Details
  • Views 5592 views
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 542 subscribers
  • Users 0 members are here
Labels
Related Census Bureau Resources
Related Forum Threads

workers in their POWPUMA

Mara Kaminowitz
over 5 years ago

Hello,

 

I am trying to extract workers at their place of work from the 1-year ACS microdata but I am having a hard time figuring out the right variables.  I have an Access database with the 1-year data so I am looking for the correct query.  If I pull all records where Employment status recode is 1 (Civilian employed, at work), 2 (Civilian employed, with a job but not at work), 4 (Armed forces, at work), and 5 (Armed forces, with a job but not at work) along with the POWPUMA number and the person weight, will that get me the correct number?

I tried getting it from iPUMS but for some reason even with selecting out only employed ESR codes I kept getting a number that looked closer to the residential population than the number of workers for each POWPUMA/county.  I used to rely on DataFerret but it no longer works on my computer at all, even using their very specific technical requirements.

 

Thanks,

Mara

Parents
  • over 5 years ago
    Thanks for the tip about the other states, that is relevant to my region and I should have thought of that. In general, does the query I mentioned get me the number of workers in each PUMA (assuming I add the POWSP too)? Do I need to add additional variables or change the query?
  • over 5 years ago in reply to Mara Kaminowitz
    Hi Mara,

    You should be getting the correct numbers of workers by workplace POWPUMA if you combine IPUMS USA variables PWPUMA00 and PWSTATE2. A PWPUMA00 code of 00000 identifies anyone not in the universe (persons age 16+ who worked last week), so you needn't use employment status or any other variable to get the correct counts.

    I just tried this with 2017 1-Year ACS PUMS, and the numbers I get are consistent with the expected universe--not the total residential population. I wonder if the numbers you originally got were a consequence of not including the PWSTATE2 variable?

    Also note: If you ever have trouble with IPUMS data, please feel free to ask a question (or look for answers) in the IPUMS User Forum at https://forum.ipums.org/.

    -Jonathan
Reply
  • over 5 years ago in reply to Mara Kaminowitz
    Hi Mara,

    You should be getting the correct numbers of workers by workplace POWPUMA if you combine IPUMS USA variables PWPUMA00 and PWSTATE2. A PWPUMA00 code of 00000 identifies anyone not in the universe (persons age 16+ who worked last week), so you needn't use employment status or any other variable to get the correct counts.

    I just tried this with 2017 1-Year ACS PUMS, and the numbers I get are consistent with the expected universe--not the total residential population. I wonder if the numbers you originally got were a consequence of not including the PWSTATE2 variable?

    Also note: If you ever have trouble with IPUMS data, please feel free to ask a question (or look for answers) in the IPUMS User Forum at https://forum.ipums.org/.

    -Jonathan
Children
No Data
For more information about the American Community Survey Census Bureau Website