Who's drunk right now!?

I

iwannadie

New Member
Jul 28, 2006
981
0
0
gilbert, az
What he the hell steel reserve does it a gain. dam j000 st33l servereere !!!?@? hahaha ya exactly thtat stuff i just typed/

point me to the nearest place tos leeepd p and ill be happy feet guy, tappa tappa tappa
 
Ckanderson

Ckanderson

Supramania Contributor
Apr 1, 1983
2,644
0
0
41
The beach
I remember I was hammering on a fence in the backyard when my dad approached me. He was carrying a letter or something in his hand, and he looked worried. I continued to hammer as he came toward me. "Son," he said, "why are you hammering on that fence? It already has plenty of nails in it." "Oh, I'm not using nails," I replied. "I'm just hammering." With that, I returned to my hammering. Dad asked me to stop hammering, as he had some news. I did stop hammering, but first I got a couple more hammers in, and this seemed to make Dad mad. "I said, stop hammering!" he yelled. I think he felt bad for yelling at me, especially since it looked like he had bad news. "Look," he said, "you can hammer later, but first--" Well, I didn't even wait to hear the rest. As soon as I heard "You can hammer," that's what I started doing. Hammering away, happy as an old hammer hog. Dad tried to physically stop me from hammering by inserting a small log of some sort between my hammer and the fence. But I just kept on hammering, 'cause that's the way I am when I get that hammer going. Then, he just grabbed my arm and and made me stop. "I'm afraid I have some news for you," he said. I swear, what I did next was not hammering. I was just letting the hammer swing lazily at arm's length, and maybe it tapped the fence once or twice, but that's all. That apparently didn't make any difference whatsoever to Dad, because he just grabbed my hammer out of my hand and flung it across the field. And when I saw my hammer flying helplessly through the air like that I just couldn't take it. I burst out crying, I admit it. And I ran to the house, as fast as my legs could take me. "Son, come back!" yelled Dad. "What about your hammer?!" But I could not have cared less about hammering at that point. I ran into the house and flung myself onto my bed, pounding the bed with my fists. I pounded and pounded, until finally, behind me, I heard a voice. "As long as you're pounding, why not use this?" I turned, and it was Dad, holding a brand-new solid-gold hammer. I quickly wiped the tears from my eyes and ran to Dad's outstretched arms. But suddenly, he jumped out of the way, and I went sailing through the second-story window behind him. Whenever I hear about a kid getting in trouble with the drugs, I like to tell them this story.
 
BlackMKIII

BlackMKIII

Hardcore Lurker
Jan 6, 2007
2,134
3
36
39
Norman, Oklahoma
www.facebook.com
I am drowning my sorrows in a bottle of Jameson Irish Whiskey:
sm_photo_missing.jpg


My father passed last night. I got the news today.
 
Adrian98

Adrian98

Banned
Dec 19, 2006
182
0
0
38
orange county
BlackMKIII said:
I am drowning my sorrows in a bottle of Jameson Irish Whiskey:
sm_photo_missing.jpg


My father passed last night. I got the news today.
Click to expand...
you drink for reason my friend. I'm sorry for your lose.


as for me getting trashed on a bottle of triple sec just left with with a citris fresh breath and nearly no buzz. i need my whiskey back
 
M

Mk3runner

Supramania Contributor
Nov 19, 2006
2,033
0
0
36
Nor Cal
drunk, here... hypnotic and henny... since 2pm, i'm gone.

Alex, again sorry for the lose bro. headstrong my friend.
 
Ckanderson

Ckanderson

Supramania Contributor
Apr 1, 1983
2,644
0
0
41
The beach
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-0]How to derive the NS-SEC[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]To create the NS-SEC on the Census and social surveys, data on occupation and employment status are required. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]An NS-SEC category is allocated by using a combination of:[/SIZE][/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
  • Information about occupation coded to occupational unit group (OUG) level of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 (SOC2000)
  • Information about employment status and size of organisation in the form of an employment status variable[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Although it is expected that the vast majority of users will use some form of software to combine OUG and employment status to derive NS-SEC, the derivation tables provided can be thought of as a 'look up' table similar to that used for SC and SEG in Volume 3 of the 1990 Standard Occupational Classification (OPCS 1991) which cross-classifies OUGs with employment status categories.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The derived employment status variable is created by combining data on whether an individual is an employer, self-employed or an employee, size of organisation (where collected) and supervisory status. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Employer, self-employed or employee[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]NS-SEC needs to distinguish employers, those who employ others; the self-employed who work on their own account with no employees; and employees who are employed by an individual or organisation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For size of organisation, NS-SEC uses information on the number of employees in the 'workplace' in order to distinguish between employers in large and small establishments and, for some occupations, between higher and lower managers. To date, the distinction between large and small employers has consisted of applying a size rule cut-off of 25 employees. Individual employers in organisations with 25 or more employees are deemed to own 'large' organisations; those owning enterprises below this threshold are classified as 'small' employers. In government social surveys size of organisation has been related to the workplace, i.e. the local unit of the establishment at which the respondent works (see GSS 1996:45). The 2001 Census will also use this rule. However, it is preferable that size of organisation should refer to an 'enterprise' as defined in the Inter-Departmental Business Register and not to a local unit (IDBR - see ONS 1998:3). Thus, local unit or workplace should only be used if it is impossible or impractical to obtain information at the level of the enterprise.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisory status[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisors are employees who are not managers but who are responsible for supervising the work of other employees. Previous surveys have used a variable where the respondent was asked if he or she had managerial duties, supervisory duties, or was an employee. This was used to create the employment status variable regardless of the occupation - with some exceptions. However, under SOC2000 managers can only be allocated to occupations in SOC2000 major group 1. This removes the need to ask for self-reported managerial status and on the Census and future surveys respondents will only be asked if they supervise other employees or not. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Managers[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In SOC2000, managers are coded to major group 1 only (see Elias et al. 2000 for a fuller explanation). Thus in the original derivation tables the managerial cells are only valid for SOC2000 codes 1111 to 1239 while for these codes the cells for other employees (including supervisors) are left blank. For SOC2000 major groups 2 to 9 the managerial codes are not valid, as managers in these occupations should be coded to major group 1 and, therefore, the managerial cells are left blank in the original derivation tables.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Blank cells[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are other blank cells in the original derivation tables which correspond to situations deemed not to arise, such as a self-employed police officer. In practice some responses to surveys and censuses may correspond to blank cells (e.g. as a result of coding error). In previous Census and survey practice these were edited according to rules by either changing the occupation or the employment status code so as to achieve an allowable combination. While such editing can correct coding or keying errors, it could also be the case that the original derivation tables do not allow for combinations that do appear in the real world. This can especially be the case for occupations where self-employment is deemed not to occur but where labour market changes have nevertheless created a new combination.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Three derivation methods[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are three methods to derive the functional categories L1 to L13 of the NS-SEC. The choice of method depends on the information gathered about employment status.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Method Information required[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Full [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status, size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reduced[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Simplified[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Reduced method was developed for sources unable to collect information on size of organisation. The Simplified method provides a last resort solution; if used on its own no records will be allocated to the first category of the classification.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]At the eight-class level the Reduced method correctly allocates 98 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. The Simplified method correctly allocates 83 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. For more information about the performance of the Reduced and Simplified methods compared to the Full Method click HERE.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The following tables show the performance of the Reduced and the Simplified derivation methods compared to the Full method. The data are from the 2000 Summer Quarter of the Labour Force Survey (June-August 2000).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Table 1. Comparison of allocations under the Reduced and the Full method: Agreement of 98.1 per cent[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Reduced 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2877[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 84[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15896[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15921[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6097[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] % [SIZE=-1] 5.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 23.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100*[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance.

* Figures may not add exactly due to rounding. Table 2. Comparison of allocations under the Simplified and the Full method: Agreement of 83.2 per cent
[SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Simplified 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2899[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 51[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 22[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13512[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1917[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 467[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 18[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 168[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 381[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 514[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2934[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 713[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 427[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 810[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3576[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 951[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 121[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 44[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12030[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 977[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 70[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7757[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4314[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13962[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 11475[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4923[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4405[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14624[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9524[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]%[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 6.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 20.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 16.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 21.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance. The Full Method achieves the best quality derivation by using all three items of information, as shown in this diagram.
employ_status.gif

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-0]How to derive the NS-SEC[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]To create the NS-SEC on the Census and social surveys, data on occupation and employment status are required. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]An NS-SEC category is allocated by using a combination of:[/SIZE][/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
  • Information about occupation coded to occupational unit group (OUG) level of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 (SOC2000)
  • Information about employment status and size of organisation in the form of an employment status variable[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Although it is expected that the vast majority of users will use some form of software to combine OUG and employment status to derive NS-SEC, the derivation tables provided can be thought of as a 'look up' table similar to that used for SC and SEG in Volume 3 of the 1990 Standard Occupational Classification (OPCS 1991) which cross-classifies OUGs with employment status categories.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The derived employment status variable is created by combining data on whether an individual is an employer, self-employed or an employee, size of organisation (where collected) and supervisory status. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Employer, self-employed or employee[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]NS-SEC needs to distinguish employers, those who employ others; the self-employed who work on their own account with no employees; and employees who are employed by an individual or organisation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For size of organisation, NS-SEC uses information on the number of employees in the 'workplace' in order to distinguish between employers in large and small establishments and, for some occupations, between higher and lower managers. To date, the distinction between large and small employers has consisted of applying a size rule cut-off of 25 employees. Individual employers in organisations with 25 or more employees are deemed to own 'large' organisations; those owning enterprises below this threshold are classified as 'small' employers. In government social surveys size of organisation has been related to the workplace, i.e. the local unit of the establishment at which the respondent works (see GSS 1996:45). The 2001 Census will also use this rule. However, it is preferable that size of organisation should refer to an 'enterprise' as defined in the Inter-Departmental Business Register and not to a local unit (IDBR - see ONS 1998:3). Thus, local unit or workplace should only be used if it is impossible or impractical to obtain information at the level of the enterprise.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisory status[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisors are employees who are not managers but who are responsible for supervising the work of other employees. Previous surveys have used a variable where the respondent was asked if he or she had managerial duties, supervisory duties, or was an employee. This was used to create the employment status variable regardless of the occupation - with some exceptions. However, under SOC2000 managers can only be allocated to occupations in SOC2000 major group 1. This removes the need to ask for self-reported managerial status and on the Census and future surveys respondents will only be asked if they supervise other employees or not. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Managers[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In SOC2000, managers are coded to major group 1 only (see Elias et al. 2000 for a fuller explanation). Thus in the original derivation tables the managerial cells are only valid for SOC2000 codes 1111 to 1239 while for these codes the cells for other employees (including supervisors) are left blank. For SOC2000 major groups 2 to 9 the managerial codes are not valid, as managers in these occupations should be coded to major group 1 and, therefore, the managerial cells are left blank in the original derivation tables.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Blank cells[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are other blank cells in the original derivation tables which correspond to situations deemed not to arise, such as a self-employed police officer. In practice some responses to surveys and censuses may correspond to blank cells (e.g. as a result of coding error). In previous Census and survey practice these were edited according to rules by either changing the occupation or the employment status code so as to achieve an allowable combination. While such editing can correct coding or keying errors, it could also be the case that the original derivation tables do not allow for combinations that do appear in the real world. This can especially be the case for occupations where self-employment is deemed not to occur but where labour market changes have nevertheless created a new combination.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Three derivation methods[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are three methods to derive the functional categories L1 to L13 of the NS-SEC. The choice of method depends on the information gathered about employment status.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Method Information required[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Full [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status, size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reduced[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Simplified[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Reduced method was developed for sources unable to collect information on size of organisation. The Simplified method provides a last resort solution; if used on its own no records will be allocated to the first category of the classification.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]At the eight-class level the Reduced method correctly allocates 98 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. The Simplified method correctly allocates 83 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. For more information about the performance of the Reduced and Simplified methods compared to the Full Method click HERE.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The following tables show the performance of the Reduced and the Simplified derivation methods compared to the Full method. The data are from the 2000 Summer Quarter of the Labour Force Survey (June-August 2000).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Table 1. Comparison of allocations under the Reduced and the Full method: Agreement of 98.1 per cent[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Reduced 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2877[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 84[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15896[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15921[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6097[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] % [SIZE=-1] 5.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 23.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100*[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance.

* Figures may not add exactly due to rounding. Table 2. Comparison of allocations under the Simplified and the Full method: Agreement of 83.2 per cent
[SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Simplified 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2899[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 51[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 22[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13512[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1917[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 467[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 18[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 168[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 381[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 514[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2934[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 713[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 427[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 810[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3576[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 951[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 121[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 44[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12030[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 977[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 70[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7757[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4314[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13962[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 11475[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4923[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4405[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14624[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9524[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]%[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 6.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 20.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 16.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 21.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance. The Full Method achieves the best quality derivation by using all three items of information, as shown in this diagram.
employ_status.gif
 
willfish

willfish

been here since 2003
Apr 23, 2005
648
0
16
50
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Ckanderson said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-0]How to derive the NS-SEC[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]To create the NS-SEC on the Census and social surveys, data on occupation and employment status are required. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]An NS-SEC category is allocated by using a combination of:[/SIZE][/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
  • Information about occupation coded to occupational unit group (OUG) level of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 (SOC2000)
  • Information about employment status and size of organisation in the form of an employment status variable[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Although it is expected that the vast majority of users will use some form of software to combine OUG and employment status to derive NS-SEC, the derivation tables provided can be thought of as a 'look up' table similar to that used for SC and SEG in Volume 3 of the 1990 Standard Occupational Classification (OPCS 1991) which cross-classifies OUGs with employment status categories.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The derived employment status variable is created by combining data on whether an individual is an employer, self-employed or an employee, size of organisation (where collected) and supervisory status. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Employer, self-employed or employee[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]NS-SEC needs to distinguish employers, those who employ others; the self-employed who work on their own account with no employees; and employees who are employed by an individual or organisation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For size of organisation, NS-SEC uses information on the number of employees in the 'workplace' in order to distinguish between employers in large and small establishments and, for some occupations, between higher and lower managers. To date, the distinction between large and small employers has consisted of applying a size rule cut-off of 25 employees. Individual employers in organisations with 25 or more employees are deemed to own 'large' organisations; those owning enterprises below this threshold are classified as 'small' employers. In government social surveys size of organisation has been related to the workplace, i.e. the local unit of the establishment at which the respondent works (see GSS 1996:45). The 2001 Census will also use this rule. However, it is preferable that size of organisation should refer to an 'enterprise' as defined in the Inter-Departmental Business Register and not to a local unit (IDBR - see ONS 1998:3). Thus, local unit or workplace should only be used if it is impossible or impractical to obtain information at the level of the enterprise.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisory status[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisors are employees who are not managers but who are responsible for supervising the work of other employees. Previous surveys have used a variable where the respondent was asked if he or she had managerial duties, supervisory duties, or was an employee. This was used to create the employment status variable regardless of the occupation - with some exceptions. However, under SOC2000 managers can only be allocated to occupations in SOC2000 major group 1. This removes the need to ask for self-reported managerial status and on the Census and future surveys respondents will only be asked if they supervise other employees or not. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Managers[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In SOC2000, managers are coded to major group 1 only (see Elias et al. 2000 for a fuller explanation). Thus in the original derivation tables the managerial cells are only valid for SOC2000 codes 1111 to 1239 while for these codes the cells for other employees (including supervisors) are left blank. For SOC2000 major groups 2 to 9 the managerial codes are not valid, as managers in these occupations should be coded to major group 1 and, therefore, the managerial cells are left blank in the original derivation tables.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Blank cells[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are other blank cells in the original derivation tables which correspond to situations deemed not to arise, such as a self-employed police officer. In practice some responses to surveys and censuses may correspond to blank cells (e.g. as a result of coding error). In previous Census and survey practice these were edited according to rules by either changing the occupation or the employment status code so as to achieve an allowable combination. While such editing can correct coding or keying errors, it could also be the case that the original derivation tables do not allow for combinations that do appear in the real world. This can especially be the case for occupations where self-employment is deemed not to occur but where labour market changes have nevertheless created a new combination.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Three derivation methods[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are three methods to derive the functional categories L1 to L13 of the NS-SEC. The choice of method depends on the information gathered about employment status.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Method Information required[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Full [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status, size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reduced[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Simplified[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Reduced method was developed for sources unable to collect information on size of organisation. The Simplified method provides a last resort solution; if used on its own no records will be allocated to the first category of the classification.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]At the eight-class level the Reduced method correctly allocates 98 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. The Simplified method correctly allocates 83 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. For more information about the performance of the Reduced and Simplified methods compared to the Full Method click HERE.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The following tables show the performance of the Reduced and the Simplified derivation methods compared to the Full method. The data are from the 2000 Summer Quarter of the Labour Force Survey (June-August 2000).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Table 1. Comparison of allocations under the Reduced and the Full method: Agreement of 98.1 per cent[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Reduced 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2877[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 84[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15896[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15921[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6097[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] % [SIZE=-1] 5.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 23.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100*[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance.

* Figures may not add exactly due to rounding. Table 2. Comparison of allocations under the Simplified and the Full method: Agreement of 83.2 per cent
[SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Simplified 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2899[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 51[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 22[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13512[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1917[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 467[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 18[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 168[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 381[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 514[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2934[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 713[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 427[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 810[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3576[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 951[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 121[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 44[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12030[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 977[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 70[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7757[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4314[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13962[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 11475[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4923[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4405[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14624[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9524[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]%[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 6.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 20.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 16.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 21.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance. The Full Method achieves the best quality derivation by using all three items of information, as shown in this diagram.
employ_status.gif

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-0]How to derive the NS-SEC[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]To create the NS-SEC on the Census and social surveys, data on occupation and employment status are required. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]An NS-SEC category is allocated by using a combination of:[/SIZE][/FONT]
  • [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
  • Information about occupation coded to occupational unit group (OUG) level of the Standard Occupational Classification 2000 (SOC2000)
  • Information about employment status and size of organisation in the form of an employment status variable[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Although it is expected that the vast majority of users will use some form of software to combine OUG and employment status to derive NS-SEC, the derivation tables provided can be thought of as a 'look up' table similar to that used for SC and SEG in Volume 3 of the 1990 Standard Occupational Classification (OPCS 1991) which cross-classifies OUGs with employment status categories.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The derived employment status variable is created by combining data on whether an individual is an employer, self-employed or an employee, size of organisation (where collected) and supervisory status. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Employer, self-employed or employee[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]NS-SEC needs to distinguish employers, those who employ others; the self-employed who work on their own account with no employees; and employees who are employed by an individual or organisation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]For size of organisation, NS-SEC uses information on the number of employees in the 'workplace' in order to distinguish between employers in large and small establishments and, for some occupations, between higher and lower managers. To date, the distinction between large and small employers has consisted of applying a size rule cut-off of 25 employees. Individual employers in organisations with 25 or more employees are deemed to own 'large' organisations; those owning enterprises below this threshold are classified as 'small' employers. In government social surveys size of organisation has been related to the workplace, i.e. the local unit of the establishment at which the respondent works (see GSS 1996:45). The 2001 Census will also use this rule. However, it is preferable that size of organisation should refer to an 'enterprise' as defined in the Inter-Departmental Business Register and not to a local unit (IDBR - see ONS 1998:3). Thus, local unit or workplace should only be used if it is impossible or impractical to obtain information at the level of the enterprise.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisory status[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Supervisors are employees who are not managers but who are responsible for supervising the work of other employees. Previous surveys have used a variable where the respondent was asked if he or she had managerial duties, supervisory duties, or was an employee. This was used to create the employment status variable regardless of the occupation - with some exceptions. However, under SOC2000 managers can only be allocated to occupations in SOC2000 major group 1. This removes the need to ask for self-reported managerial status and on the Census and future surveys respondents will only be asked if they supervise other employees or not. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Managers[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In SOC2000, managers are coded to major group 1 only (see Elias et al. 2000 for a fuller explanation). Thus in the original derivation tables the managerial cells are only valid for SOC2000 codes 1111 to 1239 while for these codes the cells for other employees (including supervisors) are left blank. For SOC2000 major groups 2 to 9 the managerial codes are not valid, as managers in these occupations should be coded to major group 1 and, therefore, the managerial cells are left blank in the original derivation tables.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Blank cells[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are other blank cells in the original derivation tables which correspond to situations deemed not to arise, such as a self-employed police officer. In practice some responses to surveys and censuses may correspond to blank cells (e.g. as a result of coding error). In previous Census and survey practice these were edited according to rules by either changing the occupation or the employment status code so as to achieve an allowable combination. While such editing can correct coding or keying errors, it could also be the case that the original derivation tables do not allow for combinations that do appear in the real world. This can especially be the case for occupations where self-employment is deemed not to occur but where labour market changes have nevertheless created a new combination.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Three derivation methods[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]There are three methods to derive the functional categories L1 to L13 of the NS-SEC. The choice of method depends on the information gathered about employment status.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Method Information required[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Full [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status, size of organisation[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Reduced[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group, employment status[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Simplified[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]SOC2000 unit group[/SIZE][/FONT] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Reduced method was developed for sources unable to collect information on size of organisation. The Simplified method provides a last resort solution; if used on its own no records will be allocated to the first category of the classification.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]At the eight-class level the Reduced method correctly allocates 98 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. The Simplified method correctly allocates 83 per cent of cases compared to the Full method. For more information about the performance of the Reduced and Simplified methods compared to the Full Method click HERE.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The following tables show the performance of the Reduced and the Simplified derivation methods compared to the Full method. The data are from the 2000 Summer Quarter of the Labour Force Survey (June-August 2000).[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Table 1. Comparison of allocations under the Reduced and the Full method: Agreement of 98.1 per cent[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Reduced 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE][/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2877[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 84[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15896[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 15921[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6097[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] % [SIZE=-1] 5.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 23.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100*[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance.

* Figures may not add exactly due to rounding. Table 2. Comparison of allocations under the Simplified and the Full method: Agreement of 83.2 per cent
[SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Simplified 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] %[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]NS-SEC Full 8-class[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2899[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 51[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 22[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2986[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5028[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13512[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1917[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 467[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17060[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 25.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 18[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9041[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 168[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9227[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 381[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 514[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2934[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 713[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 427[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 810[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6013[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 234[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3576[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 2164[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 951[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6925[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 10.1[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 121[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 44[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12030[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12195[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 17.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 977[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 70[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7757[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 8804[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 12.9[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]Total[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4314[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 5011[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 13962[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 11475[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4923[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4405[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14624[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 9524[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 68238[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]%[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] 6.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.3[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 20.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 16.8[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 7.2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 6.5[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 21.4[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 14.0[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 100[/SIZE]
Please note that the numbers in this table are estimates based on survey data and are thus affected by sampling and coding variance. The Full Method achieves the best quality derivation by using all three items of information, as shown in this diagram.
employ_status.gif
Click to expand...



yea, what CK said........



getting ready to get my drunk on...


Will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom