quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I stated nothing but an actuall quote from the article....All sampling is done from a limited number of people, thats what it means.  Perhaps you did not know that.  I did not intrepret it, I quoted it.  And you claim I have limited comprehension skills?  okey dokey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I would consider 26x26x26x10x10x10 more acceptable. so add one anyway, unless you have knowledge that 000 is not useable, I then would agree.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well, thats the magic ain't it?  We can do this on our fingers, and if we lack some we can do it on toes as well-----
that is why people who frame houses get paid bid bucks because they know that 2 foot centers start at zero and they will have the stud there.

This is why I will have to win the lottery, someday..........numbers are based n-1---you can do a lot of foolish things without that knowledge and belive it.
that is why there are slaves and submissives, due to understanding....

the chances of me winning the lottery, with one variable in an n-1 omicron populus are 50% ---I do or I don't.  Start adding variables, it gets a little more sticky, Same as the way you quote the license, the guy that owns it, owns it.

However the chances of me seeing that are actually 100% because I did, I will not quibble the odds for one.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

No thompson, please point out where they are excluded from the study. 
Perhaps you might want to google Panel Study for Income Dynamics.  Read the study and note who was included and who was not.  You will find it most interesting.

No where that I can see, you are simply making that up.  They would be part of the 50% that never experiences affluence, for at least a year. 


The disabled from birth man I used to work with did, for a few years, even though much of his life he was barley keeping his head above water.
This little tidbit would be important to this discussion for what reason?

Well, when you claim things are in the article that are not, I call it a lie, because I was giving you credit for being able to read and remeber what you read long enough to post on it.  Perhaps you are simply mentally differently abled, and not lying.
If this is your way of saying that you think I am smarter than you.....awwww stop with the flatery. It is not necessary.

So first you attack the concept of statistics,
Actually it was you who tried to put those words in my mouth.  I did not say that.


because he did not count everyone in the nation, just a smaple and then extrapolated  that was obviously a silly attack on your part, so now you are lying about what the article actually contains.

You claim that the author of the article is lying about what the reasercher told him in his interview. 
Actually him is a her or at least the name Jennie Daley would imply such.  It is not an interview but rather her report on Hirschl's study.
You really should try to read what I say instead of what you want to see.  I said she had reached a faulty conclusion...how does that translate to calling her a liar?


Do you have even a shred of evidence to back that up?  Or are you simply flapping your gums for some reason?
"flapping your gums"????

"Tom Hirschl, a professor in the Department of Sociology, did a statistical analysis in 2001 of people 25 to 75 years old and found there was an equal chance that anyone could experience a year in poverty or a year of affluence over the course of their lives."
Should you actually look up the Pannel Study for Income Dynamics you might want to puruse the adjoining articles in the google listing ....you will find that the group had an attrition rate of over 50%, which many statisticians would agree might skew the results.


If you do not want to be called a liar, do not tell lies.
It would appear that name calling is what you substitute for discussion.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I  absolutely defer to this, argument, but you caught me pretty. I did give you the information that I had seen such a plate. You are quite correct.

My honors to you sirrah!!!!

Ron

quote:


The disabled from birth man I used to work with did, for a few years, even though much of his life he was barley keeping his head above water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet

Life is a 50/50 chance? It's a risk I'm going to have to take. After all, what's there to loose? Choosing not to play does not sound fun. Where are the dice? I'm ready to roll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FangsNfeet

Life is a 50/50 chance? It's a risk I'm going to have to take. After all, what's there to loose? Choosing not to play does not sound fun. Where are the dice? I'm ready to roll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

""In this article we examined the dynamics of participation in the
PSID and considered whether attrition has affected the
representativeness of the PSID. We found some observable variables
that are correlated with attrition, but these variables explain only
a negligible portion of the attrition in the PSID. We found no
compelling evidence that attrition (or entry) has any effect on
estimates of the parameters of the earnings equations we studied."
This quote would be from where? A little scholarship on your part would be helpful.
I would call your attention to the last sentence of this quote. 
 
This refers to the "estimates of the parameters of the earnings equations"
Earnings equations are not the subject of our discussion.  The subject of our discussion is who was included.
 



Ok I googled the PSID...this is what it said about attrition...if you say the study is invalid, thats fine, but do not lie about what it says.
If you think the author of the article who did interview the researcher is misstating the results, fine, give some sort of evidence.
Once again Ms Daley did not interview the author of the study she is commenting on his research.
You still seem to be having a little trouble comprehending what you read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Consequently, despite the large amount of attrition, we find no strong evidence that attrition has seriously distorted the representativeness of the PSID through 1989, and considerable evidence that its cross-sectional representativeness has remained roughly intact."

That is from the abstract of the link you gave me....Do you not understand it?  It says that despite the attrition it retains its cross sectional representativeness.  Your just wrong.  The link you gave me disagrees with you.  It says it is a valid study, "despite the large amount of attrition". 

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I quoted you from the study you posted.  How much simpler can I put it.  Yes there has been large attrition, especially of the lower socioeconomic groups, and the study factors that in.  The result of the study of the methodology of the study you gave me states( for the second time),

"Consequently, despite the large amount of attrition, we find no strong evidence that attrition has seriously distorted the representativeness of the PSID through 1989, and considerable evidence that its cross-sectional representativeness has remained roughly intact."

If you feel the PSID is invalid, thats your opinion, It has however been subject to peer review( for example the link you gave me, specifically looked at attrition), which finds it to be so.

You are the one disagreeing simply to disagree.  The reporter spoke to the author of the study, and I quoted her.  What are you trying to argue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
It is not a risk, FangsNfeet, it is a choice.
You have the option of being A) poor or B) wealthy.
I personally choose option B.
Sinergy