The paper can be freely accessed at NBER (http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552). There's no need to pay anything. Anyway, it's n

The paper can be freely accessed at NBER (http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23552). There's no need to pay anything. Anyway, it's not really a presumptions question. Or at least, it wasn't supposed to be: the fact that people are doing something doesn't imply anything about what they should do, and neither does describing their choices imply anything about either the socially preferred set of choices or the authors' preferred set of choices. So if young men were putting in less work hours so they could stay at home and play video games, that would be nobody else's business. But the issue is that that doesn't to be the case, and the authors made no effort of trying to tackle alternative explanations. When I read an economics article, I expect that even if the authors won't try to address alternative explanations, they will at least acknowledge they exist. After skimming the article, that doesn't to have happened at all. Don't know how the authors want me to believe that video games are to blame for the lower working hours of young males when they followed closely the working hours of older males up until 2008, either. Are they gonna pin it all on Halo 3?