In article <94qi92$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin) writes:
>
>This has nothing to do with regression to the mean.
>The people in the top 10% and the bottom 10% have changed.
I see "regression to the mean" and "the people in the top 10% and
the bottom 10% have changed" as two sides of the same coin here
[where my main point was that the presented "evidence" would have
occurred even if the pattern of wealth distribution were stationary].
>
>In Galton's data, the top 10% of the sons were just about
>as far from the mean as the top 10% of the fathers.
Similarly here, I'd say that "regression to the mean" and
"the top 10% of sons aren't all produced by the top 10% of fathers"
have a lot more than nothing to do with each other.
But your mileage may vary.
Regards, Ewart Shaw
>--
>This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
>are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] [EMAIL PROTECTED] TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, U.K.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept/Staff/JEHS/
yacc - the piece of code that understandeth all parsing
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
