RE: [CTPP] Worker Earnings by occupation

I don't think PUMS will work for me, given the lack of spatial detail. I'm looking for evidence whether a lack of jobs/housing balance in suburban areas hurts suburban employers. If it demonstrably does, then this helps build the case for needing a mix of housing throughout the region. My hypothesis is that labor supply on the low-paying end is more constrained in suburban areas that do not provide a mix of housing. If there is a real labor supply constraint, this should show up as having to pay a higher than average wage to low-paying occupations compared to areas where jobs and housing are more balanced. If, on the other hand, despite how it looks on a map, suburban employers actually have little trouble attracting low-wage workers, regardless of how far they have to travel (our low levels of congestion in the Kansas City area make this a possibility), then there should be little or no wage differential. My plan was to look at low-wage occupations and see whether retail centers or corridors in more homogeneous suburbs paid higher wages than retail centers/corridors in either urban areas or suburban areas with a greater mix of incomes. Given that these retail centers do not cover areas anywhere near as large as a PUMA, this plan clearly will not work if the best I can do is use PUMS. I think I can get away with using the earnings by industry table, however, so long as I constrain my examination of wage differentials on the low end of the wage scale to the retail trade industry. Thanks to everyone who provided such great, informative and helpful feedback! Sincerely, Frank Frank Lenk Director of Research Services Mid-America Regional Council 600 Broadway, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64105 816-474-4240 www.marc.org -----Original Message----- From: Murakami, Elaine [mailto:Elaine.Murakami@fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:22 PM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net; Frank Lenk Subject: RE: [CTPP] Worker Earnings by occupation This is a situation where I think the best resource would be the Census PUMS data. You won't get fine geographic detail, but you can group the occupations and earnings to the classes that make sense for your region. As you are part of the CB State Data Center, you should be able to get a free copy of the PUMS DVD from the Census Bureau. Elaine Murakami FHWA Office of Planning 206-220-4460 -----Original Message----- From: Peter H. Van Demark [mailto:peter@caliper.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 10:21 AM To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Cc: Frank Lenk Subject: Re: [CTPP] Worker Earnings by occupation Frank: there? Table P2011, Industry(15) by Worker Earnings in 1999 (12) comes the closest. Only Tables P2003, P2009, P2015, P2016, and P2023 are by occupation, and none are by earnings. There are twelve tables by earnings, but none by occupation. The TransCAD Table Chooser for CTPP Part 2 is a handy way to look at tables by subject. Peter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Van Demark Director of GIS Products and Training Phone: 617-527-4700 Caliper Corporation Fax: 617-527-5113 1172 Beacon Street E-mail: peter(a)caliper.com Newton MA 02461-9926 Web site: http://www.caliper.com _______________________________________________ ctpp-news mailing list ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news