« Tips for speeding up R with byte compilation | Main | Butler Analytics: Real Analysts use R »

July 30, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010534b1db25970b0191047c8935970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A great example of Simpson's Paradox: US median wage decline:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Funny how the paradox has become even more important to understand. Thank pervasive communications and Big Data.

Well, thank financial services for distorting the reward system for education. And big data's got nothing to do with it: these numbers are from sample surveys, same as they always have been.

As always, the average of the averages isn't the average of the total.

And, from the point of view of a national "economist", it depends very much where said "economist" sits on the political spectrum. Those of the Right Wing (freshwater) will claim life is better because the median crept up ever so slightly. Those of the Left Wing (saltwater) will claim not only that life isn't better, but that the value of education has declined. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is the more accurate deduction from the data.

Also, subsequent data (reported in the last week), have shown that wages as a proportion of GDP has declined.
Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/business/economy/us-companies-thrive-as-workers-fall-behind.html?src=recg

Excellent, concrete example, clearly explained!

I think this shows not just that there are frames within which conclusions that are contradictory across frames can be justified (and therefore that users need to ask "what's your frame?" or they will be duped), but also that we should use frame-free perspectives: causal mechanistic perspectives. In this case, we would need to quantify "work".

Frame-free, what has happened is that the value of years of education has declined at the same time as the mean quantity of education has increased. This suggests that the value of a year of school may have declined because the supply of educated workers has increased faster than has the demand for skill AND that the rate of aquisition of education for each worker has increased even fast than the decline in the value of each year. Stated that way, the market and egalitarian accounts are both made clear.

It would be interesting to look along the distribution: are there levels of education that have beaten this trend?

The comments to this entry are closed.


R for the Enterprise

Got comments or suggestions for the blog editor?
Email David Smith.
Follow revodavid on Twitter Follow David on Twitter: @revodavid

Search Revolutions Blog