Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
From | Dmitriy Krichevskiy <krichevskyd@gmail.com> |
To | statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |
Subject | Re: st: rectangulizing data |
Date | Thu, 26 May 2011 15:20:37 -0400 |
I do think we mean different things by "nationally representative". In my view there is no such thing as representative sample; agreeing to participate in these survey(s) is not random.There are however nearly representative samples. I am trying to figure out if this makes sense. It is volatility we see months to month or wave to wave that is enormous. For example, in my sample there is a 23 percent chance of moving down from middle quintile every month. I cannot get my head around that... Thanks again for you comments and your paper Dmitriy On 5/26/11, Dmitriy Krichevskiy <krichevskyd@gmail.com> wrote: > I do think we mean different things by "nationally representative". In my > view there is no such thing as representative sample; agreeing to > participate in these survey(s) is not random.There are however nearly > representative samples. I am trying to figure out if this makes sense. > It is volatility we see months to month or wave to wave that is enormous. > For example, in my sample there is a 23 percent chance of moving down from > middle quintile *every month*. I cannot get my head around that... > > Thanks for you comments and your paper > Dmitriy > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Austin Nichols > <austinnichols@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Dmitriy Krichevskiy <krichevskyd@gmail.com> : >> The SIPP sample is nationally representative (at least in wave 1). Yours >> is >> not. >> Look at job start and end dates; there is much of the story on >> intrayear volatility. >> And yes, it is much higher than you think it is based on your >> convenience sample. >> I will not take a position on how you should proceed with your research. >> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Dmitriy Krichevskiy >> <krichevskyd@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks for the links Austin, >> > I am lucky to find an expert on both the matter and the data. I am >> > basically finding similar results as your paper though my interest is >> > in self-employment vs. wage work. I am still puzzled by the enormous >> > volatility an average individual faces. Out of the small sample of >> > people I personally know no one is subjected to such fluctuations, >> > most certainly no one working for a wage. This makes me uncomfortable >> > because either I and the people I know are not a good representative >> > of an average individual or (more worrisome scenario) those >> > participating in SIPP are some strange individuals self-selecting to >> > participate. >> > >> > Back to the issue at hand: would you abandon attempts to calculate >> > annual income, impute or drop people missing several months? >> > By abandoning I presume switching to 4 month cumulative (or average) >> intervals. >> > >> >> * >> * For searches and help try: >> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search >> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq >> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ >> > -- Dmitriy Krichevskiy Ph.D. Candidate Economics Department Florida International University www.fiu.edu/~dkrichev Research Associate, College of Education Lumina Foundation Project * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/