Here is a fleshed out version of Cheryl’s response. Lets suppose actual research capital is qK but we just used K in our estimation equation.
Then the true estimation equation is
lnqKL=σlnγ1−γ+σlnwr
re-arranging we get
lnKL=σlnγ1−γ−lnq+σlnwr
So if we regress lnKL on a constant and lnwr then the coefficient on lnwr is still σ as long as q is independent of w/r.
Nevertheless, I think this should increase your uncertainty in our estimates because there is clearly a lot going on behind the scenes that we might not fully understand—like how is research vs. training compute measured, etc.
Here is a fleshed out version of Cheryl’s response. Lets suppose actual research capital is qK but we just used K in our estimation equation.
Then the true estimation equation is
lnqKL=σlnγ1−γ+σlnwr
re-arranging we get
lnKL=σlnγ1−γ−lnq+σlnwr
So if we regress lnKL on a constant and lnwr then the coefficient on lnwr is still σ as long as q is independent of w/r.
Nevertheless, I think this should increase your uncertainty in our estimates because there is clearly a lot going on behind the scenes that we might not fully understand—like how is research vs. training compute measured, etc.