Statalist The Stata Listserver


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: Juhn-Murphy-Pierce (1993)


From   Vora Nakavachara <nakavach@usc.edu>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   st: Juhn-Murphy-Pierce (1993)
Date   Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:59:54 -0800

Hi All,
 
I'm trying to follow Juhn-Murphy-Pierce (1993)
wage decomposition and have some questions.
 
If the data I'm using is a survey data (labor force data)
and it has a weight (sampling weight) attached to each
observation, then when I do jmpierce do I need to care
about the weight?
 
I have read some literature but I don't seem to see anyone
mentioning anything about this weight.
(Maybe I'm missing something -- can you please point out
the literature that discuss it?)
 
Basically, if I want to calcuate p90-p10 of log wage of people
in 2000 (and 1995) -- and to describe it as a measure of inequality
of the country then I need to use weight, right?
 
So when I decompose how p90-p10 change from 1995 to 2000,
I should also consider weight?
 
But, (from the help file of jmpierce)
 
 y1_i1 = x_i1b + F[-1](p_i1|x_i1) --- for year 2000
 y1_i2 = x_i2b + F[-1](p_i2|x_i2) --- for year 1995
 
are "hypothetical" distributions, thus if I am to calculate p90-p10
(to be used in future steps of the decomposition) from these and
want to use weight then the weight attached to the observation i
wouldn't be correct anyway?
 
So should I just ignore the weight in the decomposition?
But what about when I want to discuss the summary statistics,
(as mentioned before) like p90-p10 inequality measure in 2000
then I believe the weight is important?
 
Could anyone please help me clarify this?
 
Thank you very much.
 
Vora N
 



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index