In the PFF median ranges, the top of the bins are not nice-looking numbers. I copied this format to EDDT and got some bottom-coded wages of 9999.99.
I wanted to flag for folks who worked on PFF as I imagine you worked through this problem already. Wages in ACS data are always whole numbers so the ".99" is unnecessary right? If the top of the bins could be one less than the bottom of the next bin then bottom bin would be 0 to 9999 instead of 0 to 9999.99. But maybe we want 9999.99 because it rounds to 10k in final output and we display "10k-" in the website which looks nice?
If the top of the bottom bin and bottom of the top bin are "special" values that DE and OSE need to keep track of in the same way then we should def come to an agreement earlier instead of later.
In the PFF median ranges, the top of the bins are not nice-looking numbers. I copied this format to EDDT and got some bottom-coded wages of 9999.99. I wanted to flag for folks who worked on PFF as I imagine you worked through this problem already. Wages in ACS data are always whole numbers so the ".99" is unnecessary right? If the top of the bins could be one less than the bottom of the next bin then bottom bin would be 0 to 9999 instead of 0 to 9999.99. But maybe we want 9999.99 because it rounds to 10k in final output and we display "10k-" in the website which looks nice? If the top of the bottom bin and bottom of the top bin are "special" values that DE and OSE need to keep track of in the same way then we should def come to an agreement earlier instead of later.