ctpp-news March 2003

ctpp-news@mailman.chrispy.net

42 participants
55 discussions

Calculating commute flow for "Core Based Statistical Areas"

by Elaine Murakami

This information is provided by Todd Gardner Population Distribution Branch, U.S. Census Bureau: The standards for defining CBSAs are given in the Dec. 27, 2000, Federal Register Notice, available on the Census Bureau's website at http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/masrp.html. To determine if a county qualifies as an outlying county in a CBSA the following test is employed: Section 3. Outlying Counties A county qualifies as an outlying county of a CBSA if it meets the following commuting requirements: (a) at least 25 percent of the employed residents of the county work in the central county or counties of the CBSA; or (b) at least 25 percent of the employment in the county is accounted for by workers who reside in the central county or counties of the CBSA. A county may appear in only one CBSA. If a county qualifies as a central county of one CBSA and as outlying in another, it falls within the CBSA in which it is a central county. A county that qualifies as outlying to multiple CBSAs falls within the CBSA with which it has the strongest commuting tie, as measured by either (a) or (b) above. The counties included in a CBSA must be contiguous; if a county is not contiguous with other counties in the CBSA, it will not fall within the CBSA. The numbers used in this test come from the 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files, available on the Census Bureau's website at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html. The number of employed residents is calculated by adding up all counts of individuals in the 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files where the county in question is listed as the county of residence. Similarly, county employment is calculated by adding up all counts in the 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files where the county in question is listed as the place of work. If you have any further questions you can contact me at 301-763-2459. --Todd Gardner Population Distribution Branch

21 years, 5 months

RE: [CTPP] Release Information

by Brian Lakeman

Thank you for the update Ed. Has there been any word (official or unofficial) as to what is causing the delay in the disemmination of the CTPP data? It would be nice, when explaining the new "target" dates to my boss, to be able to point to a reason for the delay. Thanks. Brian Lakeman Genesee Transportation Council -----Original Message----- From: ed christopher [mailto:edc@berwyned.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:11 AM To: Huntley, Lance; ctpp-news maillist Subject: Re: [CTPP] Release Information sorry--the pages and dates have been updated for the umpty-umpt time. http://www.TRBcensus.com/calendar.html recapping Part 1 residents data is due to start flowing out in mid April. Parts 2 (workplace) and Part 3 (flows) are due to start coming out in the summer (don't have anything more specific but given all the current delays i would figure late, late summer) "Huntley, Lance" wrote: > HI List, > > Are the release dates provided on the CTPP 2000 Status Report web page dated August 8th, 2002 still in effect? The dates indicate that: > CTPP Part 1 - Residence Based Tables: November 2002 to January 2003 > CTPP Parts 2 and 3 - Work End and Worker Flow Tables: Beginning in April 2003 > Are there any updated release dates? > > Thanks, > Lance Huntley

21 years, 9 months

Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County Commuting for MSA additions

by Chuck Purvis

TO: CTPP List-serv I don't have much to contribute to this discussion, other than a news clipping that Ed Christopher provided to me from our DC/Baltimore colleagues (from the Baltimore Sun): http://www.sunspot.net/business/bal-bz.census16mar16,0,933589.story?coll=bal I do know that OMB was searching for local input on defining CMSAs and MSAs, using early versions of the county-to-county Census 2000 commute data. They, OMB, were conducting this local input process via local congessional delegations. We basically got a fourth generation FAX from one of our congresspersons asking us about the funding implications of CMSA/MSA designations. I believe the initial round of input was closed (?) on October 31, 2002. Can some of our federal colleagues enlighten us on the OMB process? Future hearings? Means to express our interest? Reviewing the comments received from our congressional delegation? Chuck Purvis, MTC >>> <rsvejkovsky(a)ci.greenville.nc.us> 03/25/03 05:33AM >>> Now that the county-to-county commuting data is out, does anyone know when the Census Bureau will announce the new MSA list? I read the Dec. 27, 2000, OMB Notice re: the MSA standards and it appears based upon the new county-to-county data, Greene County will be included with Pitt County (the central county) in the Greenville (NC) MSA. First message on this subject from . . . The new regulations for MSA definitions state basically that an outlying county is included if at least 25 percent of the "employed residents" work in the central county or counties (those counties with over 50 percent of the population in the urbanized area). Obviously the county-to-county commuting numbers provide the number of residents working in the central counties. However the "employed residents" is less clear. Is it from the same source (Apples and Apples) and thereby excluding those not at work during the reference week, or is it taken from SF3 (Apples and Oranges) and thus "total" resident employment? We have a county that is 25.03% by the first method and 24.73% by the second. In or out?

21 years, 9 months

Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County Commuting for MSA additions

by rsvejkovsky＠ci.greenville.nc.us

Now that the county-to-county commuting data is out, does anyone know when the Census Bureau will announce the new MSA list? I read the Dec. 27, 2000, OMB Notice re: the MSA standards and it appears based upon the new county-to-county data, Greene County will be included with Pitt County (the central county) in the Greenville (NC) MSA. ----- Forwarded by Ron Svejkovsky/PWD/COGV on 03/25/2003 08:29 AM ----- Steve Wallace <swallace@mapaco To: Chuck Purvis <CPurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov> g.org> cc: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Sent by: Subject: [CTPP] Re: Use of 2000 County-to-County owner-ctpp-news@ Commuting for MSA additions chrispy.net 03/21/2003 03:22 PM The new regulations for MSA definitions state basically that an outlying county is included if at least 25 percent of the "employed residents" work in the central county or counties (those counties with over 50 percent of the population in the urbanized area). Obviously the county-to-county commuting numbers provide the number of residents working in the central counties. However the "employed residents" is less clear. Is it from the same source (Apples and Apples) and thereby excluding those not at work during the reference week, or is it taken from SF3 (Apples and Oranges) and thus "total" resident employment? We have a county that is 25.03% by the first method and 24.73% by the second. In or out?

21 years, 9 months

Release Information

by Huntley, Lance

HI List, Are the release dates provided on the CTPP 2000 Status Report web page dated August 8th, 2002 still in effect? The dates indicate that: CTPP Part 1 - Residence Based Tables: November 2002 to January 2003 CTPP Parts 2 and 3 - Work End and Worker Flow Tables: Beginning in April 2003 Are there any updated release dates? Thanks, Lance Huntley

21 years, 9 months

FW: multiple job holding rates

by Edwards, Adriel (MHD)

Hello all, This email is response to Chuck's question about the definition on multiple job holding rates. I got the answer straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak! Ryan Helwig of the US BLS called me to answer the question below about the confusing title and footnotes on the tables on multiple job holding rates. Basically, the rate is a percentage of employed residents (as it was footnoted in the old table), and as far as the US BLS is concerned, that is the same thing as total employment (as it was titled in the new table). Therefore, the recent data can be compared with the old data for the purposes of examining trends, and the like. However, he did add one caveat. The recent data is collected monthly and averaged annually. The old data, prior to 1994, was only collected in every May. And some years they simply did not collect this data. To help us around this obstacle, he kindly provided the post-1994 May data along with the pre-1994 May data so we can really compare apples to apples. Hope this helps! Have fun! Adriel Edwards Transportation Planner Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Massachusetts Highway Department (617) 973 -8062 -----Original Message----- From: Helwig_R [mailto:Helwig_R@BLS.GOV] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:25 PM To: 'Adriel.Edwards(a)MHD.state.ma.us' Subject: FW: multiple job holding rates <<Multiple jobholders May 1970-2002.xls>> Dear Adriel, I have attached the Excel file I mentioned with the multiple jobholding estimates (national) for May of each year. These data can be cited as "Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey." I will be out of the office next week, so if you have any questions, feel free to call our main office line on 202.691.6378 or email cpsinfo(a)bls.gov. Thanks, Ryan Helwig Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Labor Force Statistics Phone: 202.691.6385 Email: helwig_r(a)bls.gov -----Original Message----- From: Edwards, Adriel (MHD) [mailto:Adriel.Edwards@MHD.state.ma.us] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:55 PM To: 'cewinfo(a)bls.gov'; 'cesinfo(a)bls.gov'; 'blsdata_staff(a)bls.gov' Cc: 'cpurvis(a)mtc.ca.gov' Subject: multiple job holding rates Hello, I am looking at trends in multiple jobholding rates and am trying to confirm the definition. According to the BLS glossary, multiple job holders (not the rate) are the people that have more than one job, with a few exceptions. Makes sense. The footnote in Table 1 in the article at http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1full.pdf <http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1997/03/art1full.pdf> has the rate as a percentage of employed persons. Good. But some confusion is arising because the title of Table 1 in article http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/07/rgtrends.pdf <http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/07/rgtrends.pdf> has the rate as a percentage of total employment. My question is this: Is BLS's definition of "total employment" the same as that of "employed residents"? In other words, can we compare the data in the two articles and safely say, for example, that in 1991, the rate was 6.2% and in 2000 it was 5.6%? Thank you kindly and have a nice weekend, Adriel Edwards Transportation Planner Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development Massachusetts Highway Department (617) 973 -8062

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work

by Chuck Purvis

1. Census 2000, summary file #3, Table P51 provides data on workers by class of worker, including the self-employed and unpaid family. This shows that 10.1 percent of U.S. workers are self-employed or unpaid family; 11.6 percent in California; and 10.6 percent in the Bay Area. Interestingly our self-employed share ranges upwards to 23.2 percent of the employed labor force in Marin County (home of George Lucas and other self-employed clones). So, counties with high self-employed shares are probably either agrarian economies or entrepeneurial economies. 2. The more I research, the less I find out I really know. There are several sources of data on employment, including the BLS, BEA and Census. One very good source of information is the book "Socioeconomic Data for Understanding Your Regional Economy" by Cortright and Reamer. It is available on their EDA-supported web site at: www.econdata.net Check it out. 3. Imputation (or allocation, using the Census Bureau's terminology) will definitely be an error issue for place-of-work or other partial responses, though if the census respondent said "no" to all of the employment-related questions, then it's fairly certain that the Bureau couldn't change those answers (whether the answers are correct or not.) I don't know what happens if a person reported their place-of-work and means of transportation but didn't report other employment-related questions (industry, occupation) (probably those values are imputed/allocated). Definitely we will be seeing these "allocation flags" in PUMS as well as other census data products.... And we shouldn't forget sampling error (decennial census long form is still only a 1-in-6 survey); as well as non-standard errors (persons not telling the truth! egads!) Chuck >>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 03/18/03 11:03AM >>> Why would the census be missing the folks who--I agree--are missed in ES202? The self-employed, public workers, etc. should still be covered just fine in the census--as well as anyone else. Re non-response: you'd e surprised what they can impute! Patty Becker At 09:18 AM 03/18/2003 -0500, you wrote: >The gap between the employment out there and what gets reported in the >Census is a lot higher when you factor in jobs not covered by the ES202 >system, both wage/salary and "self-employed" proprietors. (The 6% upward >adjustment ABAG reports to you seems low, BEA figures would indicate about >a 20% adjustment needed.) Non-response could be the biggest factor - I >imagine the Census Bureau would have a hard time "imputing" number of >workers if a household ignores all the work-related questions on the long >form. >

21 years, 9 months

CTPP_news@chrispynet318030.wpd

by Margaret Shaw

CTPP_news(a)chrispynet318030.wpd

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work

by David Abrams

A very good summary from Mr. Purvis, I would like to add one thing. The class of worker allows for only one response. If a worker has both a wage job and a self-employed job, he has to choose. I usually interpret the self-employed data from the Class of worker as an estimate of the people whose primary job is self-employment. The class of worker question probably misses the self-employment jobs that are occasional or part-time. However, when the PUMS data comes out, the field under source of income for self-employment could be used to estimate the part-time or occasional self-employment. Dave Abrams Mid-Region Council of Governments of New Mexico -----Original Message----- From: Chuck Purvis [mailto:CPurvis@mtc.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:32 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work 1. Census 2000, summary file #3, Table P51 provides data on workers by class of worker, including the self-employed and unpaid family. This shows that 10.1 percent of U.S. workers are self-employed or unpaid family; 11.6 percent in California; and 10.6 percent in the Bay Area. Interestingly our self-employed share ranges upwards to 23.2 percent of the employed labor force in Marin County (home of George Lucas and other self-employed clones). So, counties with high self-employed shares are probably either agrarian economies or entrepeneurial economies. 2. The more I research, the less I find out I really know. There are several sources of data on employment, including the BLS, BEA and Census. One very good source of information is the book "Socioeconomic Data for Understanding Your Regional Economy" by Cortright and Reamer. It is available on their EDA-supported web site at: www.econdata.net Check it out. 3. Imputation (or allocation, using the Census Bureau's terminology) will definitely be an error issue for place-of-work or other partial responses, though if the census respondent said "no" to all of the employment-related questions, then it's fairly certain that the Bureau couldn't change those answers (whether the answers are correct or not.) I don't know what happens if a person reported their place-of-work and means of transportation but didn't report other employment-related questions (industry, occupation) (probably those values are imputed/allocated). Definitely we will be seeing these "allocation flags" in PUMS as well as other census data products.... And we shouldn't forget sampling error (decennial census long form is still only a 1-in-6 survey); as well as non-standard errors (persons not telling the truth! egads!) Chuck >>> Patty Becker <pbecker(a)umich.edu> 03/18/03 11:03AM >>> Why would the census be missing the folks who--I agree--are missed in ES202? The self-employed, public workers, etc. should still be covered just fine in the census--as well as anyone else. Re non-response: you'd e surprised what they can impute! Patty Becker At 09:18 AM 03/18/2003 -0500, you wrote: >The gap between the employment out there and what gets reported in the >Census is a lot higher when you factor in jobs not covered by the ES202 >system, both wage/salary and "self-employed" proprietors. (The 6% upward >adjustment ABAG reports to you seems low, BEA figures would indicate about >a 20% adjustment needed.) Non-response could be the biggest factor - I >imagine the Census Bureau would have a hard time "imputing" number of >workers if a household ignores all the work-related questions on the long >form. >

21 years, 9 months

RE: [CTPP] Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work (long post)

by Sam Granato

The gap between the employment out there and what gets reported in the Census is a lot higher when you factor in jobs not covered by the ES202 system, both wage/salary and "self-employed" proprietors. (The 6% upward adjustment ABAG reports to you seems low, BEA figures would indicate about a 20% adjustment needed.) Non-response could be the biggest factor - I imagine the Census Bureau would have a hard time "imputing" number of workers if a household ignores all the work-related questions on the long form. TO: CTPP-News listserv FR: Chuck Purvis RE: Reconciling Total Employment and Workers-at-Work One of the many data issues relevant to the release of the county-to-county total worker flow data is the reconciliation of independent estimates of employment (jobs) with the Census 2000 workers-at-work data. My executive director saw a recent article in the Los Angeles Times about the mismatch between census data and employment and labor force data, and was concerned if this is an issue in our region. My short answer to my ED was, no, the data problems faced in New York and Los Angeles are not that serious in the Bay Area. I also provided him the "long answer" which may prove useful to other metro areas interested in reconciling different data sets. The bottom line is that estimates of TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (i.e., jobs at area of work) SHOULD BE about 7 to 9 percent HIGHER than Census 2000 estimates of workers-at-work (i.e., workers at area of work). It is important to understand that there are important definitional differences between total employment and decennial census-based workers-at-work. Our indepedent estimate of total employment, year 2000, is 3,753,700 total jobs; Census 2000 data on workers-at-work is 3,396,800. This shows that our total employment, unadjusted, is 10.5 percent higher than our census-based workers-at-work. This is a really big difference! AFTER ADJUSTMENTS, the difference between our total employment (adjusted) and census-based workers-at-work is 1.1 percent. There are three main ADJUSTMENTS that are needed to make TOTAL EMPLOYMENT data comparable to census workers-at-work data: 1. Seasonal fluctuations in employment adjustments; 2. Multiple jobholding adjustments; and 3. Weekly absenteeism adjustments. Sam Granato Ohio DOT, Office of Technical Services 1980 W. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43223 Phone: 614-644-6796, Fax: 614-752-8646 "It is a fine line between insight and idiocy." Greg Lebedev

21 years, 9 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

ctpp-news March 2003