The Way We Were
When current estimates of the economy's employment levels became a topic of more
than casual interest, a method was devised to develop timely estimates in a cost effective
manner. The Current Employment Statistics program, first authorized by a
Congressional Act in 1930 as a federal-state cooperative survey, became the source for
current estimates of the nation's nonfarm employment, hours and earnings based on a
quota sample methodology, the standard in its time. Part of today's difficulties with
that methodology is that it was developed when the structure of America and its economy
were different. Another is that the existing CES survey is a quota sample whose inception
predated the introduction of probability sampling as the internationally recognized
standard for survey sampling.
The Way I Always Heard It Should Be
Over time, criticism has been made regarding the CES time series estimates, not the
least of which centered on accuracy and revisions. The quota sample design is known to be
at risk for potentially significant biases. Additionally, the production of sampling
errors and confidence intervals, standard survey accuracy measures, are not possible under
the current design. Accuracy assessment came only after the fact via the quantity of
change experienced for the primary estimate of interest, the total nonfarm employment
level when benchmarked to employment data gathered for the unemployment insurance (UI)
program.
Here Comes the Judge
At the request of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the fall of 1992 the
American Statistical Society began to examine the CES program. In November 1993 the
panel members came to agreement on five important problems to which they recommended BLS
pay early attention. They were: needs of users, probability sampling, births and deaths of
establishments, quality measurement and improvement of the ES-202, and methodological
documentation and dissemination of research. On the topic of probability sampling the ASA
stated "The BLS should adopt immediately the goal of moving to probability samples
both for national estimates and for the state data. Probability sampling should assist in
reducing bias in the employment estimates and should assist in reducing bias in the hours
and earnings estimates, which are not benchmarked. Research will be required on some
aspects of probability sampling and on how best to introduce the probability estimates
into the current series." The progression toward that end will form the basis of the
following discussion.
In June of 1995, the BLS began a comprehensive sample redesign of its monthly payroll
survey. Three goals of the redesign are: development of a probability-based sample design
to replace the current quota sample along with improved estimators; improved techniques
for estimating employment change from business births and deaths; and improved sample
solicitation procedures designed to achieve higher response rates than historically
experienced. The initial research phase for the CES sample redesign was completed in 1997,
and the Bureau launched a production test of the new sample design at that time.
The implementation phase began in June 2000 when the first national estimates from the
new design for the wholesale trade industry were published with the 1999 benchmark. The
remaining industry divisions will be phased in with subsequent years' benchmark
releases, between 2001 and 2003. (See table below.) In Connecticut the first estimates
based on the new sample design will commence in February 2001. Estimates will be produced
for wholesale trade at that time on a statewide basis, but not all areas in Connecticut
will have adequate sample coverage under the new probability design to provide estimates
using that method.
Major Industry Division |
National |
State and Area |
Wholesale |
June 2000 |
March 2001 |
Manufacturing |
June 2001 |
March 2002 |
Mining |
June 2001 |
March 2002 |
Construction |
June 2001 |
March 2002 |
Transp., Public Util. |
June 2002 |
June 2003 |
Finance, Ins., Real Est. |
June 2002 |
June 2003 |
Retail Trade |
June 2002 |
June 2003 |
Services |
June 2003 |
June 2003 |
Government |
To be determined |
The new CES Sample Design is a stratified, simple random sample, where
the strata, or sub-populations, are defined by state, industry, and employment size. The
sampling rates for each stratum are determined through a method known as optimum
allocation, which distributes a fixed number of sample units across a set of strata to
minimize the overall variance, or sampling error, on the primary estimate of interest. The
total nonfarm employment level is the primary estimate of interest, and the new design
gives top priority to measuring it as precisely as possible; in other words, minimizing
the statistical error around the statewide total nonfarm employment estimates.
Total sample sizes for the states are to remain at current levels, i.e., not to change
in quantity of respondents from the old quota sample to the new. Therefore optimum
allocation is achieved for a set sample size using a program which seeks to optimally
select a sample by drawing it across a state's industry and employment size makeup.
This achieves an optimum allocation for the sample size that has been chosen, not the
optimum level that could be sampled to achieve a desired variance level. Only time will
tell how well the new sample method will estimate, and while standard survey accuracy
measurements will be produced, overall performance evaluation will continue to be gauged
by the level of benchmark revision.
Another change of significance being introduced with the probability sample involves
establishment of birth and death modeling. This effort has been undertaken to address the
issue of sample bias resulting from the non-capture of employment attributable to
establishment openings. The most timely UI universe files available always will be a
minimum of six months out of date. Exploratory research indicated that while both the
business birth and death portions of total employment are generally significant, their net
contribution is relatively small and stable. To account for this net birth/death portion
of total employment, BLS is implementing an estimation procedure with two components. The
first component uses business deaths to impute employment for business births. The second
component is an ARIMA (AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average) time series model
designed to estimate the residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by
imputation.
Half Breed
Starting in 2001 data users of the industrial nonfarm employment estimates will be
faced with a changing data series. The new probability method will be phased in resulting
in total nonfarm employment estimates based on a combination of old and new methods. The
CES method of producing total nonfarm employment is a bottom up system of aggregation.
Each industry for which an estimate is made is independently estimated and then aggregated
to division and summary levels. This will be the first time that a mixed sample method
will be used in the production of estimates.
The sample under the probability methodology will not consist of entirely new
reporters. Establishments with employment of 100 or greater will be retained as
grandfathered units in the sample. The new probability sample will assign weights to
reporting units that are equal to the inverse of their probability of being selected. This
will result in small size reporters having a much greater impact on the algorithm
calculated to produce the monthly estimate. The sample will continue to operate on a
matched sample concept. That means that in order for a report to be used in the current
monthly estimate its previous monthly report must have been received. Under this method
grandfathered units will have a weight of 1.000, thus representing only themselves in the
estimate.
Under redesign, industries in MSAs that do not have 20 sampled unemployment insurance
accounts and 10 responding unemployment insurance accounts will be excluded from the
probability sample estimation. The criteria exclude UI accounts grandfathered into the
probability sample, i.e. current reporters not selected under the probability sample but
retained because of their size.
Presently, the methods employed to produce estimates are the same for all sub-state
areas and the statewide estimate in Connecticut. This will change with the 2000 benchmark
as the Danbury, New London-Norwich, and Waterbury Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) do
not have sufficient probability sample to implement wholesale trade redesign estimates.
The very small areas of Lower River and Danielson will continue to use the current method.
A source of question surrounding CES estimates involves the non-additivity of
disaggregated geographies. Some data users are confused by the fact that summing the fifty
states will not produce the national estimate. Similarly the addition of MSAs does not
yield a statewide estimate. The new probability design will not eliminate this issue. The
estimates produced for each geographic grouping will continue to be independently
estimated and benchmarked. A number of factors bear upon this issue, including the method
by which UI covered employment is assigned to an area.
Clearly, extensive research over the past two to three years has proved that, in some
cases, proposed changes in CES methodology would not produce improved results. The methods
which will be used to select the CES sample and produce the estimates are evolving, yet
some elements of the existing methodology will remain. Standard survey measurement
statistics will be produced, but the ultimate gauge of accuracy will continue to be based
on the extent of annual benchmark revisions. A new sample will be drawn using a random
sampling method, while self-representing, non-probability units will remain in the system.
The goal of additivity across geographies will not be achieved. All areas will not move to
the new sample method and benchmark employment issues will continue to exist. In the end,
this incremental advance will be a work in progress for some time to come. To our data
users I would say, expect improvement, not perfection. After all, evolution is a lengthy
process and a journey we will make together.
Three recent indicators demonstrate Connecticut continues to stay in the forefront nationally. The highest average annual pay in the nation, improved income distribution, and strongly competitive
existing businesses earned Connecticut "Honor Roll" status in the 2000 Development Report Card for the States by the non-profit Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED). In one of the most
broad-based ratings of the 50 states, with more than 70 indicators, Connecticut made "Honor Roll" (scoring an A or B in each index) by earning an "A" in Performance, a "B" in Business Vitality,
and an "A" in Development Capacity.
The Milken Institute, a Santa Monica based research center, ranked Connecticut the third best state in the nation for growth opportunities in the "new economy." Massachusetts, California, Connecticut,
Colorado and Washington were the five top-ranking states based upon 12 criteria critical to future high-tech growth, including research and development dollars, advanced degrees, patents, venture
capital investment, business starts, and initial public offerings.
Connecticut also received the 2000 National Alliance of Business Distinguished Performance Award for "State of the Year." Governor Rowland accepted the award at a ceremony in Washington, D.C.
October 31st. Connecticut was recognized for its innovative efforts to raise student achievement and improve workforce quality.
Commissioner James F.
Abromaitis of the Connecticut
Department of Economic and
Community Development announced
that Connecticut communities
authorized 776 new
housing units in October 2000, a
3.9 percent increase compared to
October of 1999 when 747 units
were authorized.
The Department further indicated
that the 776 units permitted in
October 2000 represent an increase
of 3.3 percent from the 751
units permitted in September
2000. The year-to-date permits
are down 14.0 percent, from 9,123
through October 1999, to 7,850
through October 2000.
Fairfield County documented the
largest number of new, authorized
units in October with 165. New
Haven County followed with 162
units and Hartford County had
145 units. Danbury led all Connecticut
communities with 50
units, followed by Wallingford with
23 and Berlin and Tolland tied
with 18.
Last month, we reported that
the leading index, a barometer
of future employment activity,
had declined during four of the
previous five months, suggesting
that some uncertainty surrounded
the continued expansion over the
next year or so. The release of
(preliminary) September data
added to the uncertainty as the
leading index rose significantly. In
addition, the coincident index, a
gauge of current employment
activity, returned to its previous
peak in June 2000 with the
September release. As noted last
month, the current expansion
continues to roll along.
So what's it all mean? At the
national level, the current 10-year
expansion, the longest on record
in the United States, shows little
evidence of ending. Analysts argue
about whether Chairman Alan
Greenspan and the Federal
Reserve might again raise interest
rates to head off an outbreak of
the dreaded inflation disease.
Those concerns have diminished
as recent reports on the economy
suggest a slowdown from its recent
rapid growth. The third quarter
growth in real GDP slowed to only
2.7 percent - still a healthy rate by
the standards of the last 20 years
or so, but dramatically below the
second quarter growth of 5.6
percent. Moreover, consumer
confidence fell recently and retail
sales saw slower growth. Thus, the
best current thinking thinks that
the Federal Reserve will not raise
interest rates for the rest of this year.
Other analysts of the national
economy see the third quarter
slowdown as only a temporary blip
on the economic radar that will
disappear (reverse) in future
quarters. We have already seen
quarterly growth rates slow on
several occasions only to about
face in subsequent quarters. The
big question: What is the sustainable
level of non-inflationary real
growth? New and old economy
pundits disagree. For economic
historians, it is no big deal. The
passage of time will answer the
question. For most of the rest of
us, we need to make decisions
based on our outlook. We cannot
wait for the real-time data to
become historical information.
In summary, the coincident
employment index rose from 97.6
in September 1999 to 103.5 in
September 2000. All four components
of the index point in a
positive direction on a year-overyear
basis with higher nonfarm
employment, higher total employment,
a lower total unemployment
rate, and a lower insured unemployment
rate.
The leading employment index
rose from 88.2 in September 1999
to 89.2 in September 2000. Three
index components sent positive
signals on a year-over-year basis
with a lower short-duration (less
than 15 weeks) unemployment
rate, lower initial claims for unemployment
insurance, and a higher
average workweek of manufacturing
production workers. The
remaining two components sent
negative signals on a year-overyear
basis with lower total housing
permits and lower Hartford help
wanted advertising.
SOURCE: Connecticut Center for or Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut. Developed by Pami Dua [Economic Cycle
Research Institute; NY,NY] and Stephen M. Miller [(860) 486-3853, Storrs Campus]. Stan McMillen and Jingqui Zhu [(860) 486-
3022, Storrs Campus] provided research support.
Return to Top
|