The guy said, “well, the data must be wrong.” Dirchi got furious over that, and said that if he could, he would have flunked the guy out of school for that. Models are meant to explain and predict data. They aren’t the underlying truth of anything. His exact words were “the data is all there is!”
I'm wary of this anecdote. In a sense, the data never can be wrong, because the data just is. But there are such things as measurement errors - mistakes in the acquisition of data or interpreting what it means. Sometimes the data suggesting a model is wrong is itself really good evidence something has gone wrong in measurement. It depends in how much confidence we have in our model. Is it more reasonable to think the model is off or that something went wrong in data collection? The answer to this isn't always obvious. I'm sure you can think of all sorts of examples where breathtaking findings are released that suggest current models are wrong, only later to find out that there was an error in the findings - experimental mistake, fraud, etc. Physics is famous for these.
I'd be pissed if saying "the data must be wrong" is an auto-fail in a scientific arena. if I'm a 9th grade physics teacher having my students run pendulum experiments and I notice that one group of students are reporting numbers that disprove Newtonia mechanics, is it unreasonable for me to conclude that the data is wrong? Of course not. There's an error in data collection there somewhere.
I agree measurement error could be an issue, so could model inaccuracies. In fact, I would expect a student who uses a model and/or econometric analysis to be fully conversant with all of the reasons a particular model and/or analysis could fail, from problems with initial conditions to error analysis in the econometrics.
A student who simply says the data is wrong? If it stops there, yes it's a fail.
Lemmie wrote:Your static (one-shot, single time frame) analysis of job advertisements is in no way equivalent to the dynamic analysis of job ads I was considering. Not to mention its static analysis of one single job ad event, not really the sample size you need....
That's my point, and at least a part of faqs's point. Taking a snapshot of the number of jobs being advertised right now isn't definitive proof that there is a labor shortage of electricians.
Anyway, there isn't a ton you and I disagree about on this. I just don't like picking on the underdog--even if he is a royal dick most of the time. I'd rather look for ways to defend him than look for ways to attack him.
Do you practice economics? Are you trolling me?
No, I don't practice economics; no, I'm not trolling you. The WSJ article I referenced, along with a lot of other analysis and introspection lead me to drop out of that program. I do have a B.A. and M.A. in economics. By profession I'm an actuary. Best decision I ever made.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
I'm totally with lemmie on this one that faqs gets no slack here. You're pulling the same thing here as you did when you defended Tobin and his "fresh ideas" on the monte hall thread. I get the desire to give the underdog a break but you tend to miss a lot of context, and in the defense in both cases you seem to think you're uncovering a valid insight the underdog sees that others on the thread don't. It's kind of annoying. Nobody on this thread is missing the general point that there could be more applicants than job postings.
Don't forget that faqs corrected everyone's poor understanding of labor economics in big bold letters. You don't think that deserved a quick slap-down? You really think it's worth creating a micro-model using faqs' terminology to salvage the dumb point that there could be 10 applicants for one job?
But Let's look at faqs point in context. It was pointed out there are over 5 million job ads. Faqs goes with his self-justification hunch that something is keeping good men down. He takes the electrician trade as possibly representative of a general phenomena of more workers than jobs. He takes his electrician friend as representative of the trade. He posits there could be 200 applicants for one job, many or most more qualified than his friend or willing to work for less. But this is all to object a priori to the 5 million ads argument, meaning for all we know, there are a billion well-qualified applications chasing those 5 million jobs.
Sure, there might be 600 applicants chasing one Econ job, there are extreme examples, but extreme examples don't argue against the general case. The 5 million ad example is a heuristic that something is wrong with the "no jobs" belief. Most people consider the number of people in the country and say, boy, that's weird! Let's think about it.
Faqs immediently goes down the path that based on his roommate, we should consider the one billion qualified applications. Why don't we consider a gnome conspiracy also? Nothing faqs said warranted canppakes batting an eye.
When looked at in context, the same carelessness that confused supply and demand and then lectured in bold on the topic came up with the more workers than jobs argument.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
What's also interesting is a right-wing fanatic arguing that the market is in error or unable to correct itself in its discrimination against him. Not to mention that in the neo-classical model, supply finds it's own demand, and to argue for a persistent glut of workers is to argue for a massive market failure. That's a leftist idea if there ever was one. At every turn here faqs is implicitly calling for government intervention.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Lemmie wrote: I agree measurement error could be an issue, so could model inaccuracies. In fact, I would expect a student who uses a model and/or econometric analysis to be fully conversant with all of the reasons a particular model and/or analysis could fail, from problems with initial conditions to error analysis in the econometrics.
A student who simply says the data is wrong? If it stops there, yes it's a fail.
I agree with you, but then the criticism is simply inadequately defending one's position. That would be true of any position a person stakes out for themselves in a defense. I took Analytics's anecdote as trying to illustrate how vital it is to understand that models are only as good as their ability to explain/predict the data. Analytics was saying this professor wanted to automatically fail someone for thinking there was something wrong in the data rather than the model the data did not accord with. His anecdote loses all of its power if it simply is a criticism of a doctoral student for not bothering to defend his views.
Gadianton wrote:What's also interesting is a right-wing fanatic arguing that the market is in error or unable to correct itself in its discrimination against him. Not to mention that in the neo-classical model, supply finds it's own demand, and to argue for a persistent glut of workers is to argue for a massive market failure. That's a leftist idea if there ever was one. At every turn here faqs is implicitly calling for government intervention.
It's not a failure of the markets--it's a failure of the leftist-liberal-socialist-fascists! Just get rid of them, and the market would work fine.
On your prior reply, you make some good points. I just don't see the point of fighting with him at every turn, and arguing about technicalities when there is some validity to part of what he's thinking. Yes, I suppose it is patronizing to hold him to a looser standard, and given his manners he doesn't deserve to be treated nicely. But why not be nice anyway and try to have a real conversation rather than a dog pile?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Analytics wrote:It's not a failure of the markets--it's a failure of the leftist-liberal-socialist-fascists! Just get rid of them, and the market would work fine.
Exactly. ldsfaqs sees this as a consequence of Obama's interference into the economy. How, you may ask? Well, he's not sure but he's got a youtube video somewhere that explains it.
Analytics wrote:It's not a failure of the markets--it's a failure of the leftist-liberal-socialist-fascists! Just get rid of them, and the market would work fine.
Exactly. ldsfaqs sees this as a consequence of Obama's interference into the economy. How, you may ask? Well, he's not sure but he's got a youtube video somewhere that explains it.
I guess where I get hung up is because he's made himself dependent on the Liberal State with no concrete plans nor action to act iaw his stated positions.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Lemmie wrote: I agree measurement error could be an issue, so could model inaccuracies. In fact, I would expect a student who uses a model and/or econometric analysis to be fully conversant with all of the reasons a particular model and/or analysis could fail, from problems with initial conditions to error analysis in the econometrics.
A student who simply says the data is wrong? If it stops there, yes it's a fail.
I agree with you, but then the criticism is simply inadequately defending one's position. That would be true of any position a person stakes out for themselves in a defense. I took Analytics's anecdote as trying to illustrate how vital it is to understand that models are only as good as their ability to explain/predict the data. Analytics was saying this professor wanted to automatically fail someone for thinking there was something wrong in the data rather than the model the data did not accord with. His anecdote loses all of its power if it simply is a criticism of a doctoral student for not bothering to defend his views.
I think we're talking past each other, sorry for the misunderstanding. I was commenting on my own policy regarding what I expect from a student with respect to appropriate use of economic modeling, not on what motivated the professor in Analytics' anecdote. I can't speak for the underlying motivation of that professor, but in the context of Analytics' post, your interpretation of what strengthens or weakens his story makes sense.
Analytics wrote:It's not a failure of the markets--it's a failure of the leftist-liberal-socialist-fascists! Just get rid of them, and the market would work fine.
Exactly. ldsfaqs sees this as a consequence of Obama's interference into the economy. How, you may ask? Well, he's not sure but he's got a youtube video somewhere that explains it.
This is actually a good example of my point with the Dr. Derchi story. ldsfaqs's model is that there can't be very many good jobs available because a liberal/fascist is in charge. However, the data indicates that there is an over-abundance of great jobs available. How do you explain the data not fitting the model?
Ldsfaq's knee-jerk reaction is to blame the data--"there aren't very many good jobs available--such a thing couldn't happen because my model says it couldn't! The data that says there are lots of jobs are wrong!"
Of course in general the data could be wrong, but economic models aren't even in the same universe as models in the physical sciences in terms of robustness.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.