Petroleum Refineries Multiplier

Comments

3 comments

  • Avatar
    Doug Olson
    You are obviously not using the same data set for version 2 as in version 3 (sector 142 v. sector 115). Petroleum industry sector has extremely high output per worker, hence the high employment multiplier, and the differences are more likely based on the structure of the economy rather than in the difference of versions (unless the trade flow model differs drastically from the econometrics in V2). For the 2010 US model, the output per worker is $8million, so the direct is .125 jobs and indirect+induced = 5.0 jobs. The Type SAM multiplier is therefore, (.125 + 5)/.125 = 40. For the 1996 US model, the output per worker is similar: Type SAM multiplier is 44. Your multipliers are smaller, leading me to believe that you are not using the US. Are the output per workers different enough to cause a difference in the denominator? Are there particular sectors in the indirect that are more prevalent now than in the past?
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tim McElhinny
    I am using Pennsylvania 2009. My determination for the multiplier is simply say I lost 100 jobs which results in a total job loss of 1800 so 1800/100 = 18 or for every job lost in petroleum a total of 18 are lost overall.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Jenny Thorvaldson
    That is on par with what I am seeing for PA 2009. One way to check your calculated multipliers from an impact analysis is to compare them with those in the multipliers resport: Go to Explore > Multipliers, then click the "View By:" drop-down menu and select Employment. Then you can scroll down to Sector 115 and see whether the Type SAM Multiplier is in line with what you have calculated.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.