|
|  |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
RE: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
>You are confusing the point estimate and the marginal effect.
I don't believe I am made a mistake. I stated in my message that "The
years only come into play if you wanted to calculate a point estimate
for the growth in family income"
Justin White
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael
Blasnik
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
This is incorrect. The marginal effect of education would still be
estimated as the coefficient on education regardless of the values of
the
other variables (there are no interaction terms). You are confusing the
point estimate and the marginal effect.
Please refrain from posting if you aren't fairly certain of your answer.
I
also think the list may be indulging too much in answering very
elementary
statistics questions which have nothing to do with Stata directly and
can be
answered through many other available resources other than Statalist.
Michael Blasnik
----- Original Message -----
From: "White, Justin" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: RE: st: RE: pooled ols interpretation, thanks
> Take the estimated coefficients for education, d91, and the constant
and
> add them together. You can do this b/c all of you independent
variables
> are regressed in levels. Without knowing the constant, you could say
> that an increase in 1 year of education in 1991 results in a
(0.12+0.08
> = 0.20) 20% increase in family income.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
