Joanne Marshall wrote:
> given the following results from stata,
>
> lwage (dependent variable is log of wage)
>
> educ 0.02
> d91 0.03
> d92 0.02
> d93 0.04
> d94 0.06
> con 0.33
>
> with base year of 1990, d91 being dummy variable for 1991 etc..
> for year 1991, the wage is increased by 3% than 1990
> for year 1992, the wage is increased by 2% than 1990 or 1991?
>
> thank you...
>
> my question here is that does the results refered of 1992, 1993 refer to
> the
> base year 1990, or the previous year?
>
> This is urgent, thank you very much.
The answer is straightforward: the coefficients for dummy variables are
all to be interpreted in comparison to the dummy variable left out of the
set, (i.e., 1990). Commonsense, if nothing else, should have told you
this.
I'd like to take the opportunity to nip some of your questions in the bud
with a little bit of friendly advice from someone who's been there before
you.
You've already had your knuckles wrapped (yesterday, indirectly) by
another member of Statalist for posting too many basic, homework-style
questions. If someone like myself or Maarten Buis can answer them, then I
guess we don't mind too much. But when you claim urgency (something that
is explicitly frowned upon in the FAQ, which you should (re-)read), you
really are pushing your luck.
Offending the very Statalisters you want help from is not the way to go:
take it from me! :)
CLIVE NICHOLAS |t: 0(044)7903 397793
Politics |e: [email protected]
Newcastle University |http://www.ncl.ac.uk/geps
Whereever you go and whatever you do, just remember this. No matter how
many like you, admire you, love you or adore you, the number of people
turning up to your funeral will be largely determined by local weather
conditions.
*
* 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/
