Weeks worked (WKSWORK1) in 1950


I was wondering whether you were aware of a problem with the variable WKSWORK1 in 1950: it looks like it is equal to 0 most of the times, even for employed people (while this is not the case in 1940 for example). Can you confirm that this is the case? Is this a “mistake”?

Thanks for your help!

You are seeing this because this is a question that was only asked of a single “sample-line” person in each household in 1950. Any others will have it coded as 0. You should be using the sample-line weight SLWT to analyze this variable in the 1950 sample. When you do that you’ll see the zeroes are in line with other years. In the 1940 census, there were also sample line persons, but this question was not a “sample line” question (it was asked from everyone). This page lists the sample line questions in the 1940 and 1950 censuses.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Break in UHRSWORK 2000-2001

Thanks for your reply. So you suggest to exclude from the computation of total hours worked in 1950 all those individuals with SLWT equal to 0 correct?
Also, based on the links you kindly sent me I still have a question if I want to get population averages/totals: if I am interested in looking at annual hours worked - thus I use weeks worked - in 1940 and 1950 (which are not flat sample) should I use SLWT or PERWT? So far I have used PERWT for all others not flat sample (such as ACS) but should I substitute this with SWLT if I look also at 1940 and 1950?

Thanks a lot.