You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We multiply the wage rate at each age by the assumed number of hours a year available (for example, 4,000 a year)...
While this might just be an example and they actually adjust hours available by the size of the household, I don't know.
But I think giving all households the same time endowment when computing what lifetime income group they are in might be helpful. Consider a high earning single person. Assume that this person would be in the top 1% of lifetime earners if s/he worked 4000 hours a year, but is at the 70th percentile (among all households, including those with two earners) with 2000 hours per year. When generating profiles of average hourly earnings by lifetime income group - do we want to put that high earner (one who looks a lot like the top 1% of earners if we look at her/him individually) in the bucket with the top 1% or the bucket with the 70th percentile?
I'm not sure of the right answer here. OG-USA not distinguishing between single and dual earner households also muddies the water a bit.
The time endowment for computing lifetime income is currently set at 4000 hours for all households:
https://github.com/PSLmodels/OG-USA-Calibration/blob/15b6471dc8d757e0842f395ad03b4a9df91ee37a/ogusa_calibrate/psid_data_setup.py#L323
Married households should have a larger time endowment than singles.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: