4 ms·

Sigh. I have a dream when one day people learn to use that quote correctly. Correlation does not imply causation, but a lack of correlation does suggest (not pr

Sigh. I have a dream when one day people learn to use that quote correctly. Correlation does not imply causation, but a lack of correlation does suggest (not prove, but suggest) a lack of causation. In this case, the relevant claim is the claim by minimum wage opponents that the unemployment rate and the minimum wage are positively correlated. Seattle's situation does NOT imply that a $15/hr minimum wage decreases unemployment (if someone were to make that claim, then your quip would apply), but it DOES suggest that a $15/hr minimum wage does not increase unemployment; this distinction is subtle but vital.

geomark 10y ago
"Correlation does not imply causation, but a lack of correlation does suggest (not prove, but suggest) a lack of causation." I don't think it's any stronger one way or the other. Correlation does not imply causation; it may suggest it, but there may be confounders. And lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation, because there may be confounders that mask results that would suggest causation. Showing causation is hard and usually takes careful design of experiment with very good controls to eliminate any potential confounders, something that is not present in retrospective studies.