library(tidyverse)
library(scales)
options(scipen=999)
Make sure to include the unit of the values whenever appropriate.
Hint: The variables are available in the CPS85 data set from the mosaicData package.
data(CPS85, package="mosaicData")
cps85_lm <- lm(wage ~ educ + exper + sex,
data = CPS85)
summary(cps85_lm)
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = wage ~ educ + exper + sex, data = CPS85)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -9.571 -2.746 -0.653 1.893 37.724
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -6.50451 1.20985 -5.376 0.0000001141795 ***
## educ 0.94051 0.07886 11.926 < 0.0000000000000002 ***
## exper 0.11330 0.01671 6.781 0.0000000000319 ***
## sexM 2.33763 0.38806 6.024 0.0000000031877 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 4.454 on 530 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.2532, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2489
## F-statistic: 59.88 on 3 and 530 DF, p-value: < 0.00000000000000022
Yes, education is statistically significant at 5% becuase its P value is smaller than .05.
Hint: Discuss both its sign and magnitude.
Every 1 year that you continue your education you gain .94051 dollars for every hour of work.
Hint: Discuss all three aspects of the relevant predictor: 1) statistical significance, 2) sign, and 3) magnitude.
Yes, because it seems that males are making 2.33763 more dollars an hour than women. This is statistically significant because it sits with 3 *** meaning it is very statistically significant because its lower then .05.
The hourly wage for a woman with 15 years of education and 5 years of experience would be $8.15 an hour. How to: (.94 times 15)+(.11 times 5)+-6.5
Hint: Provide a technical interpretation.
The intercept at 0 would be statistically impossible. People would be making a negative profit.
Hint: Discuss in terms of both residual standard error and reported adjusted R squared.
data(CPS85, package="mosaicData")
cps85_lm <- lm(wage ~ educ + exper + sex + union,
data = CPS85)
summary(cps85_lm)
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = wage ~ educ + exper + sex + union, data = CPS85)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -9.496 -2.708 -0.712 1.909 37.784
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -6.48023 1.20159 -5.393 0.00000010459 ***
## educ 0.93495 0.07835 11.934 < 0.0000000000000002 ***
## exper 0.10692 0.01674 6.387 0.00000000037 ***
## sexM 2.14765 0.39097 5.493 0.00000006145 ***
## unionUnion 1.47111 0.50932 2.888 0.00403 **
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 4.423 on 529 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.2648, Adjusted R-squared: 0.2592
## F-statistic: 47.62 on 4 and 529 DF, p-value: < 0.00000000000000022
The adjusted R code went from 2.489 to 2.592 after adding union to the model. Also, in the first model without the union variable, the residual standard error is 4.454 and on the model included union is 4.423. The second model is better due to more accuracy and information of union memebers.
Hint: Use message, echo and results in the chunk options. Refer to the RMarkdown Reference Guide.