Equation (2) for worker employment and wages from 2006 until 2017.<sup>28</sup> The estimates in Appendix Figure C3 show an insignificant impact of the GFC shock on worker employment and wages in 2006 and 2007 before the GFC, which supports the causality of the impacts we estimate from 2009 onward. The significant negative impact that is estimated in 2008 is not surprising as the GFC was already unfolding.

# _C. Robustness Checks_

We subject our main results in Figure 1 to a series of robustness checks. First, as an alternative to the use of the worker panel database, we estimate Equation (2) separately for each worker cross-section from 2009 onward. The corresponding point estimates shown in Appendix Figure C4 are very close to those in Figure 1. Second, given the important commodity boom experienced by Latin America during the 2003–2013 period, we estimate Equation (2) excluding commodity-related sectors from the sample.<sup>29</sup> Third, Brazil experienced a domestic economic recession from 2014 onward. While the sector-year and region-year fixed effects included in our specifications go a long way towards accounting for domestic economic cycles, we also estimate Equation (2) excluding the period of domestic recession from our sample. Fourth, we estimate two variants of Equation (2): dropping the vector of firm covariates and including separate 2-digit sector, region, and year fixed effects. The results from these estimations presented in Appendix Table C2 show that the impact of firm GFC shocks on workers’ months worked and real wages is qualitatively unchanged, relative to the main results.

As alternatives to the worker outcome variables described in Section III.A we consider as dependent variables in Equation (2) employment and wage measures defined following Yagan (2019).<sup>30</sup> The estimates in Appendix Table C3 are qualitatively similar to those in Figure 1. Moreover, we estimate the impact of GFC firm shocks on worker job displacement by constructing two indicator variables for a worker being displaced from a job based on the motives for the end of a worker’s employment spell at a firm from the RAIS database.<sup>31</sup> The first variable is based on either of two possible motives: (1) justified dismissal by the employer or (2) unjustified dismissal by the employer. The second variable is based on the second motive only. The results in Appendix Table C3 show that regardless of the variable used, the firing of workers increases significantly in 2009 in firms harder-hit by shocks.

Finally, we conduct further robustness checks estimating Equation (2) using two alternative shock measures that modify the export portfolio weights in Equation (1) to be either average weights in the entire pre-GFC period (2004-2007) or in the previous two years (2006-

> 28We redefine the vectors of worker characteristics and firm controls pre-GFC to be based on 2005.

> 29Commodity-related sectors are animal, forestry, fishing, mining, oil and petroleum, and tobacco.

> 30See Appendix A for the definitions.

> 31See GC Britto et al. (2022) and Gerard & Naritomi (2021) for studies linking similar worker displacement data for Brazil to crime and consumption smoothing, respectively.

14