Hi @jstac
I have two questions
Here are some comments for the lecture kalman_2 's first three subsections.
Begining paragraph
The begining paragraph contains some typos.
A worker's output
The section A worker's output contains several notation and exposition issues.
-
“The workers' output” should likely be “The worker's output”.
-
In the human capital equation, c_{t+1} \sim {\mathcal N}(0,1) appears to be a typo. Since the shock enters as $c w_{t+1}$, this should likely be $w_{t+1} \sim N(0,1)$.
-
In the kalman_2 lecture, we use \sim \mathcal{N} but style guide qe-math-A3 says we should use \sim N
-
The shock $w_{t+1}$ is not defined in the “Here” list.
-
The notation $w_{t+1}$ for the human capital shock may be confusing because $w_t$ is later used for the worker's log wage. It may be clearer to rename the shock to something like $\epsilon_{t+1}$.
-
The parameter list uses $\sigma_h, \sigma_u$, but the initial distributions use $\sigma_{h,0}, \sigma_{u,0}$. These should be made consistent.
-
The equation $u_{t+1} = u_t$ is useful because it treats effort as a fixed unobserved component of worker type, but the text should explain this point more explicitly.
A firm's wage-setting policy
The section A firm's wage-setting policy contains some notation and exposition issues.
-
The expectation notation should change to \mathbb{E} following style guide qe-math-A1
-
The information timing is important but could be stated more clearly: the firm sets the wage at time $t$ using past output history $y^{t-1}$, before observing current output $y_t$.
Do these changes sound reasonable? I would be happy to open a PR if so
Best,
Longye
Hi @jstac
I have two questions
Here are some comments for the lecture
kalman_2's first three subsections.Begining paragraph
The begining paragraph contains some typos.
quanteconshould likely beQuantEcon“how the much firm pays” should be “how much the firm pays”.
A worker's output
The section
A worker's outputcontains several notation and exposition issues.“The workers' output” should likely be “The worker's output”.
In the human capital equation,$c w_{t+1}$ , this should likely be $w_{t+1} \sim N(0,1)$ .
c_{t+1} \sim {\mathcal N}(0,1)appears to be a typo. Since the shock enters asIn the
kalman_2lecture, we use\sim \mathcal{N}but style guideqe-math-A3says we should use\sim NThe shock$w_{t+1}$ is not defined in the “Here” list.
The notation$w_{t+1}$ for the human capital shock may be confusing because $w_t$ is later used for the worker's log wage. It may be clearer to rename the shock to something like $\epsilon_{t+1}$ .
The parameter list uses$\sigma_h, \sigma_u$ , but the initial distributions use $\sigma_{h,0}, \sigma_{u,0}$ . These should be made consistent.
The equation$u_{t+1} = u_t$ is useful because it treats effort as a fixed unobserved component of worker type, but the text should explain this point more explicitly.
A firm's wage-setting policy
The section
A firm's wage-setting policycontains some notation and exposition issues.The expectation notation should change to
\mathbb{E}following style guideqe-math-A1The information timing is important but could be stated more clearly: the firm sets the wage at time$t$ using past output history $y^{t-1}$ , before observing current output $y_t$ .
Do these changes sound reasonable? I would be happy to open a PR if so
Best,
Longye