|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe read the paper, IMO. Can you prove that you have read it to the thread and demonstrate clearly how these people are wrong? poo poo or get off the pot, imo. For as bad as asdf may seem to some, at least he quotes things and tries to form an argument instead of smugly telling people to read something and not adding anything to the conversation.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The null hypothesis is that there's no relationship between the price data and the unemployment wage. Failing to reject the null hypothesis means that the conclusions from the paper may as well be fart gas. It means that the authors may as well have said "we observed no significant effects". if you'd just read the paper, you'd understand
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The null hypothesis is that there's no relationship between the price data and the unemployment wage. Failing to reject the null hypothesis means that the conclusions from the paper may as well be fart gas. It means that the authors may as well have said "we observed no significant effects". Where in the paper are you getting that they find no relationship between the restaurant price data and the minimum wage hike?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you'd just read the paper, you'd understand This, but unironicly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This, but unironicly. woah, hold up! read the paper, pally
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
it's important that you acquiesce to my condescending demands and prove to my satisfaction that you have done what i emotionally manipulated you into doing before i treat your argument with the barest respect
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:woah, hold up! read the paper, pally You are literally the worst because I know you're a pretty sharp and well read dude in other contexts and you're just choosing to shitpost here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
I can't believe someone would have the gall to smarm about those darn physicists and then reveal that they have no idea how science is done.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You are literally the worst because I know you're a pretty sharp and well read dude in other contexts and you're just choosing to shitpost here. excuse me, have you read the paper? no? kindly gently caress along now, please *makes walking motion with fingers*
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
check this out, got a new tat *shows you my knucks* code:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Back up to what the hypothesis was and why I should care about this line of questioning and I'll get back to you? Quarks point is that if you observe gravity acting on an apple, The Null Hpothesis is that a banana will float in the air. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
i believe only 8 knuckles would be visible, friend. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
so uh... i hear the minimum wage is gonna get set higher. wonder what folks think about that!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:but what about all the people who aren't worth the desperation wages i piteously give them The pink slip they get will let them know they should be in rehab instead of bothering the rest of us with their laughable attempts to have independent lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
asdf32 posted:Quarks point is that if you observe gravity acting on an apple, The Null Hpothesis is that a banana will float in the air. This is going to be good, and dare I say it? It's going to involve assuming that since iron sticks to a magnet, that everything else should be assumed to do so as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
euphronius posted:i believe only 8 knuckles would be visible, friend. i always make a fist with my thumbs to the side in the tiger claw style, to show off my intimidating hand and finger tats
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
The most important datapoint I have gotten from this thread in the last 50 pagesasdf32 posted:Quarks point is that if you observe gravity acting on an apple, The Null Hpothesis is that a banana will float in the air. is that asdf32 exists in one of our parallel universes, perhaps the one where Mike Judge's Idiocracy came to pass The second is that the minimum wage should be abolished (since it's apparently impossible to determine what that should be without creating a country full of Geriatric Pirates, or Somalia), and everyone should be provided a minimum income indexed to cost of living in their area, subsidized through a 70% marginal tax rate on incomes exceeding $100,000 and an 80% tax rate on capital gains and high frequency trading while also removing the cap on contributions to social security. The cost of living would be determined through pricing a basket of goods in an area that includes a domicile that has one bedroom per person, internet access, public transport, cost of health insurance, provide for a minimum 2,500 calorie daily food intake and a $400 entertainment and miscellaneous expense allowance. ex post facho fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Quarks point is that if you observe gravity acting on an apple, The Null Hpothesis is that a banana will float in the air. Everyone stop and stare at this beautiful post 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Once again that's a whole lot of terms with no actual meaning behind them. Not sure what "fractional uncertainties" you're talking about but still not sure how you think essentially taking the mean and doing tests on it is better than using the actual raw data. Any problems you have in the data that affect ols coeffs affect the mean. This is really simple. Still not sure how you think r2 which you now admit is irrelevant to testing a coefficient "helps confirm" anything. Does the sky being blue also help confirm that a murder happened? Literally The Worst posted:I like that you jumped right ot this instead of actually dealing with the multiple people calling you out for saying the working poor don't exist, as opposed to just calling them liars for sharing their experiences being working poor. Did someone post anything beyond their anecdotes about not affording anime that would somehow trump BLS data? I love left wing D&D posters because being poor is some sort of achievement here and people have the best stories about how they were poor (apparently the daily routine of poor people in America consists mainly of posting here)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
yes, but *vomits profusely* *the vomit is only a loose collection of spreadsheets*
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Once again that's a whole lot of terms with no actual meaning behind them. Not sure what "fractional uncertainties" you're talking about but still not sure how you think essentially taking the mean and doing tests on it is better than using the actual raw data. Any problems you have in the data that affect ols coeffs affect the mean. This is really simple. Hey man there's a difference between you not understanding something and it having no meaning. Maybe look into that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Did someone post anything beyond their anecdotes about not affording anime that would somehow trump BLS data? I love left wing D&D posters because being poor is some sort of achievement here and people have the best stories about how they were poor (apparently the daily routine of poor people in America consists mainly of posting here) Seeing as you believe that being poor in America is impossible, being so would in fact be quite an achievement. Or you could just be a colossal moron, I wonder which is more probable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Akumu posted:Hey man there's a difference between you not understanding something and it having no meaning. Maybe look into that. But..but he is a swamp swede! The font of all knowledge! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The R^2 is relevant- Geriatric Pirate posted:Still not sure how you think r2 which you now admit is irrelevant- Think I found out where communications are breaking down here. Despite having literally quoted an entire paragraph about exactly how the R^2 relates to his overall point; somehow Geriatric Pirate misheard Quark and thought he said IRrelevant. I am convinced at this moment that an analysis of the last one hundred pages will demonstrate that this has all just been a tragic mixup where one poster somehow keeps mishearing words in a written conversation. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
statistically, poor people do not exist. you cannot argue with statistics. i am the winner
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Ebenezer Scrooge: Pfah, anecdotes! Do you have any statistical data, or are you just whining about not being able to afford penny-dreadfuls?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Once again that's a whole lot of terms with no actual meaning behind them. Not sure what "fractional uncertainties" you're talking about but still not sure how you think essentially taking the mean and doing tests on it is better than using the actual raw data. Any problems you have in the data that affect ols coeffs affect the mean. This is really simple. Fractional uncertainty is uncertainty as, well, a fraction. Not knowing that it's kinda basic to literally everything involving statistics does a great job as outing you as an idiot. Also the sky being blue confirms that the murder was on earth. You continue to be an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You are literally the worst because I know you're a pretty sharp and well read dude in other contexts and you're just choosing to shitpost here. When effort is met over and over by condescension and pigheadedness, it's very important that he keep a partcular tone because surely one of these days the people who haven't given an inch in 100 pages will admit they are wrong. Also if somebody uses a more casual typing form I can avoid addressing their point and claim they are shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:When effort is met over and over by condescension and pigheadedness, it's very important that he keep a partcular tone because surely one of these days the people who haven't given an inch in 100 pages will admit they are wrong. Everything I said about him applies to you, except the positive parts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Stop being so dense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Once again that's a whole lot of terms with no actual meaning behind them. "I am uneducated and ignorant of basic terminology. Obviously this is your failing and not mine!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=630515 posted:Much work has looked at the employment implications of raising the minimum wage, with a range of estimates reported in the literature. We offer new empirical evidence using output prices both at the store-level and aggregated to the city-level. In both cases, prices unambiguously increase in response to a minimum wage change. Furthermore, the results are similar across three sources of variation in the data: cross-state differences in the size of the minimum wage change, cross-restaurant type differences in the tendency to pay at or near the minimum wage, and cross-metro differences in the fraction of workers paid at or near the minimum wage. There is no evidence that prices fall in response to a minimum wage increase. Empirical data supports the Econ 101 model of the labor market? Of course an economist would say so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Who gives a poo poo, what matters is how much they increase.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:34
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Empirical data supports the Econ 101 model of the labor market? Of course an economist would say so. Can you address the criticisms QuarkJets has made of this conclusion, or will the abstract stand as ineffable shield against it?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
So when Quarkjets was making a huge deal about their failure to reject the null hypothesis, he was wrong. Effectronica posted:Can you address the criticisms QuarkJets has made of this conclusion, or will the abstract stand as ineffable shield against it? That's not the abstract. Is there any coherent critisism other than R^2 too low? That's not sufficient reason to reject the data and conclusions in the study. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:39
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So when Quarkjets was making a huge deal about their failure to reject the null hypothesis, he was wrong. Section 3.1 is totally useless as it assumes no errors in measurement. Section 3.2 is reliant on a statistical method that reveals high uncertainties in measurement, such that at best 20% of the variance can be explained, and at worst 2%. Section 3.3 shows that a quarter of the price movements are negative, and they are unable to explain this. Given that the price changes quoted are equivalent to 7% of the increase in costs, the data doesn't convincingly show what they claim it shows, as things stand.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So when Quarkjets was making a huge deal about their failure to reject the null hypothesis, he was wrong. As usual, QuarkJets was lying about the contents of a paper. Normally I just don't bother engaging, but he also had interesting comments on the methodology that he seemed to actually be putting effort towards. I think he's the master troll though because he has a bunch of left wing posters here convinced that "fractional uncertainties" are a real concern. His logic basically says that let's say we have a clinical study on the effectiveness of a drug. Even though we can track who actually takes the drug and their health, we shouldn't do this because of fractional uncertainties. Instead, we should look at city-level averages for the use of the drug and health and measure those instead. And of course use of the drug must explain at least 50% of variation in health, otherwise [insert whatever his incoherent argument about R2 here was] because we know that if Aspirin doesn't improve your life expectancy by 20 years, it's not really useful at all. Geriatric Pirate fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Section 3.1 is totally useless as it assumes no errors in measurement. Section 3.2 is reliant on a statistical method that reveals high uncertainties in measurement, such that at best 20% of the variance can be explained, and at worst 2%. Section 3.3 shows that a quarter of the price movements are negative, and they are unable to explain this. Given that the price changes quoted are equivalent to 7% of the increase in costs, the data doesn't convincingly show what they claim it shows, as things stand. Super internet poster effectronica, who once again has exceeded his "I only post for half an hour per day" on this awesome thread, shows off his knowledge of statistics only 20% of variation is explained? drat... that paper was owned. R2 is way too low
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:14
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:As usual, QuarkJets was lying about the contents of a paper. Normally I just don't bother engaging, but he also had interesting comments on the methodology that he seemed to actually be putting effort towards. I don't know how they do things in the hellhole of suicidal ideation you live in, but in the United States of America, if you attended the sort of elementary science lab course that is included in general education requirements all around the country, and wrote in a lab report that you didn't need to account for or track errors and uncertainties, you would be marked down, and if the professor was a hardass, flunked. Geriatric Pirate posted:Super internet poster effectronica, who once again has exceeded his "I only post for half an hour per day" on this awesome thread, shows off his knowledge of statistics Quick question. You have made it clear you know nothing about statistics, the sciences, American society, the sciences, and how to write clearly. What do you know? Effectronica fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So when Quarkjets was making a huge deal about their failure to reject the null hypothesis, he was wrong. Except that they don't reject the null hypothesis. Saying that you reject it is not the same as actually rejecting it. That kind of thing is okay for a working paper, which is what this is, but it's not acceptable to draw meaningful results from the paper in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:15
|
|
