Applied micro ... *sigh*
You spend your time pretending to obtain clean, causal identification. We all know this is not reality. And, to be frank, the very best scenario you can achieve is a natural experiment. Yet, these natural experiments are, in many or most cases, no more externally valid than well-designed lab or field experiments. Yet, most of you bash experiments and hold yourself somehow above experimentalists. Laughable, really. Your best case scenario is their everyday approach to answering questions. At least they are not limited to answering whatever stupid , non-economics related question that shakes out of some 'proprietary and untouchable to dont ask us' data set.
You hate macro because of its approach to identification. Yet, the questions you all ask are peanuts relative to the questions macro people tackle. Seriously ... is applied micro really even economics anymore? You all seem like masquerading sociologists.
You don't like developmental ... too many field experiments. No external validity, amirite?!?! Wait. Whut?
You don't have the balls to mess with theorists because they have more intelligence in their left nut than you. They could roll off the top of your mom and scribble out a mathematical model of how they just created your baby brother and it would still be too sophisticated for you.
In conclusion, applied micro is a mostly useless approach to research. Thanks for obtaining useless sample estimates of meaningless parameters, folks!