Scribd
Upload
59 views

Quantitative Methods Assignment Help

The document contains solutions to 3 problems related to analyzing wages data: 1) It calculates marginal returns to schooling and experience, finding that returns to schooling increase with more education but returns to experience decrease with more experience. 2) It finds that maximum earnings are reached at ages 46.7, 48.4, and 50.2 for people with 8, 12, and 16 years of schooling respectively. 3) It calculates lifetime earnings as $2,979,533 for someone with 8 years of schooling retiring at 65, and $4,722,841 for someone with 16 years of schooling retiring then.

Uploaded by

Statistics Homework Solver
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views

Quantitative Methods Assignment Help

The document contains solutions to 3 problems related to analyzing wages data: 1) It calculates marginal returns to schooling and experience, finding that returns to schooling increase with more education but returns to experience decrease with more experience. 2) It finds that maximum earnings are reached at ages 46.7, 48.4, and 50.2 for people with 8, 12, and 16 years of schooling respectively. 3) It calculates lifetime earnings as $2,979,533 for someone with 8 years of schooling retiring at 65, and $4,722,841 for someone with 16 years of schooling retiring then.

Uploaded by

Statistics Homework Solver
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

For any Assignment related queries, call us at : - +1 678 648 4277,

visit : - https://www.statisticshomeworksolver.com/, or
Email : - [email protected]
Problem

Problem 1.

Calculate the marginal return to Schooling and the marginal return


to Experience, i.e. the first derivative of wages with respect to
schooling and with respect to experience. Note: Experience equals
Age Minus Schooling Minus 6. Give an intuitive description of the
marginal return functions. Calculate the second derivatives. Are
marginal returns to experience increasing or decreasing? Are
marginal returns to schooling increasing or decreasing?

Problem 2.

Calculate the age at which people reach maximum earnings. Do


this calculation for three different education profiles: those with 8,
12, 16 years of schooling. At what ages are wages maximized?
What are the values of wages at which wages are maximized?

Problem 3.

Calculate the lifetime earnings of someone with 8 years of


education who retires at 65 and the lifetime earnings of someone
with 16 years of education who retires at 65. This can be done
with a summation or with an integral.
Solution
Solution 1.

Calculating Marginal Returns to Schooling(MRS) and Marginal


Returns to Experience(MRE) implies doing the firstdifferentiation.
As shown in STATA result, the regression equation with
appropriate coefficients is:

ln wage

And, Marginal Return to Schooling(MRS) can be obtained through


first differentiating lnWage with respect to S:

Since we still have experience term (X) in the differentiated


equation, marginal return is not only changes according to
schooling but also to experience. Holding experience constant,
we can see that the increase in schooling results in the increase
in MRS. This gives you an idea that an additional education makes
your wage increases more rapidly.
That is, an additional education not only increases the whole
amount of wage, but also sppeds up the rate of increase in wage.
This can be proved by checking out the second derivative

The second derivative result, which is positive, shows us that the


regression equation with respect to schooling has a minimum
value, not maximum. Therefore, we can conclude that the more
education a person receives, the higher percentage
change(positively) in lnWage, that is, the more wage s/he can earn
with increasing rate.

The same logic can be applied to experience. We first differentiate


and get Marginal Return to Experience(MRE):

Interestingly, the Marginal Return to Experience seems to


decrease as a person’s experience increases. (You can simply plug
numbers in X) The second derivative is :
Contrast to the case of schooling, the sign of the second derivative
is negative. This means the experience has a maximum point at
which the rate of increase becomes zero and then turn to
negative. But, remember that the “wage” will be still increasing
with decreasing rate until the original function hits zero.

Solution 2.

The question is asking you to do the first differentiation with


respect to age variable, then put it equal to zero to figure out an
optimal point. You can also substitute AGE for EX into the previous
equation, then differentiate. Many people did the differentiation
first, and replaced EX with AGE. This way of calculation, luckily,
worked out in this particular case, but not necessarily all the time.
It is a special case that the relationship between EX and AGE is
exactly linear, which could give you a correct answer. Otherwise,
you will encounter a different answers. Think about the example
of f(x) = ax2 + bx + c and x = ez + f. Then, compare when you
differentiate f(x) with respect to x, then insert ez + f instead of x
vs. differentiate f(z) = a(ez + f)2 + b(ez + f) + c with respect to z.
Unless e = 0, you will have different answers. We will probably
cover this later in the course.

ln wage
The first differentiation will be :

FOC is:

The age at which a person’s wage reaches to maximum depends on


the years of schooling. If we plug different years of education in the
equation of 8, 12 and 16 years, we have 46.7, 48.4 and 50.2,
respectively. Noticeably, although the education years are different
by 4 years, the age of maximum does not show that much of
difference. This implies that a person with higher education earns
faster (as though he compensates his opportunity cost of schooling)
to reach the maximum wage of his. And this result supports the
previous question’s answer.

Then, what about the actual value of earning at the maximum


point? Simply, plug the age we just calculated into the original
equation. Since the education years are given (8, 12 and 16 years),
we can calculate lnWage at maximum for each schooling years. I
obtained 1.9 for 8 years, 2.1 for 12 years and 2.5 for 16 years. This is
the natural log form, so we transform these values to real wage:
lnWage = 1.9

Therefore, if a person has 8 years of education, s/he will reach


her/his maximum wage when s/he becomes 46.7 years old and
the wage itself is $ 67,000 a year. (I assumed that the unit might be
in $ 10,000) In the same way, I got 8 dollars per hour for 12 years
of education and $ 120,000 for 16 years of education.

Solution 3.

This is an integral question. You can either do the integration with


respect to age or experience. Just mind the upper and lower
bounds when you change the terms that you are integrating. Here,
I chose experience. Writing integration for experience gives :
Following the integral rule, you plug upper bound and lower
bound into the equation, then subtract the lowerbound value from
the upperbound value. Here, the lower bound is 0, so you only
need to get the value of upperbound. (plugging 0 into the integral
equation will only result in 0). The calculation gives 90.8 for 8 years
of education and 107.4 for 16 years. These numbers are the
accumulation of percentage changes in wage. (Recall that the
dependent variable was lnWage) Thus, it does not correctly
convert to the total wage a person earned. This can be obtained
by:

This should eventually come close to a normal curve. It should be


very hard to solve this equation by hand, so I used some help of
Matlab. When a person has 8-year schooling, the lifetime earning
of the person is $ 2,979,533. For a 16-year schooling person, the
lifetime earning is $ 4,722,841. You can also use Excel for the
calculation. Inserting each value of experience from 1 to 51 (or 43)
into the equation and summing them up will give you similar
result.

You might also like