Table B08201- Household size by vehicles available

I don't understand your question. There no specific relationship between vehicles available and labor force participation. Many households with no participants (having only retired people, for example) have cars. The only correlation I'd expect is that a household with two LF participants is more likely to have two vehicles than a household with only one LF participant, or none. What IS weird about this table, though, is the number of households with more vehicles than people. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Thanks Patty. There is a correlation in the sense that we are looking at individuals who may need assistance to get to work, particularly what is classified as the non-traditional labor pool. So, households with no vehicle, 2 person households with 1 vehicle means that there would be a need for transportation to get to work if that job opportunity was not easily accessible with public transportation. Granted, we don't know if the individuals in these households are retired or fit the criteria I mentioned earlier. We are just trying to draw some broad assumptions based on the data that is available.

I'm not sure what you mean by the reference to having more vehicles that you say show more vehicles that people unless I'm not understanding this table correctly.

What are they implying that 37, 945 means and likewise are they saying only 8,836 households are a 1-person household? If so, that is not consistent with the data showing 5,464 families for the same county. I can go look up the table name in a bit if your interested.

If you could provide links to all the tables you mention, that would help. You are picking bits and pieces of three or four tables, and make some strong assumptions regarding the population of interest to "extrapolate". Something is clearly falling between the cracks of your extrapolation. (In AFF, you can get the link using the "Bookmark" button.)

If you could provide links to all the tables you mention, that would help. You are picking bits and pieces of three or four tables, and make some strong assumptions regarding the population of interest to "extrapolate". Something is clearly falling between the cracks of your extrapolation. (In AFF, you can get the link using the "Bookmark" button.)

So, I don't see the ability to upload a saved query.  Here is a link to the table I'm most interested in understanding.   ACS Table B08201- 2017

As you know the query doesn't save the geography being studied.  I'm looking at a total of 8 counties, but the same question applies to all of these counties.  The county referenced above is Cass County, Missouri.

It is all available when you pick the specific table under bookmark:

factfinder.census.gov/.../0500000US29037

The CEEDSCI URL is arguably more ugly as it tries to write the whole browsing history in (it is also a different estimate):

data.census.gov/.../table

Well, I finally figured this table out.  The top grouping is a summary for the 1, 2, 3, and 4 person households.  What's weird about what they did is if you look at the cells I highlighted in pink roll up to the # highlighted in yellow.  The same follows suit for the other categories.  And, the top # is the # of households for this county.  It would be nice if they would identify the fields a little better but I now understand what they are doing with this table.