11 Nov
2008
11 Nov
'08
9:43 a.m.
There seems to be a very sound relationship between rising income and rising
trip length to work. This almost seems incongruous assuming that the higher
income person would presumably be able to afford to live closer by, if they
chose. There are lots of reasons for this. If higher income workers can
live anywhere they want then they can optimized a whole array of things not
just distance to work. Also high income jobs tend to be specialized and
concentrated in contrast to working at starbucks where the closest one is 5
minutes away and there is zero reward for working at any other starbucks
farther away.
Alan E. Pisarski
6501 Waterway Drive
Falls Church Va. 22044
703 941-4257
alanpisarski(a)alanpisarski.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net [mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net]
On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:26 AM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
You are right and I also forgot that with PUMS you get the PUMA of
residence but on the work side it is the county of work.
Frank Lenk wrote:
Ed -
Actually, I tried PUMS first. The problem is the 100,000 population size
criterion apparently must hold for workers as well as residents. While
each PUMA is designed to have at least 100,000 residents, they are not
designed to have also 100,000 workers. Consequently, the Census Bureau
aggregates PUMAS when it reports PUMA of work. PUMAs are already the
largest possible usable size for this analysis. Aggregates of PUMAs
make the areas too large to infer any kind of influence of space/place
on income, at least in my estimation.
Frank
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
-----Original Message-----
From: ctpp-news-bounces(a)chrispy.net
[mailto:ctpp-news-bounces@chrispy.net] On Behalf Of Ed Christopher
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM
To: ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
Subject: Re: [CTPP] educational attainment by place of work
Frank--good catch. Not only are there no Part 2 (workplace) tables on
educational attainment there are not any Part 1 educational attainment
tables either. I just looked at the draft tables we have been talking
about for ACS and educational attainment was not there. I will
certainly bring it up but make sure to keep it on your mind the next
time we are talking about table content.
As far as your current issue, will PUMs help? The geography is really
big (100,000 people) but it might help.
Frank Lenk wrote:
--
Ed Christopher
708-283-3534 (V)
708-574-8131 (cell)
FHWA RC-TST-PLN
19900 Governors Dr
Olympia Fields, IL 60461
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news
We are trying to understand the relationship
between the location of
well-paying jobs and resident income. In particular, our urban core
has
the largest concentration of job, a large
fraction of which are
well-paid, while surrounding the job centers are areas that have high
concentration of poverty, especially minority poverty. We suspect this
has something to do with a skills mismatch between the jobs and the
residents, which we can test for those who are employed by looking at
occupation of workers vs occupation of residents. But if we wanted to
expand our examination of the skill mismatch to the unemployed by
looking at, say, educational attainment of the residents vs. the
workers, we find we cannot because there is no data on educational
attainment by place of work in the 2000 CTPP.
Might this be remedied in the 2010 CTPP?
Frank Lenk
Director of Research Services
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64105
www.marc.org
816.474.4240
flenk(a)marc.org
816.701.8237
_______________________________________________
ctpp-news mailing list
ctpp-news(a)chrispy.net
http://www.chrispy.net/mailman/listinfo/ctpp-news