All,
I am wondering if I may trouble you for some clarity over a marginal effect I have recently calculated.
I am using a logit model to understand the effect of Routinisation (explained below) and a number of educational and demographic variables on the probability of ending up in one of six occupational categories at the end of a period of transition, t.
Routinisation is the rate of decline of routine jobs (derived through a classification scheme I have put together) over each period of transition. For the sake of example, for the first four periods it takes the following values:
There are various destination groups individuals can end up in at the end of the period of transition (Professional, Managerial, etc). I estimate a logit model for the probability of ending up at each of the final occupational groups, conditional on them starting in the Routine group. Of these final groups, one is Routine. In this case, the model essentially estimates the probability of remaining in the Routine group.
Being a logit model, I look at the Average Marginal Effects (AME) and Marginal Effects at the Average (MEA) in order to gauge some feel of the magnitude of the effects. In the estimation for remaining in the routine category, I notice that the marginal effect of Routinisation is very high: it is around 0.9 for both MEA and AME.
My question is this: how an earth do I interpret this? Routinisation is ultimately a continuous variable, but it is calculated as a rate of decline. Surely this cannot mean that for a 1 unit increase in Routinisation (what is this? 1%?), the probability of remaining in the Routine category decreases by 90%. Can it?
Many thanks,
Jeremy.
I am wondering if I may trouble you for some clarity over a marginal effect I have recently calculated.
I am using a logit model to understand the effect of Routinisation (explained below) and a number of educational and demographic variables on the probability of ending up in one of six occupational categories at the end of a period of transition, t.
Routinisation is the rate of decline of routine jobs (derived through a classification scheme I have put together) over each period of transition. For the sake of example, for the first four periods it takes the following values:
Period | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
Change in share or routine jobs | -5.77% | -6.08% | -3.78% | -1.40% |
Initial share of routine jobs | 57.99% | 52.22% | 46.14% | 42.36% |
Rate | -9.95% | -11.64% | -8.19% | -3.30% |
Routinisation | 0.0995017 | 0.116384 | 0.081888 | 0.03300123 |
There are various destination groups individuals can end up in at the end of the period of transition (Professional, Managerial, etc). I estimate a logit model for the probability of ending up at each of the final occupational groups, conditional on them starting in the Routine group. Of these final groups, one is Routine. In this case, the model essentially estimates the probability of remaining in the Routine group.
Being a logit model, I look at the Average Marginal Effects (AME) and Marginal Effects at the Average (MEA) in order to gauge some feel of the magnitude of the effects. In the estimation for remaining in the routine category, I notice that the marginal effect of Routinisation is very high: it is around 0.9 for both MEA and AME.
My question is this: how an earth do I interpret this? Routinisation is ultimately a continuous variable, but it is calculated as a rate of decline. Surely this cannot mean that for a 1 unit increase in Routinisation (what is this? 1%?), the probability of remaining in the Routine category decreases by 90%. Can it?
Many thanks,
Jeremy.
Comment