At 7:21 AM 2/7/95, Peter.Dorman wrote: >I am about to say something in print that I recall being true, but I think I >should run it past you to make sure. In general, isn't it the case that the >establishment surveys are more reliable indicators of the level and >distribution of employment than the household surveys? I am combining the >establishment data on nonfarm employment with the household data on *farm* >employment, because the latter is not collected by establishment, and, for the >fixed-weight index I'm constructing, variation within industries over time is >more important than the right proportions between industries at any one time. >Does this make sense? The household survey seems to pick up turns in the bizcycle faster than the establishment survey, but revision in the establishment series usually correct for that. The household survey probably counts some people who are marginally/informally employed that the est survey misses. But I think most people regard the est survey as a better indicator of the state of the labor market than the h.h. one - and an excellent coincident economic indicator too. The h.h. series also has much more limited info on sectors; if you are about composition, the est survey seems much better. For that, don't trust me, trust the BLS, which says in every issue of Employment & Earnings: "Population characteristics, for example, are obtained only from the household survey, whereas detailed industrial classifications are much more reliably derived from establishment reports." Though the h.h. survey now has a question about multiple employment, the multiply employed are counted as employed once in the h.h., but multiply in the est. The Ag Dept also does farm counts, doesn't it? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
