let's pivot instead to where I showed you that lower-income immigrants have faster convergence than higher income ones, and that 30-yrs-post-migration there's no correlation at all between income and origin income. Thoughts?
-
-
Philippe Lemoine Retweeted Lyman Expand the House Stone, AKA 石來民
Yes are you talking about this tweet: https://twitter.com/lymanstoneky/status/960621325214801922 …? I wanted to ask you more about what you did but then I got distracted by the heritability discussion. Can you tell me exactly what are the data you used and what are X and Y here?
Philippe Lemoine added,
Lyman Expand the House Stone, AKA 石來民 @lymanstonekyReplying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 @dpinsenThere is no correlation whatsoever between the GDP per capita of a country at the time an immigrant departed it (early 1980s in this case) and their income in the us 30-years later. pic.twitter.com/b8pOTHt4dV1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure. X axis is GDP per capita in 1983 for all countries for which World Bank has that data AND for which ACS 2011-2015 has a detailed-place-of-birth field. Y axis is average personal income (2011-2015) of all those of a given place of birth who immigrated 1984 or earlier.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 and
i.e. I'm comparing immigrants who've been here 30 years to the income of their home countries when they left them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 and
But in case you dislike using 1983 GDP, here it is vs. 2013 GDP:pic.twitter.com/1L0hqKhYWs
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 and
If you tilt your head and squint you might convince yourself rich-country immigrants are better than middle-income-country immigrants... but poor country immigrants seem just fine?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, no, I'm fine with using 1983 GDP per capita. But I would like to see this weighted by number of immigrants if you're going to calculate the correlation. There also seems to be an awful lot of countries with a really tiny GDP per capita even in 2013.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The technical term for that is "Africa." (or, rather, "the developing world". Though, yeah, World Bank does seem to be spitting out a bit lower numbers than I had in my noggin. But I didn't fiddle with it at all; just generic real GDP per capita)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 and
And I agree pop-weighting would be swell but AFAIK Borjas didn't pop weight his chart and you seemed fine with sharing it? ;-)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lymanstoneky @phl43 and
I just used one year of data but in my ACS regressions a lot of countries had HUGE standard errors. I'd need to look to see if Borjas spelled out how he picked the countries but I imagine he at least had some minimal sample size for inclusion.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
It's better to use weights (use 1/se of mean) than exclude data based on sample size.
-
-
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil @lymanstoneky and
WWW aims to be very general audience friendly, so I'd guess he went that route to make the scatter plot easier to read
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.