We are working to collect information about the resident labor force in Cambridge, Massachusetts. We set the residence
as the State-Place of Cambridge city, MA, and the workplace as POW State-Place of Cambridge city, MA.
The numbers in the CTPP Flows tables are not adding up as expected. Table A304100 – Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years
and over) provides an estimate of 27,725 (MOE 847), whereas Table B303100 – Household income in the past 12 months (2016$) (9) (Workers 16 years and over in households) provides a total estimate of
37,300 (MOE 2,054). Furthermore, when we add up the count of workers in each income bracket in Table B303100 they sum to
22,470.
I could understand if the total number of resident workers 16 and older in households was smaller than total workers over
16, but we cannot make sense of how the reverse could be true. It also doesn’t explain why the sum of all categories is smaller than the listed total. Could data suppression account for this? That would seem unlikely at the level of a city of our size.
Could the results be due to data suppression at smaller geographic levels having a ripple effect on a larger geo? I understand workers with an unclear or imprecise work address are excluded from the flow data. Are these issues a result of that screening
or is this a different type of issue?
Interestingly, the numbers make sense as expected when we look at the Residence tables for the same geography. Table A102101
– Total workers (1) (Workers 16 years and over) provides an estimate of 61,925 (MOE 1,008) and Table A103100 – Total Workers in households (1) (Workers 16 years and over in households) estimates 54,195 (MOE 1,075).
Any help on interpreting our resident labor force stats is appreciated.
Cliff Cook
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
