tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post7979201136828703772..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Nature abhors a discontinuity... usually... a little more on PikettyEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34375834870824944392014-05-30T07:50:52.069-04:002014-05-30T07:50:52.069-04:00Except Giles' first line (or the FT's, if ...Except Giles' first line (or the FT's, if you prefer) was "Piketty has made stuff up and/or made serious errors". He also referred to the ONS data as "the best data", which is obviously debatable. If Giles had just written a blog post about "discrepancies", I think Piketty & his defenders would be a bit less annoyed with him for jumping the gun, but as it stands he essentially implied Piketty had no answers to his (reasonable) questions, then went on to assert his data were superior.Unlearningeconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13687413107325575532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-16614341162964868642014-05-29T20:11:27.384-04:002014-05-29T20:11:27.384-04:00Daniel,
"The income tax and minimum wage stu...Daniel,<br /><br />"The income tax and minimum wage stuff is shockingly sloppy"<br /><br />The couple of slight errors regarding top income taxes that Piketty makes in the text, are not replicated in his charts or tables. They contain the correct data. Which is a bit odd perhaps.<br /><br />See top income tax rates here for example:<br /><br />http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/supp/TS14.1.pdf<br /><br />I haven't looked up the minimum wage stuff.Philippenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75392710093095121982014-05-28T18:12:45.406-04:002014-05-28T18:12:45.406-04:00It's "Inland Revenue" not "Inla...It's "Inland Revenue" not "Inland Revenue Service", if they're abbreviated it's IR. They're now called "Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs".Currenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08645195276844244481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-88623485434000492132014-05-28T07:23:58.140-04:002014-05-28T07:23:58.140-04:00The uptick in the source data is bigger precisely ...The uptick in the source data is bigger precisely because it doesn't average by decade. I am not seeing it. Note that the source data ends in the 90s so it doesn't have the further uptick in the 2000s.<br /><br />I simply don't see how going from 21.2 to 21.4 (Piketty) is supposed to be a sharper change than 19.1 to 21.1 (the source data).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-35925447515763235692014-05-27T20:49:10.651-04:002014-05-27T20:49:10.651-04:00Daniel,
I admit there are some things that Magnes...Daniel,<br /><br />I admit there are some things that Magness harps on that don't seem like a big deal to me, but his point about the averaging of the 1970s etc. is this: Piketty's chart makes it look as if inequality was falling through 1970, when it turned around and has been on a steady rise since the 1980s. Thus, it looks as if it's been increasing for several decades--coinciding with the Reagan/Thatcher revolutions in neo-liberal policy reform and globalization--and so we should expect it to keep going up.<br /><br />In contrast, one of Piketty's sources shows that it has been flat since the 1980s.Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44953936722950202282014-05-27T13:09:54.560-04:002014-05-27T13:09:54.560-04:00*Let me say "though"*Let me say "though"Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-539550660493079152014-05-27T13:08:36.805-04:002014-05-27T13:08:36.805-04:00I have to admit I've been a little confused by...I have to admit I've been a little confused by some of Magness's concerns, including this one. Let me say thought that I'd prefer to use annual estimates unless they're really noisy (I don't know if these are), and if they are use a moving average. I imagine the reason he didn't (and this is fine if the data are really noisy - perhaps less advisable if they're not that noisy) is that you have these gaps and a moving average doesn't make as much sense with the gaps. I suppose you could do a bigger moving average, but that might oversmooth.<br /><br />Anyway what I really don't get about Magness's post here is that taking the ten year averages actually moderates the dip. The dip would have been deeper if he used the annual estimates. But instead of dipping down to a little above 19%, it's much flatter at a little above 21% from the 1970s to the 1990s! So far from Magness's claim that he is somehow overstating the point he seems to be presenting the data in a conservative way (at least when it comes to this period in the 70s).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-80515206966336644472014-05-27T13:00:44.379-04:002014-05-27T13:00:44.379-04:00This is fine Daniel but just to clarify the ONS th...This is fine Daniel but just to clarify the ONS thing:<br /><br />(1) Giles says, "I was looking at the ONS and it was way different from Piketty. So I started digging. Now look at what I found! If you don't want to use ONS, I still think it's pretty big discrepancy using Piketty's own sources."<br /><br />(2) Critics say, "Worst case scenario, even if we take Giles' own red lines as truth, not much difference."<br /><br />(3) I say, "What?! There is a humongous gap between Giles' worst-case ONS scenario and Piketty."<br /><br />(4) Piketty and other guy in Bloomberg response say, "ONS is a survey, that's bad source. Can't believe Giles used that as gospel."<br /><br />(5) I say, "He didn't use it as gospel, he gave options. Focusing on ONS is a red herring."<br /><br />Bob Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04001108408649311528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34280232657788488092014-05-27T12:55:43.224-04:002014-05-27T12:55:43.224-04:00Daniel, What do you think of the Magness criticism...Daniel, What do you think of the Magness criticism of Piketty’s U.S. data that I highlighted here:<br />http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2014/05/phil_magness_on.htmlDavid R. Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02927325694778972407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-76030051915582203172014-05-27T10:10:14.116-04:002014-05-27T10:10:14.116-04:00Another good example - I have four data sources (A...Another good example - I have four data sources (ACS, CPS, OES, and NSCG) for the engineering technician and technologist population in 2010.<br /><br />The ACS, CPS, and OES are all quite close which is incredible to me because it's a vaguely defined workforce and all three of those surveys are collected in very different ways. The NSCG is WAY off. So far off I'm talking with the National Science Foundation (which does the survey) for possible things I may be doing wrong. I have them all in a table, not in a chart in this case, and the NSCG is just sitting out there. I'm going to feel no compunction about telling them that I think the actual figure is closer to the CPS/ACS/OES figure. Data is messy, and finding one source that tells a different story without really understanding why it's so different does not in itself constitute any evidence that there's a problem.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com