives you that. You know, in the regional variation, Cleven of course has done now the US and regional variation in gender roles across US states and then looks at the correlation of that with the motherhood penalty. So I think you can do the same thing, but it has been done. So I'm just trying to like make you aware of what's gonna be seen as original and what will not be seen as original. And then the last thing is this motherhood penalty which I just must say it. I really hate that people say, oh, this is the effect of motherhood. No, no, no. What do you mean it's the effect of motherhood? These women are deciding, are making decisions. They're autonomous agents and make them in some context but they're deciding to work less or to move to a different type of job or to have fewer hours or to stay at home. It's not like all of a sudden there's something new that we didn't know about called motherhood, motherhood has always been there. That's why we're still around. And that's where most of the social norms have bite these days in the sense that it's not, do you think it's okay for your partner to work or your female partner to work? The question is really, do you think it's okay for a woman with a young child to work in particular to work full time? So yeah, that's all I wanted to say because I can't stand this motherhood penalty anymore. Or the child penalty actually. I have just a brief question about the fact that you don't have effects in the two countries where you have the annual data and not in the case of hours of work and in other outcomes, I don't remember. Yes, yes, yes. And I was wondering about the witnesses of yearly data to try to show these things because maybe it's not that there are no effect that you cannot pick that with two waves of a panel. Okay, let me write this down because I'm going to forget. So thank everybody for so many questions and right comments. Let me start by the other way around because I remember them better, I think. One thing for yearly and monthly data, and this answers many of the questions, sample data is really small. So it's not only that we have yearly data, for instance, for to do why we have a really small sample because we have to stay with mothers and fathers and so on and so forth. So for many results, we believe that the small sample is playing a role in finding non-significant results. The signs we get for the coefficients are always in the, let's say, right direction, we think here sample size is playing an important role and this connects with the correlations. I think if we are going to partition this into regions, we're going to have very, very weak results. As for Raquel, thank you very much for your comments. Great idea to resolve this father effect, especially because I think the next generation of this kind of works should focus more on men rather than women. And then on the other point of motherhood of penalty, yes, of course, we all are aware of motherhood, but even the fact that we find these correlations, right, like policies really affect women are making different decisions in different contexts, even within the same region. So if women are making different choices, why are they doing them? Is that mothers are different in one country or in the other? No, basically they're facing different constraints. So maybe I think this is like the richness of this information, right, to try to understand what moves, what changes, what drives decisions rather than the fact that the child existence, of course, we know this already. And this is a fact that is going to affect the whole family forever, unfortunately, because otherwise why do we have children, right? But I think what we're really looking at is the way we can make families, families, not women, families more free to choose and not to just have to choose whatever they have left to choose, right? So this is what like an important point. And then going to the, well, then the education trend is a little bit on this. And as for, I think you said about the single and married, I think we didn't look into this here. We did it for another country. We didn't, I don't remember the results, but it would be nice to explore this here. So thanks everybody for the wonderful questions. Thank you. So just a few questions. One was the added worker effect. In the Indian context, also, when there is a distress, there's something which we called as reserve labor force, which is the women labor force, women work when there's distress in general. But in India, we don't observe a persistence. So I just wanted to question the persistence in terms of if you're arguing that maybe gender norms change, then why do they not remain changed for the other generations after the shock? In terms of say, if unemployment is lower in the particular year and women enter the labor market, then for other years when unemployment has decreased, the gender norms again goes back to they not entering the labor market. So how does that play out? Thanks. Hi. I was wondering if there are any differences between the shocks that were more affected by the shocks like in the crisis, there might be some jobs that are more particularly affected. And if there is different employment distribution across genders for these shocks and how this can affect the results. And also if you have information like on the education of those women who entered the labor market at that time, do they continue studying or they leave at all the vocation? Because like there is also like this, like if it is a bad time, it's also difficult to find a job. So many of them continue studying even if it was not their initial idea. Like they don't find a job, so they go to university or something like that. So I was wondering if they do both things or they just leave education? Thank you. It's building a little bit on the previous question. Obviously you can make the unemployment rate gender specific, but also it is well known that in Latin America, unemployment does not respond to GDP swings as much as in developed countries, mostly because informality works as a buffer. So it was thinking maybe if you could introduce some element of the quality of the jobs available by thinking about informality and whether that would actually change a little bit the results that you've obtained. Thank you for this paper, it's really interesting. I was thinking about two ideas. One is if you see an heterogeneity with the shock, basically the unemployment is much higher than usual. If it's an added worker story, I imagine that the FS could be different for that. And then also if it's an added worker story, I imagine the households are able to smooth consumption better than others. I'm gonna have different predictions here. So if you have in parts of the data set, for instance, I think in Peru, you can observe the education of the parents or not. So if this is true, for instance, for the workers are coming from highly educated parents, perhaps they are reacting differently. Thank you. Just a few people have touched up on it, the whole substituting into education when work conditions are bad. So what I would urge you to do is to not change necessarily the year in which they enter the market, but ask to what extent could your results be driven by the substitution, particularly by women, supposing that's more elastic, which I'm not sure. But if it is more elastic, how much of it could be driven by women deciding to go for more education, and then that would show up in their having different gender attitudes, and it would also show up in their employment at ages 27 to 30. And you would expect that effect to maybe be smaller for men, and the elasticity is smaller. I know you controlled for average years of education in one of your robustness. I would actually might make that the main table because I don't know exactly how big your cells are. Are you controlling for average years of education of women for the men separately, for example, you might want to do that, et cetera? And now I can take my chair roll and say you can answer very, very few of these questions. So just choose which ones you want, and we have to go on to the next speaker. Questions and suggestions and comments. The one about the gender norms, I think you say that why they didn't change, but in fact what we are seeing is that the change in gender norms is what we see is that the change occurs during adulthood. So it's not that the change happened before and the effect disappeared during adulthood. The effect is during adulthood. About then, most of the comments were about doing extra analysis. All of them are super interesting. Job types, we haven't analyzed, same with informality. I like the comment about distinguishing whether women who enter were more educated or were having more education at the moment of the shock. Yes, we can do the unemployment higher or lower than the usual, yes, parent education. I wonder whether we can do it with only one country, but it would be interesting, definitely. So yes, I think most of them are about doing extra work and we are going to do this a little bit. Thank you very much. Could you talk a little bit about what the mechanism is that you think is driving the allocation for, this is the wife's share, right? That's the watch, yeah, all the women, but it's the woman who's married to a husband, correct? Oh, it's not. Where are the women in the hospital? Oh, okay. All the women independently of whether they're like the mother or the wife, yes, but not the children. No. Okay, so I missed that part. Okay, so can you explain why you think that that would happen more in the Patrick local societies? I think you're suffering from being the last talk of the day. We're all on the top of the day. On the top of the day, yes. First, what we're seeing is the share of resources allocated to all the women in the household, all the men and all the children. You said that before and I didn't know about that. Actually, what we see also here is that, let me see. There are, oh, I didn't put it. So what we have in the paper is also that we analyze this for the age of, considering the age of the women. And what we see is that in matrilocal societies, the resource shares for older women are even higher. The difference is even higher for older women, which can be explained for the linearity associated with the inheritance and linearity associated with locality generally that go a lot of times together. But considering the mechanisms, first, what we consider is that the transmission households, societies that were mainly matrilocal, tend to put men in a different position in terms of power within the household. First, because their families are there, the new bride is moving to a place where their relatives are not there. Their husband's family have a lot of monitoring of their lives and sexual behavior, et cetera. Also because generally locality and linearity inheritance tend to come together. So linearity, the inheritance process of land can also be associated with more power to men within the household. And the last, because the investment on girls and boys is very different in this context, as we saw in the morning. So households, matrilocal households, tend to invest more in boys than in girls. And this end up in different human capital and education, et cetera. So their power could be expected to be different. My only comment is that it would be nice to try to tease those up. Is it, look at the education difference or different? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you all.