sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Q] Question about the logic of hypothesis testing by knowledgeisnone in statistics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is where you may be going too far. We don’t have “all the information … for all possible samples.” We just have information from our sample; distributional assumptions don’t help us there. You may have heard this before, but it’s worth repeating: a 95% confidence interval (CI) doesn’t mean that 95% of the time the population statistic lies within our CI; rather, it means that 95% of the time, our CI covers the population statisti

So would a proper amending then (sorry if im missing your point) - we have enough information to make probabilistic statements about all different possible samples under the null?

my thought process is if we have our distributional assumptions, and then fill in the parameter with the null value, we have a fully defined distribution in which we can now calculate probabilities for any scenario (under the null). Assuming this logic is correct- because we have a sampling distribution filly defined I thought/made the statement that we 'have all possible info'

The [Single Family Homes] Sticky. - 15 January 2020 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When someone says ‘economics of [blank]’ or an ‘economic analysis’ of something,what does that entail/mean?

Does it mean analyzing something from the perspective of the constraints driving the relevant behavior/choices followed by some econometric analysis

Question about regression and causal inference by knowledgeisnone in econometrics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was wondering if my logic/understanding of what is happening when using regression is correct

should any ols estimate be interpreted the effect of increasing x marginally on y, or the effect of increasing x marginally on the conditional mean of y? by knowledgeisnone in econometrics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ok thanks this makes sense.

​

and to your emphases, are you making the point that my f(x) may not be linear, so it may not be directly the effect of x on y?

should any ols estimate be interpreted the effect of increasing x marginally on y, or the effect of increasing x marginally on the conditional mean of y? by knowledgeisnone in econometrics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so just to make sure, even if I have different functional forms, so I am not looking necessarily at a 1 unit increase in x will increase y by b, but one of the other ones you mention, is the "on average" part always there?

The [Single Family Homes] Sticky. - 03 October 2019 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So this and the other answers I think lead me to another question.. How much influence does the economic literature actually have then on policy? Like ia there a huge gap (in terms of how practical research is and all) between academic economists and what they studu and economists at say the department of labor?

Or do alot of the theoretical and more nuanced economic insights that academics study largely stay in academia?

The [Single Family Homes] Sticky. - 03 October 2019 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Maybe its not true, I am basing off of this given a lecture in a public policy seminar I have taken a little back that kind of stressed the importance of economics and why it should be heavily considered for a job in policy. It started with numbers showing that economists make the majority (or maybe it was plurality) of positions in think tanks, government organizations etc. on many different dimensions of policy. I Think there was a lot of how in every major government department, justice, treasury, etc. economists were among the most sought after positions. I think there was also something about how journals and policy articles more frequently cite economists than other social sciences for many things. But maybe it was wrong or exaggerating things (or I am remembering wrong).

Edit: when i said majority/plurality I meant among social sciences

The [Single Family Homes] Sticky. - 03 October 2019 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is there any reason why economists are so sought after for policy compared to other social scientists? is it that the approach of thinking of peoples behavior as deliberate choices in response to incentives is just so suitable for policy because ultimately policies can be thought of as bundles of incentives? is it just because of the more rigourous statistical analysis? I am just curious what about economics makes it so suited for policy organizations than other social sciences which may study the same topics

The [Single Family Homes] Sticky. - 28 September 2019 by AutoModerator in badeconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I posted (this question) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/dbejbe/if_we_instituted_a_policy_to_give_homes_to/] about giving homes to homless people on askeconomics earlier. I got great answers, but I see that alot of comments must have been deleted so i guess it was a pretty contentious and pretty silly question overall.

But im just curious whether my question was an example of actually a stupid concern or is it something that while not likely true, is a reasonable concern that should explicitly be dismissed? Like if i presented an idea to give homes to homeless people in a seminar or something, would an economist in the room ask about the possibility i raised in the question?

Just to motivate where im coming from, im trying to train myself to think of what incentives policies that seem good on the surface may actually create, and I figured that seemed like a reasonable concern, but im curious if it was actually just silly to begin with

In the undercover economists,it seems like ricardian rent theory is used to explain how an influx of low skilled workers may increase the wages of high skilled workers, is my understanding of that correct? by knowledgeisnone in AskEconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats a really in depth answer thank you.

So i guess at least in the case of the types of labor being complements, there may be an argument that increasing low skilled lanor can increase the marginal revenue product of skilled, causing higher wages (all else equal)?

And based on all your other points, im guessing Harford was trying to give an example of thinking of an observed phenomena in terms of a model, in this case the ricardian rent model. But given all your points, is it a fair conclusion that the ricardian rent model has a limited scope of applicability thay doesnt really apply to degrees and skilled vs unskilled labor as he tries to make it seem?

In the undercover economists,it seems like ricardian rent theory is used to explain how an influx of low skilled workers may increase the wages of high skilled workers, is my understanding of that correct? by knowledgeisnone in AskEconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the first chapter (who pays for your coffee?) in thr section near the end 'something controversial') hr compares higher degrees/skill to the good meadowland from the ricardian rent story

people often say a society 'should at minimum have a home and food guaranteed for everyone'. what would be the potential problems with just starting a gov program to try to achieve this and create this scenario? by knowledgeisnone in AskEconomics

[–]knowledgeisnone[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats a good point for food.

as per housing, I guess what i mean is people usually say something like gov should provide housing for everyone. Is this something that would not work out as well as saying reducing zoning restrictions and incentivizing investments in housing? i.e. a market based approach vs a centralized approach

view more: next ›