[CTPP] Military

Nanda -- Thank you for explaining this so well. The military question has confounded me for days! I put the question out to the Census list serve, but this is by far the clearest answer I've read. Danielle Cervantes Research & Census Librarian San Diego Union-Tribune 619.718.5435 -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 9:33 AM To: hubsmtp.gwhub."vputta(a)incog.org".org"; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Viplav, Here's an attempt to answer your question. Phil Salopek or anyone else can correct me if I am wrong. There are two reasons I can think of for the differences you have noted: 1. Total employed vs total workers. and 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA 1. Total employed vs total workers. I hope the numbers you have given me are the totals for WORKERS from SF 3 and the county-county worker flow files. If you picked employment status, then you could be off. The data on employment status are derived from questions 21 and 25 of the "long form." "Employed" is defined as all persons 16 years or older who were: a. at work. b.with a job but not at work. The CB considers the terms "employed" and "civilian employed" as exactly the same. People who volunteered to work (without pay), and people who worked for the armed forces are excluded from "Employed." "Workers", as used in Journey-to-work and CTPP, on the other hand, refers to: a.All those people 16 years or over who were AT WORK in the reference week. b.All people employed in the Armed Forces. 2. Workers WORKING in Tulsa MSA vs Workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA I hope you are comparing the number of workers LIVING in Tulsa MSA with the SF 3 results. If you totaled the commuter flow INTO Tulsa, you may have a difference between that and the total workers LIVING in Tulsa. If you are comparing County-County worker flows with SF3, please total the workers residing in Tulsa from the county-county worker flow table, and then compare the number to a table from SF3 that contains WORKERS (Eg: mode to work including worked at home). The numbers should be pretty close. CB corrected some errors in worker flows for some areas, but Tulsa is not one of those, per Phil. Thank you! Nanda Srinivasan -----Original Message----- From: vputta(a)incog.org Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:51 AM To: Srinivasan, Nanda; ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? Thanks Nanda for the link. I just have one question though: The data is for Commuting to work employees in each county. Total employees who reported as commuters to work does not equal the total number employed in respective counties. Is this because of estimates resulting from sampling? Just to illustrate: for Tulsa County in Oklahoma, in 2000 - Total Employed in 2000 : 275,856 Commuting to Work (age 16 and over) : 271,055* *Employees who 'worked at home' are included in commuting to work for each county (271,055 is broken down by means of transportation to work that includes worked at home) Missing is about 4,801 (1.7%) - is this because of long-form sampling? Similar numbers are missing from other counties in our MSA. Thanks. Viplav Putta INCOG -----Original Message----- From: Srinivasan, Nanda [mailto:Nanda.Srinivasan@fhwa.dot.gov] Subject: RE: [CTPP] new data release? (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/journey.html) Nanda Srinivasan