pslmodels / ui_calculator Goto Github PK

Hi! I'm a research assistant trying to use this code for our own project. However, our data is large, so I'm rewriting ui_calculator.py in a way that takes advantage of column/dataframe operations (as opposed to the current approach of calculating everything one row at a time via list comprehension).

Why is there a distinction made between earnings_history and base_period?

Per observation, earnings_history is a list [q1, q2, q3, q4, 0] . I interpret this as the earnings history (q1-q4) plus a 0 to represent the current quarter where the individual is unemployed. This is from the definition of calc_weekly_state_quarterly().

Then, in the definition of calc_weekly_state(), we create base_period = earnings_hist[-5:-1], which is the same as [q1, q2, q3, q4]. From here, we only use base_period. Why add the 0 just to ignore it completely?

Somewhat related, I notice we index [-5:-1] when [:4] is equivalent; is the intended result a reversing ordering like [q4, q3, q2, q1]?

great work guys...

Would it be possible to generate the output behind, e.g., Figure 5 in the BFI working paper, and post it in the repository?

Objective

Reduce sampling variability by adding more years of data

Use multiple years from both CPS and BAM. Will need to take a stance on what deflator to use.

The Policy Simulation Library appreciates the willingness of the ui_calculator maintainers to join the Library! The ui_calculator model is currently a PSL-incubating model. This issue highlights and provides a status update on progress towards the model obtaining PSL-cataloged status. The criteria for inclusion in the PSL catalog are outlined below, with notes on the status of this model's progress towards satisfying these criteria.

Once all "MUST" items are checked off, a PR will be opened to include a PSL_catalog.json configuration file in this repository.

Acceptance Criteria for Transparency and Quality

• Models MUST be released under an OSI-approved open source license or the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0).
• Data MUST be publicly available, unless release is restricted by a third party.
• Projects MUST have unit tests
• At least one test MUST generate key outputs from source materials, the test MUST be run with every new version, and the outputs of the test MUST be checked into the repository.
• Projects MUST report names and contact information for at least one maintainer.
• Projects MUST have a suggested citation.
• Projects MUST have a project overview.
• Projects MUST have installation directions.
• Project MUST be mirrored in the same GitHub organization as PSL, and therefore they MUST be under version control.
• Projects MUST use a consistent versioning scheme, which SHOULD be semantic versioning.

Community Criteria

• Projects SHOULD report code coverage.
• Projects SHOULD have a public roadmap.
• Projects SHOULD have contributor documentation and guidelines.
• Projects SHOULD have regular office hours, webinars, or standing meetings.
• Projects SHOULD list technical contributors.
• Projects SHOULD list funders.
• Projects SHOULD list user citations and case studies.
• Projects SHOULD include subject matter tags
• Projects SHOULD include a disclaimer.
• Projects SHOULD have a public issues tracker.
• Projects SHOULD have a changelog.
• Projects MAY have a Stack Overflow channel.
• Projects MAY include a "News" translation of the changelog for users.
• Projects MAY include criteria for participating in cross-model PSL initiatives.
• Projects MAY include a link to a webapp version.
• Projects MAY include a list of consultants.

Interoperability Criteria

• The source code SHOULD be written in an open source language.
• A PSL_catalog.json configuration file to be used for cataloging these criteria MUST be included in the project's repository. Specific instructions for creating this file can be found in the Catalog-Builder Documentation.

cc @peterobertson @ganong123 @jdebacker

Is there a reason DC is not included in the state_eligibility worksheet?

If I'm interpreting this this correctly, it looks like hqw = 1.5*, absolute_hqw = 1300, and abs_2hqw = 1950.

FWIW, I implemented this on my local copy and it gives reasonable looking results. Is there a reason we shouldn't do this?

(*This isn't quite right since it can be within $70 of 1.5 * hqw, but I think implementing that would require writing an exception or an additional parameter into the function.)