5 ms·

> Which of these techniques do you think establishes a causal relationship? I can tell you right from the start that "time series regressions" don't establish a

> Which of these techniques do you think establishes a causal relationship? I can tell you right from the start that "time series regressions" don't establish a causal relationship. Hm, time series series regression is a standard, accepted approach to causal inference: https://towardsdatascience.com/inferring-causality-in-time-series-data-b8b75fe52c46 https://towardsdatascience.com/inferring-causality-in-time-s... For me, it suffices to say that the authors did not weakly position their argument as you claimed. I responded because I thought that claim was an attack, and that it was a careless regurgitation of the standard line about correlation. There's some author discussion here that might help get the points across: https://www.stone-econ.org/research/unions-and-inequality-over-the-20th-century-new-evidence-from-survey-data https://www.stone-econ.org/research/unions-and-inequality-ov... Here, also, is a third-party discussion: https://journalistsresource.org/economics/inequality-labor-unions/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/inequality-labor-u... The data that the union papers authors used is here. Scroll to the bottom of the page to find "Supplementary data | qjab012_Online_Appendix - pdf file" https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/136/3/1325/6219103 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/136/3/1325/6219103

roenxi 2y ago
> Hm, time series series regression is a standard, accepted approach to causal inference But statistical causality - things like Granger causality for example - aren't, in reality, establishing causality. They're statistical properties. You can't ever establish causality from statistical data. Eg, if I light a log on fire there will be bright light and later on there will be ash. If you have a timeseries of luminosity and quantity of ash present, bright light will be Granger-causal of ash. But in reality we know that bright light isn't causing the ash; the situation is we are analysing a bonfire. You've got a group of people there in that analysis article that aren't very good at interpreting results. They're looking at a time of extreme turmoil, they've picked 2 random timeseries that are responding to underlying causes and assuming that they are the entire story. They can't do that, it isn't a valid argument. It isn't a thorough enough treatment. In analogy, they're missing the fire for the light. There isn't particularly strong evidence that unions do anything on their own at the macro level; especially since the economic regime was just very different in an era where the available energy supplied was cheap and quantity was rapidly increasing. > For me, it suffices to say that the authors did not weakly position their argument as you claimed. I never said they weakly positioned their argument, their argument is watertight, they developed a data set and analysed it. Found a bunch of interesting statistical facts. Solid academic work. camdat weakly positioned his argument.
- aesh2Xa1 2y ago
  The authors are using other historical events to help improve the theory. They aren't solely reliant even on time series. This isn't an experimental study, and so they have to rely upon plausibility in context. This explains their multi-faceted approach a la distributional decompositions and state and IV. To me, the contrarian position — that unions have no such effect — doesn't look as good. Prove it :)
  - roenxi 2y ago
    They don't. I think there might be a gap between what they wrote and what you think they wrote. They aren't attempting to rely on "plausibility in context", they're doing academic work and they're stating basic facts - they developed a dataset and analysed it. That analysis revealed a bunch of interesting statistical features. But that is a series of fairly specific statements. What they aren't claiming is to have a theory. There isn't a theory in the paper. They aren't doing any work that requires theorising. They're just looking for evidence. And they found some, but it is weak evidence for the idea that unions have a positive influence and it is unclear what it actually shows in reality. It is a good example of the truism that correlations are not causations. > To me, the contrarian position — that unions have no such effect — doesn't look as good. Prove it :) I do believe that unions have a generally negative effect, but that isn't what I'm arguing about in this thread. My point here is that this paper isn't a meta study and is evidence of something different than what camdat originally claimed. And I felt your response was interesting enough to justify a few extra comments about the difference between statistical causality and practical causality.
    - aesh2Xa1 2y ago
      Do you have proof of your position? Do you have proof, also, how these authors are specifically evidenced to be wrong? > Although in fairness I would suspect there probably is a causal element. Why did you think so earlier? Is it contrary to your current position? > Pro-union types tend to have a very short term view of the world and aren't about maximising long term returns. Strikes and collective bargaining don't move the needle in the right direction over the long term. What does move the needle over the long term?

roenxi 2y ago

> Hm, time series series regression is a standard, accepted approach to causal inference But statistical causality - things like Granger causality for example - aren't, in reality, establishing causality. They're statistical properties. You can't ever establish causality from statistical data. Eg, if I light a log on fire there will be bright light and later on there will be ash. If you have a timeseries of luminosity and quantity of ash present, bright light will be Granger-causal of ash. But in reality we know that bright light isn't causing the ash; the situation is we are analysing a bonfire. You've got a group of people there in that analysis article that aren't very good at interpreting results. They're looking at a time of extreme turmoil, they've picked 2 random timeseries that are responding to underlying causes and assuming that they are the entire story. They can't do that, it isn't a valid argument. It isn't a thorough enough treatment. In analogy, they're missing the fire for the light. There isn't particularly strong evidence that unions do anything on their own at the macro level; especially since the economic regime was just very different in an era where the available energy supplied was cheap and quantity was rapidly increasing. > For me, it suffices to say that the authors did not weakly position their argument as you claimed. I never said they weakly positioned their argument, their argument is watertight, they developed a data set and analysed it. Found a bunch of interesting statistical facts. Solid academic work. camdat weakly positioned his argument.

aesh2Xa1 2y ago
The authors are using other historical events to help improve the theory. They aren't solely reliant even on time series. This isn't an experimental study, and so they have to rely upon plausibility in context. This explains their multi-faceted approach a la distributional decompositions and state and IV. To me, the contrarian position — that unions have no such effect — doesn't look as good. Prove it :)
- roenxi 2y ago
  They don't. I think there might be a gap between what they wrote and what you think they wrote. They aren't attempting to rely on "plausibility in context", they're doing academic work and they're stating basic facts - they developed a dataset and analysed it. That analysis revealed a bunch of interesting statistical features. But that is a series of fairly specific statements. What they aren't claiming is to have a theory. There isn't a theory in the paper. They aren't doing any work that requires theorising. They're just looking for evidence. And they found some, but it is weak evidence for the idea that unions have a positive influence and it is unclear what it actually shows in reality. It is a good example of the truism that correlations are not causations. > To me, the contrarian position — that unions have no such effect — doesn't look as good. Prove it :) I do believe that unions have a generally negative effect, but that isn't what I'm arguing about in this thread. My point here is that this paper isn't a meta study and is evidence of something different than what camdat originally claimed. And I felt your response was interesting enough to justify a few extra comments about the difference between statistical causality and practical causality.
  - aesh2Xa1 2y ago
    Do you have proof of your position? Do you have proof, also, how these authors are specifically evidenced to be wrong? > Although in fairness I would suspect there probably is a causal element. Why did you think so earlier? Is it contrary to your current position? > Pro-union types tend to have a very short term view of the world and aren't about maximising long term returns. Strikes and collective bargaining don't move the needle in the right direction over the long term. What does move the needle over the long term?