A researcher is looking for NOC occupation groups for the monthly 2016 Labour Force Survey PUMFs. Is this the way it should be represented: NOCS_01_25 STC Nesstar and NOCS_01_47 STC Nesstar when there actually are no such variables in 2016?
Is it correct that the values are 100% missing for in 2016? It would be helpful to have NOC values for 2016.
What was the intention in 2016 when there are NOC values for the PUMF for these variables, e.g., on Odesi see January 2015: NOCS_01_25 link and NOC_01_47 link and for January 2017: NOC_10 LINK and NOC_40 LINK? Would this be considered a problem with the data files?
As an aside, there are SOC80_21 and SOC80_49 variables (with values) in 2015 and 2016. Revisions to the 2015 LFS
Follow-Up Question:
I’d like to make a correction please to my question, with thanks to Scholars Portal for reviewing the occupation variables from 2015 – 2017 LFS monthly PUMFs.
Is it correct that there are supposed to be placeholders for a number of occupation variables but no data as highlighted in yellow below?
- All the LFS monthly PUMFs, 1987-2015, have data for NOCS-01-25 and NOCS_01_47, but as for the variables SOC80_21 and SOC80_49, there is no data.
- The monthly 2016 LFS PUMFs have variables named NOCS_01_25, NOCS_01_47, SOC80_21 and SOC80_49 but with no data.
- The monthly 2017 LFS PUMFs have two occupation variables only, the new NOC_10 and NOC_40.
Answer:
The short answer to this is simply that the labels have changed from the older years to the newer ones. For example, SOC80_21 was replaced with an NOC listing instead. From what I’ve been told, the descriptions of the variables should remain the same, it’s just a matter of needing to match them up from year to year (not necessarily the answer you were looking for I’m sure!)
So yes, it is correct that there is no data.
