Government Enterprise

Comments

14 comments

  • Avatar
    ScottL
    The sectoring scheme changed between 2006 and 2007 so what you ran in 2006 would be in a different sector in 2007. The current (2007-2008) sectoring scheme can be found here: [url=http://implan.com/v3/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=110&Itemid=138]link[/url]
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    The sectoring scheme changed between 2006 and 2007 so what you ran in 2006 would be in a different sector in 2007. The current (2007-2008) sectoring scheme can be found here: [url=http://implan.com/v3/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=110&Itemid=138]link[/url]
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Sector 432 (2008) maps to 499 (2006). Output/worker is $268k in 2008 and $231k in 2006, so I would expect a smaller direct employment effect in 2008. Compensation/worker is $72k in 2008 and $55k in 2006. This means the relative earnings per worker is higher so I would expect a somewhat higher induced effect. However, because V2 defaults to the econometric RPCs and V3 uses the trade flow model, the indirect and induced differences could be all over the board.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Sector 432 (2008) maps to 499 (2006). Output/worker is $268k in 2008 and $231k in 2006, so I would expect a smaller direct employment effect in 2008. Compensation/worker is $72k in 2008 and $55k in 2006. This means the relative earnings per worker is higher so I would expect a somewhat higher induced effect. However, because V2 defaults to the econometric RPCs and V3 uses the trade flow model, the indirect and induced differences could be all over the board.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Erkkila
    Yes, I did note that the scheme had changed, as I didn't remember it as 432. I figured that had something to do with it. Back to my two questions. Do I take your responses to mean that: 1. My current approach is correct for a state facility - sector 432 with $20+ million in operations? 2. Modeling changes make a comparison of employment differences between the two problematic - i.e., don't go there??!!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Erkkila
    Yes, I did note that the scheme had changed, as I didn't remember it as 432. I figured that had something to do with it. Back to my two questions. Do I take your responses to mean that: 1. My current approach is correct for a state facility - sector 432 with $20+ million in operations? 2. Modeling changes make a comparison of employment differences between the two problematic - i.e., don't go there??!!
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    1. That looks correct. 2. Its hard to compare with the two different trade flows methods.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    1. That looks correct. 2. Its hard to compare with the two different trade flows methods.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Erkkila
    Thanks, Scott. BTW - redoing the analysis the way we discussed did avoid the error message I was getting using the copy/paste method. No rush on my end to get the fix out there. My work can proceed.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Erkkila
    Thanks, Scott. BTW - redoing the analysis the way we discussed did avoid the error message I was getting using the copy/paste method. No rush on my end to get the fix out there. My work can proceed.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Ok - I might give it a few days and see if anything else pops up.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    ScottL
    Ok - I might give it a few days and see if anything else pops up.
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Had to try it. I ran 19.4 million on sector 499 (2006) in $2006 and 20.4 million on sector 432 in $2008 and the results were fairly comparable: 77 direct, 183 total employment for 2006 72 direct and 209 total employment for 2008. Are you sure you used sector 499 for 2006? (I used Anoka, Carver, Hennepin, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties - note that the current census MSA is larger area now.)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    DougO
    Had to try it. I ran 19.4 million on sector 499 (2006) in $2006 and 20.4 million on sector 432 in $2008 and the results were fairly comparable: 77 direct, 183 total employment for 2006 72 direct and 209 total employment for 2008. Are you sure you used sector 499 for 2006? (I used Anoka, Carver, Hennepin, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington counties - note that the current census MSA is larger area now.)
    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.