00:01
This is another statistical inference problem.
00:04
And this time we're going to look at a different equation.
00:07
So we're interested in net financial wealth of people in a survey.
00:14
And it's a pretty simple model.
00:16
We're just going to assume that the net financial wealth of people is just a function of their current family income, their annual family income, and their age.
00:30
So part one.
00:32
Is pretty simple.
00:33
It just asks you to find the number of single person households in the dataset.
00:38
And so just in whatever program you like using, you can use the syntax to figure out the number of single person households.
00:53
And i'll just give that number here.
00:56
So let's go black here.
00:59
So if you write out the correct syntax, then there's different ways to do that depending on whatever program you use.
01:08
You should get the number of single person.
01:10
And households in the sample and i'll just abbreviate households as hh.
01:17
You should get that it is equal to 2017.
01:27
And we'll be using that sample in the rest of the problem.
01:33
So there's the answer for part one, pretty simple.
01:38
Part two ask you to use classic ols to estimate the following model.
01:46
I wrote it out in this function form.
01:50
Your problem probably has it in the standard econometric form.
01:56
And it says to be sure to use only your single person households in the sample.
02:00
So again, write your syntax to make that happen.
02:05
Just use the sample of 2017 single person households.
02:11
So let's write out the different numbers here, or write out the coefficients, and then i'll have the standard areas underneath the coefficient.
02:23
So for income, we have the positive coefficient.
02:27
That makes sense.
02:29
So that's just saying as your annual income goes up, holding age constant, people are reporting that their net financial wealth is more.
02:42
So standard error for this is 0 .06.
02:45
So that's going to be very statistically significant.
02:51
And age, we would maybe also expect age to have a positive coefficient.
02:55
Right.
02:56
So as you.
02:57
As you get older, holding income constant, you likely will have a higher net financial wealth than people who are younger.
03:11
So let's put that there.
03:14
Also, with a small standard error here, it's going to be very statistically significant here.
03:24
So after we've estimated this, it says to interpret the slope coefficients.
03:30
So let's just go to income first.
03:36
So this point 799.
03:37
And this just represents that one more dollar in a respondent's income, and that's holding age fixed, results in about 80 more cents in predicted net financial wealth.
03:56
So i guess i could just write that out a little bit.
04:00
So if you have one more dollar of income, you have about plus 80 cents more of your wealth.
04:22
So there's that interpretation on the income coefficient.
04:29
For age, let's see what this one means.
04:33
So 0 .843 is a coefficient.
04:35
And this means that holding income fixed, if someone is one year older, so let's just say plus one year, one year older, his or her net financial income is predicted to increase by about $843.
05:00
And just be careful with the units there.
05:03
So the coefficient itself is 0 .843.
05:08
But since the net financial wealth variable is given in thousands of dollars, that's what we get for the impact.
05:21
All right.
05:23
And then i also asked you, are there any surprise? in these slope estimates.
05:28
So we've kind of already answered this, but first of all, both of these coefficients are positive, you know, holding other things constant.
05:39
If you have a higher annual income, you're predicted to have a higher net financial wealth, and also holding your income constant.
05:48
As you get older, you're also predicted to gain or have a higher net financial wealth.
05:57
So no surprises here.
06:01
3 moves along and just asks if the intercept from the regression that we estimated, which i haven't given.
06:09
So let's just write that out.
06:11
I'll just write out for beta not.
06:14
And hopefully you get this answer after you estimate in your own program.
06:19
But your beta not should be negative 43.
06:26
So zero there...