|
|  |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
RE: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
What I am saying is "If you are saying that is the impact of a year of
education plus the impact of the year being 1991"
That is why I made reference to the year in my statement.
Justin White
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Blasnik
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
Here is your last sentence:
Without knowing the constant, you could say that an increase in 1 year
of
education in 1991 results in a (0.12+0.08 = 0.20) 20% increase in family
income.
You have added together the coefficients for a year dummy and education
and
claimed that this is the marginal effect of a year of education. That
is
incorrect. If you are saying that is the impact of a year of education
plus
the impact of the year being 1991 rather than the omitted reference
year,
then you are correct, but that is not how I read that statement (and
what
would the constant have to do with any of this anyway?).
Michael Blasnik
----- Original Message -----
From: "White, Justin" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
> >You are confusing the point estimate and the marginal effect.
>
> I don't believe I am made a mistake. I stated in my message that "The
> years only come into play if you wanted to calculate a point estimate
> for the growth in family income"
>
>
>
> Justin White
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
> Blasnik
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
>
> This is incorrect. The marginal effect of education would still be
> estimated as the coefficient on education regardless of the values of
> the
> other variables (there are no interaction terms). You are confusing
the
>
> point estimate and the marginal effect.
>
> Please refrain from posting if you aren't fairly certain of your
answer.
> I
> also think the list may be indulging too much in answering very
> elementary
> statistics questions which have nothing to do with Stata directly and
> can be
> answered through many other available resources other than Statalist.
>
> Michael Blasnik
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "White, Justin" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:27 PM
> Subject: RE: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
>
>
>> Take the estimated coefficients for education, d91, and the constant
> and
>> add them together. You can do this b/c all of you independent
> variables
>> are regressed in levels. Without knowing the constant, you could say
>> that an increase in 1 year of education in 1991 results in a
> (0.12+0.08
>> = 0.20) 20% increase in family income.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
