You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

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

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