CronoDAS comments on [Retracted] Simpson's paradox strikes again: there is no great stagnation? - Less Wrong

30 Post author: CarlShulman 30 July 2012 05:55PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (51)
Tags: statistics simpson's paradox

Comments (51)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: CronoDAS 30 July 2012 09:20:26PM 18 points [-]

http://esoltas.blogspot.com/2012/07/inaccurate-consequences.html

Comment author: Cyan 30 July 2012 09:36:58PM *  16 points [-]

Link description: the source for the numbers in the OP is unclear; it is certainly not the Census data, which does not agree even approximately with these numbers. The Census data shows that the median wage of white non-Hispanic men has stagnated while that of female and some minority median incomes have grown substantially.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 30 July 2012 09:46:41PM 5 points [-]

Doesn't the census run just once per decade — i.e. 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010? The above table has claimed data from 2005, when the census didn't run. The Department of Labor and other agencies collect income and employment statistics more often, though.

Comment author: Cyan 30 July 2012 10:15:49PM *  6 points [-]

I just added the link summary because I think that bare links aren't very useful. I didn't check anything.

ETA: I should mention that the author does include links to the source of his own numbers.

Comment author: Nic_Smith 31 July 2012 11:21:35AM 3 points [-]

The Census Bureau has projects that they do between decades, even though "The" Census is only every decade.

Comment author: Kingoftheinternet 30 July 2012 10:49:14PM 3 points [-]

According to Thomas Bayes, the analysis isn't quite wrong. Comment reproduced for your convenience:

Based on the census tables that he cites, here’s what I see for 2005 (in 2005 dollars):

All men: $31,725

White men: $32,179 * Soltas says $31,725, which is the median for all men.

White, not hispanic men: $35,345

Conard says $35,200 for white men, which is very close to the number for white, not hispanic. The number he uses for white women is $19,600. The Census data that Soltas cited shows $19,451.

Based on this quick comparison, I’m not sure that Soltas has discredited Conard’s analysis.

Comment author: Manfred 30 July 2012 11:03:58PM *  5 points [-]

CronoDAS's linked post does indeed reflect the census data. Huh.

Comment author: CarlShulman 31 July 2012 12:19:09AM 1 point [-]

Just checked myself, indeed.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit