Thank you for allowing me to respond to this.
If they discredit the study, on academic grounds I would like to know why exactly. Is it the statistical tools we use? Is it the figures we use, which are their figures? Every single number we use is cited, from the document we take it from.
It would be really nice to know why the study is wrong. It is surprising to me, I have to say. This doesn't come off as good news for the unions. You mentioned they referred to this as no structural break in the homicides of union members. I see a structural break. We can discuss that on academic grounds. We can look at the figures. We can look at the clear table constructed from their data and discuss whether you see or don't see a structural break. As an independent academic economist, I see it.
Again, if you look at my website, I have been very critical of the government in some respects, but these are their figures, not the government's figures.
I would like to know exactly what is the criticism of the paper. Is it just that they don't like it, or is it that they have comments on the tools we use, on the codes we use, on the methods? That I am willing to discuss. Whether they like it or not, what can I do?